Hoist/Cohen claimform - old Barclaycard debt

[r710]

Name of the Claimant ? Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd

Date of issue – 19 May 2016

 

20th June 2016 to submit defence

 

What is the claim for –

 

1.This claim is for the sum of £3755.27 in respect of monies owing under an agreement with the account no. XXXX

pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.

This debt was legally assigned by MKDP LLP (Ex Barclaycard) to the Claimant

and notice has been served.

2.The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement.

A default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA.

 

3.The Claimant claims

1. The sum of £3755.27

2. Interest pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 18/1/12 to the date hereof 1580 is the sum of £1300.50.

3. Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £ .82

4. Costs

 

What is the value of the claim? . Total £5565.77

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Credit account

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? Before. 1981

 

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. Debt purchaser

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment?

We would have but can't guarantee we have kept it.

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? As above, we would have. Kept some of the early letters.

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ?

Probably, no reason to doubt we haven't. Ashamed to say we haven't actually been reading them but am sure we would have.

Why did you cease payments?

Business failed very suddenly due to recession, stopped payments to all creditors as my husband couldn't manage the debt.

My husband intended at that point to go bankrupt but as moved into low paid employment,

he needed to save bankruptcy fee.

We then had to prioritise moving house due to being harassed by a neighbour

and then always something else came along that needed money.

Classic burying heads in the sand then followed as we seemed to be getting life back together.

What was the date of your last payment? He last paid around April 2011 but Noddle says defaulted in Sept 2011.

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No

I will send off a CAA request and CPR31.14 Loan letter to see what Hoist/the solicitors hold

 

BUT

 

I recall back in around 2008 we went after PPI charges from Barclaycard.

At this time they did provide us with a copy of the signed agreement.

I would have it somewhere in the loft.

Notably the copy was a terrible one, hardly legible but

 

 

interestingly, the box where you would tick to opt out of PPI was bright white, as if the copy had been doctored.

I raised this in our letters, that it looked very obviously as though it had been doctored.

Barclaycard did not respond specifically to this, but did refund all the PPI charges going back to when the account was opened.

 

I guess what I am wondering is that if Barclaycard had dug out the agreement in more recent years,

are they more likely to have passed a copy onto the purchasers of the debt?

 

Am I still right just to put the onus on Hoist to show they have the relevant paperwork to prove the debt?

 

I would be grateful for your thoughts

 

 

th Hello,

 

Back in December 2105 I received some great advice when my husband was pursued by Lowells for an Argos credit card debt.

 

It seems that another creditor has now taken the same course of action.

 

I plan to follow the same steps as before, acknowledge and defend, using the advice given previously but there are some changes in the circumstances which I would be grateful to be able to check out on here first.

 

Please see info below.

 

Thank you, r710

[dx100uk]

ok thanks for that

you can follow the argos thread yep that's ok.

just one point

a seller doesn't forward on any paperwork unless asked for it by the buyer.

speculative claim..same as the argos one.

[r710]

Thank you, that's reassuring.

 

Feel a bit better equipped (mentally) to deal with this one, thanks to your previous advice.

 

Guessing other creditors may do the same soon, given there is only one year to go before being statute barred.

 

I appreciate your swift response.

 

r710

[dx100uk]

oh one final point

amended your defence filing date

its 33 days

whereby claimform date is one of the count.

[r710]

Noted thank you. I must have miscounted.

 

Regards, r710

[r710]

Hi,

 

I have acknowledged the claim with mcol, stating we intend to defend all.

 

I have had responses to the CCA and CPR requests.

 

The CCA request was addressed to Hoist as per the claim but Robinson Way have come back acknowledging my request but stating "as you have filed your defence in this matter, all documents will be requested by our client's solicitor, Howard Cohen as part of this process, therefore please find enclosed your £1.00 fee.

 

Howard Cohen and Co have come back acknowledging my CPR request. They state that they are in the process of retrieving the documents requested. They state "please accept this letter as our agreement of 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 as you feel appropriate.

 

Does this support that they are likely to be bluffing and don't actually have the documents?

 

I presume I should not wait for them to come back and should just continue to compose our defence?

 

Regards, r710

[dx100uk]

ignore the std waffle, you'll see those replies now in most hoist claims here

keep to your timescale

[r710]

Thank you. Will do.

[r710]

Good evening.

 

Could someone please look over my defence?

 

Please note that the particulars were not numbered but all lumped together in one paragraph and the claims were numbered. I have added paragraph numbers and changed the claims from numbers to letters for clarity. Is this acceptable?

 

The date of "1580" is actually how it appears. No idea what they mean but hopefully irrelevant.

 

Particulars of Claim

1. This claim is for the sum of £3755.27 in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the account no ….. pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

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

3. The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement.

4. A default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant to s.87(1)CAA.

 

And the Claimant claims:

a) The said sum of £3755.27

b) Interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the 18/01/12 to the date hereof 1580 (?!) is the sum of £1300.50

c) Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £.82

d) Costs

 

DEFENCE

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied.

The Defendant has no knowledge of, or has in their possession any agreement pertaining to the account number referred to in its Particulars of Claim.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied.

I am unaware of any legal assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars and I have no knowledge of who the claimant is nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied.

I am unaware of any legal assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars and I have no knowledge of who the claimant is

nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

4. Paragraph 4 is denied with regards to any amount due under any agreement.

The Claimant/Solicitor has refused to disclose any agreement or statements on which its claim relies upon.

 

5.Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the original creditor; and

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

c) show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears,

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

 

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

 

7. Despite a request being made under the consumer credit Act 1974, for the signed agreement

and the other documents referred to in the Statement of Particulars, and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant remains in breach of the S.78 request.

 

8.A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued,

has also failed to elicit a copy of the signed agreement and other documents on which the Claimant claim relies upon.

 

9. Until such time the claimant can comply with the above S.78 request, the claimant is therefore prevented from enforcing or seeking the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

I would be very grateful if you could advise if it needs tweaking.

 

Many thanks

 

r710

[dx100uk]

we have done the PoC paras in post 1 already for you.

 

 

it might help you to read these:

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=Hoist/Cohen+claimform+-+old+Barclaycard+debt&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Hoist%2FCohen%20claimform%20-%20old%20Barclaycard%20debt&gsc.page=1

[r710]

Sorry, overlooked that. Have reverted back to suggested numbering.

 

I've taken a look at those threads and understand that by returning the £1 I cannot state that they have breached any legal obligation. I've amended the wording in relation to this.

 

Should I resend the S.78 request? I am mindful that I don't have much time left to file the defence.

 

Still cannot work out the date in the claim.

 

Is this now acceptable?

 

Particulars of Claim

1. This claim is for the sum of £3755.27 in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the account no ….. pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The debt was legally assigned to MKDP LLP (ex Barclaycard) to the Claimant and notice has been served.

2. The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement.

3. A default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant to s.87(1)CAA.

 

And the Claimant claims:

1) The said sum of £3755.27

2) Interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the 18/01/12 to the date hereof 1580 is the sum of £1300.50

3) Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £.82

4) Costs

 

DEFENCE

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied.

The Defendant has no knowledge of, or has in their possession any agreement pertaining to the account number referred to in its Particulars of Claim. I am unaware of any legal assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars and I have no knowledge of who the claimant is nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. Paragraph 1 is also denied with regards to any amount due under any agreement. The Claimant/Solicitor has failed to disclose any agreement or statements on which its claim relies upon.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied.

The Defendant, as stated in Paragraph 1, has no knowledge of, or has in their possession any agreement pertaining to the account number referred to in its Particulars of Claim and has never been served a Default Notice pursuant to the CCA 1974 .

 

3. Paragraph 3 is 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.

4.Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the original creditor; and

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

c) show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears,

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

 

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

 

7. On receipt of this claim, I sent a CCA 1974, Section 78 request to the Claimant dated 23/05/2016 . This was sent via recorded delivery and signed for on the 24/05/2016.The Claimant rejected my request and returned the £1.00 fee.

 

8.A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, has also failed to elicit a copy of the signed agreement and other documents on which the Claimant claim relies upon.

 

9. Until such time the claimant can comply with the above S.78 request, the claimant is therefore prevented from enforcing or seeking the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

 

Thanks for your help.

 

r710

[dx100uk]

pers I don't believe it is a very good idea to deny everything.

 

 

look at the defence of this thread

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?461958-HPH2-Cohen-Claimform-Barclaycard-%91debt%92/page2

[r710]

Thanks for coming back to me.

 

Ok, I was following the format of a previous similar defence we made.

 

I've looked at the thread suggested and followed that format instead.

 

Is the following now more appropriate?

 

Particulars of Claim

1. This claim is for the sum of £3755.27 in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the account no ….. pursuant to The consumer credit Act 1974 (CCA).

 

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

3. The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement. A default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant to s.87(1)CAA.

 

And the Claimant claims:

1) The said sum of £3755.27

2) Interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the 18/01/12 to the date hereof 1580 is the sum of £1300.50

3) Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £.82

4) Costs

 

 

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Barclays but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) from either the original creditor or MKDP LLP or HPH2.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is further denied. I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to s.87(1) CCA. or any advance notice or warning.

 

5. On receipt of this claim, I the Defendant sent a request under the customer credit Act 1974,by way of a section 78 for a copy of the agreement and payment of the statutory fee of £1.00. The claimant has refused to comply with my request by returning the statutory fee in an attempt to frustrate and avoid its legal responsibilities with this request and I therefore request that the court direct their compliance in this matter.

A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, has also failed to elicit a copy of the signed agreement and other documents on which the Claimant claim relies upon.

 

6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement

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

c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

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

 

7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed

 

8. 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

 

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

 

 

Thanks, r710

[AndyOrch]

[r710]

Thank you.

 

If that seems ok, I'll get it off tonight so I don't have to think about it for a while.

 

Thank you for the reassurance.

 

Regards, r710

[martin2006]

Personally i would file it on deadline day before 4pm, dont give them any time to dream up any other twaddle by firing it in early

[r710]

Ok, thanks. Will hold off then.

 

r710

[r710]

Apologies, I failed to update.

 

The Court wrote to us stating that Hoist had 28 days to respond to our defence but we heard nothing further.

 

Unfortunately Hoist are now chasing a further debt, so will post about this separately.

 

r710