Thread: Going to Cout with HFC

Hi Dyanamo

Have you looked in the successes forum here? You may find people there who have successfully been to court. Posters should have put up thread links so you can have a look.

I have received the defence from HFC today.

Under preliminary matters it says:

The Terminology used in the POC is adopted and,
The allegations in the Particulars of Claim are denied.

Not sure what the first line means.

Basically I am pursing this under the 'suffered from previous medical condition' and 'not been given a choice' and 'told it was a must for the loan to be accepted'. They of course are denying all of this.

Here are most of their points:
*The Defendance relies on the Agreement itself which clearly sets out the PPI loan. In addition, the Defendant avers that the deatails that the policy was optional.
* By letter the Claimants agreed to the following as confirmed by his signature " We arranged a personal loan for xxx. Your loan is protected by optinal credit protection insurance. Full details of the cover and cost areproided in your policy document and the main benefits and exclusions have been explained."

I also had to fill out an Income Protection Needs Form where I had to list the worst things that could happen. I listed:
1) Serious Accident
2) Serious Illness
etc....aren't all these things normal things that people worry about? Although the form does says this cover was optional I was explained that the loan would not be accepted without it.

It also goes on to say that I am barre from bringing a claim pursuant to the statute of limitations act 1980 as the loan started August 2001 but finished January 2004.

Really need some help here, never got this far before. What do I need to do now?

I would like to add the Income Protection Needs was not filled out by me and is not signed by me. There is also a line that reads: What is a comfortable amount you could put aside each month to cover your income? The answer is listed as £20 yet my PPI totalled £49.14.

Here is a copy of the Loan Agreement.
http://i37.tinypic.com/344z58x.jpg

Here is a copy of the Income Protection Needs form which I don't remember doing and was not disclosed to me in my SAR. However, I do remember having an informal chat about this sort of thing but I DID NOT fill out any form. They also say that "A no time did the Claimant inforn the Defendant o any pre-existing medical conditions. ...... By signing the agreement, had a previous medical condition existing the Claimant made a false declaration."
http://i35.tinypic.com/t7h2ja.jpg
Just to round things off, here is my POC
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM


1. The Claimant had a credit agreement XXXXXXX ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on 1st August 2001 and closed on 2nd January 2004.

2. At the time of undertaking the credit agreement, the agent acting on behalf of the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

3. The Claimant contends that:

a) Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made;
i) The Insurances sold to the Claimant were not defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement, the Claimant was informed that The Insurance was part and parcel of having a loan. The Defendants agent misrepresented the fact that the insurance was compulsory, due to inexperience in financial matters at the time of the Claimant, this was taken at face value; the Claimant felt that there was no choice but to agree to the credit bargain.
ii) The Insurance was miss-sold, as the Claimant was employed at the time in an industry where redundancy is unheard of, the Claimant’s employers operated a policy of death in service benefits and sickness policy of such a generosity that any insurance would have been wholly unnecessary;
iii) Furthermore the Claimant had pre-existing medical conditions which the Defendant failed to ascertain whether The Insurance remained valid or indeed appropriate to the Claimant’s circumstances.

b) The Claimant contends that the agent for the Defendant was fully aware of the Claimants circumstances and fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behavior then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ agents’ mistake as to facts.

d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments
ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit
iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit
iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA.


4. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £2152.82 by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £2152.82 by virtue of the Defendants agents’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant.


c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £2152.82 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £2152.82.

d) Court costs;
e) Administration costs
f) The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from various charging dates to 2nd January 2004 of £652.76 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.00022 per day.

Originally Posted by Dyanomo

HFC are watching! I got a call yesterday asking when I would like to withdraw my claim. They said not to rely on on people off this website.

Bloody cheek!

It's all about the threats and pressure with these lot

Originally Posted by Dyanomo

HFC are watching! I got a call yesterday asking when I would like to withdraw my claim. They said not to rely on on people off this website.

Bloody cheek!

Hi HFC

Dyanomo: Don't let them deflect you.

Hi HFC? How are you? Still counting the cost of your mis-selling fine are we?

So they want to raise the issue of this website in court do they? Fine. What about the success stories on here of people who have been successful in getting back the money that is rightfully theirs? I bet the courts are interested in that.

Also, perhaps the should look at the FSA handbook which outlines how organisations should treat the customer fairly - does bullying and threats fall within those guidelines? I think not.

Let them mention this website all they like. It proves that there is a consumer bandwagon rolling along and that the punative action taken against them has not been enough for them to sit up and listen and that they are still treating customers with disdain and disrespect.

Perhaps HFC's behaviour is worth mentioning to the Office of Fair Trading as it seems that a fine has done nothing to change their contemptuous attitude towards their customers. I'm sure others would happily join you in writing a mass complaint to the OFT about this organisation.

Still enjoying your reading, HFC?

Originally Posted by bathgatebuyer

Hi HFC? How are you? Still counting the cost of your mis-selling fine are we?

So they want to raise the issue of this website in court do they? Fine. What about the success stories on here of people who have been successful in getting back the money that is rightfully theirs? I bet the courts are interested in that.

Also, perhaps the should look at the FSA handbook which outlines how organisations should treat the customer fairly - does bullying and threats fall within those guidelines? I think not.

Let them mention this website all they like. It proves that there is a consumer bandwagon rolling along and that the punative action taken against them has not been enough for them to sit up and listen and that they are still treating customers with disdain and disrespect.

Perhaps HFC's behaviour is worth mentioning to the Office of Fair Trading as it seems that a fine has done nothing to change their contemptuous attitude towards their customers. I'm sure others would happily join you in writing a mass complaint to the OFT about this organisation.

Still enjoying your reading, HFC?

Oooo, another HFC fan Welcome to an ever growing club

I did with my claim against the Halifax although to date I've not heard anything from them. I chased them up and they said they have not been passed my details despite me returning it with the aq.

Will have to chase it up again - a good reminder

Have a read of this thread.

I decided against Mediation. The papers I got about it seemed to be more towards a dispute between 2 people who may have an ongoing relationship in the future after the court case has ended.

Couldn't see the point to it myself when the case is between a person and a faceless company.