• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

** DISCONTINUED ** Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ** DISCONTINUED ** Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

    Received a claim? YES
    Issue Date: 3/7/17
    Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: YES
    Total Amount Claimed: £8000
    Claimant’s Name: HOIST
    Solicitors Firm: HOWARD COHEN
    Original Creditor: BARCLAYS BANK(EX BARCLAYCARD)
    Original Debt (eg. Credit card/Loan/Overdraft) : CC

    Particulars of Claim: This claim is for the sum of £8k in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the accounts noxx pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974(CCA). The debt was legally assigned by Barclays Bank plc(EX BARCLAYCARD) 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 £8K 2) Costs


    Is the debt Statute Barred (have you had any contact with the creditor or claimant over the last 6 years?): NOT SB

    List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR ): Pre Action Conduct - Request for information- to solicitors Howard Cohen
    CPR18 to solicitors Howard Cohen
    CCA to Claimant Hoist
    SAR to Barclay Bank PLC

    I also have another claim, issued the same date, for a similar amount, with same details as above for another Barclay card.

    I have now received Notice of proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track for both claims.

    Do I say YES to mediation but enclose a letter, explaining my requests for documents/agreements to verify their claim, have been ignored?
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

    Originally posted by Shinybee View Post
    Received a claim? YES
    Issue Date: 3/7/17
    Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: YES
    Total Amount Claimed: £8000
    Claimant’s Name: HOIST
    Solicitors Firm: HOWARD COHEN
    Original Creditor: BARCLAYS BANK(EX BARCLAYCARD)
    Original Debt (eg. Credit card/Loan/Overdraft) : CC

    Particulars of Claim: This claim is for the sum of £8k in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the accounts noxx pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974(CCA). The debt was legally assigned by Barclays Bank plc(EX BARCLAYCARD) 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 £8K 2) Costs


    Is the debt Statute Barred (have you had any contact with the creditor or claimant over the last 6 years?): NOT SB

    List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR ): Pre Action Conduct - Request for information- to solicitors Howard Cohen
    CPR18 to solicitors Howard Cohen
    CCA to Claimant Hoist
    SAR to Barclay Bank PLC

    I also have another claim, issued the same date, for a similar amount, with same details as above for another Barclay card.

    I have now received Notice of proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track for both claims.

    Do I say YES to mediation but enclose a letter, explaining my requests for documents/agreements to verify their claim, have been ignored?
    I've had a quick peek at your other thread so I can see that you now have two claims each for c £8k plus costs (and ongoing interest?) issued on the same day by the same Claimant (Hoist Portfolio) who's instructed the same solicitors (Howard Cohen) in relation to two debts previously owned by the same original creditor (Barclaycard).

    The court may (or may not) decide to combine the claims (to save court time and costs) which would/could result in them being allocated to the Fast Track where legal costs may become an issue because the winner can claim their costs from the loser. That could be a good thing if you opt for legal representation but not so good if you lose.

    However at the moment from what you say you have been sent a DQ from the court (for the other claim too?) so I assume you've filed a Defence for both. What legal arguments did you plead?

    When did you open these two Barclaycard accounts?

    Did either of them have PPI?

    I can't see the full history of either account but I'm happy to help once that's known

    Di

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

      Thank you for a quick reply Di.

      Yes two DQs.
      I opened them around 2013
      I don't know if either of them have PPI

      Here is my Defence for both:

      In the Northampton County Court Business Centre
      Claim No: XXXXXXX
      HOIST PORTFOLIO HOLDING LTD :
      Claimant
      And
      XXXXXX
      Defendant
      DEFENCE

      1. I would initially like it be noted on the Court File, I responded to the Claimants Solicitor letter (Exbt 1), dated 11/05/17, with the attached Pre Action Conduct letter (Exbt 2), dated 21/05/17, requesting further information regarding the alleged debt. The Pre Action Conduct request was sent by Royal Mail Sign For (Exbt 3) and received by Claimants Solicitors and signed for on the 24/05/17 by XXXX.(Exbt 4).

      2. To date, Howard Cohen & Co, the Claimants Solicitors have failed to Acknowledge Receipt of Service this Request for Further Information and have failed to respond to the request. To ignore such a request, which was clearly received, and proceed with a claim is, in my opinion, an abuse of the court process.

      3. On 10/7/17 I received the claim XXXXXX from the Northampton County Court Business Centre showing the Claimants total disregard for my Request for Further Information made under the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct as they commenced proceedings against me.

      4. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this defence.

      5. The Defendant alleges that the Claimants pleadings are an abuse of the process. The Claimants pleadings are lacking in detail, there are no details to when the alleged default occurred, despite requests for information from the defendant, and the Claimant has not provided any details as to how the sums have accrued. Accordingly the Defendant contends that the pleadings are wholly inadequate for a contested matter and that the Claimant should be required to plead its case coherently and accurately as required by the CPR 16 and PD 16. The Defendant reserves the right to replead his defence should the Claimant replead its claim adequately.

      6. This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but the defendant is unable to identify such an account within his own records.

      7. The particulars of claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.

      8. The particulars of claim state that the account was assigned by Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd. on a date not provided, and notice served. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

      9. Upon the Claim clarifying matters set out above the defendant reserves his position to amend this defence further. The Defendant shall seek the cost of the amendments from the claimant due to the Claimants failure to plead its case adequately.

      10. The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents (Exbt5) on the 18/07/17, by Royal Mail Signed For (Exbt 6) to the Claimants solicitors under Civil Procedure Rule 18.

      11. The Claimants Solicitors received this Request and was signed for by XXXX on 19/07/17 @11:05 (Exbt 7) but has not been replied to.

      12. Also on the 17/07/17 the Defendant sent requests for information (Exbt 8) to the Claimant, by Royal Mail Sign For (Exbt 9a), enclosing the statutory £1 fee (Exbt 9b). The request was made pursuant s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ascertain the agreement, which the Claimant was demanding payment under, and to obtain further information about the terms of the contract.

      13. The Claimant received and Signed For the said Request on 18/07/17 (Exbt 10) but failed to reply and has not disclosed any documents relating to their claim to the Defendant.

      14. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to date and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

      15. The Defendant has not yet been able to examine the terms and conditions which were enforce at the time that the agreement was executed and therefore reserves the right to amend these pleadings to address any breaches that are identified if such terms or conditions are disclosed by the Claimant. The amendment will be due to the lace of disclosure by the Claimant and the failure to respond to the s78 CCA 1974 request correctly and the Defendant therefore also reserves the right to claim the costs of such amendment from the Claimant.

      16. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant requires the Claimant to plead effectively and disclose the legible documents upon which the Claim is based. In the event the Claimant fails to replead, then the Defendant reserves the right to apply for whatever orders it deems fit including an order striking the Claim out.

      17. It is denied that the original creditor, Barclays Bank Plc, served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

      18. Due to the Claimants failure to allow the Defendant to inspect the Default notice alluded to within the Claim form the Defendant is prejudice.

      19. Accordingly the Defendant reserves his position to amend this Defence with the costs of the same paid by the Claimant provides a copy of the Default Notice.

      20. The Defendant denies monies are owed to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim and does not recognise the assertion that any debt has been Legally Assigned to the Claimant. As per Civil Procedure rules 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation (as set out in the Particulars of Claim) that the money is owed.

      21. The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me, the Defendant, to properly assess my position with regards to the claim.

      22. Therefore, I respectfully apply under Section 4.6(1) of the Practice Direction Pre-action Conduct for the proceedings to be Stayed with immediate effect until the Claimants comply fully with the Request for Further Information made.

      23. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

      Statement of Truth

      The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

      Signed ________________________________
      Dated ________________________________
      Last edited by Kati; 4th September 2017, 11:54:AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

        Paragraph 22 in your Defence (and in your other Defence) asks the court to stay the claim. Why did you do that?

        The court have not granted your wish and have sent you a DQ for both claims at the request of the Claimant who wishes to proceed.

        You need to file your DQ by the deadline given by the court which will be in the covering letter.

        Di

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

          Hi Di,
          Prior to finding this site I was researching on goodf site and found advice from a moderator there to request for a stay as in para 22. Is this not advisable?

          Also when answering "yes" for mediation on the DQ should I send an accompanying letter explaining my requests for docs/agreement for verification of the claim have been totally ignored?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

            Hi I need to send the DQ soon...

            should I send an accompanying letter
            with the DQ, explaining my requests for docs/agreement for verification of the claim have been totally ignored?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

              Hi, can any one advise as I have not received any documentation that I have requested so far.

              1)Would now be an appropriate time to request an Unless Order because of this?

              Here is a summary of events so far:

              10/4/17 sent letter 1 to Robison,
              11/5/17 received Notice of Legal Pending Action from H Cohen
              21/05/17 sent Pre Action Conduct letter to H Cohen
              3/7/17 CCBC issued
              14/7/17 CPR18 Request for further info sent to H Cohen
              17/7/17 CCA request inc £1 sent to Hoist
              24/7/17 received letter from Robinson acknowledging agreement request and account put on "hold"
              31/7/17 defence sent
              20/8/17 DQ received

              2) I am about to return the DC but wondering how I am expected to go to mediation if the Claimant has not provided me with any documents requested to enable me to put a defence together (which is my defence so far)?

              3) Also do I need to request an Unless Order before I return the DC (which needs to be in on the 16th)?

              Any advice much appreciated, as I only have a couple of days before the DC has to be returned. Also as this is for two cases so I realise that at £255 each, an Unless Order approach is not cheap, so would like to make sure I do it right.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                mediation will ask have you got the documents needed to mediate - you say request made but NO not got them - mediation will state not suitable for mediation and that case will be returned to court for next part of proceedings, then they instruct you to the next requirement then your move will be to seek the documents.

                no case in the court system can be put on hold by solicitors, the court process continues, they have a problem that is their fault. trouble some people will belive these so called legit solicitors and make mistakes if not recognised and the defendant can get a CCJ by default due to not having knowledge of the situation.

                debt collection is the dirty business of this country along with many other areas - all greed orientated.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                  Thanks Mike, yes I did see past their "hold" tactic fortunatly and ignored it.

                  I am now considering going along the lines of requesting an Unless Order, because no documentation has been provided- so am I understanding correctly I can request this any time before mediation?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                    unless order comes later in proceedings I am sure the peeps on here will tell you when/if you need to, careful I issued one too early and it back fired on me as the timing gave them more time and they produced some paperwork (albeit not correct , but a DJ accepted it) if they did not have time they may of lost, so slow down.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                      Originally posted by Shinybee View Post
                      should I send an accompanying letter with the DQ, explaining my requests for docs/agreement for verification of the claim have been totally ignored?
                      No

                      Di

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                        Thanks Di, Ill send them tmw as is. Makes sense, thanks again.

                        Thanks Mike, for some reason I thought an Unless would speed things up, so they would have less time. Ok I'll wait a bit.

                        I am concerned that the two claims will be bundled together, and thus taking them out of the Fast track, as they were with same bank etc, so do you think when my local County Court has been nominated it would be worth doing an Unless on one of them to separate them up more?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                          Hi Shinybee,
                          I had a similar thing happen to me via Hoist and Barclaycard. I must admit I went on the Forums and tried doing exactly what they said...which was all good advice by the way.
                          However, as a court date dropped through my letterbox and as time went on I decided it was too much for me and just went to a professional.
                          I realise that we try to do things ourselves to help ease the pain of paying but, in reality, the pros are doing this sort of thing day in day out and from what experience I had it was soooo much worth it.
                          I won my case, paid nothing and got costs. I'm a pretty savvy person but could never have done it myself.
                          The guy I used, in the end, was someone called Paul Tilley from Quality Solicitors in Brighton. I suppose you could use anyone but he does specialise in this stuff and knows Hoist, oh too well.
                          It might be best giving him a call to see how your case stacks up.
                          Hope this helps and good luck.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                            Originally posted by Shinybee View Post
                            Thanks Di, Ill send them tmw as is. Makes sense, thanks again.

                            . . . for some reason I thought an Unless would speed things up, so they would have less time. Ok I'll wait a bit.

                            I am concerned that the two claims will be bundled together, and thus taking them out of the Fast track, as they were with same bank etc, so do you think when my local County Court has been nominated it would be worth doing an Unless on one of them to separate them up more?
                            If the two claims were bundled together then they would likely be allocated to the Fast Track. At the moment they are being treated separately since each one is under £10k which keeps them in the Small Claims Court where you wouldn't have to pay the other side's costs if you lose (except if there's been unreasonable conduct issues).

                            My firm's goal is always to get the claim Discontinued so that the client doesn't have to undergo the stress of court proceedings. We too know Hoist/Howard Cohen well and they know us

                            Have you sent a Subject Access Request to Barclaycard to get the full history of both these accounts?

                            Di
                            Last edited by Diana M; 13th September 2017, 16:46:PM. Reason: added SAR request

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

                              Hi Di yes my mistake, I meant to say, I am concerned that they will be bundled together and allocated to fast track, which I'm presuming is not in my favour because of the risk of potential costs.

                              When you say Discontinued does that mean Struck out?

                              I have sent a SAR but only received a letter from them headed Data Protection Act Request- voice recording, asking me to supply:

                              telephone Nummer you called
                              telephone number you called from
                              date of call
                              time of call

                              we are only able to search calls for past 12 months..


                              I havant responded

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

                              Announcement

                              Collapse

                              Support LegalBeagles


                              Donate with PayPal button

                              LegalBeagles is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

                              See more
                              See less

                              Court Claim ?

                              Guides and Letters
                              Loading...



                              Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

                              Find a Law Firm


                              Working...
                              X