Me v hoist bank charges claim

[Thewigster]

Morning all.
I held an account with nationwide back in 2012 which I disputed a lot of charges on the grounds of hardship. I was in receipt of jsa and couldn't afford their fees.
They continued to charge me up until best part of 400 pounds which was then allegedly "legally teansferred" to mkdp llp and then again to Robinson way. Now I've been in dispute with this hoist mob who claim to be legal owners of the debt etc and have entered a court claim to which I am waiting a hearing date.
My question is and I'm sure this has been bought up before is on the letter that was sent to the wrong address by nationwide informing me of transfer. It's written on what looks like a 1980s typewriter with no header. Nothing. It actually looks like this hoist mob have just wrote it them selves.
My defence to this is that hoist / Robinson whoever they may be are a debt purchasing company and in face should they wish to purchase any debt which is the result of Fees and not actually a borrowed amout then without a copy of any formal deed of assignment then the original debt would of been and has according to credit file been settled.
Thoughts please

[nemesis45]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Morning all.
I held an account with nationwide back in 2012 which I disputed a lot of charges on the grounds of hardship. I was in receipt of jsa and couldn't afford their fees.
They continued to charge me up until best part of 400 pounds which was then allegedly "legally teansferred" to mkdp llp and then again to Robinson way. Now I've been in dispute with this hoist mob who claim to be legal owners of the debt etc and have entered a court claim to which I am waiting a hearing date.
My question is and I'm sure this has been bought up before is on the letter that was sent to the wrong address by nationwide informing me of transfer. It's written on what looks like a 1980s typewriter with no header. Nothing. It actually looks like this hoist mob have just wrote it them selves.
My defence to this is that hoist / Robinson whoever they may be are a debt purchasing company and in face should they wish to purchase any debt which is the result of Fees and not actually a borrowed amout then without a copy of any formal deed of assignment then the original debt would of been and has according to credit file been settled.
Thoughts please

Good morning,,

Was this alleged debt all charges and no borrowed amount?
The credit file " settled " entry is the result of the sale of the debt to the debt purchaser.
When was this claim issued?
I guess the notice of assignment is a reconstituted one which is made up from files.

The Information Commissioner Office Technical Guidance On Defaults says if a debt is made up solely of charges without which (charges) would not have defaulted no default should be registered.

nem

[Thewigster]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Good morning,,

Was this alleged debt all charges and no borrowed amount?
The credit file " settled " entry is the result of the sale of the debt to the debt purchaser.
When was this claim issued?
I guess the notice of assignment is a reconstituted one which is made up from files.

The Information Commissioner Office Technical Guidance On Defaults says if a debt is made up solely of charges without which (charges) would not have defaulted no default should be registered.

nem

Hiya yes it's solely bank charges. Am I not right though that if a debt is purchased then the original has been settled. Which mean's as I don't have any signed agreement with hoist or whoever they are then there is no real claim

[nemesis45]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Hiya yes it's solely bank charges. Am I not right though that if a debt is purchased then the original has been settled. Which mean's as I don't have any signed agreement with hoist or whoever they are then there is no real claim

No this theory that when a debt purchaser buys a debt ( in a portfolio of many thousands) they buy also the " agreement" and the right to pursue payment, agreement will state the creditors right to sell on the debt/account 2 a third party, that party thus becomes the creditor.

If you want to challenge this debt my advice would be to google the ICO Tech. Guidance On Defaults and go from there.

nem

[Diana M]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Hoist Portfolio are unlicensed.

Maybe that’s something you should be focusing your energy on.

You say you’re waiting to learn of your Hearing date which suggests this claim is at an advanced stage.

What legal arguments did you plead in your Defence?

Do you need to file an Amended Defence?

Have you raised any Part 18 Questions so far?

Googling the ICO won’t be of any help to your case at this moment in time, you need legal advice in order to avoid a CCJ.

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

If you want to challenge this debt my advice would be to google the ICO Tech. Guidance On Defaults and go from there.

nem

The OP has received a court claim which appears to have been transferred to their local county court where it will be listed for a Hearing presumably because they have already filed their Defence.

Di

[nemesis45]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

The account from which the debt arises it seems should no have been defaulted it's worth checking.

nem

[Thewigster]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Hoist Portfolio are unlicensed.

Maybe that’s something you should be focusing your energy on.

You say you’re waiting to learn of your Hearing date which suggests this claim is at an advanced stage.

What legal arguments did you plead in your Defence?

Do you need to file an Amended Defence?

Have you raised any Part 18 Questions so far?

Googling the ICO won’t be of any help to your case at this moment in time, you need legal advice in order to avoid a CCJ.

Di

Hiya yes I have received a letter of allocation to county court just waiting on a date. This happened because I said I was prepared to enter into mediation. But it wasn't suitable as I was challenging the whole amount.
My defence was that I simply didn't owe this amount to hoist as they are nothing more than a debt purchasing company that hide away in a tax free island and I had never received any formal notification of assignment to them.

[Thewigster]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Just a quick one ladies and gents. According to my credit file the a count is in the name of hoist and a default listed in 2012. According to this letter the account was legally assigned on 15th March 2014. Should the default then in fact show as being entered by nationwide and not hoist ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

My defence was that I simply didn't owe this amount to hoist as they are nothing more than a debt purchasing company that hide away in a tax free island and I had never received any formal notification of assignment to them.

Did you actually say that in your defence?

Should the default then in fact show as being entered by nationwide and not hoist ?

It would have done originally but when a debt is sold the reporting is taken over by the new owners and the name changed - the date of default shouldn't change though so it should still fall off your file in April 2018.

[Thewigster]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Did you actually say that in your defence?


It would have done originally but when a debt is sold the reporting is taken over by the new owners and the name changed - the date of default shouldn't change though so it should still fall off your file in April 2018.

Hi thanks for the reply.
I think what they are trying to do is get some money out of me before it drops off.
My defence wasn't actually worded that way but it was that I do not nor have I ever held a credit agreement or account with this mob. It is clear that they are a bunch of different companies all trading from within each other and keep passing the account from pillar to post

[warwick65]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

The problem as I see it is that your defence is wholly insufficient because there are no valid legal arguments and as you have a court date due you may be in trouble.

I suppose you could have the option of amending your defence but it's by no means certain you can and it costs money.

Have you had to file you witness statement yet?

[Amethyst]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Hi thanks for the reply.
I think what they are trying to do is get some money out of me before it drops off.
My defence wasn't actually worded that way but it was that I do not nor have I ever held a credit agreement or account with this mob. It is clear that they are a bunch of different companies all trading from within each other and keep passing the account from pillar to post

Okay, it might be worth you pasting what you did file as defence, just in case you need to consider a formal amendment before it goes further down the court route.

This is an Overdraft that started with Nationwide during hardship ( that Nationwide were aware of) and is made up mostly of charges ?

[warwick65]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

I bet NW will claim they were not aware of any hardship until after the fact

[Thewigster]

Re: Me v hoist bank charges claim

Yes the debt is solely made up of charges. I was in receipt of jsa at the time and had to have it paid elsewhere as nationwide kept on adding charges then adding again for unauthorised od etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it too late to make an offer of settlement to hoist to avoid a 6 year CCJ entry ?