Hoist/Lowells

bluegrey012

Hi,

Long time lurker, first time poster here. I'm after a bit of advice please. Lowells have contacted my partner regarding a debt. Lowells have acquired Hoist Finance and this debt was with Hoist.

My partner sent a provit letter regarding this debt several years ago, and received a reply from Hoist to say the debt was unenforceable. 

So, what should they do now? Send a copy of the letter they received from Hoist to Lowells? Or send a statute barred letter? The default date of the debt (as detailed on the provit letter reply received from Hoist) was over 6 years ago.

Thank you

fatbelly

Yes, a lot of accounts have come over to Lowell

https://debtcamel.co.uk/hoist-debt-sold-to-lowell/

You can politely remind them that Hoist agreed several years ago that this was unenforceable and, as such, this is of a lower priority and you will not be making payments.

sourcrates

bluegrey012 said:

 The default date of the debt (as detailed on the provit letter reply received from Hoist) was over 6 years ago.

Thank you

You also have statute barred as a back up defence as well then.

BadDebtor

bluegrey012 said:

Hi,

Long time lurker, first time poster here. I'm after a bit of advice please. Lowells have contacted my partner regarding a debt. Lowells have acquired Hoist Finance and this debt was with Hoist.

My partner sent a provit letter regarding this debt several years ago, and received a reply from Hoist to say the debt was unenforceable. 

So, what should they do now? Send a copy of the letter they received from Hoist to Lowells? Or send a statute barred letter? The default date of the debt (as detailed on the provit letter reply received from Hoist) was over 6 years ago.

Thank you

I heard from a fried of mine who had several debts bought by Hoist, she said that Lowell sent her letters for all of them even though they were statute barred.

It really ought to be illegal with fines for deliberate harassment on the off chance that someone will not know their rights.

You only have to search for Lowells on here or on YouTube to see what kind of company they are.

fatbelly

BadDebtor said:

I heard from a fried of mine who had several debts bought by Hoist, she said that Lowell sent her letters for all of them even though they were statute barred.

It really ought to be illegal with fines for deliberate harassment on the off chance that someone will not know their rights.

You only have to search for Lowells on here or on YouTube to see what kind of company they are.

The FCA has written to all the debt purchasers to explain that their attitude to chasing statute barred debts is hardening with the new Consumer Duty that comes in at the end of July:

4. Statute barred debts In our January 2021 letter to you we raised issues in the DPCA sector concerning litigation and unenforceable debts. Following this letter, we undertook a review to determine whether DPCA firms’ systems and controls were effective; and that customers are being treated fairly, both prior to a debt becoming, and once it becomes, statute barred. This review demonstrated pockets of good practice, but there was some evidence that our expectations regarding statute barred debt were still not being met.

Crucially, some firms are still sending misleading communications to customers in relation to statute barred debts. In particular, some firms are misleading customers by suggesting or stating that they may be the subject of court proceedings when the firm knows or ought reasonably to know that the relevant limitation period has expired. CONC 7.15 sets out our requirements on firms in relation to statute barred debts, and it will also be important for firms to fulfil the third outcome of the Duty, on consumer understanding, and the Duty’s cross-cutting rule on acting in good faith toward customers.

Our review found several further aspects of conduct where our expectations on statute barred debt were not yet being met:

a) Approaches to statute barred debt: We found firms’ approaches to statute barred debt were not well defined. Firms should consider setting a clear and appropriate standard in relation to their approach to statute barred debt and take a view on how they are best able to measure their performance against this standard.

b) Policy and process: When reviewing firms’ policies applicable to statute barred debt, we saw that firms’ policies are frequently driven by strict compliance with relevant rules and Laws (such as the Limitation Act 1980 or CONC 7.15) with limited consideration and recognition of customer outcomes. Particularly in light of the Consumer Duty and the need for firms to pay regard to and measure consumer outcomes, firms should identify how customer harm could be caused during, and after, the limitation period and how this will be managed to reduce the risk; and define what outcomes customers can expect.        

 c) Incorrect application of non-payment transactions: Our review highlighted non-payment transactions (for example, credits from the original creditor or balance adjustments) were not always correctly identified, leading internal systems to identify them as ‘causes of action’ and re-setting the limitation period for a debt. Firms may wish to consider how and when these types of failure may occur; and review the control framework so that limitation periods are not inappropriately extended.

d) Customer information requests: The review identified that information that customers had requested is not consistently delivered to them within reasonable timescales. This could expose customers to harm. Ensuring customers consistently receive adequate information at the point of advice or engagement and receive sufficient information about all relevant options available to them, are important steps toward meeting the third outcome of the Duty on Consumer Understanding.

e) Oversight: We found that firms generally do not monitor statute barred debt processes or outcomes as a priority. Firms may wish to consider undertaking customer journey reviews with specific focus on potential points of failure pre- or post- limitation period, to ensure that the debt pursued is both compliant and that it provides good customer outcomes.

f) Credit reference agency reporting: Firms should ensure that reporting to Credit Bureau is accurate. This applies regardless of whether the debt is statute barred or not.

g) Staff training: We found that staff are not always sufficiently trained on dealing with statute barred debt. Therefore, firms may wish to consider providing enhanced training materials. This may include for example, practical case studies and scenarios, relevant to staff day-to-day roles and include additional guidance for specialist dispute and complaint handlers.

We will monitor firms’ progress against the key aspects identified above and act where required.

bluegrey012

Hi, thank you for your advice. I have discovered that my partner did not follow the steps here (no judgement please - they suffer with poor mental health) and the alleged debt has been passed to Global Debt Recovery. 

So, I need to help them. To clarify should we email a photograph of the reply to the provit letter from Hoist which states that the debt is unenforcable to Global Debt Recovery with a "please see attached" message? Or should we be saying more than that.

And then send the statute barred afterwards?

I am anxious that we do the right thing 

fatbelly

As before, you politely remind them that Hoist agreed several years ago that this was unenforceable and, as such, this is of a lower priority and you will not be making payments.

Yes, send a copy of the letter if you have it. That's all you need do