HOIST FINANCE UK HOLDINGS 3 LIMITED

[Dottir]

It’s interesting isn’t it that Lowell bought Hoist but are not prepared to go with what Hoist (or RW) said.

Another tack might be to send a complaint to Lowell saying that Hoist had already admitted the account was UE and as such CONC clearly says they should acknowledge this CONC13.1.6 (8). Then add you will be happy to take this to the FOS.

Get this off asap as the shouldn’t issue a claim while there is a valid dispute

A lot depends on how strong you feel but if you worked in financial services I guess you are no walkover.

Let us know what you decide

By the way, if a claim is issued, you defend you should be asked for mediation. Provided both sides agree you can then make an offer- maybe say you want to drawer a line under this so how about a tenner?

sorry on an iPad at the moment as in a rather chilly Cracow ( or Krakow), fully of bloody tourists.

I think sometimes you just need to be a pain in the butt so they don’t want the aggravation.

[NotMartinLewis]

Hi

A few points of interest here.
Just to clarify - is this a formal Letter Before Action, which encloses a multi-page reply form? Yes, it appears to be.

It seems this is the account commented on at post #19 by JCS - "This is good news - Robinson Way (on behalf of Hoist) have admitted that the debt is unenforceable. This is particularly pleasing since it was an overdraft which some debt owners try to say are not covered by s77-79 CCA." - Yes that is correct

No doubt you still have that letter from Robinson Way ?? - Yes

Were you advised to send another CCA74 request to Lowell, notwithstanding that you already had that letter from RW? - No, I stuffed this bit up all on my own before I made my July 2023 post here (and have been kicking myself since reading the responses)

Your diary timeline doesn't say what the Lowell response to your DSAR was? - They complied with the request. Data received on 25.07.2023 including: what looks like a copy of my administration/contact record, account level data, sales file data & copies of correspondence between myself and Hoist / Robinson Way prior to the reassignment from Hoist to Lowell (including a copy of the 18.07.2020 letter from Robinson Way stating the debt was not currently enforceable). will update diary to include this now.


Regarding Lowell's comments about sections 77-78 CCA74, my understanding is that section 78 relates to running-account credit agreements, and that these include credit cards, store cards, authorized overdrafts. The provisions in section 78A include specifically an authorized non-business overdraft agreement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...39/section/78A

It seems there could also be issues with the assignment chain from Lloyds to Hoist to Lowell. - yes this was noted in a previous response but I'm not sure I fully understand the issue (or how to use it as a defence when replying to the letter of claim) at present.

Perhaps you should have a (free) consultation with JCS, if this is a formal Letter Before Action. - I think that might be a sensible next step. Will try to make that happen tomorrow.

See responses in red - thank you.

[NotMartinLewis]

In my opinion you should immediately send the forms back saying you intend to defend the case ( that’s tick box D) and if you like cite MFS portfolio v Phelan and West where it was held that a S78 request is valid for a current account.

Then ask for
A copy of the agreement
The default notice
The term8nation notice
The deed and notice of assignment ( all of them) it has been assigned twice now).

Hopefully that will keep them quite for a while

If they do issue a claim you can negotiate with a Tomlin order to prevent a ccj

Thanks for the reply. I'm definitely going to reply (I will email scanned copies & send paper copies recorded delivery as I've left things very late now) and will make sure the response references the MFS portfolio v Phelan and West case and that the docs you listed are requested.

In response to your other post - you are right, I don't want to end up in court. Aside from anything else its likely to be quicker, cheaper and a lot less stressful to settle the claim with Lowell than fight the case..... its just that that will feel like they won.

Thank you for the reply

[NotMartinLewis]

It’s interesting isn’t it that Lowell bought Hoist but are not prepared to go with what Hoist (or RW) said. - yeah I thought something similar.... kind of why I didn't think / take advice and just sent the DSAR / CCA requests in July 2023 - lesson learnt.

Another tack might be to send a complaint to Lowell saying that Hoist had already admitted the account was UE and as such CONC clearly says they should acknowledge this CONC13.1.6 (8). Then add you will be happy to take this to the FOS. - interesting, its very clear from DSAR response that they were in possession of this information. Will get onto this first thing tomorrow.

Get this off asap as the shouldn’t issue a claim while there is a valid dispute

A lot depends on how strong you feel but if you worked in financial services I guess you are no walkover. - see below and make up your own mind )

Let us know what you decide

By the way, if a claim is issued, you defend you should be asked for mediation. Provided both sides agree you can then make an offer- maybe say you want to drawer a line under this so how about a tenner? - Did actually make a few settlement offers to Robinson Way back in 2021 I believe - all were ignored except last one were the reply asked for a lot of personal financial info so I ignored it. [Note: DSAR to LLoyds (orig creditor) uncovered evidence that I had informed them I was vulnerable and tried to settle my debt prior to them selling it on. Compensation was paid which I still have as a fund for settling (or engaging a solicitor) if necessary. Lloyds did offer to buy back the debt but baulked at my response of 'only if you write the whole lot off' as Rob Way had already declared it unenforceable by this point.]

sorry on an iPad at the moment as in a rather chilly Cracow ( or Krakow), fully of bloody tourists. - enjoy and thank you for taking the time out to reply while away

I think sometimes you just need to be a pain in the butt so they don’t want the aggravation.

comments in red above. thanks.