Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Hoist/Cohen - Letter of Claim for Barclaycard Debt


Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

I will dive straight into my scenario. 

 

I have a personal Barclaycard credit card that I defaulted on in first half of 2015.  This debt has been bought out by Hoist in 2019.  I have not made payments since the first half of 2015 to the account. I am pretty sure I have not acknowledged the debt to the DCA that occasionally contacted me since then The six year anniversary of the default will arrive in the first half of 2021.


I recently received a 'Letter of Claim' from Howard Cohen Solicitors informing me of Hoists intention to issues proceedings in the County Court for the outstanding amount. The letter states I have 30 days in which to reply. 

 

 The letter states that it is written in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt claims. They have provided a brief summary of the outstanding debt but not the original signed agreement.  My feeling is that the pressure is being ramped up because of the upcoming six year anniversary of the default.  


I am not sure whether I should;

A). Ignore the letter (if so what are the consequences).

B). Stall for a little more time until the six year anniversary of the default arrives, and whether engaging with them too has its own set of consequences.

C). Pay too much attention to the six year anniversary of the default  - as I am not sure if a debt becomes automatically statute barred after six years in which I have not acknowledged that debt. 

 

Like many, I have been hit by Covid economically.  I have not worked most of this year.  I am operating at substantial loss with funds fast drying up. The work position doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. I am not claiming benefits or anything.

 

Any suggestions for plan of action would be gratefully received.

 

Thank you

 

Arthur M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow post 2 here

 

 

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to Hoist/Cohen - Letter of Claim for Barclaycard Debt

Thanks for the links dx100uk.  Some useful tips that I wasn't aware of, much appreciated.

 

Still wondering whether to engage or not,  what the consequences are If I don't but if I do, would the debt get kicked down the road somewhat. 

 

I am not sure whether to pay much attention to the default date and if the debt gets statute barred, as I saw this as a key date in the scenario.

 

Re. post 2 in the link, I do not they have my phone number.

 

Thanks again.

 

Arthur M.

 

 

 

Apologies - that meant to say, they do have my phone number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you moved since taking this credit out and have failed to inform BC or Hoist in writing that you've moved?

you MUST reply regardless.

 

not sure what a phone number has got to do with anything?

 

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

Thanks for clarifying that I must reply.

 

I have moved. I have not informed Hoist, BC or the DCA of new address but they have it.

 

I mentioned about my phone number as is states on post 2 of the 'Pre-Action Protocol' link you provided that 'DO NOT USE OR GIVE THEM YOUR EMAIL/PHONE NUMBER.'

 

Thanks

 

AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should never ever run from debt.

You seriously increase your chances of a backdoor ccj

Which is why they have written.

Search here top right backdoor ccj

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

Thanks again dx.

 

That all seems to make sense. I am following up as per the suggested.  One thing; can you please explain why it is recommended to use the 'reply form PAP' attachment in the link you provided? Looks the same as the one provided by the solicitors, albeit with a much fainter/smaller font. So I'm not sure why this is relevant (unless of course I have missed something - entirely possible).

 

Arthur M

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

we have seen the std questions be changed to loaded ones in a dca's favour or asking for info that is not allowed

 

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...