Thanks DX. Yes I can pay, I was under the impression that I would receive some correspondence detailing what actions I needed to take in relation to making arrangements to pay. Feel foolish for waiting now, I will make some telephone calls tomorrow.

Update and question. Having reflected upon the whole experience, I am still pleased that I was able to make a decent effort at defending the claim made against me despite the outcome. In addition to the information that I posted shortly after coming out of court, I think the following could be helpful for others in the future: On entering the court and 'signing in' - I was advised by the Usher that the Claimant's representative was already present and they introduced us to each other. I was asked to speak to him in a side room, during which he advised that I was under no obligation to speak to him but that he would like to review what he believed my defence was and that he was also authorised to make an effort to settle with me prior to the hearing commencing. He further informed that he did not have a figure articulated to him, but that if I was willing to seek to reach a compromise then he could contact the Claimant to establish what may be possible. I declined the offer to discuss any matters with him, although I lost, I took this as a sign that they were not 100% confident that they would win. I think one of the biggest factors that went against me was the fact that for a period of time in the past, I had paid regular payments before cancelling the agreement to pay. The reality of this is that at the time of setting up the payments in 2018, I was really worried about litigation and the potential impact that this may have had on me, so I set up the payments. Fast forward a couple of years and, following some changes and becoming enlightened here that it is best not to blindly make payments, I made the CCA request, which was defaulted, so I stopped the payments. This ultimately led to the path that commenced the claim. At the hearing the judge said that he interpreted my payments as my acceptance of the debt. The judge informed that he believed my defence was a technical one based upon the CCA1974 with a focus on the reconstituted agreement. He was satisfied that although there were different account numbers, the fact that I had, as part of my defence, acknowledged a previous financial relationship with the OC, then he was unconcerned about this and as such felt that the POC were clear enough for him in relation to the account numbers and was persuaded that there was no confusion. He said he was not troubled by this. The reconstituted agreement did not contain some of the information required, but the judge accepted the claimants steer that section 1.2 of the document was sufficient in lieu of my details be included. Section 1.2 stated: "You", "yourself", "your" means the person signing this agreement and whose name and address is stated on the Reply Card or your application. The judge advised that, after reviewing this and s78(6) that in his view the agreement was fit for purpose. At the end, after the judge had concluded, the claimants representative asked the judge to award additional costs that were not included in the claim. He said that these were in relation to his own attendance at the hearing and that he was asking these to be paid by me due to my defence being an unreasonable one and one that had no prospect to proceed, he then made effort to reference some things but the judge cut him off. The judge advised that the threshold for this was very high and that he was not close to being satisfied and that my defence was reasonable and one which I was perfectly entitled and legitimate to make. My worry right now is that I have yet to receive any communications from anyone since the hearing. How am I supposed to proceed? The judge made a reference to something being "14 days is the usual provision". Is this in relation to making payment? I want to be able to get this closed now and cannot afford for a CCJ to appear on my credit record at this stage. Does anyone have any advice on what I should do to move this forward?

So it’s done, the claimant was awarded judgement and I lost. I have driven to get a coffee and left all of my notes in the car but I’ll have a go at providing as much information as I can. Briefly though, the claimant brought up Carey v HSBC pretty much straight away, stating that this permits the use of the recon agreement. I was able to articulate my points, counter some of the ones made and question the representative they sent. In many ways I felt it was a good process, just not a great outcome for me. Ultimately, the judge ruled that my defence was a ‘technical’ one and that the recon agreement provided was sufficient. I obviously proposed otherwise, pointing out the missing information that would be needed but, after looking at s.78, the judge agreed with the claimants representative and that he would accept that it is valid for the purpose of the claim. Judge informed that he was sufficiently persuaded in relation to the two account numbers and that they were connected to Vanq and that I had admitted in my defence that I had previously had financial dealing with Vanq.

Thanks Andy - I’m here now, not long to wait!

dx, Andy - thank you to you both. Very much appreciated. I will steer clear of Carey - completely understand. Just to comment further on the points above: 2. I'll be sure to draw specific attention to the lack of required information in the recon. Am I right in my belief that this means the claimant still remains in breach of my s78 request? 3. I will definitely highlight the 21 months difference to the OC signature on the recon. (It's the exact same cut and paste signature and date that I have seen on other threads from Lowell/Vanq). 4. There is only one account number on the POC, the 19 digit one. All letters, including the NOA from both Vanq and Hosit only use this 19 digit account number. The DN has a 16 digit one, no reference to the 19 digit. No correspondence links the 2 numbers together in any way until the claimants WS2, which has that one line entry on an A4 piece of paper. I literally could have just made up that in 2 minutes on a laptop. 5. I'll try my best with challenging the WS validity and accuracy. Worth a try. Thanks so much again for taking the time to help me along the way. You've helped me to feel confident in my position and I feel prepared to be able to do the best that I can.

Thanks Andy. I'd value thoughts on the following: I would like to focus on the following points, drawing these to the Judge's attention to try and persuade decision in my favour: 1.The documents referred to in the POC should have been available to Claimant as they would need them to evidence their entitlement to bring the claim should they be required. The claim was issues in Jan 22, the Claimant was not able to make any attempt at producing any of the documents until May 22. Demonstrating the 'seeking a non-contested process and automatic judgement' tactic. They clearly knew that they were not in possession of such documents. 2.The documents produced are questionable. The reconstituted agreement does not comply with legislative requirements set in s78(1) of the CCA 1974, (case law precedence set in Carey v HSBC - can I refer to this?) there is an absence of any information that makes this a copy of an agreement that could be connected to me (name, address etc..). Therefore, they remain in breach of my CCA request by failing to comply with s78 and therefore s78(6) applies. 3.Further to the above, the validity of the non-compliant reconstituted agreement is further questioned with respect to if it is correctly executed. My name is typed at the end, is devoid of the ticking of any acknowledging information that would demonstrate consent to the agreement, does not contain any IP address information to evidence that this was an agreement entered into online as alleged in para 26 of their WS1. The OC ‘signature’ is entered and dated 21 months after I am alleged to have ‘signed’ the agreement. 4.Account numbers. This debt is in relation to a credit card, which have 16 digit account numbers. In all correspondence from the claimant there has been an account number which is 19 digits long, this is used for everything. The only document that a 16 digit number is used is the DN, this contains only the 16 digit number and makes no reference to the 19 digit account number. To all intents these could be 2 completely separate accounts. The claimant submitted a late second WS attempting to clarify this, pointing out that the OC used an ‘internal reference number’ (the 19 digit one) and that the relationship is evidenced in an exhibit that they claim to be an extract of the ‘debt sale’. This is at Post 46. 5. The claimants WS and exhibit bundle contain the wrong Claim Number. Can I raise the Carey v HSBC, if I did, should I take a copy of the judgement with me for reference? Would this be foolish? I am completely going down a rabbit hole if I do this? I was thinking that if the judge didn’t have knowledge of this that it could be important to highlight that yes, a CCA can be reconstituted by a creditor, but that it must contain the correct information.

Evening. I am making my final preparations before the hearing on Friday. I am looking for some final pieces of advice to confirm if I have the correct documents in my own bundle to take. Additionally, I would like to gain some feedback on a few points and whether or not that these are the areas I should focus on when I have an opportunity to speak to the judge - I'll post these separately as trying to avoid confusion and want to keep things tidy. Firstly, in my own bundle I intend to have the following; Claim Form, Defence my WS and exhibits their 2 WS and exhibits Do I need to take anything else?

Nothing else to back it up. All that has been provided is here within this thread.

Received another WS from Hoist yesterday. It seeks to address the disparity between the account numbers, which I had included in my own WS. Not sure if what they have provided is sufficient for this, nor if the fact that it was submitted after the 'cut off date' matters. WS02 Hoist.pdf

Early June 2017.

Early June 2017. Yes, I now fully understand the requirements of a reconstituted agreement, learning from here has been a real positive in all of this. I also recently read the Carey v HSBC judgement. I'm equally nervous and pleased that the hearing is 'in person' as opposed to online using video conferencing. I feel that so long as I can clearly articulate that the holes in the agreement and where it does not comply with s.78 then I have a chance.

Help - I've had a panic about WS submission. I sent to Court and the Claimant's Sols. Is this correct? Or should I have sent direct to the Claimant?

Received their WS in post yesterday. In addition to the uploaded file, it had the same documents that were included with their letter (ones at Post 29 above) and some print outs of the history of the account. They have the incorrect Claim Number on the WS - does this matter? Any thoughts and/or guidance would be welcomed. Hoist-Vanq WS-compressed.pdf

No, nothing from them yet. I was holding off on this for as long as possible so that I may be able to appropriately respond to points made. I can hand deliver to the Court, but will have to send via special delivery to the claimant on Monday now. Fingers crossed that something arrives before then.

So the fee was paid. This is my draft WS, would welcome comments, amendments and guidance. I have not yet received any correspondence from Hoist or their solicitors. IN THE COUNTY COURT AT TOWN - CLAIM NO: Number BETWEEN: HOIST FINANCE UK HOLDINGS 3 LIMITED (CLAIMANT) and MY NAME (DEFENDANT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- WITNESS STATEMENT OF MY NAME ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- I, MY Name WILL SAY as follows: I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence to this claim. The facts contained within this statement are true to the best of my knowledge based on the information disclosed by the claimant so far. INTRODUCTION 1. 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 to which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. HOIST FINANCE UK HOLDINGS 3 LIMITED claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit. 2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post- contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. BACKGROUND 3. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card Agreement between the defendant and Vanquis Bank Limited under an account number of xxxxxxxxxxx. Please note, Credit Cards issued by Vanquis Bank Limited are done so with a 16 digit account number and not 19 digits as referenced by the claimant. 4. Whilst it is accepted that the defendant has in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis Bank Limited, the defendant is unable to recall with precision of what alleged debt the claimant refers to. 5. On XXth January 2022, I received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £3541. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £3541 in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no XXXXXXXX pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Contained within the claimant’s particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment to them from Vanquis Bank Limited, with notice given. 6. The defendant made a formal written request to the claimant for them to provide a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the XXth January 2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00. (Exhibit XX) 7. The defendant received a reply from the claimant dated XXrd February 2022 to confirm receipt of the request for documentation, but advising that a fee was no longer required. The claimant returned the fee. (Exhibit XX) 8. On XXth January 2022 the defendant, as entitled to do so under CPR 31.14, made a formal written request to the claimant’s solicitors, Howard Cohen & Co. for them to provide verifiable, legible copies of the documents referred to with the Particulars of Claim. Namely; a completed Consumer Credit Agreement, the Notice of Assignment and the Default Notice. (Exhibit XX) 9. The defendant received a reply from the claimant’s solicitors dated XX February 2022 to acknowledge receipt of request for documentation referenced in the Particulars of Claim, advising that documents would be retrieved and provided and that no further action would be taken until 14 days after these had been provided. (Exhibit XX) 10. Despite the above point, and without providing any documentation referenced with the Particulars of Claim, the defendant received a letter dated XX March 2022 from the claimant’s solicitors that the claim would proceed. (Exhibit XX) 11. The defendant received correspondence from the claimant’s solicitors dated XXth May 2022 which informed that this was a reply to the CPR 31.14 request and defence dated XX February 2022. Enclosed with this letter were a copy of a blank Credit Card Agreement, amended only with my name and a time and date typed at the end, and copies of the other two documents referenced in the Particulars of Claim. (Exhibit XX) CONCLUSION 12. To date no valid full true copy of the executed Credit Card Agreement has been disclosed. It is obvious that the Copy Agreement is merely a template with my name, time and date added at the end. There is no account reference number, no address, nor details of this being an on line application which would contain tick boxes as validation of my application and acceptance, and timestamp and conformation of my IP address. The alleged Vanquis Bank Limited authorising signature is dated XX March 2012, almost 21 months after the date added below my typed name. The claimant has had over 9 months to respond to my request and this attempt to recreate an agreement falls short of all the prescribed terms required pursuant to section 78 of the CCA1974. 13. Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78 6a of the CCA1974 the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement. 14. For the above reasons the claim bought by the claimant is without merit and possibly an abuse of the court process. It would be far more gracious and forthright for the claimant to admit that they do not have possession of the correct valid paperwork and this is an attempt to mislead and convince the court that the claimant can disclose the legal valid documents on which its claim relies on. It is therefore requested that the Claimants Claim is struck out for the above stated reasons. STATEMENT OF TRUTH I, MY NAME the 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: ................................................... Print Name: MY NAME Dated: MAILING DATE

Thanks for opening the thread. Finally had an update on this, received the N157 - Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track. Key dates: 18 October for submission of all documents 4 November for the hearing N157 - NOA Small Claims Track.pdf

Update - mediation is now scheduled for 8 June. In addition, last week I received correspondence from HC outlining some history in relation to the account. Included with this are; Evidence of Means Form, Vanq Credit Card Agreement, NOA and a DN. The DN looks okay, but I think the agreement is just a copy of some generic terms and conditions. The only place that it has anything of my personal information on, is the very end where my name is typed. I'll upload all when I get a chance in the next couple of days.

No, there is nothing about my DQ being filed. That’s what I’m worried about.

I'm still waiting to hear anything regards to the mediation, is this normal to wait a month or more to progress with this? MCOL has now updated today to say that DQ filed by the claimant. Prior to this, the last entry was DQ sent to me on 31/03. I'm worried that I should have heard something by now.

Just seeking confirmation that I am getting this next step correct. I complete the N180, yes to mediation, yes to small claims track and my local county court as the hearing venue. Once I have done this, I send a copy to the court (recorded delivery), the claimant and the solicitors (proof of postage). Is it correct that I only sign the court copy? Do I sign the other 2 copies? Also, is it correct that I withhold my telephone number and email address on the claimant and solicitor copies?

Well looks like the hope in this one was premature. MCOL now says "DQ sent to you on 31/03"........by my reckoning that's 45 days.

Still nothing on MCOL - Is it safe to assume that there is nothing in the pipeline and that this in now automatically stayed? I

Last MCOL entry reads: Your defence was received on 14/02/2022 at xxxxxxx Fingers crossed the pipeline is clear......

Morning. I was away with work last week, when I arrived home I had received a letter (dated 9 March) from HC advising that they have notified the court they will be proceeding with the case. Informs that a DQ will be sent to me in due course. I am also invited to settle and advised that any reasonable proposals will be considered. To date I have received nothing from either HF or HC regards to documents. Additionally, nothing is registered in MCOL post my defence on 14 Feb 22. Have they left it too late now, is the claim 'auto stayed' due to being timed out? 2022-03-21-HC proceeding- do you want to settle now.pdf

Thanks Andy - all submitted now, with the suggested amendments.