HPH2/Cohen Claim Form barclaycard 'debt'***Settled by Tomlin Order***

[isbo]

Hi, first time caller!

Fantastic forum, you guys do amazing work.

Thank you.

 

I'm in receipt of a very similar County Court Business Centre Claim Form from Hoist (who??) and Howard Cohen.

 

Thanks to this thread today I'm sending the claim form back as "defend all" and submitting CPR 31.14 to Cohens and CCA to Hoist.

 

My question is

- what do I do next,

since I've now told the Court that I'm going to defend,

and therefore have a limited time-frame to do so?

[isbo]

Name of the Claimant - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd

Date of issue –1st March 2016

What is the claim for –

 

 

1.owing under an Agreement with the account no. 5301xxxxxxxxxxX pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

The debt was originally assigned by MKDP LLP (Ex Barclaycard) to the Claimant and notice has been served.

2.The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement.

A default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA.

 

The claimant claims

1. The sum of £3300 (rounded)

2. Interest pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00percent from the 17/10/12 to the date hereof 1227 is the sum of £900 (rounded)

3. Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £1.00 (rounded)

4. Costs

 

What is the value of the claim? - £3,300 rounded

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Credit Card

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? I can't remember but I think it was circa 2006.

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor

or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. HPH2

 

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I can recall no.

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Unsure.

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No.

 

Why did you cease payments?

I suffered a nervous breakdown brought about by stress, was hospitalised and then sectioned. I was self-employed then subsequently in receipt of DLA for a period of time, before becoming self employed again.

 

What was the date of your last payment? No idea but it would be at least as far back as 2012.

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No.

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No.

 

 

 

due to financial marriage breakdown and financial implications from that I have moved a number of times since 2011 and appeared to have dropped 'off the radar' until recently. I think my signing up to Noddle credit file has re-ignited me with creditors.

[isbo]

Have done Andy. I know I've said it once but a huge thank you.

[isbo]

Andy - I have today received two letters, one each off Howard Cohen & Robinson Way. They are transcribed in full, complete with their rubbish grammar as follows:

 

1) From Howard Cohen & Co. dated 9th March but only received today.

 

Dear Mr XXXX

Our Client: HPH2 LTD (Ex Barclaycard)

Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Amount Due: £4,500 (rounded by me)

 

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated (they have not inserted any date here) made under C.P.R. 31.14 for documentation mentioned in our Particulars of Claim.

We are currently in the process of retrieving the documents requested.

Therefore, please accept this letter as our agreement to a general extension of time. Once we have provided you with the documents requested we will grant a further 14 days for you to respond to the Claim Form as you feel appropriate.

Yours faithfully,

Howard Cohen & Co.

 

2) From Robinson Way Debt Collectors dated 17th March and also received today.

 

Dear Mr XXXX

Due to: HPH2 LTD (Ex Barclaycard) Our Reference: xxxxxxx

Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxx Amount Due: £4,500 ([rounded by me] exactly the same amount as the other letter)

We acknowledge receipt of your request under sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act.

Your account is now with our client's solicitor Howard Cohen & Co and they have issued a County Court Claim against you.

As you have filed your defence in this matter, all documents will be requested by our client's solicitor Howard Cohen & Co as part of this process therefore please find enclosed your £1.00 fee.

If you have any questions please contact our office on 0345 266 8876.

Your faithfully,

Customer Contact Manager

 

So, almost two weeks since I wrote to them both, I get a reply, and the amount claimed has dramatically and without explanation leapt by twelve hundred quid. What should my next move be, please?

[isbo]

Hi Martin, and thanks.

Edited March 19, 2016 by martin2006

[isbo]

Thanks, but I'm pretty confused now. My first thought was 'why would I want to allow them more time?'.

[isbo]

Thanks both ever so much. I'll try to find the appropriate defence on this forum.

[isbo]

So sorry but I'm struggling to understand exactly what it is that I must do next: am I to write to the Court, if so is there a particular form to use?

[isbo]

Bugger it. I did think it was odd to offer them an extension.

[isbo]

Hi Ford, and thanks for your help.

 

OK that makes sense to me, thank you.

 

To file my defence, what do I use?

A Court form?

 

I've tried to find it on this forum but am struggling to know where exactly to look.

 

I've put a search for "defence" on the site but obviously this brings up heaps of threads.

[isbo]

Thanks very much both. I shall endeavour to find the answer.

[isbo]

I didn't use MCOL to acknowledge, rather I did it via Royal Mail signed for. Not even sure what MCOL means!

 

I haven't yet sent anything other than the acknowledgement, and the CPR 31.14 and CCA. Was I supposed to send anything else, then?

[isbo]

No, I've not sent a defence yet. Still unsure as to what to send, and whether or not there is a correct form to also send.

[isbo]

Thanks for the link, that's great. So I can file defence on there, magic. Sorry Ford but is you're "no" a no to the fact that I need to use a certain form?

[isbo]

Ta Ford. Would you hold back filing the defence just now in case they "find" the paperwork in between me filing my defence and the cut-off date? When the pack landed I nearly Henry's Cat myself, and found this wonderful forum.

[isbo]

Thanks Martin, this I will do buddy. (That sounds Yoda-esque)

[isbo]

Such a huge help you know, thank you. So your advice is to register on MCOL first (asap I guess), then next Thursday file my defence on-line? Just concerned with Easter etc and bank holibobs.

[isbo]

Yes but I was concerned that this Friday and next Monday might skew the dates. I'm just so fearful of cocking this up, please forgive my concern.

[isbo]

Sorry Ford, it's my nature to worry. So - register with MCOL then file a defence next Wednesday or Thursday?

[isbo]

I sure will!

[isbo]

OK I've now registered with MCOL.

 

 

Am I correct in thinking that since no paperwork has as of yet been forthcoming,

my defence is along the lines of no paperwork?

If so, how is this (one I found via searching the site):

 

Defence

 

1.The claimants particulars of claim are vague and fail to disclose any cause of action, they appear to be an abuse of the process in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the CPR.

 

2. Without admission that any cause of action is shown by the Claimant it is denied that the Claimant has a claim whether as pleaded or at all.

 

3. No documents supporting the claims in the particulars have been offered which the defendant needs to establish what agreement it is that this action is based upon

 

4. Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is extremely disadvantaged and the claimant’s claim appears without merit

 

5 .Further to above the defendant is unable to plead effectively or at all. The defendant is embarrassed.

 

Or does that go into too much detail? Should I just say something like "the claimant was asked by the defendant to provide agreement details, and none has been forthcoming. Therefore the claim is without merit and should be dismissed."?

[isbo]

Particulars of Claim

 

1.This claim is for the sum of £3,300 (rounded) in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the account no. 5301xxxxxxxxxxX pursuant to The consumer credit Act 1974 (CCA).

 

2.The debt was originally assigned by MKDP LLP (Ex Barclaycard) to the Claimant and notice has been served.

 

3.The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement. A default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA.

 

The claimant claims

The sum of £3300 (rounded)

Interest pursuant to s69 of the county court Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00percent from the 17/10/12 to the date hereof 1227 is the sum of £900 (rounded)

Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £1.00 (rounded)

 

Costs

 

 

 

 

 

Defence

1 The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with Barclaycard in the past.

It is denied I have any knowledge of the above Claimant or if any alleged debt was assigned to them.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)

 

5. On receipt of the claim form, the Defendant sent a request under the customer credit Act 1974,by way of a section 78 for a copy of the agreement,

and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant is and remains in Default of said s78 request

 

A further request made via CPR 31.14, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim .The claimant has not complied

 

6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant and

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and

c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim

 

7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed

 

8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

[isbo]

How does that seem for a defence, please folks?

[isbo]

Brilliant, thanks Andy! I'll re-read it this evening and amend as you say. Blummin' marvellous!

[isbo]

Amended to match their Particulars of Claim (wouldn't allow me to edit the post above for some reason, so apologies for this):

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.This claim is for the sum of £3,300 (rounded) in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the account no. 5301xxxxxxxxxxX pursuant to The consumer crediticon Act 1974 (CCA).

 

2.The debt was originally assigned by MKDP LLP (Ex Barclaycard) to the Claimant and notice has been served.

 

3.The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement. A default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA.

 

The claimant claims

The sum of £3300 (rounded)

Interest pursuant to s69 of the county court Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00percent from the 17/10/12 to the date hereof 1227 is the sum of £900 (rounded)

Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £1.00 (rounded)

 

Costs

 

Defence

1 The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Barclays but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is further denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) from either the original creditor or MKDP LLP or HPH2.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied,I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to s.87(1) CCA. or any advance notice or warning.

 

5. On receipt of this claim, I the Defendant sent a request under the customer credit Act 1974,by way of a section 78 for a copy of the agreement and payment of the statutory fee of £1.00 the Claimant is and remains in Default of said s78 request.

 

A further request made via CPR 31.14, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim .The claimant has not complied

 

6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and

c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim

 

7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed

 

8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act

 

9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.