Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Name of the Claimant ?  Hoist Finance UK Holdings 1LI   Date of issue – 11th Nov 2019   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? The Claim is for the sum of £2722 arising from the Defendant's breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no 4929421509954002 The Defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX BARCLAYCARD) Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1.The sum of £2792 2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £2977  Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? No    Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes, possibly more than once. This claim form has been sent not to my actual address but to a friend's house who lets me use their address for post. I had to do this as I had a lot of post go missing at my own address a few years ago. My address on Clear Score is different and my actual address. I don't know how they got this address.   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No, I'd never heard of Hoist Finance before Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card bill   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? I genuinely don't know although according to Clear Score it was in 2010   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I don't know   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ? It's on clear score both as Barclaycard and Hoist. The Barclaycard debt it £0 but the Hoist debt is £2792   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. I assume it's a debt purchaser   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No, I don't remember receiving a notice of assignment.   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not to my knowledge   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not that I remember   Why did you cease payments? I couldn't afford to pay the minimum and hoped that as the amount wasn't huge they might disappear   What was the date of your last payment? I think it was July 2014 but it might have been May 2015.     Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Not to my knowledge but it was so long ago I have no idea what the debt is for or how much of it might have been late/missed payment charges.   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No I did not I've never had a claim issued against me before. Due to my profession it is imperative that I do not get a County Court judgement against me.  Please help with what I should do.  Thank you all in advance.
    • @Jase1982   I have been trying to get up to to speed, and struggling   "Unite general secretary Len McCluskeytold the Guardian that Labour had to win over the party’s traditional working-class supporters with by promising to end free movement of workers - migrant Labour from Europe - after Brexit."   Labour declares a completely stark raving mad open door to anyone and everyone   Immigration was and still is THE big issue driving Brexit (but Corbyn is of course a Brexiter)   Corbyn promises a new Scot ref, then doesn't then hums and hars.     So what actually is happening?     Corbyn declares he's in it for all voters - but seems to mean he wants to ostracise most voters (biggest issue driving Brexit) and bring in new voters who might vote for him in gratitude despite not knowing who he is and probably not caring, and hopes some of them might be nurses.   Cluckskey wants to end (EU) free movement or workers? So where is he on the open door policy - (Theres apparently 40-60,000 none Turk ISIS looking for a new home ...)     I cant make any coherent sense of it whatsoever. Bonkers.   correction: Only sense I see is keeping everyone at each others throats to prevent them seeing the real problem - Corbyn and his quite small cabal of left wing loons ‌
    • OK, using the Norgan rule  payments of £100 per month towards the arrears would clear them in the remaining term of the mortgage, but only just - you would need to keep those payments up for 12 years without fail.  However the lender might not be too happy about waiting 12 years and may force your hand by applying for an eviction warrant in which case you'd have to get a hearing before a judge for them to decide.  £200 per month would halve the time it takes to clear arrears.  You have to decide what sum you can afford to maintain for a long period.
    • Hello and thanks for your answer. My car is the dark grey in the right lane, at the back of the first black one and in front of the other black one (that stopped right in the middle of the box and then moved to the left lane). It was my rear 2 wheels that stayed in the box, as I had to break suddenly. I said in my appeal that the traffic was freeflowing and it was only after I'd entered the box that something happened ahead, hence why I had to stop suddenly in order to avoid causing an accident. I think I won't be able to contest it on the law/highway code. Hence why I'm asking whether the issue of the recording/photos of the reg, is something I could use instead. I normally wouldn't bother contesting it but I've been driving on this road frequently for the last 20 years and this is the first time this has happened to me and it was genuinely because I had to break suddenly. If the traffic is stationary, I wait by the traffic lights *before* I enter the box. Do I have grounds to contest it on anything?
    • where did you buy the necklace? Might you have a bank statement or credit card bill showing it? (almost no one uses cash now!)
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2065 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi, I hope someone can offer me some advice regarding the following:

 

I am due to attend a tribunal hearing tomorrow to appeal against a decision to recover overpaid CTB. Although the council in question have admitted it was an "official error" on their part, they maintain that it was "reasonable" for me to have realised the error at the time.

 

The error in question is that I was awarded 100% CTB when I should have been awarded 50% due to me sharing the property I live in with another tenant. I did not question the decision at the time as I had provided them with all the relevant information (on more than one occasion), and trusted that their calculations were correct based on what I had provided. I am also self-employed and consequently the benefit and WTC I receive fluctuates throughout the year, so when I received a letter telling me it had changed again I did not believe anything was amiss.

 

Their argument seems to assume a detailed knowledge of how CTB is calculated that I could not possibly have unless I actually worked for the department! (although it seems this would still be no guarantee... ;-)

 

Having taken some legal advice I have decided to continue with my appeal and am due in court tomorrow. The solicitor has advised me that the Tribunal will take an "inquisitorial" approach, requiring me to give my version of events which I have outlined above.

 

I would like to ask if anyone has experience of these kind of Tribunals and what I can do to give myself the best possible chance of winning the case.

 

Many Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a joint tenancy or is the tenancy in your name?

 

 

Whose name is the council tax bill in?

 

 

Did you give details of your housemate?


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a joint tenancy - the council tax bill was in both names and I provided details of the other housemate. After providing all the correct information a number of times they still calculated the my CTB at 100% (although it never actually stated this as a percentage in any of their correspondence, just the weekly amount I would receive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was your housemate still paying council tax?


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I was paying it on behalf of both of us. They were responsible for other bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a difficult case to make and you would need a very understanding judge to be successful.

 

 

The only argument you could make is that (if you told the council that you were paying council tax and your housemate was paying other bills) you have no knowledge of benefit law at all and had assumed that this was allowed as you gave all of the information to the council.

 

 

It is difficult because an assumption might be made that logically a person would realise that as benefit is paid for council tax and not for other bills, that the housemate would be responsible for 50% of the council tax regardless of what private arrangements you have made. Though I have seen judges 'accept' an appellant's assertions of ignorance of the system, because they are scornful of the idiotic actions of the LA.

 

 

I've found it often helps if the appellant is able to show that they have a history of misunderstanding these types of things. For instance, as a former benefit adviser, I could never make the case that I misunderstood the rules, but an elderly lady whose deceased husband used to manage all financial matters could legitimately make a case for not being able to make a logical jump about how these things work, as could someone with mild learning difficulties or mental health problems - basically anything that at the time could 'get in the way' of thinking logically about what was being awarded. Do you have anything like that which you could put forward in mitigation?

 

 

Does that help at all?


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - yes that is helpful (although not quite as encouraging as I was hoping!)

 

TBH the LA in question makes mistakes with my benefit on such a regular basis that I never know whether it is correct or not. Every time there is a change in my circumstances (which happens quite often due to my self-employed status) they send pages and pages of "calculations" which are supposed to show how my benefit was worked out. I have never been able to make head nor tail of these - would this qualify as "ignorance of the system"?

Also, at no point did they explicitly state that I was receiving 100% CTB, just the weekly amount. I assumed that the amount I was receiving was correct at the time as I had provided them with details of my income, my tenancy agreement, and spent hours on the phone and in person confirming everything with them, as they seemed unable to update their own systems.

Not that I'm ungrateful for the help I receive, but I am consistently amazed at the level of incompetency from this department (is this common amongst LA's?)

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you can do is explain what you just wrote to the judge and hope that they see it your way. With cases like these it's difficult to know how the judge is going to interpret the 'could have reasonably known they were being overpaid' part.

 

 

Maybe take with you the pages and pages of calculations to show the judge how difficult for the layman it is to understand whether the calculation is correct or not.

 

 

The three things you have to show is:

 

 

That the LA made an error.

That you gave all the information required of you.

That you could not reasonably have known you were being overpaid.

 

 

Yes incompetency of LA decision makers is very common in my experience. Some of the errors I've come across have completely amazed me. Even in my own claim since I became ill, each change of circumstances has needed 4 to 5 emails from me to correct errors. So you're not alone in being a victim of this. Sadly with HB and CTB, unlike with DWP benefits, there is this added requirement with overpayments that you need to prove that you could not reasonably have known you were being overpaid in order to make the overpayment 'unrecoverable due to official error'.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough - well thanks again. Will post on here after the decision has been made to help anyone else who finds themselves in a similar predicament.

 

BTW were you aware that the petition group 38 Degrees is currently running a campaign about our voting system? In case anyone is interested check out https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...