Robinson Way and Company Limited to Robinson Way Limited

[dx100uk]

you'd do better to PDF your docs prossor:

 

 

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

*********************************************************

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

try www.pdfescape.com TO BLANK STUFF,

*************************************************************

or

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or use www.pdfmerge.com

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

 

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

.

dx

[prosser]

Thanks I will do this later and will fix the other docs !

[DonkeyB]

Jesus... RW have 17,500 cases on the go?

[prosser]

Jesus... RW have 17,500 cases on the go?

 

 

They should have made 17,500 N244 applications at £80 a pop ! Instead it looks like the court thought it was a simple change of name (not a change of company). Things are about to get interesting !

[unclebulgaria67]

They should have made 17,500 N244 applications at £80 a pop ! Instead it looks like the court thought it was a simple change of name (not a change of company). Things are about to get interesting !

 

So there was a change in the company and not just a name change ? This change did require the N244 applications and they could not change the claims via a bulk process ?

 

As there is over £1 million + expenses at stake, I would have thought that RW would have to go to a higher court to get a decision made on this. If Northampton judges insist on 17,500 N244 applications, then I cannot see that RW would be happy with this.

[prosser]

So there was a change in the company and not just a name change ? This change did require the N244 applications and they could not change the claims via a bulk process ?

 

As there is over £1 million + expenses at stake, I would have thought that RW would have to go to a higher court to get a decision made on this. If Northampton judges insist on 17,500 N244 applications, then I cannot see that RW would be happy with this.

 

The thing is many of those cases would have also been with local courts not just Northampton Bulk Centre.

[DonkeyB]

From memory, I recall that when the buyout happened at RW, they actually forgot to tell their ‘customers’ about the swap – each and every account should have received a Notice of Assignment to the new company. RW claimed it was simply a ‘novation’, but it wasn’t. Because a novation requires the consent of all parties to an agreement.

 

Does anybody know if RW subsequently sent out NoAs to all account holders? If not, then the assignments remain bad.

 

I do hope there is no attempt to mislead the courts regarding the facts of the cases.

[seanamarts]

Thanks I will do this later and will fix the other docs !

 

Please can you make sure you double check with regard to names, this is very very important. I would really hate to see it have to be taken down after you fix the information that needs to be edited.

 

dx has given a good step by step guide to help, any problems or anything you are unsure about then please contact site team

[Shadow25]

Well done prosser-keep them squirming. A one-off fee of £450 as opposed to £1.4m-you couldn't make it up. The frightening thing is that virtually every DJ swallowed the line of a name change without question but we knew! Why on earth they didn't back off with you in view of the potential enormous downside goodness only knows. Best of luck with it all.

[Shadow25]

DonkeyB-the NoAs that were issued contained the wrong date of assignment and simply portrayed the transfer from RWCL to RWL. In fact there were name changes for both the old and new companies and a requirement for a new Credit licence which was correctly taken out in the new companies first name. However by the time they were operating as RWL the Credit licence had not been applied for in the name of RWL which is in itself criminal.

 

It was a complete smoke and mirror job and perpetuated by the substitution of the new company on the 17500 old company claims. In their attempt to give the impression of a seamless transfer they were actually having to go through a convoluted process in order to dump the liabilities of the old company and carry out the MBO. Very nearly got away with it but prosser seems to have nailed them.

[DonkeyB]

This all sounds similar to HFO Capital Ltd (Cayman Islands) transferring its assets to HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland) in 2008. And not bothering to tell anyone at first, and even putting false documents into court, for example, claiming that assignments had been made to the new company before it actually existed. HFO Ireland did not have a CCL when it acquired the assets.

[Shadow25]

What was the outcome there Donkeyb?

[DonkeyB]

Their consumer credit licences are ‘minded to revoke’ with the OFT and one of the company’s subsidiaries is in administration (for which I am predicting a prepack buy-out of assets).

[Shadow25]

Even more reason why RW should have backed off when prosser rumbled them. Extraordinary that they are perservering as this has the potential of having catastrophic consequences. Happy days!

[prosser]

Here is this better

Edited March 4, 2013 by prosser

[prosser]

Here is part of my email exchange with a certain solicitor from DWF from April 2012 !

Edited March 4, 2013 by prosser

[prosser]

Even more reason why RW should have backed off when prosser rumbled them. Extraordinary that they are perservering as this has the potential of having catastrophic consequences. Happy days!

 

Whats sickening is that they have chased me for 4 years and in documents they disclosed to me they purchased the debt for 8p in the £1

[Bev250264]

I know how you feel prosser. My original £8k debt is now £25k+ and now they're trying to get my house!! Nice work if you can get it......

[DonkeyB]

Prosser, you have a PM.

[prosser]

Here are the documents again.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42144[/ATTACH]

[DonkeyB]

All OK, prosser. Slight problem solved.

[prosser]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42149[/ATTACH]

 

Email exchanges with a certain solicitor from DWF in April 2012 I have more of his letters as well has his N244 applications to come !

 

There latest application is just odd a strange NOA which doesn't make sense and a weird consent letter from the director of hoist portfolio 2 holding, I will scan all this on, as well as my best friends statement from DWF (the most bent solicitor I've ever had the pleasure to know).

Edited March 5, 2013 by ims21

[unclebulgaria67]

There is obviously an argument outstanding as to whether this change in company requires a separate N244 to be completed or not. I suspect that RW and their Sols will continue to argue that this change in company did not require an N244 to be completed. It is then up to a judge to look at this company change and make a decision. Think this may end up in the High Court.

[prosser]

There is obviously an argument outstanding as to whether this change in company requires a separate N244 to be completed or not. I suspect that RW and their Sols will continue to argue that this change in company did not require an N244 to be completed. It is then up to a judge to look at this company change and make a decision. Think this may end up in the High Court.

 

On what basis would there be that argument ?

[unclebulgaria67]

On what basis would there be that argument ?

 

I suspect that they will argue that this is not a fundemental change in company. i.e it is not changing from Grape to Grapefruit. It is essentially the same company that is operating.

 

However, I am not an expert in company law and how it affects any court proceedings. There must be law and cases that exist that cater for the change that RW have made, without needing to complete an N244 in every case.

 

When any Judge looks at this, they will obviously examine how RW Ltd took over from RW & C Ltd.