Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Latest letter today.   Headlined ‘NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE A SHERIFF COURT SUMMONS’.   First paragraph: ‘Take notice that unless you make a payment of this debt immediately application may be made to the courts to issue a sheriff court summons against you’.    Second paragraph: ‘If a claim is issued a court fee and costs will be added to the debt, interest may also be added. If decree or judgement is made against you this may make it difficult for you to get credit in the future.’   Other than those two paragraphs it’s just ways for me to pay etc.   Should I continue to ignore DX?  
    • Apologies, I wasn't sure if you needed some of the info.  I will remove all.    I have the DSAR from Student Loan Company - this has a text message code to access.    How shall I forward this to you - as there are many pages....?    Many thanks   
    • Upload unapproved.....please fully redact any identifiable data before uploading documents....including claim numbers etc etc.   Andy
    • lookinforinfo   how do you mean, can you please explain more? thanks dx, I will register first on MCOL
    • Apologies, in advance, for this lengthy blurb... We have recently returned a Range Rover Evoque to the lease company - Lex Autolease. It should have been returned start of Oct 2020, but the car developed catastrophic faults making this impossible. The car was taken on an initial 4 year lease (8k/year), but extended twice for 2 extra 6 month periods - big mistake! End of Sep 2020, the clutch failed on the car at less than 32k miles. It was recovered to a repair centre and sat outside, pending a reply from the lease company - as it was their responsibility to pay for the clutch repair - after we emailed to complain about the clutch failure. We received an auto reply to the email, so it was received, but they never responded to us - despite several other emails and twice daily phone calls. Fast forward to mid November, I took the decision to pay for the clutch repair, so we could get rid of the car back to the lease company, and recover the costs legally. £3006 - the flywheel had failed and caused the clutch failure. Absolutely not fit for purpose for a modern car to have a flywheel/clutch fail at 32k miles. However, during the time the car had sat outside, in some terrible weather, and had developed a leak in the windscreen, causing a fair bit of water ingress and a huge amount of mould to form. Several phone calls to Lex Autolease later and they kept saying they would get in touch, but to date, they have still not been in touch. They did say that fixing the windscreen was our problem, and given the constant rain we were having at the time, I had to pay for Autoglass to repair this at a cost of some £533. They have given me photos that show the window was not fitted properly in the first place. And have fixed approx 2,500 Evoque windscreens in a 6 month period - they are acutely aware of just how bad these windscreens are. We have since complained to the BVRLA, and the Financial Ombudsman, who have both responded. The FO are saying that Lex has 8 weeks to resolve our complaint in writing. But wasn't clear as to when this 8 week period was to start. Bearing in mind, that it has been 14-15 weeks since we first emailed them about the clutch fault - and that we had no use of the car during all this time, despite continuing to pay the rental agreement. The BVRLA told us they had contacted Lex Autolease, and were told that the repair centre had deemed the clutch failure to be down to our driving style. They lied. They have no access to the report that we received from the repair centre who categorically state that the clutch failed due to a faulty flywheel. I responded to the BVRLA right away - 1 days ago now - and have had no further response from them as yet. So, my questions are these: 1... compensation for the clutch repair, refund of payments during a period where the car was unusable = these should all be repaid by the lease company - correct? 2... compensation for the repair of the windscreen, and for the replacement of a child car seat that was damaged due to mould = these should be repaid by Land Rover - correct? Whilst we didn't rent another vehicle during the approx 3 months we had no use of the Evoque, we were severely disadvantaged as a result. Are we also due any further compensation from the Lease company for their negligence, and potential criminality, in lying about the findings of the repair centre...? NOTE: we are based in Scotland. The vehicle was delivered AFTER 1st October 2015 (Consumer Rights Act), but the lease was signed prior to this (Consumer Credit Act). Any advice forthcoming would be most appreciated.  
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Hoist/Cohen PAPLOC - ex newday card debt


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Unfortunately I have received a letter of pre claim from Howard & Cohen / Hoist for a Barclaycard debt.

 

I defaulted on this card earlier this year due to my then lack of work and no income. It is not statute barred as it was taken out in 2019 online.

 

Hoist claim the debt was legally assigned to them on 170720.

 

Value of their intended claim is £979

 

Their letter is dated 26/11/20, envelope post mark is 03/12/20 and arrived 04/12/20.

 

It gives 30 days to comply with their forms or pay the debt.

 

Could someone give me a little advice re this please?

 

Thanks BSII

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

pre claim? not a letter of claim under the pre action protocol?

 

scan it up to PDF please read upload carefully

 

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 ex barclaycard debt
  • dx100uk changed the title to Hoist/Cohen ex newday card debt

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 PAPLOC - ex newday card debt

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...