Interestingly I've just had another alert on my Clear Score report:
A new credit or store card will be added to your January report.
Organisation Name: BAIA0090
Account Number: ****9048
Company Type: finance house
What does this mean?
This could mean that you’ve recently opened a new account, or it might be because a lender has just shared some information relating to an old account.
Why is this change not on my report yet?
We get your credit report every month from Equifax, a credit reference agency. This update can be seen on your Equifax credit report now but will only be reflected in your ClearScore report when your report is next updated, which is on 2 January. If you apply for credit now, lenders will see this update on your Equifax credit report.
Now, this looks very much as if Hoist have taken my agreement off and transferred it to whoever BAIA0090 are. I've not seen any new notice of assignement or anything.
Sorry i am Not putting details in here.This bank i did have an account with in 1993.That is the last time i used them.
I am going to let them ccj me.
I am not going to even think about this any more.My bin will get the letters and my door will be ignored.
Thank you for the interest but i will waste these #Ankers time for another 6 odd years while i get my mind right
All the best
Particulars of Claim (for Reference - not to be submitted with defence)
What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?
1.The Claim is for the sum of £2722 arising from the Defendant's breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no xxxxxxxxxxxx
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 BARCLAYCARD)
Written notice of the assignment has been given.
The Claimant claims
1.The sum of £2792
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.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.
3. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclaycard in the past I cannot recall the specifics of the alleged agreement.
4. Paragraph 2 is denied .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.
5.Paragraph 3 is denied.I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor or Legal Assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars of claim .
6. It is denied that any amounts are due under any agreement.
7. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.Further to the above I sent Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 LTD a section 78 request via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.
To date, neither Howard Cohen nor Hoist Portfolio are yet to furnish me with the requested information .
8.Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to
a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement;
b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for;
c) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sec 87 (1) CCA1974.
d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;
9. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.
10. On the alternative, if 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 crediticon Act 1974.6.
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.
(Defence mainly taken straight from Micky the Hippo's similar defence)
The letter from Drydens is asking me to respond to their letter:
"we will have no alternative but to apply to the Court to lift the stay on the proceedings in order to progress the legal action commenced against you."
Obviously I don't want to ignore it.