** DISCONTINUED ** Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Notice of Assignment ( from Hoist not from BC )

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Think that's the lot, other than statements which we don't really need ATM - can you see any interest rate / default charge / late payment charge applied etc from the beginning or is it just the list of transactions?

So plan really now is to go through this lot with a fine toothed comb ( or engage someone to do that for you) and pick out the relevant arguments and poss apply to amend your defence if appropriate.

Sooooooo...

No Assignment FROM Barclaycard
No Assignment from Egg to Barclaycard
No original executed agreement
Hoist's FCA authorisation issue

probably other things too that Di/Warwick will pick up on - might be tmw before the others get chance to look things over.

[Shinybee]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Not sure what this is meant to be - terms from end ?first bit & recon of first bit of the one in post #119 ? just that one page though. bit odd not to recon the whole lot isn't it.

yes page 1 of terms

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Is there any sign of the year on that at all - can you make out the version code bottom right ? I doubt its the original agreement as looks like default charges are £12 ( and they changed to that in 2006 ) and it's barclaycard not Egg. So wondering if it's the terms as varied from when egg were sold off to barclaycard(2011?) or at the terms at point of default (2016)

[Shinybee]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

This one, presumably ( tricky to read) it's the original terms from the 'back' of the original actual agreement and what has been reconstructed with the other bits in the previous posts, but starts at term 3, so you'd expect the original agreement signature page to go with that - have they provided that ? Can you read it well enough to see if it is the same terms as on the recon ? hmmm actually squinting at it, in one of the boxed bits it does seem to refer to BArclaycard so maybe not. Ahh well I'll get the rest of the docs up for the others to go through. Looks like late payment charge is £12 so it's post 2006 - so poss 2011 when it changed to BC?or terms from default point in 2016?

refers to barclay through it

[Shinybee]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Is there any sign of the year on that at all - can you make out the version code bottom right ? I doubt its the original agreement as looks like default charges are £12 ( and they changed to that in 2006 ) and it's barclaycard not Egg. So wondering if it's the terms as varied from when egg were sold off to barclaycard(2011?) or at the terms at point of default (2016)

in the bottom right is a date : 14/08/2014

[Shinybee]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Think that's the lot, other than statements which we don't really need ATM - can you see any interest rate / default charge / late payment charge applied etc from the beginning or is it just the list of transactions?

show's interest rate/ default charge/ late payment


thank you for your time Amethyst

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

That's okay. I know it can be a pest getting docs uploaded onto here sometimes. Once we get the upgrade sorted in a couple weeks we'll have a big shiny button to make it easy - can't wait ! lol.

Hopefully now Di will be able to give you a bit of guidance on sorting out what defence you have available and which angle to come from - you have a week I think before your WS is due to be exchanged so if you are going to amend you will need to get things sorted asap.

[thedirtyhound]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

I had a look at the so called "true copy" of the agreement and the actual agreement itself. I have noticed a few major differences in the headings, so it could get interesting!

Actual agreement

5. Using your account (copy agreement says "Repayments")

6. Paying your bill (same heading on both)

7. Additional cardholders (this is no 8 on the copy agreement)

9. Closing your account (says "statements" on the copy)

10. Getting in touch (says "Limit of Liabilities" on the copy)

This is exactly what you need if you are going to find a big hole in the case and totally vindicated what I said earlier, which is that companies KNOWINGLY LIE when it comes to providing copies of the true agreement.

The true agreement is meant to be an exact word for word reproduction of the original, albeit it can be in a different format.

Obviously, I could not read the small print on the original, but there is more than enough evidence to show that the so called "true copy" is anything but that!

[Guest]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

[QUOTE=thedirtyhound;761912]I had a look at the so called "true copy" of the agreement and the actual agreement itself. I have noticed a few major differences in the headings, so it could get interesting!

Actual agreement

5. Using your account (copy agreement says "Repayments")

6. Paying your bill (same heading on both)

7. Additional cardholders (this is no 8 on the copy agreement)

9. Closing your account (says "statements" on the copy)

10. Getting in touch (says "Limit of Liabilities" on the copy)

This is exactly what you need if you are going to find a big hole in the case and totally vindicated what I said earlier, which is that companies KNOWINGLY LIE when it comes to providing copies of the true agreement.

The true agreement is meant to be an exact word for word reproduction of the original, albeit it can be in a different format.

Obviously, I could not read the small print on the original, but there is more than enough evidence to show that the so called "true copy" is anything but that![/QUOTE


The real question is how would a DJ view this? My view is that they are suspicious of attempts to "evade" responsibility.

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

I believe the attachments in posts 117/118 are a recon of the original agreement terms ( cover sheet doesn't work really, and there's no name/address creditor/debtor ) - and attachments in posts 119/120 are terms as varied ( from 2014) - half illegible. There's no executed agreement copy/recon.

[warwick65]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

@thedirtyhound

If I am reading what has been presented correctly , I believe you are misinterpreting the legislation.

I suspect that the two sets of terms and conditions are one from inception and one from default, if that is the case they do not have to be in the same order with the same numbers relating to the same details - they are revised terms and conditions.

However as I do not know exactly what was sent to SB it is impossible to say if they comply with S78 however

As for the rest of your discussion in a previous post , while I would love to get involved and maybe explain why I believe some of your claims are wrong this is not the time or the place
[MENTION=100962]Shinybee[/MENTION]
This was exactly why I thought your original statements about having two claims for agreements that were always barclaycard , opened about the same time and with similar amounts seemed odd. Clearly one of them was an egg account.

It would also reinforce what @Diana M said when she said something along the lines of she would eat her hat if both defences argued the same things


You now need to get an amended defence in because you can not plead arguments in your WS that are not in your defence and you have included in your defence the potential need to amend it.

I can not, however, help you on the process as I do not know - all I will say, as Amethyst has said, time is against you

In my opinion you really really do need professional advice and as Diana m seems to have some knowledge of your claims because she has been on this thread I would suggest you contact her - if you haven't done so already

[thedirtyhound]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Spirit200;761926]

I had a look at the so called "true copy" of the agreement and the actual agreement itself. I have noticed a few major differences in the headings, so it could get interesting!

Actual agreement

5. Using your account (copy agreement says "Repayments")

6. Paying your bill (same heading on both)

7. Additional cardholders (this is no 8 on the copy agreement)

9. Closing your account (says "statements" on the copy)

10. Getting in touch (says "Limit of Liabilities" on the copy)

This is exactly what you need if you are going to find a big hole in the case and totally vindicated what I said earlier, which is that companies KNOWINGLY LIE when it comes to providing copies of the true agreement.

The true agreement is meant to be an exact word for word reproduction of the original, albeit it can be in a different format.

Obviously, I could not read the small print on the original, but there is more than enough evidence to show that the so called "true copy" is anything but that![/QUOTE


The real question is how would a DJ view this? My view is that they are suspicious of attempts to "evade" responsibility.

I don't accept your cynicism.

A DJ can only try the case according to the law.

It is up to the claimant to prove its case. Part of the requirement is to produce a copy of the agreement. If not an original copy, then a "true copy".

There have been numerous cases detailed on these pages when cases have been thrown out because what has been submitted by the claimant as a "true copy" has turned out to be anything but that.

Under those circumstances, a DJ has little option other than to dismiss the claim, whether they like it or not. In fact, if he/she did not, it would be an error in law and would give grounds for an appeal.

[warwick65]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

The cover letter from the solicitor seems interesting because they refer to substantial balance transfers not too long before the account defaulted . I wonder if they are going to suggest to the court that Shineybee did this deliberately and is a debt dodger thus making them a less than reliable witness - as was the case with Mrs Frost (unreliable witness)

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist Portfolio Holding v Shinybee

Think I missed uploading this sheet.

This seems to be the signature sheet but can't see you have redacted anything from it.

For comparison here's an Egg 2003 agreement - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...03-credit-Card