Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Hoist claimform - Ex - Barclaycard debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 579 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Quote

So how do I now file my defence again?

 

Manually by email but add an header claim number and a statement of truth.

 

Quote

and she believes show sufficient evidence that the debt was mine. 

 

Well that's not really in question...its whether the Debt Collector can provide the necessary documents and whether they are valid pursuant to the CCA1974 and the original creditor has followed due process.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

AIC didn't buy debts, so were probably operating on behalf of their stated client Barclaycard, the original creditor. BC then sold the debt to Hoist . Howard cohen solicitors are part of the Hoist group and solicitors dont by debts.

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts?

 

Claim No. xxxx

 

BETWEEN:

xxxx AND

Defendant xxxx

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxx

 

 

I xxxxx, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

 

1.             I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 2 DECEMBER 2020. Whereby it has been stayed due to insufficient or lack of paperwork on behalf of the Claimant. And whereby the Claimant has failed to attend mediation due to being unable to service me with enough evidence to support their claim.

 

2.           Subsequently at a Directions Hearing the Court has asked the Claimant to resubmit their claim pack to me and acknowledged it dd not have the details of my response to the Particulars of Claim.

 

3.           The claimants witness statement opening paragraph confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2 (1) (B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act and also be in attendance at hearing to give evidence in support of the claimants witness statement.

 

4.        It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct, disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. The claimant then issues on mass claims to circumvent   and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit that does not equal any material loss.

 

5.        Furthermore, in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has failed to disclose that this alleged debt was not an original debt purchased from Barclaycard but was actually purchased from Robinson Way (RW), who first purchased the debt in July 2020 thus misleading the Defendant and the Court.

 

a.     The first assignee was Arvato Financial Solutions on 09 JULY 2018

b.     The second assignee was Allied International Credit on 30 APRIL 2018

c.     The third assignee was Wescott Credit Services on 15 OCTOBER 2018

 

6.        I know this because RW had also started a Claim against me for this alleged debt but were unable to furnish me with copies of the CCA and all relevant documentation relevant to their claim as were the other Debt Collection Agencies.

 

Background

 

1.           This alleged claim is for a credit card agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between myself and Barclaycard. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of  the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant. I was unaware of any notice of assignment, nor had I been issued with a default notice, pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974.

 

2.           I made a CPR 31.14 formal written request to the claimant and the claimant’s      solicitor. The claimant failed to respond at that time.

 

3.           I subsequently filed my initial defence defence on MCOL in response to their claim. It was only after this that the Claimant materialised the documents requested albeit ‘reconstituted’.

 

(1)       I also bring to the Court’s attention:

a.           A Reconstituted agreement must have the following items to comply with a sect. 77/78/79 Request under CCA 1974.
1. Your name and address as it was at the time the account was opened.
2. As above for the creditor.
3. The terms and conditions relevant when the account was opened.
4. Those T's and C's relevant when the account was closed.
5. Any other documents mentioned in those T's & C's e.g. most credit card providers enclose a booklet containing the full T's & C's when a card is issue.

 

4.           The claimant makes various references to the lack of tangible evidence in my defence, that it raises no triable issues and states that the lack of substance and supporting evidence in my defence limits the Claimant’s response. My defence was submitted according to the conditions for filing a defence on MCOL and in the lack of any tangible supporting documentation from the Claimant, especially including, but not limited to, the ongoing lack of the production of and disclosure of a true copy of the CCA Credit Agreement or any default notice. I have followed the dates and timelines set out by the court, completing an Acknowledgement of service and Defence in the correct time windows.

The Claimant has not done this. Failure to adhere to these timeframes by the Claimant has prevented this case going to mediation, with due respect, this is an unfair circumstance and has not provided opportunity to reach a settlement agreement.

 

Defendants Response to claimants claim/ Application

 

5.            With reference to the Claimant’s Witness Statement they have claimed true copies of Documents’ have been included. I again refer you to Point 3 above.

 

6.              With reference to the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant’s solicitor has produced an application form which seems to be a reconstructed document in which my details have simply been typed in the exact same font, this could have been made up anytime at any point by anyone to imitate what a Barclaycard agreement may look like and is NOT a true copy from Barclaycard which the Claimant’s solicitor claim they have waited for.

 

7.              The Claimant has produced a Reconstituted Application Form and does not contain all the terms and conditions, indeed from what I can see it does not contain any Terms & Conditions, nor any of the subsequent documents or conditions that a Terms & Conditions document would refer to.

 

8.             On the signature page, it states “To sign this application, please tick the box below.

By ticking the box you consent to credit identity, fraud and other credit checks being carried out”, it is my belief that none of these checks were done adequately enough, if they were, the lender would have seen that the defendant was already financially overexposed and would have had no doubt defaulted on any loan offer made therefore making the original lender complicit in Irresponsible lending, under which the Financial Ombudsman are now investigating.

 

9.             In addition the online application form there is no record of an IP address of the computer  on which this application was alleged to have been made.

 

Section 61 Signing of agreement

(1)       A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless –

a.           A document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner by both the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

b.           The document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms and

c.           The document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible

 

Section 65 Consequences of improper execution.

(1) An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only. And therefore pursuant to sec 127 (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65 (1) if section 61 (1) (a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60 (1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

10.                        With reference to the Claimant’s Witness Statement, I received no correspondence from the Claimant or the claimant’s solicitor with regard to offering settlement negotiations in order to cease court action.

 

11.                        With reference the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant’s solicitor has not supplied a copy of the original Default Notice nor have they issued the defendant with any properly executed Default Notice’s as per the responsibilities as the new holder of the alleged debt.

 

12.                        The claimant’s solicitor has supplied a “screen shot” of a database system which they claim shows a Default Notice. There is no tangible positive evidence from any witness from Barclaycard this is a Default Notice.

 

13.                        It is therefore contended that the original creditor failed to serve a valid Default Notice pursuant to section 87 (1). Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement.

 

Sec 87 Need of default notice

(1)       Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement:

a.           To terminate the agreement, or

b.           To demand earlier payment of any sum, or

c.            To recover possession of any goods or land or

d.           To treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred or

e.           To enforce any security

 

Sec 88 Contents and effect of default notice

(1)       The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify

a.           The nature of the alleged breach

b.           If the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken

c.           If the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid

 

 

14.                        With reference the Claimant’s Witness Statement, At no point between the claimant submitting their court claim and to date has the claimant or the claimant’s solicitors attempted to enter into settlement negotiations.

(1)       I and the person helping me at this time have emailed the Solicitor on numerous occasions to consider this case and ask their client to reconsider based on the following

a.           The defendant’s mental health has deteriorated to the extent that he is medicating and is suicidal

b.           The defendant has multiple debts totalling over fifteen thousand pounds of which this alleged debt is one

c.           Affordability – the defendant has no obvious source of income and is currently living on handouts from friends and family – thus rendering the likelihood of any repayment impossible

d.           The FOS are currently investigating an Irresponsible Lending Complaint with Barclaycard, the original creditor. The FOS have already investigated another loan taken out by the defendant at the same time and found in favour of the defendant

(2)       Despite these requests being made to the solicitor’s, no evidence from them would suggest that they have asked their client to take a view on their position and the defendant respectfully asks the Court to require evidence from the Claimant that these questions have indeed been put to their client and their client’s response to those requests.

 

(3)       And further asks once again to consider this claim considering the above

 

Conclusion

 

In view of the information set out above I respectfully submit to the court that the claimant’s application be denied and strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety.

 

Statement of truth

 

I, XXXXXXX defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

 

Signed: ...................................................

 

On 15/04/2022 at 13:13, dx100uk said:

AIC didn't buy debts, so were probably operating on behalf of their stated client Barclaycard, the original creditor. BC then sold the debt to Hoist . Howard cohen solicitors are part of the Hoist group and solicitors dont by debts.

 

Dx

In their witness statement:

 

DCA Placement History

Debt Collection Agency Name          Balance Sent to DCA        Placement Start Date              Placement End Date

ARVATO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS-                                                 PLACED 09/10/2017              25/04/2018

ALLIED INT. CREDIT (UK) LTD                                                      - PLACED 30/04/2018              10/10/2018

WESCOT CREDIT SERVICES-                                                         PLACED 15/10/2018               31/03/2019

 

They really do try to make things difficult for people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those don't buy debts, simply chase for the owner, hence the word passed, not sold 

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Your 1st 5 + 6 either need deleting or modify them. Both are twaddle.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Update from FOS.

 

They have upheld my complaint and have asked Barclay's to return me to my position had I not had the card BUT as I've had use of the card any funds owing will still need to be recovered.

 

So Barclays have agreed to refund £698.92 and that is to be taken off the balance Hoist are claiming and that Hoist as the new owner of the debt are still entitled to recover that balance.

 

So what next?

 

Thanks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send a copy to Hoist/Sol and ask that they amend their claim or withdraw it.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

Hoist have been in touch,

they've asked the court to reduce the amount of the claim by just over 800 quid leaving a balance of £3329 and have asked the court to relist the complaint to have a 30 minute hearing.

Any advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not a complaint.

 

scan up what they have sent

and what else has happened since april?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hows this doing?

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...