Jump to content


Singaporesmoke

HPH2/Cohen claimform - old Barclaycard debt***Claim dismissed***

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 851 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

Best of luck then.....looking at the application alleged agreement..make sure you ask the Judge can he read it and can see the prescribed terms pursuant to CCA1974. Throw in the DN date error and the totals claims are in correct ...its a total mish mash.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy and all the CAG team/contributors, your input has been excellent and thoroughly appreciated. I'll report back on the outcome ASAP.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually..... one last question. I'm going anywhere with it, just wondering. How does it fit with data protection - the DCAs going to the OC and asking questions? On mine, they reckon they spoke to Barclays about my complaint and was told it was settled. It wasn't of course but should BC be passing out data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually..... one last question. I'm going anywhere with it, just wondering. How does it fit with data protection - the DCAs going to the OC and asking questions? On mine, they reckon they spoke to Barclays about my complaint and was told it was settled. It wasn't of course but should BC be passing out data?

 

Yes if its been legally assigned to HPH2...they are now the legal owners and Data Controllers


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verdict was in my favour thankfully.

 

It was no shoe-in and I shall duly report some issues that will be of value for future court attendance in similar CC/DCA actions.

 

Firstly, be aware..

. the judge ruled both sides in breach of not supplying WS on time. I actually called the court to ensure I was in time and they still got it wrong. The Judge said they shouldn't have given any response as its deemed advice. Hoist lost out big time as they didn't get theirs in to the court until 27 June and the LA for Cohen had no excuse. The judge said she kind of believed me, but it was still a breach but wasn't buying anything from Cohen simply stating "you're lawyers". Not very good ones apparently. So here are the explicit rules.

 

14 days before a hearing is 14 CLEAR days. It doesn't include the day of receipt. So, mine was today and I submitted on 23 June - 1 day late. You have to admit, 27th is a real pi55 take by Cohen and if I had been a day earlier it would have been a slam dunk.

 

Take note.

 

Further. Anything NOT in the WS isn't likely to get admitted.

I thought I was being a bit smart by holding on to bank statements showing payments to BC and Mercers.

 

The Judge was having very little of it and said it should all be in the WS, as she reads this the day before in prep - adding additional stuff is a big error, particularly if its really relevant. Paying them 2 grand was really relevant and I'm not sure it made any impact today.

 

Regarding the non compliant agreement,

the judge was behind the argument

but Cohen chipped away at

"the defendant agrees he has an agreement, so its really one of quantum".

 

As per my WS I persisted with the issue of the agreement being in a prescribed format/s61/s127.

 

As it happens,

my court notes had Wilson V Hurstanger on it.

Neither the Judge or Cohen had heard of it

 

when we were stood down the judge took my notes into her chambers and asked if she could keep it. Could hardly say no could I!

 

After banging away at the Agreement non-enforcement the Judge was getting bored with it.

I introduced the defective DN and she really didn't want to know about that.

 

Said as far as she was concerned it was not defective on the issue of dates and begrudgingly took notes on lack of Creditor details etc.

 

After being stood down for 20 mins the judge gave her verdict.

We got an earful again about breaches and threw Danton at us.

 

Erred on my side on the WS being late.

The Judge said in her opinion there was not a signed agreement and certainly not one with account details that were able to be tied to other documents.

 

On that event alone, she found in my favour.

 

As a passing note, she mentioned that if I am ever in court again and using precedent as evidence it needs the full case details (Wilson). Point taken.

 

Cohen/HPH2 weren't represented by the guy who wrote the WS and although the "rep" did interject frequently the Judge did remind her that she was not a witness and therefore could not add to the WS

- She mentioned that before discovering that their WS was very late.

 

Pleased its done and in my favour as per my earlier line,

its not a given in any respect.

 

My WS needed to have more data and information. Live and learn.

 

Have a good weekend everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done......every District Judge is different (we call it the Judge lottery)...as is every case...some dont even read the case notes never mind the witness statement.

 

As in the following....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?402888-Lowell-claimform-old-CAp1-card-debt/page8

 

Good result and your very welcome Singapore...thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting as this is what the sol mentioned to my judge

He wanted it looked at as quantum

Will have to do a bit of research on this Wilson stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done......every District Judge is different (we call it the Judge lottery)...as is every case...some dont even read the case notes never mind the witness statement.

 

As in the following....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?402888-Lowell-claimform-old-CAp1-card-debt/page8

 

Good result and your very welcome Singapore...thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Thanks Andy and all at CAG. You can add another one to an impressive cv.

 

I'll add a couple of other anecdotes too.

 

Firstly, the Cohen rep, charming as she was, would have sold her mother for the price of a mug of tea.

 

She hadn't read the notes/WS either and asked me before I went in if there was anything we should discuss. I said no but I did show her evidence of the payments.

 

She was about to call HPH2 to take advice, I suspect probably to call it off.

As it transpired, the judge came to her defence by not really allowing the evidence to be submitted.

 

Secondly, the issue of First Class post v Second Class post was going nowhere.

I had read that s7 Interpretation Act made clear ref to 1st class being +2 days and 2nd class +4 days and if not referred to as 1st Class post it is by default 2nd class.

Might be BS or wishful thinking but that wasn't something I could draw on in court.

 

It seems from having a gentle chat with Cohens that if you pick a specific issue and run with that rather than have 4 or 5, like I had.

.. there is a better chance of arguing a point.

 

Lack of clarity in all aspects of the Agreement won the day here

- They don't have old copies of agreements,

but be prepared to stand firm with

"I don't recall ever signing an agreement", so how I can I contest a simulated copy etc.

 

If anyone has any questions I'll be happy to answer where I can.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I've been reading and not understanding how does the Wilson work my judge adjourned the case to be brought again next week

The sol said he wanted the same as you looked at as knew of quantum so I'm just trying to be as prepared as I can

Tia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Copier.

 

In a nutshell,

as I had made several payments after the DN had been presented and I had a complaint in to BC about fees/Interest that shouldn't have been attached,

 

my first stab in court was that the debt had been extinguished by agreement with BC and the DCA were punting it.

 

Unfortunately, I didn't include the bank statements in my WS

(I didn't have them at that point - genuinely)

but the Judge was really prepared to admit late evidence, so they kind of "hung around" in suspension.

 

When asked if I had any other defence,

I launched in to the well trodden area of not having a true copy of the agreement in the prescribed form.

 

Indeed, the copy presented as a pigs ear of an event put together by Stevie Wonder after a very large night on the gin.

 

The judge ummed and ahhed a bit but I kept pushing the point that without the proper agreement it was unenforceable.

 

Clever sods Cohen mentioned Carey and I countered that and then gave Wilson, which clearly states that if its not in the prescribed form its unenforceable.

 

I was told that also should have been spelt out in the WS, quote the case, date, and Judge if you use it, and I would if I were you, although it looks like you might already be in play, so get prepared.

 

Their argument to me on quantum was based on the fact that they didn't need an agreement as I had acknowledged that I had an account and had used the card.

That needs shooting down if they try it.

 

 

Its not the issue of whether you had an account of not, they are bringing the claim and have to prove it. If you made your application for a copy and they didn't supply, hammer that too.

 

Bottom line is, Wilson spells it out but you have to make sure its clear what it is you are stating.

Check out prescribed terms requirements.

 

Good luck. Not easy but hang in there and you'll be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou Singapore

my judge hammered them and only then the rent a sol say he wanted it looked at by quantum and handed her some documentation which I didn't see

 

just wanted to be prepared if he try to again would I need the full case if I were to take it I already have my ws in but if she was going to accept his I see no reason why she shouldn't accept mine

Tia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is simple.

If its not in the WS then it shouldn't be allowed as evidence.

 

 

In Denton,

you can apply for relief if you have forgotten something but it has to be material.

 

 

Judges can allow anything they like but as in my case, presenting proof of payment on the day of the hearing went down like a lead ballon.

 

 

If the other side have presented something to the judge they have to allow you to see it and they have to apply for relief.

 

Wilson is also a simple issue.

If there are no true copies of the agreement in the prescribed form then the agreement is not enforceable. Keep that in mind.

 

The other side in my case kept saying that they didn't need the agreement as I had admitted there was a CC in place and I had used it, which is utter nonesense. Don't fret.

 

Did they present an agreement? if not, ride that wave all the way and even appeal it on that should it not go your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Singapore

 

Only produced a one in the ws but not in prescribed terms

the judge had hammered them 3 times saying they had not

so that's why rent a sol said look at it in quantum

 

However I've managed to find a email from them stating the goods were on a buy now pay 12 months Debt was sold 10 months in and they claim it wasn't on a buy now

 

Also my payments were allocated to a old account of mine closed 12 years ago how could I get a old account number

I think it was fiddled when they changed names

 

Also the sol in 2 ws also gave the wrong account number

so that gives 3 accounts

the original

the one I paid when they changed name

and the sol wrong one

 

 

all pointed out when I sent the new evidence in

 

Only thing I havent introduced is the Wilson thing

but I'm willing to point out she allowed rent a sol to hand documents over for when he said quantum so I should be allowed

Thanks for this I was feeling lost with it all

 

Yep it was section 78 the judge had said they haven't complied with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you go Copier? Thought you had the hearing this week. Hope it was good news for you. Cheers

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...