Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

help with court request HFO for a monument card


linz2011
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5189 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi guys I have received another claim form from Northampton.

 

POC's:

 

The claimant HFO Services Ltd is a services and collections company, which collects debts on behalf of HFO Capital Ltd. The claim is for monies due under a regulated interest bearing credit agreement. The assignee HFO Capital Ltd purchased the defendants account and all rights and obligations attacheing thereto from the original on 6/5.06. The original lender was Monumnet. A letter of assignment has been provided to the defendant previously. The claimant also claims interest thereon pursuant to S.69 of the CCA 1984 at the rate of 8% up to the date of judgement or earlier payment in full at the rate of X.XX per day. Contractual interest at the rate of 12% will accrue after judgement.

 

Do I just send the usual letter asking them for everything? they have not provided a notice of assignment, Monument are in breach of a SAR request made on 7th May 2007?

 

Thanks guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Firstly phone the court and let them know that HFO Capital are based in the Cayman Islands and it's been ruled in the UK that they CANNOT use HFO Services to claim money on their behalf - no recipricol agreement exists.....

 

Also inform the court in writing that you have not (I assume you have not) received the mentioned Assignment nor any Letter Before Action from HFO Services. Northampton is a Bulk court and they are trying to pull a fast one....

 

As it's got to court you can save yourself £10 and do a CPR Part 16 (or is it part 18 request) as part of the court defence. If they don't supply the info you need (its in one of the stickys) then the case can be struck out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly phone the court and let them know that HFO Capital are based in the Cayman Islands and it's been ruled in the UK that they CANNOT use HFO Services to claim money on their behalf - no recipricol agreement exists.....

 

 

 

Hmmm very interesting, can you confirm where this has come from, what case law established this principle as it would be very very useful

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My understanding was that anyone can claim in the English courts, provided they have an address for service in England. This could be their solicitors.

 

The determining factor is whether the agreement is subject to English law, not the residence of the claimant.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi

Please can you help me with this I have received a notice of allocation to the fast track:

 

The judge orders that you and the other parties prepare for trial as follows with a timescale of 2 hours!!

 

Disclosure shall take place as follows:

each party shall give standard discovery to every other party by list

The latest date for delivery is 31/7/08

The latest date for service of any request to inspect or for a copy of a document is 7/8/08

Each party shall serve on every other party the witness statements of all witnesses of fact on whom he intends to rely

There shall be simultaneous exchange of such statements no later than 4/9/08

No expert evidence being necessary, no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence.

Each party shall serve any request for clarification or further information based on any document disclosed or statement served by another party no later than 14 days after disclosure or service

Any such request shall be dealt with within 14 days of service

Each party must file a completed pre trial checklist no later than 26/9/08 and the claimant must pay a fee of £100. In addition a hearing fee of £500 must be paid by the claimant.

 

Not too sure what i need to do - any help with this please would be appreciated.

 

I have sent the CPR request and they have failed to comply as yet

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Please can you help me with this I have received a notice of allocation to the fast track:

 

The judge orders that you and the other parties prepare for trial as follows with a timescale of 2 hours!!

 

Disclosure shall take place as follows:

each party shall give standard discovery to every other party by list

The latest date for delivery is 31/7/08

The latest date for service of any request to inspect or for a copy of a document is 7/8/08

Each party shall serve on every other party the witness statements of all witnesses of fact on whom he intends to rely

There shall be simultaneous exchange of such statements no later than 4/9/08

No expert evidence being necessary, no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence.

Each party shall serve any request for clarification or further information based on any document disclosed or statement served by another party no later than 14 days after disclosure or service

Any such request shall be dealt with within 14 days of service

Each party must file a completed pre trial checklist no later than 26/9/08 and the claimant must pay a fee of £100. In addition a hearing fee of £500 must be paid by the claimant.

 

Not too sure what i need to do - any help with this please would be appreciated.

 

I have sent the CPR request and they have failed to comply as yet

 

Thanks

Hi Linz

 

Can you give us a bit more background - who is the claimant, who is the defendant, what is the claim?

 

The 'standard discovery by list' bit means that you have to serve on the other party and file in court a list of all the documents you want to see for your case. Presumambly this will just be the list you have already sent them under CPR part 18. Let us know what that was and we can advise if anything else should go on it. You have to send this list by 31 July. It could be that the bank will balk at this and offer to settle.

 

If they don't give up here, then, if you want to see original copies of any of the documents, you have to send a list of those by 7 August. This another opportunity for the bank to give up.

 

Then you have to prepare and serve a witness statement by 4 October - we can help you with that once we know what the case is, etc. You will get their witness statement(s) at the same time and you have 14 days to ask any questions about it (and they about yours) with 14 days to reply.

 

Finally, by 26 September, you have to complete a pre-trial checklist

which the court will send you.

 

So the first thing you need to do is to put together the list of things you want from the other side. Keep us posted and we'll help you through the rest

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Thanks for the response - it is HFO for a monument card it is £6k balance they are taking me to court - they sent a letter back to the CPR saying they want to help and prevent court action please ring our offices - which I did not and I have not heard anything since. So do I just sent a copy of the CPR to the court?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I suggest you ask for:

a) a copy of the executed agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for the account;

 

b) a full statement of account showing all relevant debits and credits, including any charges added to the account by the Claimant;

 

c) copies of Default Notices (if any) issued pursuant to s87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the Claimantto the Defendant;

 

d) a copy of any Notice of Assignment to the Claimant relating to the Defendant’s account;

 

e) if copies of any of the above documents are to be relied on in court rather than originals, a copy of the Notice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence required under s2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 together with proof of the authenticity of the document(s) as required under s8(1)(b) of the Act, including but not limited to:

 

(i) a copy of the procedure(s) used for copying, storing and retrieving documents;

(ii) a copy of the relevant log entry showing the time and date of the scan or copy, the name of the member of staff making the copy, the method used for copying, storage and retrieval and time and date of destruction of the original document(s);

(iii) copies of internal and external audit reports covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedures have been complied with;

(iv) copies of Quality Assurance accreditation certificates covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedure(s) and audit process(es) comply with the appropriate quality standards.

Edited by steven4064

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - I got it slightly wrong. You can't ask for documents - they have to volunteer what they have, as do you. Nothing that is not on the list can then be use in court.

 

You need to use form N265 off Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i am a little confused that form says things like "state that I have carried out a reasonable and proportionate search to locate all the documents which I am required to disclose under the order made by the court on (date of order)

 

I sent the CPR request and they have not responded - should I not sent a copy of that letter and nothing else because that is all i am relying on as they have not produced the documents that form looks like what the claimaint has to fill in - sorry if i am being dim but all the other times i have done this it has been small claims and relatively straight forward

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...