Robinson Way on behalf of Hoist

[TibetanMonk]

Heyv guys, long time no speak I know!

Hope everyone is well.

I today received a letter from RW stating Hoist have instructed them to collect the balance of an old Barclaycard I had years ago, £1100ish balance, defaulted years ago and certainly more than 6 as now not on me CR nor have I acknowledged the debt/made a payment.

I'm aware RW are unscrupulous in their tactics and need guidance on if ~I should send a SB letter to them or not?

Much love as always,

TM

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Hello, it has been a long time since we last 'spoke' around 2016.

Is that a new avatar I see?

I've taken a quick look at your old threads but I couldn't see the Barclaycard one so can you post a link to the history before I say anything.

Was it assigned to anyone else before Hoist such as IDEM?

Di

[TibetanMonk]

Hey Di!

Yes! Figured I'd out grown the old one!

https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/d...-6-years-again
https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/a...reement-upload

These are two old ones, went to MKRR, then Robinson, then to Hoist and now back to Robinson who are acting on behalf of

Thanks

TM xx

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

went to MKRR, then Robinson, then to Hoist and now back to Robinson who are acting on behalf of . .

That makes sense.

MKDP (part of the Compello Group) were bought by Hoist in 2015.

Is that letter you've just received a Notice of Assignment from one 'Hoist' to another 'Hoist' in the same group?

From what you say the debt is Statute Barred so maybe ignore that letter.

Even if it wasn't SB Hoist would have some difficulty issuing legal proceedings against you since they are not authorised by the FCA.

Jo explains it here >

Both of these companies are not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to exercise the rights of a lender. They rely on the para 55 FSMA 2000 servicing exemption.

Their cases, or their predecessors Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited and Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited, rarely reach trial in cases we are involved with. They have not been successful at trial with us.

We look forward to using the same legal arguments in the future against Hoist which we used against Idem Capital Securities Limited in the recent successful FCA authorisation Appeal where the Circuit Judge found that the para 55 FSMA 2000 servicing exemption did not allow the unauthorised debt purchaser to issue proceedings in the county court.

The Hoist companies also have issues with their assignment process and documentation.

Di

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/d...-6-years-again
https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/a...reement-upload

These are two old ones

One of those links is broken, but I have now read the other thread and can see that this debt may have been defaulted in May 2014 so this could impact on the Statute Barred date.

I definitely wouldn't write to Hoist or Robinson Way stating it's SB until you have clarity on the Default date issue.

Although Hoist's lack of FCA authorisation status won't change even if the debt isn't SB

Di

[TibetanMonk]

Hey Di,

just a letter saying they’ve been appointed to recover the debt, not a notice of assignment.

I never did get clarity on the date of default as far as I’m aware, I’ve checked my CR but of course it’s not there as it’s over 6 years now

TM x

[TibetanMonk]

Also, RW's website state they are appointed on behalf of Hoist and they are authorised by the FCA?

[Colin G Quinn]

Hoist Finance UK Limited are authorised by the FCA as stated on the Robinson Way website. However, I take it the account in question has not been allegedly assigned to Hoist Finance UK Limited. Let me know if I'm wrong though.

[TibetanMonk]

Hi Colin,

The account has been assigned to Hoist Portfolio, and Robinson Way are acting on behalf. This is the excerpt from the letter I received today:-

We have been appointed as the collection agent for HFUKH1L (EX Barclaycard) We've been asked to agree a payment plan with you.

TM

[Colin G Quinn]

Hi,

Yes, so Robinson Way are instructed by Hoist Finance UK Holdings 1 Limited and not Hoist Finance UK Limited. So the statement on their website, although correct, is irrelevant in your case as they are instructed by an unauthorised entity.

[TibetanMonk]

Hi Colin,

Oh, perfect news!

In regard to the default date, hows best to pursue this so I can know for certain if SB is appropriate?

Thanks

TM

[Colin G Quinn]

Just remember however, the fact they are unauthorised will likely not deter HFUKH1L from continuing to pursue you or issuing a Claim if they wish to do so.

Re the Default point, I apologise if I've missed this information, but can you remind/tell me when the account was defaulted please?

[TibetanMonk]

Hey Colin,

I'm unable to advise, unfortunately I don't have the paperwork and the entry has been removed from my credit report owing to the account being opened more than 6 years ago

Thanks

TM

[Colin G Quinn]

Hi TM,

Again I apologise if you have already specified this on a thread or informed my colleague Di; however I'd appreciate if you remind me of the issue at hand.

As I understand it you have been defaulted (rightly or wrongly), that being a default was registered on your Credit File, but you believe the date to of default to be incorrect.

Where the date of default is held to be the date upon which the 6 year Limitation period accrues, I posted earlier today that numerous Creditors will rely on the fact the default wasn't registered the day after the expiry of a Default Notice and much later. That argument can be used to suggest a failure to provide the requisite time to remedy a breach is insignificant, or it can be used to extend a Limitation Period.

In effect, company X could serve a Default Notice, being the precondition of and notification to a Consumer of an intention to enforce a regulated Agreement, but not actually register the Default for some time, whilst that company got its house in order' and prepared its case. Obviously, that position would face opposition.

[TibetanMonk]

Hi Colin,

Yes thats right, initially the default date was 3 years prior, then, when the new DCA took over it was 3 years forward. Which was obviously incorrect. I'm in a pickle because of course, the new date would make 6 years SB in May of this year, and to get a letter from RW now, makes me believe they're going to do a claim prior to the SB.

TM