Hoist/cohen claimform - old Barclaycard 'debt'

[winty67]

Is this better?

Particulars of Claim:-

 

 

1. The claiment claims the sum of £7015.01 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant

under an an Agreement with the account no.5301............ persuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

2. The debt was legally assigned by MKDP LLP (ex Barclaycard) to the claimant and notice of this has been served.

 

3. The defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the agreement

and a default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA

 

4. And the claimant claims the sum of

1. The sum of £7015.01

2. Interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Court Act1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 11/04/2012 to the date hereof the sum of £2177.10

3. Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £1.54

4.Costs

 

 

 

 

 

Defense

 

Paragraph 1 is noted I have in the past had financial dealings with Barclaycard but deny any monies being due as alleged by the claimant MKDP LLP.

 

Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment between Barclaycard and MKDP LLP and the claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

 

Paragraph 3 denied the claimant has not provided a default notice as alleged, has failed to respond to a CPR request to verify any breach nor has it served any Notice of Sums in Arrears since their alleged assignment and remains in default of my section 78 request dated 14/03/2016

 

Paragraph 4 is denied as yet the claimant has yet to provide any proof at all.

 

Therefore this claim is neither admitted nor denied with regards to the Defendant entering into an agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the existence, execution and terms of any alleged agreement.

 

and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

(d) show that they have served a Notice of Sums in Arrears

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

 

On receipt of this claim, I sent a CCA 1974, Section 78 request to the Claimant dated 14/03/2016 . This was sent via recorded delivery and signed for on the 18/03/2016.The Claimant has yet to comply.

 

As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. The Defendant has no recollection of receiving a notice of assignment.

 

Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for a copy of the agreement and other documents relied upon in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim, the Claimant is prevented from enforcing or requesting any relief pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

 

By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

[AndyOrch]

That's fine winty...but with the exception of...

 

Paragraph 1 is noted I have in the past had financial dealings with Barclaycard but deny any monies being due as alleged by the claimant MKDP LLP.

 

Why is it denied ?

 

Andy

[winty67]

That's fine winty...but with the exception of...

 

Paragraph 1 is noted I have in the past had financial dealings with Barclaycard but deny any monies being due as alleged by the claimant MKDP LLP.

 

Why is it denied ?

 

Andy

 

Sorry for late reply, should the claimant be Hoist and not MKDP LLP, as it was `assigned to the claimant`?

 

I have not had any correspondance from MKDP LLP re monies owing and thought it was right to deny

Thanks

[AndyOrch]

The claimant is Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd .... " The debt was legally assigned by MKDP LLP (ex Barclaycard) to the claimant "

[winty67]

Thanks Andy, I will file the defence tomorrow, Still nothig from Hoist or Cohen, guess will have to wait to hear from the court, I will post when I hear something

[AndyOrch]

Thanks Andy, I will file the defence tomorrow, Still nothing from Hoist or Cohen, guess will have to wait to hear from the court, I will post when I hear something

 

Hopefully after you addressed the above.

[winty67]

Andy what do i need to address?

[AndyOrch]

That's fine winty...but with the exception of...

 

Paragraph 1 is noted I have in the past had financial dealings with Barclaycard but deny any monies being due as alleged by the claimant MKDP LLP.

 

Why is it denied ?

 

Andy

 

Andy what do i need to address?

 

Your opening paragraph

[winty67]

Should read ............Paragraph 1 is noted I have in the past had financial dealings with Barclaycard but deny any monies being due as alleged by the claimant Hoist Potfolio Holding 2 Ltd

 

Is this ok?

[AndyOrch]

Its okay but why do you deny any monies being due....is it not your debt?

[winty67]

yes it is, was denying monies due to Hoist, what would be the reply in defence to para 1?

[AndyOrch]

Well your debt with Barclaycard was assigned to MKDP LLP who then assigned it to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd... they are now the legal owners/claimants of the debt...so you now owe them...providing that all the relevant paperwork is in order and that there is no outstanding dispute.

 

 

If you deny anything in a defence you must state a reason for that denial ........there is a simple way around drafting it its just that I want you to understand rather than me simply draft it and you copy it and not understand the reasoning.

[winty67]

Ok, I am slowly understanding the process but I am not legally minded (even after reading counless threads on here) so is there a defence to the claim? I dont want to admit the claim, but defend it, you help please Andy

[AndyOrch]

Well I would suggest something along the lines of ....

 

 

Paragraph 1 is noted insofar as the Defendant accepts that he has held an account with Barclaycard in the past. I cannot recall the precise details of the agreement or recall any alleged amounts outstanding. I have therefore sought clarity by way of a section 78 and a statement of account .The claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request.

[winty67]

Andy, thanks, that sounds good, I appreciate all your time and help, have a good weekend..

[winty67]

Just received the same letter as before from Robison Way with the postal order returned (but fiiled out to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd)

Should I make another request or not? Looks like they dont have the information requested or playing for time.

[AndyOrch]

No... ignore them they have the request

[winty67]

ok thanks Andy

[winty67]

Have received letter from the court acknowledging receipt of defence,

 

 

yesterday received letter from Howard Cohen dated 05/05/2016

(the defence was filed 01/04/16, and thay recieved my request 17/03/16, which looks like a standard letter)

acknowledging receipt of my` letter dated made under CPR31.14 for documentaion mentioned in ou Particulars of Claim.

 

We are currently in the process of retrieving the documents requested.

 

Therefore please accept this letter as our agreement to a general extension of time.

 

 

Once we have provided you with the documents requested we will grant a further 14 days for you to respond to the claim form.

Should this be ignored?

[AndyOrch]

Yes submit your defence by the original date working from the summons date.

 

Andy

[winty67]

I have already done this the Claim Form was issued 01/03/16, filed my defence 01/04/16, had acknowledgement from court re defence dated 01/04/16, so what do I need to do now, if anything?

[AndyOrch]

Ah okay...well ignore it they are playing catch up and do not even know you have already submitted your defence...its irrelevant

[winty67]

ok thanks Andy

[winty67]

Have received a mediation letter and am required to answer yes to all 3 questions, re suitability.

 

 

I can answer yes to 2 of them but not sure about this one as i have not had any replies to my CCA request to Hoist and CPR31.14 request to Howard Cohen.

 

"I can confirm that I have enough information about the claim to allow me to enter into negotiations and that I do not require any further evidence from the other party before the appointment"

 

Should I reply to the mediator and suggest the case is not suitable for mediation?

 

[dx100uk]

not your call

simply answer the question NO.

mediation will fail.

 

 

dx