Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

[jadex]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

I am AAD+ member so we can move over.
Cheers

[Spud]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

I have started a thread in AAD+ to discuss the more delicate parts of this matter with regard to letters received from Howard Cohen

It is not to replace this thread, More to supplement and keep the details away from prying eyes

Niddy, This was your original thread, Are you cool with that?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

We never discuss tactics, here or AAD+.

Jo may discuss tactic with you but we ask you to keep it private as we can't let our tactics fall into the wrong hands.

If you've received a claim then start a thread or ask general questions here. Jadex - I'd follow my last few replies and keep shtum and date the envelope when it was received.

[Feline13]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Quick update on my two debts. At least they send the letters out together on the same day ..
Both the same letter from Robinson way.
Saying no minimum payment required -average payment plan £17.04 per month

Take control today,contact before 11/03/16 to tell us what you can afford.

I still haven't got around to contacting HSBC about the dates of my last payments. Should I be doing this ASAP ?

[jadex]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

My view is where's the harm in sending the AAD LBA Response template letter?

They've sent you a LBA. They've complied with Pre-Action Protocol so why not do the same. After all just one letter could nip this in the bud.

I guarantee you that Hoist will have no idea of the history of your account with MKDP. They bought a shed load of delinquent debt with just the account number, the balance outstanding and your contact details. I very much doubt they will have seen the correspondence file. If Hoist don't know the facts then Howard Cohen solicitors won't know them either.

I have to sort of disagree here with highlighted bit.
How can they have no idea when they have bought the whole company (not just accounts from the other one)?
Presumably the whole company means all archives/paperwork included. Otherwise, what's the point of buying a company instead of buying only accounts?
Therefore IMHO: Hoist = MKDP hence they know everything they need to know. Just my 2p

[jadex]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

moved question to AAD+

[Pixie]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Quick update on my two debts. At least they send the letters out together on the same day ..
Both the same letter from Robinson way.
Saying no minimum payment required -average payment plan £17.04 per month

Take control today,contact before 11/03/16 to tell us what you can afford.

I still haven't got around to contacting HSBC about the dates of my last payments. Should I be doing this ASAP ?

I think I would as Howard Cohen now seem to be sending out LBAs.

If they are ignored for too long then they may instruct Howard Cohen solicitors to chase you so it makes sense to try to establish when you made your last payment to these accounts in case they're SB already or soon - can you check your old bank statements?

To get an accurate answer you may wish to send a Subject Access Request to HSBC. If you do that now you'll be fully prepared for any legal situation which may arise in future. You might as well know the good/bad news sooner rather than later so you can decide how to manage this situation.

Here is the AAD SAR template letter > http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...l=1#post495040

Plan B x

[stuffthebanks]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Hi guys,
Hope you are all keeping well.....
Nice letter received yesterday 7-3-16 from Robinsons...
Just to remind me of the very generous offer they made of 50% settlement....
Or i can pay off in instalments...with no minimum payment......
Ignore and file this......

Fascinating to read how you guys are doing with this lot....

All the best

Steve

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

I have to sort of disagree here with highlighted bit.
How can they have no idea when they have bought the whole company (not just accounts from the other one)?
Presumably the whole company means all archives/paperwork included. Otherwise, what's the point of buying a company instead of buying only accounts?
Therefore IMHO: Hoist = MKDP hence they know everything they need to know. Just my 2p

Many debt purchasers literally buy tens of thousands of records with nothing more than a name/address/balance even if they are buying another DCA firm. This is why they send out the fishing letters, and why responding in an incorrect way can make things worse for yourself by acknowledging that an account (and hence balance) exists.

You're also making an assumption that either company has excellent record keeping or some sort of CRM (customer relationship management) system. Even if a company has the latter, does not mean that staff are keeping accurate records of correspondence or the history of dispute on that system. Very often they get a letter, throw it in the bin, and the record in the CRM system is 'letter revieved from customer'

When I have SAR'd companies it has never ceased to amaze me the information that is lacking (even omiting their own letters which I have kept copies of!).

And although I see your point of view regards paperwork etc, there is still a very good chance that this would have been 'lost' during the transition period.

Even if the paperwork/history is in a vault somewhere, doesn't mean they have the resources/processes/organization to easily pull it out either!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Just to clarify they purchase mass accounts and that's on disc format. Yes there is recent account history and codes supplied with each sale of accounts but usually manual intervention occurs only when something not computerised within the account is requested. That's why a SAR always goes to the OC but if a claim has been issued we sometimes ask for one from the DCA. Tactic.

But to answer speculation, Jadex is correct in that being Hoist / MKDP etc are one and the same, you can be rest assured they use the same system or access the oldest as a legacy thus suggesting they are fully aware of ALL RECENT COMPUTERISED entries (caps to emphasise it's specific to recent incoming / outgoing / account activity pre/post sale/purchase).

[Susie]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Just to clarify they purchase mass accounts and that's on disc format. Yes there is recent account history and codes supplied with each sale of accounts but usually manual intervention occurs only when something not computerised within the account is requested. That's why a SAR always goes to the OC but if a claim has been issued we sometimes ask for one from the DCA..

Thanks for that, its very interesting. So if OC sells to DCA1, and then it goes to DCA2, how much would DCA2 know about what had been written to OC and/or DCA1 - or would that vary depending on who each party was? I am thinking that if the disk only contained the basics like OC, date defaulted, last paid date sort of thing they would be on a very sticky wicket if they decided to take court action without getting all the information needed, which is probaly half the reason the lose so many!! Should they or do they actually get all the correspondance if they go to court or do a lot not bother and just run with the basics. Yes I am a curious cow

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Thanks for that, its very interesting. So if OC sells to DCA1, and then it goes to DCA2, how much would DCA2 know about what had been written to OC and/or DCA1 - or would that vary depending on who each party was? I am thinking that if the disk only contained the basics like OC, date defaulted, last paid date sort of thing they would be on a very sticky wicket if they decided to take court action without getting all the information needed, which is probaly half the reason the lose so many!! Should they or do they actually get all the correspondance if they go to court or do a lot not bother and just run with the basics. Yes I am a curious cow

Section 7.13 of the CONC guidelines is very clear on the accuracy of data required to be transferred between agents (which includes any history of dispute). However CONC are only guidelines, though useful guidelines if argued correctly (for example if a debt purchasor tries to use the excuse they were not passed any history from the OC).

Whatever should happen, the reality is, especially once an account has passed hands several times in the way you describe above, is that the history of the account tends to get lost (if it was ever held in the first place). This is why keeping a record of all your correspondence is essential.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Thanks for that, its very interesting. So if OC sells to DCA1, and then it goes to DCA2, how much would DCA2 know about what had been written to OC and/or DCA1 - or would that vary depending on who each party was? I am thinking that if the disk only contained the basics like OC, date defaulted, last paid date sort of thing they would be on a very sticky wicket if they decided to take court action without getting all the information needed, which is probaly half the reason the lose so many!! Should they or do they actually get all the correspondance if they go to court or do a lot not bother and just run with the basics. Yes I am a curious cow

It varies and in this case I was specifically referring to hoist / MKDP etc (ie compello group companies).

CONC 7.13 is in relation to DCA -> you. It's more explaining how a lender should behave. It's not about what data is transferred as part of a bulk sale of accounts.

It does not regulate nor suggest anything for business -> business.

-> https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/hand...ate=2015-10-26

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

CONC 7.13 is in relation to DCA -> you. It's more explaining how a lender should behave. It's not about what data is transferred as part of a bulk sale of accounts.

It does not regulate nor suggest anything for business -> business.

I agree that CONC is not much use in regulation of B2B assignment of accounts but section 7.13.5 muddies the water a little with its wording:

A firm should ensure (subject to any legal requirements) that adequate and accurate information it holds about a customer in relation to a debt is made available to persons involved on its behalf in the debt recovery process.

Information relating to the customer which should be made available to agents or employees includes, for example:

1. (1) being in financial difficulties;
   
2. (2) being particularly vulnerable;
   
3. (3) disputing the debt;
   
4. (4) a repayment plan or forbearance being in place;
   
5. (5) having a representative acting on the customer's behalf.
   

So it wouldn't be an unreasonable view that if an OC has to ensure the provision of adequate and accurate information above to its agents, it should also provide this information on assignment of debts also.

However I know I'm now using the term unreasonable, OC's and DCA's in the same sentence

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Barclaycard (MKDP) Sold to Hoist Portfolio

Anything that affects affordability / hardship / legal dispute etc should have full notes when assigned. They're triggered under a different flag (status) so the debt purchaser is aware of a valid dispute / financial hardship etc.

I'm just trying to expand on how it works without spelling it out as each firm is different; but in the main purchasers will be fully aware and have access to anything relating to hardship / disputes.

Anyway, as you say - not much hope of any of them applying common sense really