**DISCONTINUED**Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

[charitynjw]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

Originally Posted by charitynjw
From the FCA

Our guidance under regulated credit agreement as set in the Perimeter Guidance (PERG 2.8.14ZA confirms;

A person who is not an authorised person and exercises, or has the right to exercise, the lender's rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement does not require authorisation to do so where he:

1. (1) arranges for another person to do so and the other person is anauthorised person with permission to carry on that regulated activity;

2. (2) does so for up to one month after an arrangement of the kind in (1) comes to an end; or

3. (3) does so under an agreement with an authorised person who haspermission to carry on that regulated activity.

Further information on Regulated credit agreementscan be accessed at PERG 2.8.14ZA.


as debt has been paid off by hoist no right of Leander exist because original lenders rights have ended on payment of debt hoist can not be a lender
The debt hasn't been paid off, it has been sold (assigned) as a thing in action.
The debt still exists, even though it may prove to be unenforceable.
and as hoist are unlicensed company the licensed rights that did existed with first company are regulated so they cant be transferd

####

[Amethyst]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

I know everything i used to have. They have changed the default date. This is the problem i also this the account number is wrong on the credit file...

I just got my Xperian credit file for £15 to see if its any better than noddle and it has LESS info than noddle does!

Blimey £15!! £2 through the post ( but yes I'm impatient too) Noddle is actually pretty good.


Well only way to find out what it is then is to ask them, without acknowledging the only way really to ask them is to send a CCA request or a ''prove it'' letter (I'd prefer a CCA request personally).

[pandamonia]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

Blimey £15!! £2 through the post ( but yes I'm impatient too) Noddle is actually pretty good.


Well only way to find out what it is then is to ask them, without acknowledging the only way really to ask them is to send a CCA request or a ''prove it'' letter (I'd prefer a CCA request personally).

Yes pricey.

Ill cancel after this month though as i wanted to see what is on their. Ironically there is only £27k debt listed on there and i have a "fair" rating lol!!!

So there is anther £17k missing from that file!

[Amethyst]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

Has some already dropped off ? ( is everything about the same age ? - around 6 years from default )

( doh ignore me , you mean on Experian over Noddle don't you )

[Amethyst]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

Completely irrelevantly to your case, I asked Noddle to disassociate me from my ex husband last weekend via the online form, and today had a letter from them in the post saying it had been done Pretty good service there. ( just not worth a thread on its own, and I'm feeling chuffed )

[pandamonia]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

Has some already dropped off ? ( is everything about the same age ? - around 6 years from default )

( doh ignore me , you mean on Experian over Noddle don't you )

Yes. A small debt is missing from noddle of £1100 i dont even know what company its from but the default is early so im not bothered by it. The hoist ones are my issue...

[dambuster]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

can we look at this
1 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited buy debt under a FCC licence
2 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited then cant get payment under agreement
3 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited issue a county court summons
4 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited cancel there FCC licence
5 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited 7 months later they still have no judgement but are still trying to get enforcement of a consumer agreement in a court (hoist are the claimant)
this becomes a debt administration ( there solicitors only act for legal reasons and are not licence for Debt administration

Debt administration

PERG 2.7.8EG
01/04/20141. (1)
Taking steps to perform duties or to exercise or to enforce rights under a credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement on behalf of the lender or owner is aregulated activity.


now we look at this argument

Debt-collecting

1. hoist portfolio holding 2 limited are now acting as a debt collector they are the owner or lender there for by issuing a county court summons in the name hoist portfolio holding 2 limited is a act in .
PERG 2.7.8DG
01/04/20141. (1)
Taking steps to procure the payment of a debt due under a credit agreement or aconsumer hire agreement is a regulated activity

dose this mean there solicitors would be acting as a debt collector ???

procure
to obtain or get by care,effort,or the use of special means


a notice of assignment and transferring rights even if applied would become defaulted when licence was cancelled (the licence is non-transferable)
also anyone who had a abbey loan which has been sold to this lot after April 2014 take a close look at who signed the assignment.type there name into google
then look this person up on linkin and see when they left that job at the abbey

[pandamonia]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

can we look at this
1 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited buy debt under a FCC licence
2 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited then cant get payment under agreement
3 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited issue a county court summons
4 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited cancel there FCC licence
5 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited 7 months later they still have no judgement but are still trying to get enforcement of a consumer agreement in a court (hoist are the claimant)
this becomes a debt administration ( there solicitors only act for legal reasons and are not licence for Debt administration

Debt administration

PERG 2.7.8EG
01/04/20141. (1)
Taking steps to perform duties or to exercise or to enforce rights under a credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement on behalf of the lender or owner is aregulated activity.


now we look at this argument

Debt-collecting

1. hoist portfolio holding 2 limited are now acting as a debt collector they are the owner or lender there for by issuing a county court summons in the name hoist portfolio holding 2 limited is a act in .
PERG 2.7.8DG
01/04/20141. (1)
Taking steps to procure the payment of a debt due under a credit agreement or aconsumer hire agreement is a regulated activity

dose this mean there solicitors would be acting as a debt collector ???

procure
to obtain or get by care,effort,or the use of special means


a notice of assignment and transferring rights even if applied would become defaulted when licence was cancelled (the licence is non-transferable)
also anyone who had a abbey loan which has been sold to this lot after April 2014 take a close look at who signed the assignment.type there name into google
then look this person up on linkin and see when they left that job at the abbey

I have to say that I agree with you 100% on this. From here it looks like completely illegal behaviour. That said the point that amethyst and others are making is that they are currently operating in a grey area and no one has yet pushed them hard enough and stopped them. I will wait until a claim summons comes through if it does at all. Then you will see me fight them on every front and one way will be a complaint to Fca. I might even see if I can get some back up from a big consumer website.

[Amethyst]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

I have to say that I agree with you 100% on this. From here it looks like completely illegal behaviour. That said the point that amethyst and others are making is that they are currently operating in a grey area and no one has yet pushed them hard enough and stopped them. I will wait until a claim summons comes through if it does at all. Then you will see me fight them on every front and one way will be a complaint to Fca. I might even see if I can get some back up from a big consumer website.

I agree with you as well, that the FCA has left this area so grey, it needs sorting out in court, but not by a LIP on a small claim.

5 hoist portfolio holding 2 limited 7 months later they still have no judgement but are still trying to get enforcement of a consumer agreement in a court (hoist are the claimant)

Have they not replied to your defence and applying to lift the stay ? Not sure what the position of your case is ?

[pandamonia]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

I agree with you as well, that the FCA has left this area so grey, it needs sorting out in court, but not by a LIP on a small claim.




Have they not replied to your defence and applying to lift the stay ? Not sure what the position of your case is ?

Hoist have lifted a stay on a claim with my brother. He's used a letter off here and as yet failed to comply with any CCA or Cpr requests. I'm not sure what to advise him as I have never gotten this far with a claim before

[charitynjw]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

[MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=84288]dambuster[/MENTION]

These debt portfolio businesses are multi-billion pound firms.

I cannot imagine that they have blindly entered the 'court' arena. (Esp Small Claims, where they know that they can play fast & loose with the CPR).

Imho, they will either back off at the last minute, or they've got something up their sleeves that we are not aware of.

It is also a bit troublesome that the FCA are fighting shy of making a definitive statement. (They have emailed me to say that court action is a commercial decision which is open to the 'owners' of the debts).

Any bright ideas, folks?

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

This licence malarkey to me is all too messy. This all sounds like HFO / Roxburghe / Turnbull Rutherford scenario all over again. Ive also checked the FCA register and it appears that the only Hoist that is authorised is Hoist Finance UK Ltd. What people fail to be missing here is that all of these companies are legal entities in their own right, they are not just trading names of other companies, and as such to engage in any credit activity they must be authorised in their own right. Its a bit like saying to the Police is stopped for driving without a licence, "Oh well I know how to drive but my brothers' got the same name as me so he said it'd be ok to use his licence" Same analogy. Furthermore, as Cohens and Rob Way are also separate limited legal entities, and take instructions from an unauthorised company, they are in effect aiding and abetting that company to do so, and furthermore actually conspiring with them. The FCA should make this crystal clear - no licence in own name - no activity. Ive seen this all before in court when HFO bod used to jump up and say things like, oh we used to be called that, and no that's not actually us, its this company trading as bla blah blah. Its all totally unacceptable and as previously mentioned an attempt to circumvent the regulations. This needs very urgent representation made to the FCA, but going on past track record with themselves and OFT previously, they are all full of themselves with hot air but no action. All mouth no trousers ! Simple as. By the time they get their rears in gear, how many other consumers are going to be subjected to this abuse. I think really that some type of appeal or petition to central government needs to be raised on this matter as its going to be drawn into yet another long HFO scenario. I though after this episode and considering how long the OFT was dealing with it, the powers that be would have learnt their lesson by now. Comments please.

[dambuster]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

Hoist have lifted a stay on a claim with my brother. He's used a letter off here and as yet failed to comply with any CCA or Cpr requests. I'm not sure what to advise him as I have never gotten this far with a claim before

are we having our legs pulled a commercial decision
it would not matter if Roland the rat made it
"Rules are for the
" guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"
you can guess which one the FCC come under in the above statement
if they believe that email they sent you
i would love to see a copy of this email
however in the next 24 hours i will tell you what happened to me

[pandamonia]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

@Amethyst @dambuster

These debt portfolio businesses are multi-billion pound firms.

I cannot imagine that they have blindly entered the 'court' arena. (Esp Small Claims, where they know that they can play fast & loose with the CPR).

Imho, they will either back off at the last minute, or they've got something up their sleeves that we are not aware of.

It is also a bit troublesome that the FCA are fighting shy of making a definitive statement. (They have emailed me to say that court action is a commercial decision which is open to the 'owners' of the debts).

Any bright ideas, folks?

I dont think they are that big. They are also feeling multimillion pound losses in 13/14 and lets see about 2015. They used to be making money in 2011/2012. They have some serious staff costs to recover plus hundreds in court fees and legal costs. Most people dont pay the CCJ anyway even after they lose as they are so far in debt it doesnt matter anyway. With the new regulation with the FCA they must be finding it harder than ever. £400-£500 per CC claim must sting after a while. especially since people can wait a year or 2 and have it set aside and they are back to square one on it.

[dambuster]

Re: Howard Cohan Cockroaches and Co.

well done i am sure you will read my story when i put it up here in next 24 hours

- - - Updated - - -

This licence malarkey to me is all too messy. This all sounds like HFO / Roxburghe / Turnbull Rutherford scenario all over again. Ive also checked the FCA register and it appears that the only Hoist that is authorised is Hoist Finance UK Ltd. What people fail to be missing here is that all of these companies are legal entities in their own right, they are not just trading names of other companies, and as such to engage in any credit activity they must be authorised in their own right. Its a bit like saying to the Police is stopped for driving without a licence, "Oh well I know how to drive but my brothers' got the same name as me so he said it'd be ok to use his licence" Same analogy. Furthermore, as Cohens and Rob Way are also separate limited legal entities, and take instructions from an unauthorised company, they are in effect aiding and abetting that company to do so, and furthermore actually conspiring with them. The FCA should make this crystal clear - no licence in own name - no activity. Ive seen this all before in court when HFO bod used to jump up and say things like, oh we used to be called that, and no that's not actually us, its this company trading as bla blah blah. Its all totally unacceptable and as previously mentioned an attempt to circumvent the regulations. This needs very urgent representation made to the FCA, but going on past track record with themselves and OFT previously, they are all full of themselves with hot air but no action. All mouth no trousers ! Simple as. By the time they get their rears in gear, how many other consumers are going to be subjected to this abuse. I think really that some type of appeal or petition to central government needs to be raised on this matter as its going to be drawn into yet another long HFO scenario. I though after this episode and considering how long the OFT was dealing with it, the powers that be would have learnt their lesson by now. Comments please.

here here wait till i put my story up here in next 24 hours