I also thought that certain parts of a DN required "prominence" over other ones?

Here's her latest reply via email:

Dear xxxxxxxx

 

Your complaint is being taken seriously, and I have already dedicated much time to your concerns. I shall respond to you towards the end of next week to finalise this matter.

 

Regards

 

Caroline

 

Caroline Close-Smith

Trainee Solicitor

GRB Litigation

Barclays Bank PLC

 

DD: 020 711 64422

Fax: 01452 638 151

Clearway: 6006 4422

Email: [email protected]

Level 29, One Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP

Complaint is being taken seriously? So why not refer to it then in your most recent letter? Why not deal with the formal complaint in line with the FSA guidance?

(5) Where any statement is required to be in a form specified in a Schedule to these Regulations and is reproduced in

the notice, then apart from any heading to the notice, trade names or names of parties to the agreement--

(a) the lettering in the statement shall be afforded more prominence (whether by capital letters, underlining, large or

bold print or otherwise) than any other lettering in the notice; and

(b) where words are both shown in capital letters and underlined in any statement specified in a Schedule to these

Regulations, they shall be afforded yet more prominence.

(6) The wording in any such statement shall be reproduced in the notice without any alteration or addition, and in

relation to any statement to be contained in the notice the requirements of any note shall be complied with, except that the

words "the creditor" may be replaced by the name of the creditor, by the expression by which he is referred to in the

agreement or by an appropriate pronoun, and any consequential changes to pronouns and verbs may be used.

(7) Where any note requires any words to be omitted, those words shall be omitted or deleted.

Nice to know also that Barclays are sure the courts will consider a non-compliant default notice a de minimis issue.

How kind of a trainee solicitor to speak for the courts.

Nice to know also that Barclays are sure the courts will consider a non-compliant default notice a de minimis issue.

 

How kind of a trainee solicitor to speak for the courts.

I know... trainee solicitor to Judge in three easy letters!

Dear Caroline

As your replies clearly demonstrate that you are unable to distinguish between your arse and your elbow especially when dealing with the requirements of producing a compliant default notice under the relevant section of the 1974 Act ,it would probably benefit not only the remnants of your legal career but also the coffers of Barclays,if you did not waste any more of my time with your inept replies but instead passed this matter to a qualified member of Barclay's legal department.

Dear Caroline

 

As your replies clearly demonstrate that you are unable to distinguish between your arse and your elbow especially when dealing with the requirements of producing a compliant default notice under the relevant section of the 1974 Act ,it would probably benefit not only the remnants of your legal career but also the coffers of Barclays,if you did not waste any more of my time with your inept replies but instead passed this matter to a qualified member of Barclay's legal department.

Harsh... very harsh :p:p:p

I think that the issues in my claim are being backed up by Barclaycard very well in this matter. So far I have had the following confirmed JUST from correspondence with Miss Smith who, to her credit, has taken some time to respond to me (despite it being her job of course)...

1. The Default Notice was not compliant which would follow that whatever credit agreement was in existence was unlawfully rescinded

2. There is no deed of assignment between Barclaycard and any HFO incarnation

3. The simple contract that was the instrument of the account sale was not signed in accordance with s.36A of the Companies Act 1985

Tea anyone?

I think that the issues in my claim are being backed up by Barclaycard very well in this matter. So far I have had the following confirmed JUST from correspondence with Miss Smith who, to her credit, has taken some time to respond to me (despite it being her job of course)...

 

1. The Default Notice was not compliant which would follow that whatever credit agreement was in existence was unlawfully rescinded

 

2. There is no deed of assignment between Barclaycard and any HFO incarnation

 

3. The simple contract that was the instrument of the account sale was not signed in accordance with s.36A of the Companies Act 1985

 

Tea anyone?

or coffee

I'm just thinking out loud here...

...but the location of HFO Capital in the Cayman Islands/Ireland simply gives rise to the issue of non-dom tax status which is VERY HOT in the political news right now.

I think the issue of Barclaycard selling accounts to this company (in whatever incarnation they appear) raises a hell of a lot of questions.

I'm just thinking out loud here...

 

...but the location of HFO Capital in the Cayman Islands/Ireland simply gives rise to the issue of non-dom tax status which is VERY HOT in the political news right now.

 

I think the issue of Barclaycard selling accounts to this company (in whatever incarnation they appear) raises a hell of a lot of questions.

Do both of these companies hold consumer credit licences or did they at the time of purchasing these debts?

S.

Do both of these companies hold consumer credit licences or did they at the time of purchasing these debts?

 

S.

HFO Capital Ireland's Consumer Credit Licence was effected on 26-Mar-2008 yet the contracts, I believe, were signed on 31-Jan-2008.

HFO Capital Cayman was issued on 07-Jul-2005.

So it appears that HFOC Ireland, when they were sold the accounts from HFOC Cayman in Jan 2008 had no CCA licence and no DPA licence!!!

Bear in mind, VJ, that the whole Barclaycard operation is securitised offshore in Jersey!

As for HFO... well, the hole just gets deeper and deeper...

As for HFO... well, the hole just gets deeper and deeper...

I forgot to consider the CCL when looking at this HFOC Ireland issue... I will look into this a little more and "report" back.

I think are literally scratching the surface with this and it's a shame the fines are not more considerable.

"Unlicensed trading is a criminal offence punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both. You must not trade before your licence has been granted, or carry out business activities under a category it does not cover."

Pass the shovel...

Love it!

Hmm you have to questions barclays part in not checking who they were dealing with

S.

Hmm you have to questions barclays part in not checking who they were dealing with

 

S.

Well they don't sell accounts to them anymore which either suggests a better deal elsewhere or they were unhappy with something within the HFO organisation.

It's a shame a Freedom of Information request won't work with BC to find out the reason HFO were "dropped".

Just looking a bit more into the reason why the assignments need to be "Deeds of Assignment" I found this on the "Net Lawman" website

Not sure if it is relevant but it would appear that the Debt Collection Industry need to use a "Deed" because of the type of "Consideration" that is involved in this type of exchange of contract.

"An agreement to assign a contract, often called a ‘Deed of assignment’ allows one party (the assignor) to transfer ownership of something they own, such as a house or endowment policy, to someone else (the assignee). Mostly, the assignee pays the assignor in return for the transfer of title. This is called ‘consideration’.

This is a deed of assignment, provides for the transfer of benefits under a contract or contracts by the Assignor to an Assignee (who may or may not have paid for the assignment). It does not allow for the assignment or transfer of other property, or a life insurance policy for example.

The assignment does not affect the obligations of the Assignor to perform his part of the contract, so far as the other original contracting party is concerned. To be effective, there must be notice of the assignment to the other original contracting party which is provided for in schedule.

Why a deed? An essential ingredient of a legally binding contract is that each party must give 'consideration' to the other; that is to say, for example, money in return for goods. When such a contract is altered or assigned, there may not always be such consideration or value moving each way, in return for the assignment. A deed does not require this movement of value between the parties in order to be legally effective, so a document such as this must be a deed.

Do not risk important contracts being assigned incorrectly. Use a comprehensive document such as this to protect your interests".

This would seem to fly in the face of your Barclays Trainee Sol who says that it is a "simple contract" and not a deed in your case. So they use something called a "Forward Flow" agreement where both parties agree that the assignee will comit to buying a certain amout of debt within a particular criteria for 12 months. So by using the agreement as a "Deed" of the assignor and not a "Simple" contract, both parties are not commited to each other for a set amount of consideration.

In Simple terms :

"It is the Deed of this company that this will happen if the criteria are met.

Signed ...........

Of course I may be totally wrong!!

Beau

I think we need a trawl through HFO WSs to see what they call the agreements.

VJ, Donkey you have email

Replies to the set aside from AT

Reply to defence from CP