Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Ways of protecting assets from creditors
by Jan Today at 1:31 pm

» Dr. Graham Downing 5G and A.I talk
by ditchit Today at 12:34 pm

» Threatened bankruptcy proceedings
by waylander62 Today at 12:33 pm

» 24 Storey Tower on Fire in Kensington - dies
by Awoken2 Today at 10:08 am

» Notice Of Conditional Acceptance / Promissory Notes
by pitano1 Today at 9:10 am

» PoE
by ditchit Today at 8:02 am

» Set Aside Application, Can Claimant Provide Proof Of Claim?
by Kestrel Today at 7:00 am

» Is this what Greg Hallet was talking about?
by handle Yesterday at 10:38 pm

» Hello all from new member, hoping to overcome the fear this time
by Holle Yesterday at 8:59 pm

» Member of the old GET OUT OF DEBT FREE. So glad i found this site again
by LionsShare Yesterday at 8:11 pm

» old man tells joke
by handle Yesterday at 12:07 pm

» Anti nano tech
by chong Yesterday at 11:31 am

» Mediation Time. How to fire off your defence?
by onak Yesterday at 6:26 am

» FOS complaints and civil proceedings
by handle Yesterday at 5:27 am

» Administration of Justice Act 1970 forbids creditors to falsely pretending to be officially authorised to collect payment
by Stevro Yesterday at 2:11 am

» CCJ circa 2013 vs Santander, now Cabot/Mortimer Clarke chasing
by hughythomas Yesterday at 1:51 am

» Cabot help
by Benjisaurus Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:31 am

» Hello to all of you
by assassin Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:21 am

» Essex & Suffolk Water
by LionsShare Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:38 pm

» Lowell threatening me Again !!
by daveiron Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:08 am

» Geopathic Stress, 5 G, Microwave Radiation Toxicity, Smart meters.
by daveiron Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:03 am

» Cabot- is there a realistic chance to fight them?
by handle Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:34 pm

» Distopian Future Documentarys,
by Society of the Spectacle Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:19 pm

» NIP - speeding with photo evidence
by daveiron Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:57 pm

» Latest Rich Planet vids Richard Hall
by daveiron Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:46 pm

» Hoist Portfolio/Howard Cohen – Letter of Claim ?
by barnwebb Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:23 pm

» Brown all CAPS window letter with "Defendant" visible!
by itheman Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:22 pm

» Reality chat with peter howard and company
by Society of the Spectacle Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:34 pm

» This Is Interesting
by pitano1 Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:17 am

» Hello all members of The Community
by assassin Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:40 am

» Raconteurs with extra special guest !!
by Lopsum Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:31 pm

» Hello, new here and preparing to fight the system.
by Jacko Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:07 pm

» Reclaiming cash value for loans ive paid off in the past
by onak Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:56 am

» sol excalibre with cookiemonster
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:33 pm

» BT/british telecom
by mitch Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:37 pm

» Civilized Materialistic DNA vs Tribal Spiritual DNA
by Kestrel Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:23 pm

» Another noob faced with a DC
by onak Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:18 am

» Cbd Oil
by Society of the Spectacle Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:59 pm

» Police Guidelines On Bailiffs
by Kestrel Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:17 am

» PRA Group County Court Business Centre??
by waylander62 Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:08 pm

» Anti-Defamation LeagueAppoint Themselves As Official Internet Censor
by Kestrel Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:24 pm

» remedy for P.C.N/COUNCIL TAX
by unlimuni Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:52 pm

» Is it to late for the 3 letters process
by Mikeyjohn Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:57 am

» Parking Notice Download
by unlimuni Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:18 am

» HELP please single mother, unaware of debt under my name from husband ccj now
by assassin Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:54 am

» hmrc cutoms/parcelforce
by Society of the Spectacle Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:49 pm

» HPH2 has assigned my account to HFUKH1L - Should I be worried?
by joedalton Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:05 am

Moon phases


In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Go down

In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by barnwebb on Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:07 pm

Hi guys,

This was put up in a fb group I'm a member of last December and I forgot to put it on here. I don't know the actual date of the hearing but now I'm getting grief from hoist over an alleged Barclays debt I wonder if any parts of it would be useful to me (or anyone else) in requesting info, CPR 31 etc before any court trouble comes about ?? My link .... http://goodf.forumotion.com/t1830-hoist-portfolio-howard-cohen-letter-of-claim

The story of 'In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil' is below:



Has Your debt been sold to a SPV who is trying to unlawfuly enforce the debt? This case was successfully won using the following ........

In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil

Between:

Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited Claimant

And

Miss Tina S............ Defendant

Defendant replies to the “Reply to Defence” as follows;

Para 2. The defendant submits that the burden of proof is not satisfied with hearsay by a legal representative per swift (attached) – the fraud act 2006 and the “Ghosh Test” (below)

Para 7. The defendant is severely sight-impaired and cannot read documents. John Hurst is her common law husband and assisted her in preparing her defence. The documents were not written by her , but accurately reflect her views.
The defendant's seperate and independent defences are as follows;

1. The defendant accepts that from 2003 she held a Barclays Credit Card. She submits that the document she signed to obtain it was a security issued by her, a promissory note (PN), and that the transaction that took place was purchase of the security by Barclays Bank which they deposited in their bank. There was no “Consideration” (real money) put forward by Barclays and a bank “Deposit” is a record of its unsecurted debt from the bank to the depositor in the amount specified as the “Credit Limit”. This was confirmed in the Bank of England's Quarterly review, which was submitted previously.

2. The defendant submits that the function of a properly directed court is to adjudicate on evidence that is placed before it. In the event of a contested claim, which this is, natural justice requires production of the PN to prove its existence and the nature of the transaction in question. (Times Newspaper 1974.....) Neither a “Khanna Subpoena” nor the applications of section 7 and 8 of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act 1879 should be necessary for the court to exercise its powers to secure the production of evidence and manage the case. This is the effect of the “Fundemental Principle” of the Civil Procedure Rules. This is a new measure (I.e post 2003) but is applicable to all parties.

3. The Defendant submits that without production of the PN, claims based upon it are unenforcable because the burden of proof is not satisfied.

4. The Defendant submits that if the agreement signed by her does not accurately reflect the nature of the transaction that took place, the contract is void from its start because of lack of disclosure by the bank.

5. The Defendant submits as is argued below, that a new statute (Fraud Act 2006) and a recent judgement (“The Ghosh Test”) have made attempts to make claims which are calculated to suspend their effects unlawful.

6. This is the “Commentary on fraud by false representation” in the explanatory notes to the Fraud Act 2006: 10 Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1) (a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh (1982) Q.B.1053. That judgement sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendants behavior would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people....”.

7. The Defendant submits that applying the ratio of Swift, the Fraud Act 2006, and the “Ghosh Test” to the facts of this claim as it is at the present time (i.e. without full disclosure) produces the following conclusions:

a: No reasonable person would expect to be forced to part with money to an unsworn claim made by a junior official of a firm of solicitors on behalf of an offshore company without production of original signed documents to substantiate the claim. They would regard an attempt to do so as dishonest and expect a Court to protect them from it.

b: Ignorance of the law is no excuse and the claimants solicitor should have taken the professional precautions that the Swift judgement requires. It is accepted that Swift originated in a different jurisdiction but the points of law that constitute the ratio decedendi are of universal application in the common law world. If either the claimant or their legal advisors persist in the claim in its present form their criminal culpability is not going to be in doubt.

c: Breach of those principles would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people. Note that in Swift, both the solicitor and the company official are “warned of the consequences” of non-compliance.

d: These concepts are reinforced by the criminal liability of company officers for offences committed by the company per section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006.

8. For the reasons given, the defendant submits that:

a: If the PN has not been transferred from Barclays to another party, the wrong entity is making this claim and it should be struck out per CPR 3.4.2 because it is contrary to section 1 (2) of the Fraud Act 2006, fraud by false representation as to fact.

b: If the PN is not produced at all the claim should be struck out per CPR 3.4.2 because it is contrary to section 1 (2) of the Fraud Act 2006, fraud by false representation as to fact.

c: If the PN is in the claimants possession it is prima facie evidence that the debt has been expunged by payment, and the claim should be struck out per CPR 3.4.2 because it is contrary to section 1. (2) of the Fraud Act 2006,fraud by false representation as to fact and law. If thisis denied by the claimant, the conract concerning the transfer should be disclosed as evidence. The defendant will give evidence that she had no prior knowledge of such transfers and this is corroborated by the letters that were sent to her afterwards informing her of them. If she took no part in the contract she is not bound by it. If some form of “power of attorney” was used it would fail the “Wednesbury reasonableness test because she did not know about it and again it cannot be binding upon her.

9. The defendant seperately submits that the original contract that she had with Barclaycard has become frustrated if the following alternative circumstances are proved to the civil standard.

a: If the PN has been “lost” “destroyed” or otherwise cannot be produced without blame attributable to either party, the contact between the defendant and Barclaycard was frustrated from the date of the event.

b: If the law, custom and practices concerning PN's have been repealed as described above, the contract between the defendant and the claimant was frustrated from the date of the Fraud Act 2006, 8th November 2006.

10. In either situation, the defendant submits that section 1 of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 is applicable.

Adjustments of rights and liabilities of parties to frustrated contracts.

(1) Where a contract governed by English law has become impossible of performance or been otherwise frustrated, and the parties thereto have for that reason been discharged from the further performance of the contract, the following provisions of this section shall, subject to the provisions of section 2 of this Act, have effect in relation thereto.

(2) All sums paid or payable to any party in pursuance of the contract before the time when the parties were so discharged (in this Act referred to as “the time of discharge”) shall, in the case of sums so paid, be recoverable from him as money received by him for the use of the party by whom the sums were paid, and, in the case of sums so payable, cease to be so payable:

Provided that, if the party to whom the sums were paid or payable incurred expenses before the time of dischargein, or for the purp[ose of, the performance of the contract, the court may, if it considers it just to do so having regrad to all circumstances of the case, allow him to retain or, as the case may be, recover the whole or any part of the sums so paid or payable, not being an amount in excess of the expenses so incurred...”

11. This is the counterclaim that the Defendant makes which was not addressed in the Claimant's resoponse. The £1,000 referred to is for the expenses incurred prepaing her defence.

12. The Defendant also seperately submits that the sum claimed as owed by Barclaycard is in doubt because of the LIBOR Judgemenbt aginst Barclays Bank and the application of the “Ghosh Test”. The consequences of this are either;

a. The sum claimed as owing has not been proved to a sufficient standard. A remedy would be, per the Swift Judgement, a reasoned calculation by a qualified member of Barclays Bank staff corroborated by records and presented in the form of a sworn statement by that official and subject to review by expert witnesses.

b. The sum claimed was the result of Criminal Fraud by individuals and because Fraud vitiates all, any claim based upon it cannot be enforced. An attempt to make a claim in these circumstances would be caught by section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, Fraud by failing to disclose information.

c. The sum claimed was the result of Criminal fraud by officials of Barclays Bank either wilfully or negligently. An attempt to make a claim in these circumstances would be caught by section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 – Fraud by abuse of position because bank officials have fiduciary responsibilities.

13. The Defendant submits, for the reasons given above, the Claimant should be making a claim against Barclays Bank, not her, because they were sold a pig in a poke (mochyn yn 'y' bag) Diolch yn fawr.

barnwebb
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 82
Join date : 2017-11-04

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by daveiron on Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:43 am

Hi,
I see thats from John Hurst ,that guy really knows his stuff. It also goes along with my belief regarding the creation of the credit.That is the reason I added it in the new 3 letters.
I would also guess that whoever has used the letters have never had the relevant questions addressed.

daveiron
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1190
Join date : 2017-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by barnwebb on Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:53 pm

Hi daveiron,

I don't know who John Hurst is so I'll have to look him up.

The previous three letters were always pretty much ignored when I sent them.

Is there anything in the Merthyr post that I can use to kill the Hoist claim against me before they file it in the court ?

barnwebb
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 82
Join date : 2017-11-04

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by daveiron on Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:00 pm

Hi ,
As this is tailored to Hoist ,I cannot see why you could not use it in its entirety .
Pay attention to para 7 sec 1. Its my belief this is the answer .

daveiron
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1190
Join date : 2017-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Tiggy on Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:19 pm

How exactly was this claim 'won' in the County Court, did it go to a final hearing and a Judge found in the defendants favour based upon the contents of the defence posted or was it simply discontinued?

Can you provide more details please, with a copy of the order handed down.

if it's not a 'tried and tested defence' I would caution anyone from using it.

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by LionsShare on Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:02 pm

@Tiggy wrote: if it's not a 'tried and tested defence' I would caution anyone from using it.
Very true & certainly wise words but, if no one ever uses it, how is it ever going to be tried & tested?

If others had thought of inventing the round wheel & never did where would we be today?
avatar
LionsShare
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 466
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Tiggy on Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:54 am

@LionsShare wrote:
@Tiggy wrote: if it's not a 'tried and tested defence' I would caution anyone from using it.
Very true & certainly wise words but, if no one ever uses it, how is it ever going to be tried & tested?

If others had thought of inventing the round wheel & never did where would we be today?
That's great if you want to volunteer to be a gineau pig Lion share and take the risk of losing, least you'll do it with your eyes open.

What I don't want and won't have (as we had it on GOODF), was a defence that someone says 'works' and what they were actually after was someone to try it out for them whilst they sat safely behind a computer screen.

It ended up getting a lot of unwary people unnecessary CCJ's because before we put a stop to it people had used it and it was an absolute load of crap.

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by barnwebb on Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:17 pm

@Tiggy wrote:How exactly was this claim 'won' in the County Court, did it go to a final hearing and a Judge found in the defendants favour based upon the contents of the defence posted or was it simply discontinued?

I know nothing more than the story I copied and pasted from a fb group as I said at the top of the post. It was said that "they" "won" but in what way I unfortunately don't actually know. I was half hoping someone in goodf might know about the case and give more info on it Smile

barnwebb
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 82
Join date : 2017-11-04

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by barnwebb on Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:22 pm

@daveiron wrote:Hi ,
As this is tailored to Hoist ,I cannot see why you could not use it in its entirety .
Pay attention to para 7 sec 1.  Its my belief this is the answer .  

Cheers, I'll have to do more research Smile

barnwebb
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 82
Join date : 2017-11-04

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Stevro on Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:25 pm

What is Swift?

7. The Defendant submits that applying the ratio of Swift, the Fraud Act 2006, and the “Ghosh Test” to the facts of this claim as it is at the present time (i.e. without full disclosure) produces the following conclusions:

Stevro
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by pieintheskywhenIdie on Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:31 pm

The Ghosh test is sort of obsolete after a recent Supreme Court ruling, the 2nd part is no longer considered to be needed.  If something is dishonest then there's no requirement to show that they were aware of it's dishonesty.

pieintheskywhenIdie
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-03-20

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Stevro on Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:50 pm

What is Swift?

Stevro
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Tiggy on Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:28 pm

@Stevro wrote:What is Swift?
It's a form of electronic monetary transfer system

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication provides a network that enables financial institutions worldwide to send and receive information about financial transactions in a secure, standardized and reliable environment.

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Stevro on Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:55 pm

Thanks. I tried Google but swift money just brought up same day loans

Stevro
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Tiggy on Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:42 pm

Sorry, I didn't realise Swift was mentioned in the defence and that's what you were asking about. I think it was actually Robertson vs Swift in the EU Supreme Court.

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/comet/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-robertson-v-swift/

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Stevro on Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:17 pm

Thanks Tiggy

Stevro
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-08-03

Back to top Go down

Re: In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum