Robinson Way and Company Limited to Robinson Way Limited

[DonkeyB]

There IS an absolutely fundamental change in the claimant. It is a different claimant, 100% different. That’s how company law works. And that’s why RW and its variants have used company law to dump the old company and, in my view, to flagrantly abuse the insolvency laws to pretend there is a continuation of business as normal, via a pre-pack. [Prepacks have always been contentious – http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/14810/online-news/insolvency-inquiry-tougher-sanctions-for-prepacks ]

 

The real issue here is whether RW have tried to hoodwink the courts into believing it is a simple name change, rather than a substitution of claimant. If they did not state the facts as laid out in the WS regarding the reassignment when they agreed the terms of the changes – which the emails suggest they did NOT – then I think a whole world of hurt awaits RW. As it stands, the WS is mealy-mouthed and open to misinterpretation. Deliberately so, in my view, as it comes from a legal professional – but significantly it DOES at one point refer only to substitution of the claimant’s name, not substitution of the claimant. If the witness claims confusion, she should be sacked or prosecuted. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

The court order also suggests a substitution of the claimant’s NAME – not the CLAIMANT, which is why I think RW have tried to pull a fast one. All of their documents refer to a change of claimant NAME, when they know damn well it should be a change of CLAIMANT – and the court response and judge’s comment appear to confirm this.

 

Their final emails, where for the first time they assert that the court agreed to substitute the claimant, is simply a lie, a false interpretation, a twisting of all that has gone before. It is therefore deliberately misleading to an LiP, which is rather naughty.

 

All I’ve done here is clarify, I hope, the issues that prosser and Shadow25 especially have highlighted. Keep up the high quality forensics, and send these idiots the way of the likes of HFO.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think this is going to get very complicated and I am not sure which way this will go. I can see a Judge agreeing with RW.

 

The debts that were owned by RW & C Ltd were a traded asset that passed to RW Ltd, when the prepack went through. Yes they had to set up a new company, but I am not convinced that this required NOA and a N244 to be completed.

 

I hope that this gets to a higher court and that there is a ruling that requires a separate N244 to be completed, with no bulk process for changing a claimants name. But cynical me thinks that Judges will find a way to assist the credit industry if they can.

[Mike_hawk]

Almost makes you want to ask the court why it so readily agrees to support it's "client" with public funds.

 

The prefix cases for years '08 thru july '09 are (in my mind) very questionable.

 

Perhaps a comparison of deeds as supporting evidence of title would be a good starting point.

 

Bev has an unredacted copy dated july 07 for company number 00885896.

[DonkeyB]

The debts that were owned by RW & C Ltd were a traded asset that passed to RW Ltd, when the prepack went through. Yes they had to set up a new company, but I am not convinced that this required NOA and a N244 to be completed.

 

RW’s own WS refers to an ‘assignment’, so I would say the facts are clear.

 

The court order implies the judge thinks it’s a simple change of company name, not a change of ownership, which clearly comes under LoP 1925. The wording also implies the judge might think differently if, in fact, there is a change of ownership.

 

As a judge, I would also be furious that under £500 was paid to change 170,000 claims.

 

Whether or not a judge agrees with RW, the problem remains as to how to make the OFT & co take note of – and act on – these distinctly not-right practices. If a judge agrees with RW, then he will have forgone the clear statute to assist a claimant.

[prosser]

To be fair Donkey I think my local court know what RW are up to. There is another order of the court from feb 13 that I will post as soon as I can. The judge (different judges)said in both hearings that they were deliberately leaving the wording vague to see what RW produced. In the last hearing he said that if it transpired that there was no change in company and just a name change then I should not oppose it but if its a change of company (and now it appears to have changed to hoist) then there was no chance the application would be entertained. Anyway there is a hearing on the 17th April which I am very much looking forward to. Finally I offered to settle for 6 times more than they paid for the debt in April 2012.

[DonkeyB]

Good. I love seeing these chancers pulled up by us mere plebs!

[tedney]

Not sure if this is relevant to this thread, but I had notification from RW that RW Ltd. were "acquired by the Hoist Group, by an agreement dated 10/11/2012, and that my account was assigned to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd. but RWL would continue to manage my account and payments would be made to RWL. Just for info if any help here. t

[prosser]

Not sure if this is relevant to this thread, but I had notification from RW that RW Ltd. were "acquired by the Hoist Group, by an agreement dated 10/11/2012, and that my account was assigned to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd. but RWL would continue to manage my account and payments would be made to RWL. Just for info if any help here. t

 

Its very relevant and once I scan and post there N244 application notice by DWF to substitute the claimant you will see why!

[DonkeyB]

So they are doing individual notices now for claims, rather than bulk...? erk...

[prosser]

So they are doing individual notices now for claims, rather than bulk...? erk...

 

Its very messy indeed you will see a response to my complaint about a certain solicitor at DWF to DWF in July/August last year even the complaints partner for DWF assumes it would have been done by court order then back tracks.

[seanamarts]

Here are the documents again.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42144[/ATTACH]

 

I have had to unapprove attachment, there are still personal names showing please can you amend these.

 

 

Thank you

[Bev250264]

Have a look at the attachments on my thread at post #846 and #849. Mike_Hawk thought they may be of use to you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?331427-Robinson-Way-lifting-a-stay-on-a-County-Court-claim-made-in-July-2009-Happy-Christmas!!&p=4162737#post4162737

[prosser]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42169[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42170[/ATTACH]

 

Here are the documents again which show some of my dealings with Robinson Way and an email exchange with a certain solicitor from DWF!

 

More to come !

[prosser]

Here are the very interesting replies from the DWF complaints partner in relation to my formal complaint and substitution of claimant.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42173[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42172[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42171[/ATTACH]

[DonkeyB]

Another big fib – Northampton County Court most certainly DOES have judges! So you have been misled again...

 

The letter writer also appears to misunderstand the difference between a change of name and a substitution of claimant.

 

At least there are admissions that you have been misled.

[prosser]

More lies and aggressive letters from DWF in October November 2012

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42175[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42174[/ATTACH]

[prosser]

Court Order from 13th Feb 2013 (Their application notice N244 and Witness Statement to follow)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42176[/ATTACH]

[unclebulgaria67]

Companies House record showing change of name from Robinson Way & Company 2009 Ltd to Robinson Way Ltd. Question whether there was any NOA for the change from Robinson Way & Company Ltd to Robinson Way & Company 2009 Ltd ? When was this court claim originally made ?

 

ROBINSON WAY LIMITED

LONDON SCOTTISH HOUSE QUAYS REACH

CAROLINA WAY

SALFORD

M50 2ZY

Company No. 06976081

 

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 29/07/2009

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC):

64999 - Financial intermediation not elsewhere classified

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12

Last Accounts Made Up To: 01/10/2011 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 30/09/2013

Last Return Made Up To: 29/07/2012

Next Return Due: 26/08/2013

Mortgage: Number of charges: 1 ( 0 outstanding / 1 satisfied / 0 part satisfied )

Last Members List: 29/07/2012

Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 30/09/2009 ROBINSON WAY & COMPANY 2009 LIMITED

[prosser]

Thanks uncleB for this though I have seen it before. My court claim was commenced in March 2009.

 

The change was all smoke and mirrors. You will see that there was another company called RWC2009 which changed from Robinson Way And Company Limited (the original claimant). It was all to get round company and insolvency laws !

 

Company Details

 

 

 

 

 

Name & Registered Office:

RWC 2009 LIMITED

c/o ERNST & YOUNG LLP

100 BARBIROLLI SQUARE

MANCHESTER

M2 3EY

Company No. 00885896

 

 

 

 

Status: Liquidation

Date of Incorporation: 18/08/1966

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC):

7487 - Other business activities

Accounting Reference Date: 31/10

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/10/2007 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 30/11/2009 OVERDUE

Last Return Made Up To: 21/03/2009

Next Return Due: 18/04/2010 OVERDUE

Mortgage: Number of charges: ( 0 outstanding / 0 satisfied / 0 part satisfied )

Last Members List: 21/03/2008

Insolvency History

Previous Names:

Date of change Previous Name

28/09/2009 ROBINSON, WAY & COMPANY LIMITED

[unclebulgaria67]

As your court claim started earlier, then Robinson Way or their Solicitor have made a mistake. Wonder how may others out of the 17,500 would be similar to yours ? Bulk changing of claimant name may be prone to mistakes happening !

[prosser]

I know uncleB but here's the interesting thing ! (In the next post)

[prosser]

Here is there N244 Application. Very Interesting (and pure stupidity !)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42177[/ATTACH]

Edited March 5, 2013 by prosser

[prosser]

There N244 Application notice again

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42178[/ATTACH]

[unclebulgaria67]

I am not sure the Judge would understand the change in company and how they can evidence that they are the correct claimant.

[prosser]

Thats true UncleB and will form part of my WS but its much much better than that, but I don't want to say too much till after the hearing in case these boards get monitored ! I will post my WS on the day of the trial !