Robinson Way and Company Limited to Robinson Way Limited

[Bev250264]

Am I being thick here? The N244 app shows the change from Robinson Way & Co Limited to Hoist. Shouldn't it be Robinson Way Limited to Hoist - or is that the point??

[Mike_hawk]

Am I being thick here? The N244 app shows the change from Robinson Way & Co Limited to Hoist. Shouldn't it be Robinson Way Limited to Hoist - or is that the point??

 

I believe its got itself in a mucking fuddle bev

[prosser]

The penny's dropped Bev. But it gets better. I will PM you privately soon but please don't advertise it (by PM with others is fine) as I don't want them to know whats ahead.

[DonkeyB]

There N244 Application notice again

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42178[/ATTACH]

 

See, a properly worded, crystal clear application – albeit mistaken in fact – which is NOT what occurred with the old RW companies!

[prosser]

See, a properly worded, crystal clear application – albeit mistaken in fact – which is NOT what occurred with the old RW companies!

 

Wait till I scan the attachments and Witness Statement though. You will laugh and you couldn't make it up !

Edited March 5, 2013 by Andyorch
edited accusation

[Bev250264]

Oh this just gets better and better!!!

[Mike_hawk]

Bev

 

"If" it had followed the chain and not apparently resiled its bulk amendment it may have got away with an undertaking from denton. By breaking the chain it's left itself open to a striking out as it can evidence no locus standi in the case.

 

In effect its now bob the butcher or gus the grocer at no 23 attempting to bring the case against prosser.

 

In your case it hasn't c##ked it up (yet).

[Bev250264]

More's the pity...

[Shadow25]

Prosser- you have reached the same stage with RW that I did. You know they've blown it big style, everyone else can see they've blown it big style but still they plough on regardless claiming black is white. If my experience is anything to go by you will be a mere spectator next month- enjoy!

[DonkeyB]

What’s most puzzling is why they are doing individual N244s, instead of a bulk change...

[Mike_hawk]

I would imagine its hoping to circumvent being pulled up on the 2009 debacle.

 

Its actions now just seem to be an attempt to perpetuate the myth it created.

 

Would think its exposure to costs and write offs will dump it in the doo doo .

[DonkeyB]

On reflection... as I’ve posted elsewhere...

 

RW is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hoist, ie. the Hoist Group bought the share capital of the company for £30m.

 

Therefore RW remains a single legal entity, as part of a group, and does not need to reassign the accounts at all.

 

So I am very puzzled as to why this change was necessary.

 

Also on reflection, I think the application is wrong – it has been done in the name of Hoist. It should have been done in the name of RW, requesting a change to Hoist.

[unclebulgaria67]

What’s most puzzling is why they are doing individual N244s, instead of a bulk change...

 

These 17500 cases they did the bulk process on in 2009, would include existing CCJ's they are receiving payment on or may be subject to enforcement actions ? Just thinking about the legality of a company with a court order that no longer exists, just changing the name on an existing court order, without completing an individual N244 form. How could they receive payments or enforce the court order, without going through the N244 process ?

[DonkeyB]

Indeed. They would still have to notify all account holders of the change as well. Can’t charge interest or enforce without doing that.

[DonkeyB]

I think RW/Hoist should listen to this... they’re definitely[EDIT]

 

Edited March 6, 2013 by seanamarts
mind the 'P's & Q's' please .

[DonkeyB]

Prosser – have you actually been sent an NoA regarding an assignment from RW to Hoist?

[prosser]

On reflection... as I’ve posted elsewhere...

 

RW is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hoist, ie. the Hoist Group bought the share capital of the company for £30m.

 

Therefore RW remains a single legal entity, as part of a group, and does not need to reassign the accounts at all.

 

So I am very puzzled as to why this change was necessary.

 

Also on reflection, I think the application is wrong – it has been done in the name of Hoist. It should have been done in the name of RW, requesting a change to Hoist.

 

I did think about this myself. But this new company is offshore and I think its some kind of tax avoidance that the debt has been assigned. I have some more documents to scan on which may shed some light for you.

 

The application is not wrong in terms of what you said as CPR 19 and practice direction 19 allows Hoist to ask to be substituted. The application is wrong, incorrect, and misguided in law but on that point it is okay!

[prosser]

Prosser – have you actually been sent an NoA regarding an assignment from RW to Hoist?

 

Never originally but they have included it in the application stating that 'DJ has been advised by MS' that the notice was sent out to me in Nov (a pack of lies).Its completely made up, does not comply with LPA 1925 and is incoherent with no personal details on it. I will post this tonight hopefully along with the WS and it will make a bit more sense.

[prosser]

What’s most puzzling is why they are doing individual N244s, instead of a bulk change...

 

This bulk thing is a myth there is no facility in law or under the CPR to substitute the claimant that I am aware of. They can only bulk to change the name of the claimant but not to substitue.

[DonkeyB]

:lol:

[Bev250264]

Prosser, do you have unredacted copies of the bulk ccbc application?

[prosser]

Prosser, do you have unredacted copies of the bulk ccbc application?

 

Hi Bev

 

When you say the bulk ccbc 'application' do you basically mean the emails that went back and forward between Robinson and the ccbc.

[Bev250264]

I don't know to be honest. I'll find out and get back to you.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi prosser

 

Anything containing the claimants witness evidence, any order or direction and miriams w/s complete with date please. Pretty much anything that sets it up for a fall under questioning.

[prosser]

Hi prosser

 

Anything containing the claimants witness evidence, any order or direction and miriams w/s complete with date please. Pretty much anything that sets it up for a fall under questioning.

 

Hi Mike.

 

I am happy to give unredacted copies. But what I would ask is that you or Bev go through my PDF attachments so you can see everything I have in relation to their so called 'application' to change the claimant. But remember NCCBC in a letter to me state that they should have formally applied to substitute on a N244 to chnage the claimant if it was a different company (Which it was)!