hoist ccj set aside [ex Barclaycard] - now new hearing but they have not complied to judges order re deeds

[AndyOrch]

Copy of their claim particulars and your application to set a side (n244) would be helpful if you require assistance with your defence.

 

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

both are in those zips I'm just doing

[dx100uk]

files in post 24 updated

no signed agreement anywhere just T&c's

[HibouFarci]

Oh my goodness! Thank you so much for checking through that lot.

 

The other thing I don't think I have mentioned is that the T&Cs are incomplete, because the credit card account did not go straight from Morgan Stanley to Barclaycard, there was another company in between. And none of their paperwork mentions this. Does that matter?

 

I am back from the GP who has signed me off and given me drugs! You know things are bad when ...

[AndyOrch]

Not sure why Barclays T&C are included...nothing to do with Morgan Stanley DW

[HibouFarci]

As far as I understand, MSDW credit card became Goldfish who were eventually bought out by Barclaycard. The PPI bit was taken out day one with MSDW (April 2003) and payments continued right through all three companies till my last gasp in August 2011.

[AndyOrch]

Correct.....its irrelevant it was ever assigned.....BCs T&Cs have no connection to the agreement...and anyway what you have uploaded (MSDW) can hardly be regarded as a reconstituted version of the agreement and therefore the claimant has failed to satisfy your section 78 request...remains in default.....and therefore unable to seek any relief or enforce the agreement.

[HibouFarci]

So that's the crux of the defence, and I don't have to go into the business of them being sold a debt was mostly my mis-sold PPI?

 

Oh the relief!

 

I may not have to take the GPs medication after all!

[AndyOrch]

It will be the main focus of your defence but you should also include details of the dispute and the miss selling of PPI.

 

Set a side defences are particular in detail and so you should draft it similar to a witness statement.

 

Andy

[HibouFarci]

Thank you for that. I feel a lot more confident about how to proceed.

[HibouFarci]

Hello again,

 

With regard to the unenforceability of the CCA papers that were sent to me by Hoist, they quoted thus:

 

Carey v HSBC, Citation Number: (2009) EWHC 3417 (QB) made by His Honour Judge Waksman QC*,* “a creditor can satisfy its duty under s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself.”

 

If I understand you (and my research) correctly, this ruling does not apply to agreements made before 2007. Is that the case?

 

Just want to make sure my defence is watertight.

 

By the way, I've been trying to make a donation, but don't seem to be able to do so via Paypal - it rebels agains my ancient computer, even though I have a PayPal account.

 

Is there any other way of making a donation - you guys have been very helpful.

 

Ta.

[AndyOrch]

Click the donation tab again......do not click the paypal tab.....Donate with a debit or credit card.

 

Andy

[HibouFarci]

Hello everybody.

 

you kindly gave me advice last year when I first came up against the loathsome hoist portfolio et al. For which, many thanks.

 

On April12 th this year a court order was made to the DCA to provide TWO Deeds of Assignment in relation to their claim against me,relating to a Barclaycard which expired in December 2011 and has not been used since August 2011.

 

Howard Cohen supplied:

1. Bill of sales receivable for a portfolio of debts between barclaycard and MKDP

2. deed of assignment between MKDP and hoist portfolio

 

For which the Deputy District Judge saw fit to uphold their claim against me. That is until I wrote and pointed out that the claimant had not supplied the correct documentation, as stated in the court order. the original court order states that if the correct documentation is not provided by hoist (two deeds of assignment) the claim would be struck out.

 

After my letter, the DDJ,s response was to ‘set aside’ rather than ‘strike out’ and give hoist another five weeks to come up with the other deed of assignment.

 

I feel like the court are desperately trying to find in favour of hoist and I have no recourse but to wait in the sidelines.

 

Your thoughts would be appreciated! Getting fed up with people telling me to go to CAB...

 

FANX!

Edited June 20, 2018 by HibouFarci

[dx100uk]

Stupid fmotl rubbish

Did you send a cca request?

[Bazooka Boo]

You won't get to see any deed of assignment, that's a confidential document between companies,.

[AndyOrch]

A court can order the disclosure of the Deed of Assignment...as it has in this case.

 

So they have not disclosed Barclaycard to MKDP DOA ?

 

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

Old and ndw threads merged

So you filed some stupid freeman of the land defence after getting our help here in November

That there was no agreement

 

So what happened at the new hearing and when was it?

[HibouFarci]

I'm sorry, I don't know what a freeman of the land thing is.

 

I followed all the valuable advice I was given here, but I am stuck in a revolving door with a dumb-ass DDJ who I have to instruct when they go against their own court orders.

 

The Court Order for the DOA's were issued after I requested them.

They had not been mentioned otherwise.

 

Claimant had to provide two, and has only provided one (along with the Bill of sale between BC and MKDP). This (I think?) meant they had not complied with the court order which clearly states that if they don't comply, the case will be struck out.

 

The judge firstly set judgement in the claimants favour until I pointed out via letter that they had not complied with the order. Then she set aside to give them more time to comply.

 

I have written once more laying out the story, the claimants lack of compliance over a long period of time (failure to provide any details of the debt, failure to respond to a CPR Part 18, incomplete CCA etc) and suggested that the court is acting inequitably.

 

It is also in breach of its own order which was given on April 12th with compliance required by May 25th. They now have until July 7th.

 

Waiting to hear back ...

Edited June 22, 2018 by dx100uk
Merge

[dx100uk]

Title updated