My Journey with DMP's CCA's and PPI's

[JLC]

Hi,

Ok, the first thing to do is not panic. There is help available.

I haven't been able to look through the previous 27 pages of this thread, but I have read the diary posted at #416 above in conjunction with your post re the Letter of Claim. I am just making some notes on the same and then will reply.

Thanks. No panic here as I have never received a cca from Robinson way/hoist or whoever and have had a few problems with them. Technically by Feb, this should be statute barred anyhow.

[Colin G Quinn]

Ok, m preliminary thoughts are;

The alleged agreement pre-dates 2007. This is significant, and potentially the end of any Claim which becomes a reality. I would appreciate if you would email me separately to advise if you recall entering into an agreement with the alleged original creditor, when it is said you so did, as I have reasons to believe you may not have.

You say the last payment towards the account was is 2016. In that case, and if the creditor is serious about issuing a Claim, then time is running out for them to do so because of Limitation (colloquially referred to as the 'statute barred date'). On that basis, if they are going to issue a Claim, they likely will regardless of whether you respond to the Letter of Claim or not, in order to protect themselves from being time barred by Limitation. That is not to say the latest Letter of Claim is not a last gasp attempt to get you to pay.

You say the account was in default in 2011, but that you did not receive something which resembled a default notice, or at least specified itself to be such a document, until 2016. That is peculiar, and I would appreciate also if you could send me that document to review. My initial thinking is that an unenforceable agreement may have deliberately not been defaulted until years after the event to protect Limitation and any prospective sale to a debt purchaser.

There is a senior Court authority that holds issuing a Claim purely to avoid Limitation is an abuse of the process. I am also considering whether the same potentially gives rise to an argument for you of an unfair relationship under the CCA.

You say you received notice of an assignment to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited. You have not mentioned any further notice of assignment. Almost certainly, that creditor will not be the alleged 'holder' of the debt, for reasons it is probably you best contact me separately about. A lack of chain of assignment, is a broken chain and the end of any Claim for an alleged debt.

You say this matter has been pre-legal since 31/10/2016. That is a positive and I repeat the creditor may not have issued yet, owing to known unenforceability etc.

Have you eventually received any response from FOS to your complaint? It is almost certain FOS will not investigate a complaint against an unauthorised party.

Do not issue a second CCA request if your initial request has already been breached.

Upon further information I'll be better placed to advise you further, but I would not recommend responding to the letter just yet.

[JLC]

Ok, m preliminary thoughts are;

The alleged agreement pre-dates 2007. This is significant, and potentially the end of any Claim which becomes a reality. I would appreciate if you would email me separately to advise if you recall entering into an agreement with the alleged original creditor, when it is said you so did, as I have reasons to believe you may not have.

You say the last payment towards the account was is 2016. In that case, and if the creditor is serious about issuing a Claim, then time is running out for them to do so because of Limitation (colloquially referred to as the 'statute barred date'). On that basis, if they are going to issue a Claim, they likely will regardless of whether you respond to the Letter of Claim or not, in order to protect themselves from being time barred by Limitation. That is not to say the latest Letter of Claim is not a last gasp attempt to get you to pay.

You say the account was in default in 2011, but that you did not receive something which resembled a default notice, or at least specified itself to be such a document, until 2016. That is peculiar, and I would appreciate also if you could send me that document to review. My initial thinking is that an unenforceable agreement may have deliberately not been defaulted until years after the event to protect Limitation and any prospective sale to a debt purchaser.

There is a senior Court authority that holds issuing a Claim purely to avoid Limitation is an abuse of the process. I am also considering whether the same potentially gives rise to an argument for you of an unfair relationship under the CCA.

You say you received notice of an assignment to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited. You have not mentioned any further notice of assignment. Almost certainly, that creditor will not be the alleged 'holder' of the debt, for reasons it is probably you best contact me separately about. A lack of chain of assignment, is a broken chain and the end of any Claim for an alleged debt.

You say this matter has been pre-legal since 31/10/2016. That is a positive and I repeat the creditor may not have issued yet, owing to known unenforceability etc.

Have you eventually received any response from FOS to your complaint? It is almost certain FOS will not investigate a complaint against an unauthorised party.

Do not issue a second CCA request if your initial request has already been breached.

Upon further information I'll be better placed to advise you further, but I would not recommend responding to the letter just yet.

Thanks.

I have just sent an email with some attachments and information on.

[Colin G Quinn]

Hi, yes I have received your email. I'll review it and the attachments and come back to you.

However, after a very quick flick through, I think some of my preliminary suspicions above are correct.

[Colin G Quinn]

Hi,

I know in your email to me you say you want to respond to the letter you have received by the 22nd, however, I would suggest you consider that position again.

You have said the matter is confusing, and quite rightly so. I'm confused as to what the actual alleged case against you is. What I am not confused about, however, is that the prospective Claimant is clearly confused about everything. That is good. When they are confused they make mistakes which are often fatal to them. They already have. Don't forget, the onus of proof is on a Claimant.

By the way, I'm guessing you haven't realised the body of your email to me is actually a very good outline of a prospective defence.

Turning to the attachments I have received;

1. Attachment 1 - That is not a Default Notice. It is a letter advising you that you have been defaulted, which is a very different thing entirely. If you haven't been served with a compliant Default Notice before that letter any termination of the alleged agreement was a breach of the agreement by the creditor and the creditor has subsequently gone on to break the law, in so terminating. There are a myriad of issues which arise from that, the main thing being any Claim would be unlawful. Your data may have also been incorrectly reported.

Straight of the bat, this potential case already has all the hallmarks of the very first case in which I was instructed to conduct the advocacy for a consumer at a small claims trial. That consumer had represented herself until finding my firm a couple of days before a trial (had my firm represented her from the beginning the matter would have never reached trial). In that case, Hoist relied upon a letter such as the one you have sent to me. I argued to the alternative and District Judge Singleton dismissed the Claim against my client stating the Claimant's case had made him 'lose faith in the process'.

2. Attachment 2 - The less said about this the better. It is not the credit agreement specified in the Letter of Claim.

3. Attachment 3 - Very much the same as point 2 above, except this agreement isn't even an agreement with the alleged original creditor.

4. Attachment 4 - I'm not sure what this document is and whether it has been sent to you or created by you, I also can't rotate the document so I am looking at it upside down. However, I note all of the specified agreements contained in this document seem to contain the wording, 'Pay full refund to customer'. If you could provide more information on this document I would appreciate it.

5. Attachment 5 - Finally, and as suspected, the Letter of Claim has not been sent on behalf of the entity which you say you received notice of assignment to. The chain of title is broken.

The specified agreement doesn't relate to any of the documents you have sent to me.

The specified date of assignment is contradictory.

The alleged creditor, who has no title to Claim any debt from you is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to exercise the rights and duties of a lender.

All in all, this prospective Court action seems entirely unlawful.

Robinson Way and Hoist are basically the same company, in answer to your query. There will have been no assignment between those companies.

As I thought, you say the Financial Ombudsman were not interested in your complaint, I would appreciate if you would send me their final response.

Responding the the Letter of Claim is an option open to you. However, if they are going to issue a Claim they will do so regardless, and so you need to consider whether responding will allow them to review any of the serious issues, set out by me above.

[JLC]

Hi,

I know in your email to me you say you want to respond to the letter you have received by the 22nd, however, I would suggest you consider that position again.

You have said the matter is confusing, and quite rightly so. I'm confused as to what the actual alleged case against you is. What I am not confused about, however, is that the prospective Claimant is clearly confused about everything. That is good. When they are confused they make mistakes which are often fatal to them. They already have. Don't forget, the onus of proof is on a Claimant.

By the way, I'm guessing you haven't realised the body of your email to me is actually a very good outline of a prospective defence.

Turning to the attachments I have received;

1. Attachment 1 - That is not a Default Notice. It is a letter advising you that you have been defaulted, which is a very different thing entirely. If you haven't been served with a compliant Default Notice before that letter any termination of the alleged agreement was a breach of the agreement by the creditor and the creditor has subsequently gone on to break the law, in so terminating. There are a myriad of issues which arise from that, the main thing being any Claim would be unlawful. Your data may have also been incorrectly reported.

Straight of the bat, this potential case already has all the hallmarks of the very first case in which I was instructed to conduct the advocacy for a consumer at a small claims trial. That consumer had represented herself until finding my firm a couple of days before a trial (had my firm represented her from the beginning the matter would have never reached trial). In that case, Hoist relied upon a letter such as the one you have sent to me. I argued to the alternative and District Judge Singleton dismissed the Claim against my client stating the Claimant's case had made him 'lose faith in the process'.

2. Attachment 2 - The less said about this the better. It is not the credit agreement specified in the Letter of Claim.

3. Attachment 3 - Very much the same as point 2 above, except this agreement isn't even an agreement with the alleged original creditor.

4. Attachment 4 - I'm not sure what this document is and whether it has been sent to you or created by you, I also can't rotate the document so I am looking at it upside down. However, I note all of the specified agreements contained in this document seem to contain the wording, 'Pay full refund to customer'. If you could provide more information on this document I would appreciate it.

5. Attachment 5 - Finally, and as suspected, the Letter of Claim has not been sent on behalf of the entity which you say you received notice of assignment to. The chain of title is broken.

The specified agreement doesn't relate to any of the documents you have sent to me.

The specified date of assignment is contradictory.

The alleged creditor, who has no title to Claim any debt from you is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to exercise the rights and duties of a lender.

All in all, this prospective Court action seems entirely unlawful.

Robinson Way and Hoist are basically the same company, in answer to your query. There will have been no assignment between those companies.

As I thought, you say the Financial Ombudsman were not interested in your complaint, I would appreciate if you would send me their final response.

Responding the the Letter of Claim is an option open to you. However, if they are going to issue a Claim they will do so regardless, and so you need to consider whether responding will allow them to review any of the serious issues, set out by me above.

Attachment 4 was something that was in the SAR from barclays which relates to any potential PPI. I hadn't paid any, but was in the SAR anyway.

I can't find the final response from the FOS as it was a pointless exercise as they weren't interested so I didn't keep it. Because of covid, it was done over email and phone but when I spoke to them, they weren't interested in the fact that hoist hadn't supplied a CCA.

Are you advising not replying to the letter of claim? If so what happens next especially if they issue a claim? Would I pass it to you to deal with?

[The Tech Clerk]

you answer letter of claim, as stated they tend to issue one anyway but at least you are showing not scared of them, they try to hoodwink you in many ways once issued come back here for advice/help

[JLC]

you answer letter of claim, as stated they tend to issue one anyway but at least you are showing not scared of them, they try to hoodwink you in many ways once issued come back here for advice/help

So, for now, do nothing and wait?

[The Tech Clerk]

read the last post from myself and Colin your choice, we cannot tell you what to do only suggest, up to you! once a claim issued then talk to Colin etc

[JLC]

read the last post from myself and Colin your choice, we cannot tell you what to do only suggest, up to you! once a claim issued then talk to Colin etc

Ok, thanks. I will sit on it and see what happens.

[Roger]

Ok, thanks. I will sit on it and see what happens.

What Colin has kindly done is vetted the various documents that you have sent! Colin's comments are very helpful for you as well as other AAD members!

Empowered by these comments you are in a better position to decide for yourself your next course of action or otherwise.

[JLC]

What Colin has kindly done is vetted the various documents that you have sent! Colin's comments are very helpful for you as well as other AAD members!

Empowered by these comments you are in a better position to decide for yourself your next course of action or otherwise.

It is empowering but anxiety and doubt still exists in my world. The more I read it, the more confident I feel but the anxiety is still there.

[Roger]

Well in the end its simply really because it will be Hoist's decision.

But their intent is maximise their profits curtesy of your or mine hard earn monies!
These debts were written off by the Original Creditors and offset against tax.
The Account is sold for pennies in the pound and the poor debtor penalised by having their Credit trashed for 5/6 years!
Then comes the pestering and begging letter, phone calls, emails, sms.

Anxiety and Doubts well we at AAD can share in that experience.

In my own CASE I and my family are indebted to Joanna for defeating PRA on our behalf. This was my own personal decision which I do not regret.
Your decision should likewise be your choice.

[JLC]

Well in the end its simply really because it will be Hoist's decision.

But their intent is maximise their profits curtesy of your or mine hard earn monies!
These debts were written off by the Original Creditors and offset against tax.
The Account is sold for pennies in the pound and the poor debtor penalised by having their Credit trashed for 5/6 years!
Then comes the pestering and begging letter, phone calls, emails, sms.

Anxiety and Doubts well we at AAD can share in that experience.

In my own CASE I and my family are indebted to Joanna for defeating PRA on our behalf. This was my own personal decision which I do not regret.
Your decision should likewise be your choice.

Thanks xx it's good to have AAD have my back xx

[Night Monkey]

In my own CASE I and my family are indebted to [Joanna's team] for defeating PRA on our behalf.

Likewise.

For what it's worth, I faced a similar decision (whether to respond to a letter of claim or not) when PRA threatened to take me to court. Ultimately I decided not to, since the perceived wisdom was that PRA would likely take court action whatever I did and all a response would do would be to allow them to get their ducks in a row before pulling the trigger. However, once court action is started the clock is ticking and whatever they get together to defeat any defense has to be done within certain timescales.

In my case they couldn't do that, and Colin saw them off in fairly short order.

As in the comments above, we must make the decision based on what we feel is best for us, but hopefully with AAD behind you know that you'll have support whatever you choose to do.

Good luck...