Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation


Wording of an email sent to FCA today.



Dear Ms S****


Thank you for your mail finally received at the correctly spelt e-mail address.

First of all I would like to remind you of the recent decision made in respect of HFO Services et al, whereas the relevant companies are no longer authorised to deal in consumer credit agreements. I refer you to a paragraph in the press release which states that, or words to the effect of “all of HFO’s accounts have been written off or otherwise disposed of”. If it was permissible for them to continue collecting via an FCA authorised third party, then I assume that they would have done so.

One would assume that any "disposals" would have been effected during the final weeks whilst their respective licences (IP's) were still effective, and any "write offs" effected subsequent to their licences (IP's) being withdrawn.

The above statement is important as I am using it as a precedent for my complaint / enquiry.

I write regarding Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Limited,Hoist Portfolio Holdings Limited, (both registered in Jersey C.I.), HoistFinance UK Limited, Registered in England & Wales and Hoist Kredit Ab (ASwedish Registered Company I understand)

I note from my inspection of the FCA Public Register that only Hoist Finance UK Limited is currently authorised for consumer credit activity for the categories of “Consumer Credit Business” & “Debt Administration” only.

Now considering that all of these companies are legal entities in their own right, as are people, sole traders, partnerships, LLP’s etc etc, and so on and so forth, it should be abundantly and logically clear that for “ANY ENTITY” regardless of “LEGAL FORMATION / STATUS” must be approved and authorised individually in order for it to make decisions for itself with another similar entity. E.G, a finance company instructing a debt collection agency, or a finance broker passing details to a finance company, or people or companies dealing in financial instruments. The list is endless, but I’m sure you understand the principle I am illustrating.

Extract from permissions of Hoist Finance UK Limited

Consumer credit business Entering into a regulated credit agreement as lender; and exercising, or having the right to exercise, the lender's rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement. Debt administration Debt administration

Now as HPH Ltd & HPH2 Ltd are NOT authorised in their own respective rights, I fail to see how they can legally “have the right to exercise, the lenders’ rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement”


There is no grey area, it is black or white. It appears generally that these companies are circumventing the law and procuring the services of Robinson Way Limited (Authorised) who are actively attempting, and probably succeeding in some cases, collection of debts for HPH2 Ltd & HPH2Ltd. The way I see the law is when lets say “Company A” instructs “Company B” to collect and administer debts on their behalf, at this point they are effectively “exercising a right which is subject to regulation”, similarly if we create an analogy of a car, a licence and a person, the person may own the car and have the ability and knowledge to use, but cannot do so without a licence. This is the same set of circumstances in this case, Hoist owns the debts (alleged), they wish to do something with them but they need a licence which they don’t have.

If there is a “legal loophole” in the relevant regulations,or there is legislation which you don’t publish regarding this scenario, I would be glad to hear of it.


I look forward to your clear and unambiguous reply as soon as possible.



Yours Sincerely

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

I'm lost as to what you're trying to achieve.

One minute the money for strike out is a problem (you won't be alone with that), you also wished advice on a solicitor but then the next minute you're off on a tangent trying to work out a defence (which you'll need to apply for an amendment for) and reporting here there and everywhere.

You need to write to the claimants as i suggested and try and pick off the 2nd claim, preferably with them doing it for you, then attack claim 1. If successful then, as i understand it, the whole thing is statute barred.

M1

[nemesis45]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

I'm lost as to what you're trying to achieve.

One minute the money for strike out is a problem (you're non't be alone with that), you also wished advice on a solicitor but then the next minute you're off on a tangent trying to work out a defence (which you'll need to apply for an amendment for) and reporting here there and everywhere.

You need to write to the claimants as i suggested and try and pick off the 2nd claim, preferably with them doing it for you, then attack claim 1. If successful then, as i understand it, the whole thing is statute barred.

M1

Have to agree M1. I cannot work out the purpose of the e-mail the regulator is full aware of its previous ruling (s) all seems rather disjointed.

nem

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Have to agree M1. I cannot work out the purpose of the e-mail the regulator is full aware of its previous ruling (s) all seems rather disjointed.

nem

Nothing wrong with sticking the boot in but you have to keep focus on what's important and that's getting the court claims out of the way. #priorities

M1

[nemesis45]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Nothing wrong with sticking the boot in but you have to keep focus on what's important and that's getting the court claims out of the way. #priorities

M1

Yep but it must be a reasoned and properly formulated !!

nem

[charitynjw]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0060046_en.pdf

Chapter 6, section 82

CHAPTER 6: TRADING DISCLOSURES
Section 82:
Requirement to disclose company name etc 185. This section replaces sections 348(1), 349(1), and 351(1) and (2) of the 1985 Act and, insofar as it applies to companies, section 4(1) of the Business Names Act 1985. It provides power for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring every company:
• to display a sign with its name and specified other information at specified locations;
• to include its name and specified other information in specified documents and communications;
• to provide its name and specified other information to those who request it in the course of business (this is a new provision insofar as it applies to companies doing business under their registered names).

Why did you ask me specifically about Term #1 ?

For clarity (& apologies for the tardy response).

Re the CDC 'DN' - is there a company name on the bottom of it?

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

No, just the address which is Tradepro's address. Nothing that complies with the Companies Act nor The Business Name Act, or anything what says something like CDC is a trading title of Tradepro Card Services Limited, although CDC was a trading title on the their CCL, but as we all know if a ltd co uses a trading title then this must be clearly stated as such.

- - - Updated - - -

Fo all intents and purposes, anyone reading the doc quickly and who is not clued up would immediately assume that it was a third party independent business acting on behalf of Tradepro. This is just another example of their sloppy administration, and attempts to bullshit people. They refer to Tradepro as their "Client" !