Robinson Way and Company Limited to Robinson Way Limited

[prosser]

see here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?369201-Robinson-Way-and-Company-Limited-to-Robinson-Way-Limited&p=4163110&viewfull=1#post4163110

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Prosser

 

Tbh I believe everything you've posted would be useful to Bev, even more so in unredacted form. Not usually the done thing but in this instance perhaps you and Bev could have a chat by PM to discuss the best way to accomplish that whilst retaining privacy from a public forum.

 

I note the reference to an order within the letter to you from CCBC, was a copy ever served on you?

[Mike_hawk]

Ignore the 'order' bit, just twigged its a reference to yours as a first instance case and not the 2009 bulk entry.

[prosser]

Ignore the 'order' bit, just twigged its a reference to yours as a first instance case and not the 2009 bulk entry.

 

That's correct its with reference to the judge who made the order in Nov 12 (Though I have never seen the order itself! do you think I should write to the court to ask for a copy ?(will there actually be a formal order?) when he stated that if it was a change of company then they were and are required to do N244 to substitute the claimant. I just accepted the letter as proof !

[Mike_hawk]

I would think if there were an order on file for your case you should have been served a copy. I'd ask the question

[seanamarts]

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

 

 

 

I understand this was a tongue in cheek, play on words DB, but it dosnt fit well with the forum still looks like a swear

[DonkeyB]

Sorry, but the composer’s name actually IS Julius Fučík! (pronounced foo-cheek). Nowhere near a swear!

 

:roll:

[seanamarts]

Sorry, but the composer’s name actually IS Julius Fučík! (pronounced foo-cheek). Nowhere near a swear!

 

:roll:

I am aware of the name as I did check first, it was how you had written it, as I said i understood it was tongue in cheek/play on words, but to others it may not have been seen that way

[DonkeyB]

Consider my gaskin well and truly slapped!

[prosser]

Here Is the statement by a certain solicitor at DWF that accompanied the N244 Application Notice to substitute the claimant !

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42206[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42205[/ATTACH]

[prosser]

Here is the alleged notice off assignment sent to me by Robinson Way referred to in the statement. Funny I never received it.............

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42207[/ATTACH]

 

By the way I have not removed anything it came like this !!!

Edited March 6, 2013 by prosser

[prosser]

The alleged consent by Hoist Portfolio holdings 2 limited............

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42208[/ATTACH]

[prosser]

To be edited

 

 

The so called assignment between Robinson Way Limited and Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Edited March 6, 2013 by prosser

[seanamarts]

Prosser, please can you edit the last attachment, there are still personal details showing. Please can you take care with regards to posting attachments.

 

Thank you

[Shadow25]

Prosser-that NoA made me laugh out loud. If you are going to wait 3 years to rectify a defective NoA you'd think you could do a little better than that. Don't forget RW Ltd didn't become the name of the new company until 30/9/09 and the CC Licence wasn't in that name until a few days later still.

[prosser]

I must have spent a minimum of 200 hours over the last 4 years dealing with this. Does anyone think this is something I would be able to claim for ?

[DonkeyB]

To a degree, yes. But maybe not that degree!

[AndyOrch]

The alleged consent by Hoist Portfolio holdings 2 limited............

 

 

 

Unapproved attachment... if you could remove the Directors name prosser.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[prosser]

The alleged consent by Hoist Portfolio holdings 2 limited............

 

 

 

Unapproved if you could remove the Directors name prosser.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Sorry Andy I will re do it again !

[prosser]

Robinson Way should be very concerned !

 

http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/news/news-stories/2013/Mar/PrePackStatement

 

This will get very messy !!!

[prosser]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42547[/ATTACH]

 

Alleged consent to transfer proceedings

[DonkeyB]

A meaningless document in the context of this case. Such consent is not required if Hoist was assigned the account. Don't see the point of it as it's wrong anyway - it wants to replace the wrong claimant, of course. Their problem is with the previous "application".

[DonkeyB]

The only purpose of that document is to try and make good the lie of which claimant Hoist replaces. A deliberately misleading document - putting that in to court knowing there was no app to substitute the previous claimant is trying to fool the judge.

[prosser]

I will be raising it with the relevant authorities on behalf of all 17500 with the BIS, OFT, SRA and court service. Justice will come but it will take time especially as I am waiting till my court case is out of the way on 17th April. We need to start a campaign and get as many people on board as possible.. Statements from DWF and Robinson Way are wholly disingenuous and misleading. I cannot and do not believe for one second that a senior solicitor in a known and established solicitors as DWF do not understand when you have to apply to substitute a claimant and the difference between a change of name and change of company.

 

Its absurd and it will come back to bite them in the end.

[prosser]

I am so angered by DJ and DWFs they I have just composed the following letter. Has anyone got any tweaks or suggestions before it is sent to the operations manager at NCCBC

 

Thank you for the letter dated the 20th November 2012 In which it is confirmed that the judge has ordered that if there was a change of company then the company were required to apply on an N244 to substitute the claimant. I am also aware that a copy of the letter was sent to the claimant.

Furthermore there is no dispute by the claimant that a different company and legal entity are now the owners of any liability in relation to outstanding claims.

However it is now March 2013 and would like to know if the claimant has got back to the court. The reason I ask is that it would appear that approximately 17,500 people have been denied justice as they think that the substitution of the claimant has been sanctioned by Northampton County Court when in fact it hasn't. Not only have 17,500 people been denied justice but the court service would have lost approximately 1.4 million pounds in revenue as each and every case should have had a N244 application. Instead the claimant has tried to circumvent the civil procedure rules and get away with paying just £450 by making it look like the same company have merely changed their name when we all know that this is not the case.

The claimants are telling county courts up and down the country that the Bulk Centre have approved the substitution of the claimant when this is simply not the case. I have first hand proof of this in relation to my own case.

I would please like to know what steps Northampton County Court are going to take in order to notify the 17500 of the fact that the claimant has not been properly substituted by order of the court, and what steps are to be taken to ensure that the court service make sure that the claimants apply in each and every case in the correct manner by application on an N244 making sure the court service get the approximately 1.4 million pounds in lost revenues it is owed as a result of the claimant Robinson Way and Company Limited circumventing the law and civil procedure rules.

If you are not sure of the contents of my letter or require any further documentary evidence then please let me know. For now I enclose the emails relating to Robinson Way and Company and the Bulk centre concerning the change of name as well as company records showing that Robinson Way and Company and Robinson Way Limited are in fact 2 different companies.

In the meantime I look forward to your response