hoist/? claim form - old barclaycard 'debt'

[larcy]

Name of the Claimant ? Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd

Date of issue – 17/3/16

 

What is the claim for –

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £xxx in respect of monies owning under an agreement

with the account number xxx pursuant to The consumer credit Act 1974.

The debt was legally assigned by xxx (ex xxx) 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.

 

3.The claimant claims

1 The sum of £xxx

2 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% from the xxx to the date hereof is the sum of £xx

3 Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £xx

4 Costs

 

 

What is the value of the claim? £3000 plus interest

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

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? Before 2007

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. Debut purchasers has issued claim

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not sure, do not believe so

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not sure, do not believe so

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

Why did you cease payments? 2011

What was the date of your last payment? 2011

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved?

Yes, CCA'd them back in 2009.

Response was insufficent (did not provide signed copy of original agreement, just photocopy of T's and Cs"

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

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

.

[dx100uk]

Full POC please

[larcy]

The claim is for the sum of £xxx in respect of monies owning under an agreement with the account number xxx pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974. The debt was legally assigned by xxx (ex xxx) to the Claimant and notice has been served. 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 £xxx

2 Interest pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% from the xxx to the date hereof is the sum of £xx

3 Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £xx

4 Costs

[dx100uk]

thankyou

 

 

is that date correct 17th march?

[larcy]

thankyou

 

 

is that date correct 17th march?

 

Yes. Have already acknowledged service and am aware of deadline for defence.

[dx100uk]

did send a new CCA request to the claimant and

a cpr to the sols>

 

who was the original creditor please

no need to hide this

[larcy]

Not to claimant no, sent new CCA request to the original creditor.

 

 

No reply as yet.

 

 

Did not CCA claimant as

 

 

i) they are offshore and

ii) wanted to see what response OC gave first.

 

 

Did send CPR to sols, but only a day or two ago. OC was Barclaycard

[dx100uk]

nothing to do with BC anymore

they are not taking you to court

the fleecing debt buyer is..

matters not what the OC holds...opps...!

 

 

where did you get that idea from...

 

 

get one running.

 

 

if you look in this forum

there are 10's of claims from HPH2 ltd for old BC debts they aquired whilst buying MKDP'and its portfolio

they are all speculative claims.

[dx100uk]

so Monday 4pm is your defence deadline

 

 

dx

[larcy]

I think it was from this forum that said to always CCA the OC not the current owner of the debt,

but ok will get a CCA to claimant off as well.

 

 

What address should be used if they are offshore (and therefore I assume have no legal obligation to respond).

 

What kind of holding defence should be put in in the meantime,

is there anything to use in the fact that OC did not respond adequately to original CCA many years ago.

 

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that failure to comply with CCA stops OC selling the debt in the first place,

but not sure how to use that in current defence

 

many thanks

[dx100uk]

nope CCA goes to whomever is chasing or you are paying

 

 

an SAR..always goes to the OC.

 

 

CCa should be going to Hoist. they are not overseas.

 

 

and no failure to comply means nothing toward selling.

[dx100uk]

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=hoist+claim+form+-+barclaycard+'debt'&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=hoist%20claim%20form%20-%20barclaycard%20'debt'&gsc.page=1

[larcy]

nope CCA goes to whomever is chasing or you are paying

 

 

an SAR..always goes to the OC.

 

 

CCa should be going to Hoist. they are not overseas.

 

 

and no failure to comply means nothing toward selling.

 

Sorry forgive me, my mistake, it was SAR I sent to OC, not CCA.

 

The address on claim form for Hoist is in Jersey, surely that is offshore

[dx100uk]

so what...

follow the other threads I linked too.

[larcy]

so what...

follow the other threads I linked too.

 

So send the CCA to Hoist's address in Jersey, correct?

 

Am reading through all the other threads now to find a no paperwork/holding defence, many thanks for that.

[dx100uk]

post it up before you file and we'll check it.[the defence]

[larcy]

So send the CCA to Hoist's address in Jersey, correct?

 

Am reading through all the other threads now to find a no paperwork/holding defence, many thanks for that.

 

Quick question, is it allowed to send CCA to claimant via their solicitors address in Leeds since that is the address on the claim form for sending documents, I have had problems in the past getting proof of delivery from outside of the UK

[dx100uk]

cant see anyone else needing to do that..

have you read of anyone else worrying about such

in the threads I linked you?

 

 

dx

[larcy]

draft defence below

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £xxx in respect of monies owning under an agreement with the account number xxx pursuant to The consumer credit Act 1974.

 

2.The debt was legally assigned by xxx (ex xxx) 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

1 The sum of £xxx

2 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% from the xxx to the date hereof is the sum of £xx

3 Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £xx

4 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 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 dealings with Barclaycard 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 a section CCA Section 78 request

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to Section 136(1)The law of Property Act 1925 and sec 82a of the CCA1974

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant s 87(1) of The Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

5. 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 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

 

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

 

9. 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

 

10. 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.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Andyorch
Particulars added and numbered

[AndyOrch]

Defence checked...just two small amendments in red.

 

Andy

[larcy]

Defence checked...just two small amendments in red.

 

Andy

 

Thank-you, much appreciated

 

Quick question so I understand what I'm arguing here, What is the relevance of the law of property act s 136 clause?

[shamrocker]

Thank-you, much appreciated

 

Quick question so I understand what I'm arguing here, What is the relevance of the law of property act s 136 clause?

 

The process of assignment of debts from, for example, a credit card company (Barclaycard) to a debt buyer such as Hoist, should comply with the Law of Property Act for it to be legally assigned. Unless it's legally assigned to the Claimant, the Claimant can't enforce it as it's not legally theirs.

 

P.S. 'Property' doesn't just solely refer to a building or house - it's anything that belongs to someone. I guess this is where he confusion lies, understandably.

[larcy]

The process of assignment of debts from, for example, a credit card company (Barclaycard) to a debt buyer such as Hoist, should comply with the Law of Property Act for it to be legally assigned. Unless it's legally assigned to the Claimant, the Claimant can't enforce it as it's not legally theirs.

 

P.S. 'Property' doesn't just solely refer to a building or house - it's anything that belongs to someone. I guess this is where he confusion lies, understandably.

 

Ok I understand that, but still don't get the relevance of the clause. S 136

doesn't define what the requirements are for compliance,

it just says that an assignment is effectual in law.

 

 

Is the sole argument there that if notice has not been given,

then assignment cannot have occurred or are there other requirements,

perhaps elsewhere, for assignment to have legally occurred?

[AndyOrch]

Add the following after section 136 LoP Act 1925.... section 82a of the consumer credit Act 1974

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/82A

[larcy]

so this has now moved on a little

 

1) Hoist have obviously indicated they want to proceed as about 30 days or so after filing defence

I received the notice of proposed allocation to small claims track to fill in

 

2) Received what seems to the the standard response to the S77-78 request from Robinson Way

refusing to comply and stating that since a defence has been filed all documents will be requested by Howard Cohen

as part of this process

 

3) received no response at all from CPR 31.14 request, they just ignored it

 

So I guess two questions

1) What to do next and

 

2) What is the purpose of making the CPR 31.14 and CCA S 77-78 request if the claimant can just ignore them with impunity.

Is there no way of getting the claim stayed or struck out on the grounds they have not complied with either request