Re: RobWay/Cohen - advice please?

by **daveiron** Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:42 pm

Reconstituted terms and conditions only apply after 2006 also illigible docs are
of no use to them at all and could never be accepted by a court.

May be worth looking at the NoCA route,but you need to do your research
first.

by Musicbox34 Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:43 am

Mrblue2015 wrote:Any notice of assignment? Any default notice?

Not so far this time. They only sent the "Terms and Conditions". But they say they are waiting for more documents from the OC.

Usually when I ask them for the documents they send:
- Copy of Signed credit agreement
- Final statements from the account
- A page of "Historical Transactions" from the account
- and last time they also sent a copy of the Notice of Assignment (I've only had one of this so far)

So far they haven't ever sent a copy of the Default Notice.

The only things I had in the SAR from the OC relating to this account was a small bundle of some "copy statements". None of the other stuff that Hoist have been sending me.

by Musicbox34 Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:52 am

daveiron wrote:Reconstituted terms and conditions only apply after 2006 also illigible docs are
of no use to them at all and could never be accepted by a court.

May be worth looking at the NoCA route,but you need to do your research
first.

So they would need to provide the original terms and conditions? According to the copy of the agreement they sent, it says these terms and conditions should be on the back of the agreement. The terms and conditions they sent definitely aren't a copy of the back of the same agreement they sent, but can they say they are the same?
The back of the agreement copy they sent just has an official stamp, so I don't know if the agreement still exists in its original form, or only as a photocopy of the front sheet. (The OC didn't send a copy of this agreement to me with my SAR).

by **Mrblue2015** Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:01 am

They haven’t really got a leg to stand on, and they know it. So keep calm and carry on as they say.

by **daveiron** Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:30 am

You require a 'true and certified copy' of the original agreement,
along with the signature of who is attesting it to be a true copy.

Have you looked at the Notice of Conditional Acceptance yet ?
Once you understand that and have sent notice 1 ,its removed any
controvesy & therefore nothing for a court to make a judgement upon.
You are offering to settle any alleged debt upon production of
specific documents. ( which they will never be able to provide).

by Musicbox34 Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:05 am

daveiron wrote:You require a 'true and certified copy' of the original agreement,
along with the signature of who is attesting it to be a true copy.

Have you looked at the Notice of Conditional Acceptance yet ?
Once you understand that and have sent notice 1 ,its removed any
controvesy & therefore nothing for a court to make a judgement upon.
You are offering to settle any alleged debt upon production of
specific documents. ( which they will never be able to provide).

They have previously sent copies of the original signed agreement. I think that came with a signed covering letter from the OC (would need to check that exactly).
Does that count as a certified copy?
I looked at the Notice of Conditional Acceptance, but I'm not sure if I understand how that works, especially as they have sent copies of the signed agreement.

by **daveiron** Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:40 am

According to your previous post ,what they have sent you is
only a photo copy of part of what they claim is the original.if it does
not contain all that the original did its not complete.
That is why you must demand a 'True copy' .Without that they could have
cobbled anything together.

All they have bought is a list of defaulted accounts. As you can see they
had to run to the OC for documents. The originals of which were sold to
investors years ago.
Call their bluff ,Inform them you will settle any alleged claim upon production
and exchange of the original. The only one that could have a valid claim
is the holder in due course (& thats not them) .
Thats why you require in exchange for settlement the original so that you
can destroy or cancel it.

by **Mrblue2015** Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:06 pm

And to add to DaveIron. In effect you continue with process as it instructs you to do so. It does say “ignore whatever they come back with” / “send the next letter” etc

by Sponsored content