Robinson Way and Company Limited to Robinson Way Limited

[prosser]

Dear all

 

I have prima facie evidence of misconduct perpetuated by Robinson Way and Company Limited in relation to its sale of assets to Robinson Way Limited and its attempt to change their name on claims with Northampton County Court Bulk Centre. This has come about when DWF were legally required by a court order to disclose the court order showing that the substitution of claimants lawfully took place. What was disclosed was emails and a statement which show that they tried to change the name without following the correct process under the Civil Procedure Rules (The email clearly makes reference to wanting to save time and money).

 

I am going to write to a number of authorities about this but was just wondering if there was anyone in particular I should send my letter to.

 

Thanks

Edited October 16, 2012 by MARTIN3030
Andyorch Site Team

[robcag]

I've always taken the view that we only see the 'tip of the iceberg' regarding the proportion of claims issued to people who then find their way to CAG, but I didn't realise how wrong that was!

 

Icebergs are 10% (or thereabouts) above the surface so an iceberg of RobbingScum claims would mean people finding help on CAG just for those claims, disregarding all the other claimants. It seems to me that the number of people these DCAs are getting default judgments against must be a lot higher than some of us imagined.

 

Rob

Edited October 16, 2012 by Andyorch
Andyorch Site Team removed number referenced

[Basejumper]

Hi prosser, not very familiar, however you could try the FSA and raise a complaint or ask advice. then it is in the system for them to investigate, also perhaps look at a DPA infringement. Northampton may get into trouble so the Law Society may give you a steer. Either way they should look to remove their (RW) credit licence and throw them in jail.I will watch this with interest

[Shadow25]

Prosser-very interesting! I have a Court hearing on Thursday with these guys and have always been suspicious of the business asset sale that took place on 25/9/09.

 

As you are no doubt aware the asset sale was from RW & Co Ltd to RW & Co 2009 Ltd who then changed their name to RW Ltd on 30/9/09. The Consumer Credit Licence was unable to be transferred as it was not a Company purchase and a new licence was issued in the name of RW & Co 2009 Ltd in 8/09 & not transferred to RW Ltd until 5/10/09.

 

Imho this convoluted transfer was necessary in view of phoenixing legal considerations but despite this these guys have always given the impression that it was a straightforward business transfer. I have a bad notice of assignment which contains the wrong date of transfer to the incorrect assignee written on RW Ltd headed paper dated 29/9/09 one day before the name change threatening a home visit and referring to numerous previous letters!

 

 

The PoC is claiming interest from 1/9/07 which relates back to the original assignment to RW & Co Ltd & to cap it all I also have an unexecuted agreement without prescribed terms.

 

After being stayed for over 2 years RW have applied to lift the stay without producing any more documentation. If you can give me some more ammunition I'd be most grateful & I will ensure they get hit with both barrels!

Edited October 17, 2012 by citizenB
formatting

[prosser]

I will dig out part of the letter I have composed

[prosser]

remember though that that robinson way and company ltd are in liquidation

[prosser]

 

 

 

[prosser]

they have used variation of their names to confuse people, here's part of what I wrote to DWF below.

 

Firstly in relation to the emails attached to the witness statement all that it shows (if it even shows that) is that your client asked Northampton County Court to change the name of the company from Robinson Way and Company Ltd to Robinson Way Ltd.

 

 

But Robinson Way and Company Limited did not change its name to Robinson Way Limited as we both know. Robinson Way and Company Limited and Robinson Way Limited are 2 very separate and distinct companies (2 different legal entities) with different company numbers and different legal standing.

Robinson Way and Company Limited sold its assists to a company called Robinson Way Limited.

 

In effect Robinson Way and Company Ltd the existing party in the claim sold/transferred its interest and liability to a company called Robinson Way Ltd (again I don’t think there is any dispute in this) a separate party and entirely different legal entity with a different company number.

 

 

This was not a simple change of name and as such it was not open to your clients to simply change the name of the company with Northampton County Court. Your clients should have followed the proper due legal process and I believe that they may have knowingly sought to use the process of a “simple name change” instead of doing what they were legal required to do.

 

 

They were legally required to apply to the court (without notice) to substitute the party to the proceedings and in particular to do this under Civil Procedure Rule 19.2 (4) (a).

 

The procedure to substitute a party should have been done in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 19.4(1)(2)(3)(a)(b)(4)(a)(b)

 

The application to substitute the party should have been done in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 23.2(2).

 

Your client is in serious breach of the law in the circumstances, and I note from the emails attached that this affects approximately 17,500 cases which have not been legally changed.

Edited October 17, 2012 by citizenB
formatting

[prosser]

Change of parties – general

 

19.2

 

(1) This rule applies where a party is to be added or substituted except where the case falls within rule 19.5 (special provisions about changing parties after the end of a relevant limitation period(GL)).

 

(2) The court may order a person to be added as a new party if –

(a) it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings; or

 

(b) there is an issue involving the new party and an existing party which is connected to the matters in dispute in the proceedings, and it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve that issue.

 

 

(3) The court may order any person to cease to be a party if it is not desirable for that person to be a party to the proceedings.

 

(4) The court may order a new party to be substituted for an existing one if –

(a) the existing party’s interest or liability has passed to the new party; and

 

(b) it is desirable to substitute the new party so that the court can resolve the matters in dispute in the proceedings.

[prosser]

Procedure for adding and substituting parties

 

19.4

 

(1) The court’s permission is required to remove, add or substitute a party, unless the claim form has not been served.

 

(2) An application for permission under paragraph (1) may be made by –

(a) an existing party; or

 

(b) a person who wishes to become a party.

 

 

(3) An application for an order under rule 19.2(4) (substitution of a new party where existing party’s interest or liability has passed) –

(a) may be made without notice; and

 

(b) must be supported by evidence.

 

 

(4) Nobody may be added or substituted as a claimant unless –

(a) he has given his consent in writing; and

 

(b) that consent has been filed with the court.

 

 

(4A) The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs may be added as a party to proceedings only if they consent in writing.

 

(5) An order for the removal, addition or substitution of a party must be served on –

(a) all parties to the proceedings; and

 

(b) any other person affected by the order.

 

 

(6) When the court makes an order for the removal, addition or substitution of a party, it may give consequential directions about –

(a) filing and serving the claim form on any new defendant;

 

(b) serving relevant documents on the new party; and

 

© the management of the proceedings.

[prosser]

Where to make an application

 

23.2

 

(1) The general rule is that an application must be made to the court where the claim was started.

 

(2) If a claim has been transferred to another court since it was started, an application must be made to the court to which the claim has been transferred.

 

(3) If the parties have been notified of a fixed date for the trial, an application must be made to the court where the trial is to take place.

[robcag]

If I've understood this properly, they are trying to avoid saying the portfolio of debts is being transferred from one legal entity to another? If so, then they are trying to avoid doing this by Deed of Assignment which would surely mean that there was also a neccessity for each individual debtor to be issued a Notice of Assignment.

 

Only then could they lawfully apply to substitute the name of the Claimant .... I think.

 

Definitely seems to be underhand goings-on. I think you're right to be delving in to this and hopefully the CAG big guns will spot this thread and advise.

 

Rob

[prosser]

I don't really want to speculate on notice of assignments and what they are trying to avoid, I do know however that they were legally required to apply under cpr 19.2 (4)(a) to substitute the party as the portfolio of debts transferred from one legal entity to another however they did not apply to do this instead asking Northampton County Court (I have sight of the email which conclusively proves this) to just substitute the name of the company and not substitute the actually claimants. Now this would of been okay if Robinson Way and Company limited changed its name to Robinson Way Limited but they did not they are 2 separate and distinct companies and are different legal entities. My case has been stayed for nearly 3 and a half years due to inactivity by the claimant, it is going to get very messy for Robinson Way, DWF, and Northampton County Court in the next 6 months !

[Shadow25]

Prosper- the Notice of Assignment issue goes hand in hand with the name substitution on the Claim forms and perpetuates the deception that the business transfer took place on 25/9/09 from RW & Co Ltd to RW Ltd when this is not the case.

 

Firstly the business asset transfer was carried out by means of a pre pack Administration process allowing the previous management to walk away from the liabilities of the old company and leaving the shell of the old company behind.

 

Secondly the consumer credit licence could not be transferred from old company to new as they were different legal entities . Thirdly the new company which applied for the new licence could not be called RW Ltd at the outset due to s216 of the insolvency Act in connection with phoenixing issues.

 

 

So they set up new company with a sufficiently different name to avoid the s216 issues and got the new licence then once the business asset sale had taken place changed the name of the old company which in turn allowed the new company to change its name to RW Ltd which is what they wanted to do all along in order to maintain the brand and the seemingly seamless transfer.

 

By doing all of the above which is all perfectly legal apart from the CPR issues that you have highlighted they have created the illusion that on the surface this was a minor name change. However by unravelling the process I will be attempting to prove that their NoA at best is bad and at worst amounts to deception in my opinion. I will update you all on Thursday evening.

Edited October 17, 2012 by citizenB
formatting

[Bev250264]

subbing

[Shadow25]

For those of you following my run in with RW I had my hearing for the stay to be lifted this afternoon. To recap RW had their case dismissed at Trial on 1/3/12 and costs awarded in my favour for an original £6k cahoot flexible loan for the lack of a DN. My celebration was short lived however as they then applied for a long standing stay (over 2 years) to be lifted on a capital one credit card of £13k & then issued a new claim for the alleged £6k debt after issuing a "deceitful" new DN based on a non enduring agreement.

I found the Trial process to be very stressful & by comparison today's hearing was a walk in the park. I had prepared a WS in opposition to the stay being lifted and from the very start the solicitor was on the back foot as the stay was down to non compliance of Directions and whichever way she went the whole think smacked of incompetence & the DJ was having none of it. So I didn't have to bring out any of my well rehearsed defences as the application was dismissed with an indication that any future application under CPR 38.7 would be unsuccessful. Furthermore he was fairly incensed by the WS from the Claimant's solicitor describing it as misleading at best and at worst........he said he'd better not say! This misleading WS issue was going down in his Order which should make interesting reading. He then asked if I had any costs & I produced a very modest claim for £117 which RW will have to pay.

Interestingly he made some comment about why creditors if they couldn't find a DN didn't reissue a valid one before starting a claim was beyond him. As this is what RW have done on my other claim I quick as a flash said that was a good option if the original creditor hadn't already sold the debt to a debt purchaser but if the debt had already been charged off & sold then all the debt purchaser buys is the debt not an enduring agreement & he smiled and said that argument has a lot of merit! I have to say the DJ was absolutely brilliant and commented on my knowledge of consumer legislation-all gleaned from here.

Anyway it will be interesting to see what RW do now with the original claim which I defended with a res judicata defence in early October & am awaiting to hear their response but definitely another great result for the shadow & many thanks to andyorch for his invaluable guidance. Let's hope that prosser's identified breaches come to light very soon & they really will have their hands full!

[comebackjimmy]

Been following this but not commenting up to now.........just to say woowhee and zippididoda! Congratulations and well done.

[Shadow25]

Further update- just remembered that what worked in my favour was that the Claimant's solicitor had referred to the other case in his WS which allowed me to also mention it. When the DJ read that the solicitor's had asked to knock the awarded costs off the outstanding debt he indicated that the sitting judge would have hit the roof so it will be interesting when the new claim gets to Court. Received AQ from Northampton in post today. Did we know that litigants in person are now called self represented persons- news to me!

[robcag]

Congratulations on your result Shadow25

 

It will be very interesting if prosser manages to upset RWs apple cart!

 

Not wishing to take the thread OT but I had my first begging letter from RW today after a 4 month interlude (asking for payment on an alleged NW overdraft debt which has already been to court and which NW discontinued).

 

The funny part was the heading; "WHERE HAVE WE GONE WRONG?" (brought about because I haven't responded to any of their previous letters and not answered their calls).

 

Rob

[Shadow25]

Robcag- I'm sure Prosser won't mind as this information about the switch of names will be of use to all claims started prior to 25/9/09. For some reason my successful thread against RW seems to have disappeared which is disappointing as I don't think news of my success has reached Andyorch & he was a great help to me. The good thing from Posser's point of view is that yesterday's hearing demonstrated that trying to lift a long outstanding stay can and should be successfully resisted in view of RWs incompetence & in particular their latest "associate" at DWF seems to be a marked man at my local CC. If Prosser can make waves then all of the CCs will hopefully have their cards marked.

[robcag]

 

.... For some reason my successful thread against RW seems to have disappeared which is disappointing as I don't think news of my success has reached Andyorch & he was a great help to me.

 

 

The site has been having some problems recently (apparently after some sort of upgrade) which has meant that many threads seem to have gone AWOL. Hopefully things will return to normal soon and your thread will be 'findable'.

 

Rob

[prosser]

I have made a formal complaint to Northampton county court bulk centre now. Things will start to unravel. If they confirm what I already suspect then numerous claims have not been legally changed. I will keep you updated !

Edited October 19, 2012 by Andyorch
Removed amount AndyOrch Site Team

[Shadow25]

Prosser- What I can't understand is why they are tempting fate by pushing you & I over this when we've rumbled their little game. They were extremely lucky that at Trial the DJ didn't allow me to argue what I had in my skeleton argument as I hadn't raised the issues in my original Defence .

 

If by some miracle the DJ allows the issue to be re- tried (assuming RW are mad enough to throw another £220 fee away on the AQ after yesterday's debacle) then all of your stuff should be hitting the fan just at the right time. I assume your lengthy stay is down to non compliance with Directions and if my experience yesterday was typical they're in for a blasting without the substitution issue to contend with.

 

The "associate" from DWF doesn't like admitting when he's wrong but I suppose it's not his money he's wasting.

 

I hope the debt is substantial in your case as the big prize with me is the ability to freeze a debt of £6k when they've already expended over £5k in costs & my DJ said something along the lines of "haven't they heard of Henderson v Henderson" when I mentioned they'd re-issued the other case which meant nothing to me at the time but does now! Is your Hearing imminent?

Edited December 30, 2012 by citizenB

[prosser]

Was the associate from horwich and farrelly or dwf ??

[Shadow25]

DWF - initials DJ. HF were replaced after commencing both my cases & basically messing up totally.