Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

[BeagleAid]

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 16-12-2015
Amount approx: 2000
Claimant: Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited
Solicitor: Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors
Original Credit: Santander

Particulars of Claim:


Stat Barred? No

Have sent:

Other Info:
Santander withdrew my overdraft facility on 1/11/2012
I switched to another bank
I received a County Court Summons about February 2015 which I defended, saying I recognise neither the Claimant nor the sum owed. I thought they were bluffing so called them on it. I heard nothing back.

October 2015 received a documents pack in post, including:
- Abbey National Bank Account application form, signed and dated January 1998(!)
- Santander Statement of bank transactions from 6/2/12 to 12/2/13
- Default notice from Santander 9/4/13
- NoA from Hoist
- NoA from Santander

Today I received:
- N149a Notice of proposed allocation to the Small Claims track
- Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track to be filled out by me
- N244 Application Notice from Howard Cohen request to lift the stay

So it appears that Hoist/Cohen are pursuing this matter and I would be grateful for any advice on what to do now.

Do I simply fill in the Directions Questionnaire and wait for a hearing?
Or begin actively challenging the documents provided by Hoist/Cohen?

[pt2537]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 16-12-2015
Amount approx: 2000
Claimant: Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited
Solicitor: Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors
Original Credit: Santander

Particulars of Claim:


Stat Barred? No

Have sent:

Other Info:
Santander withdrew my overdraft facility on 1/11/2012
I switched to another bank
I received a County Court Summons about February 2015 which I defended, saying I recognise neither the Claimant nor the sum owed. I thought they were bluffing so called them on it. I heard nothing back.

October 2015 received a documents pack in post, including:
- Abbey National Bank Account application form, signed and dated January 1998(!)
- Santander Statement of bank transactions from 6/2/12 to 12/2/13
- Default notice from Santander 9/4/13
- NoA from Hoist
- NoA from Santander

Today I received:
- N149a Notice of proposed allocation to the Small Claims track
- Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track to be filled out by me
- N244 Application Notice from Howard Cohen request to lift the stay

So it appears that Hoist/Cohen are pursuing this matter and I would be grateful for any advice on what to do now.

Do I simply fill in the Directions Questionnaire and wait for a hearing?
Or begin actively challenging the documents provided by Hoist/Cohen?

http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/how...olio-of-errors

This post may be of assistance with your case. Seems to be the same issues, and the view of the barrister mentioned in the article was that the Abbey charges were unfair and could be challenged under UTCCR

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

Good evening.
You received a county court claim pack in Feb this year and thought it was a" bluff"?
And entered an off the cuff stating that you did not recognise the claimant or the debt?

It seems now that the defence you have entered has been admitted and the claimant has
decided it has a more than reasonable chance of succeeding in this.

Yes you must complete all the forms and return them as directed.
What are your points for challenging the documents you have
received.
If you don't respond in time the claimant can apply for summary judgement.

You will also have to make a witness statement before the hearing to back up
the defence you have submitted.

[BeagleAid]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/how...olio-of-errors

This post may be of assistance with your case. Seems to be the same issues, and the view of the barrister mentioned in the article was that the Abbey charges were unfair and could be challenged under UTCCR

Thank you so much for your swift response.


Having looked at the linked article, my reading of it seems to suggest the case in question turned on the issue of the non-compliant default notice and so the issue of unfair charges, although raised by the defendant, didn't need to be considered by the judge.


Looking at the default notice issued to me in April 2013 and comparing it to schedule 2 of The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, it seems, to my untrained eye, to be broadly compliant, but I sadly don't have the benefit of a barrister to challenge it.


With regard to the unfair charges, there are nearly £300 worth applied after my overdraft facility was terminated but no other immediately obvious charges, but the £1700 overdraft I had was in place for about 10 years so I suppose I could look back through my records to try and pick out any historical unfair fees if that might prove worthwhile.

[pt2537]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

Thank you so much for your swift response.


Having looked at the linked article, my reading of it seems to suggest the case in question turned on the issue of the non-compliant default notice and so the issue of unfair charges, although raised by the defendant, didn't need to be considered by the judge.


Looking at the default notice issued to me in April 2013 and comparing it to schedule 2 of The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, it seems, to my untrained eye, to be broadly compliant, but I sadly don't have the benefit of a barrister to challenge it.


With regard to the unfair charges, there are nearly £300 worth applied after my overdraft facility was terminated but no other immediately obvious charges, but the £1700 overdraft I had was in place for about 10 years so I suppose I could look back through my records to try and pick out any historical unfair fees if that might prove worthwhile.

When dealing with Default notices, broadly compliant doesnt cut the mustard.

The Default notice that my client had didnt state a "Date" it mentioned payment within 14 daysof service, which in itself fails to comply with the Act, there is at least 3 High Court and Court of Appeal cases which confirm this

The problem the client had was they too thought it was "broadly ok" yet when it came down to it, as my case report showed, they were not compliant and a £10k debt was written off in effect

[BeagleAid]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015



Well here's a redacted copy of my DN. Does it look similar to the one your client had (if that's not too cheeky a question)?

[pt2537]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

Well here's a redacted copy of my DN. Does it look similar to the one your client had (if that's not too cheeky a question)?

Identical !!!!!!

[Nibbler]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

When dealing with Default notices, broadly compliant doesnt cut the mustard.

i.e. regulated content where a particular wording is prescribed, has no wiggle room? Has to be as set down word for word. Can't be something equivalent.

That is they way I've always seen it. Some parts are "fill in the gaps to suit", but the prescribed wording parts are not optional and must be as in regulations.

[pt2537]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

A DATE not less than 14 days FROM the date of service.

What is the date of service of that default notice? who knows because it doesnt specify when the breach must be remedied, so there is room for ambiguity, thats my issue with the Default notice above,

[BeagleAid]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

Identical !!!!!!

Well that's a piece of welcome good news for a Sunday afternoon! Thanks

So the line that I have highlighted in yellow in the DN is the offending item?
If I understand the significance correctly, an incorrectly issued DN violates The CCA and renders the liability uncollectible?

[pt2537]

Re: Court Claim - Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited / Santander - 16-12-2015

Well that's a piece of welcome good news for a Sunday afternoon! Thanks

So the line that I have highlighted in yellow in the DN is the offending item?
If I understand the significance correctly, an incorrectly issued DN violates The CCA and renders the liability uncollectible?

Well id say read Harrison v Link Financial Limited, as that explains the consequence of a bad notice.

Id also say the notice isnt sufficiently clear and precise with regards to "Pending interest and fees" . What exactly are you supposed to pay? how can you remedy an unknown and unclear breach?? Utter nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

how much is the claimed amount??