Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • looks om to me  let andyotch check it over due by Friday 4pm.   any paperwork you hold , you keep to yourself! its for the fleecers to provide it all again now. but gives you something to compare their copy n paste too..   as for the assignment Hoist whatever is all the same DCA group, simply using diff names. nothing to do with cap1.  
    • a client is equally responsible for the actions of their dogs.    
    • Could someone review the defence I have prepared please?   please note I have got a copy of an old default notice from 2007, but have asked them to provide me with a copy, does this need to be taken into account on my defence statement? I don't have a copy of an assignment notice from Cap One to HPH2, just one from HPH2 to HFUH2L, but was HPH2 Cap One? If I have these 2 documents, but no original agreement can I still use this as a defence?    1. This claim is for the sum of £294 arising from the Defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no XXXXX. 2. 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. 3. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX CAPITAL ONE). 4. Written notice of the assignment has been given. 5. The Claimant claims 1. The sum of 294  2. Costs   Defence 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 and it is accepted insofar that I have had financial dealings with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc in the past, but I do not recollect the details nor am I aware of any outstanding balance that the claimant refers to and have therefore sought clarity from the claimant. On the 27th November 2019 (both sent by recorded delivery) I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request to Howard Cohen and Co. Solicitors and a Section 78 request to the Claimant Hoist Finance UK Holdings 2 Ltd to gain further details. Both have been signed for as received but the claimant has yet to comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any service of a valid Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974   4. Paragraph 3 I am unaware of any alleged legal assignment or Notice of Assignment from the Claimant.   5. It is therefore denied the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant must provide evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of the breach and service of a valid default notice; (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (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 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.   8. 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, Molly,  
    • read the letter it says our client...   everything else is explained in that other thread or any CLI thread gere . use our search..   a dca IS NOT A BAILIFF
  • Our picks

MortgageWoes

Formal Disciplinary Meeting - ** FOUND IN FAVOUR OF EMPLOYEE **

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1027 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

I'm delighted. I still suspect that this was a formality, albeit it didn't feel like that, because they had to officially find you innocent of the allegations, otherwise they would struggle if they had a case where someone really was being a wide boy. The fact that the hearing manager had nothing to ask is a bit of a give away - they weren't even making an effort!

 

I'm sorry you had the stress of this, but on the plus side, nobody can now ever accuse toy of anything wrong. It's done and dusted now. Your former employer screwed up and should have handled this better, and the current employer inherited a problem they had to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad it al sorted itself out. As you work in a regulated industry you know that things like this must be done in a certain way but I think that rather than starting with an open mind the investigators made the assumption that there was wrongdoing or intent on your part and once it became clear that this wasnt the case had to thow in a few comments to justify their time on this. This is something we all do to a certain degree so again, glad it didnt get bogged down and you have been exonorated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again. It was a real eye opener and to think I only joined the union a few months ago.

 

I didn't know this forum existed and having a read of the threads it's clear that you guys really care about things being done right and that means a lot to people like me when your head is all over the place!

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...