Jump to content

bigmac1955

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. I have just come off the telephone to TS. I am in Middx, they passed all the info onto Surrey, who have an on-going case against HFO. He is also very interested in the threats made by Roxburghe, and I have just scanned the letters to send to him. I have also written to Roxburghe, requested a CCA, and included various other pieces of information collected from these forums. TS will be calling me soonest after they receive the letters, and may come along for a chat - again. Will update as soon as I hear any further info
  2. Out of the blue, in December 2009, I get another letter about this alledged debt to 3G. The telephone calls from HFO had stopped - but only because I changed my phone number - a number which I had for many years, and changing it has caused a lot of stress. This letter in December is from Roxburghe Debt collections this time. Re Hutchison 3G UK ltd. Total amount due £491.56 !!!! Gone up huh! I wrote back to Roxburghe stating that there was no such debt with 3G, and advised them to get their facts correct. The letter in December is threatening, and contains the following line. quote please note that in the absense of payment or any valid dispute we will pursue this matter - with or without your cooperation. unquote Today, I get another letter from Roxburgh. Same account number this time it is re: HFO Capital limited amount £491.93. No reference to 3g at all now. Still threatening. quote we may instruct local external field representatives to call at your premises to collect the full outstanding balance unquote. When I had the first correspondence from HFO in 2008, I was in communication with our Trading Standards - they had asked me if I would appear in court if needed and give evidence against HFO practices. I was more than happy to do this. Am still waiting for this to happen. I will be giving the guy at our Trading Standards office a call this afternoon (he is in a meeting at the moment) - am sure he will be interested in HFO passing this non-existant debt to Roxburghe, and the threats that are now appearing
  3. Hi Is there any way I can find my old posts in here? I had a thread about it when it was going on - that has all the details. You are correct - the alledged debt was with 3 - I will look around to see if I can find my posts concerning it
  4. I got a letter from Roxburghe debt collectors this morning, claiming they were ready to start litigation against me regarding an unpaid debt to HFO!!!!! HFO were harrassing me for a debt about 3 years ago - so much so that I was forced to change my telephone number because of the number of harrassing telephone calls from them - anything up to 6 or 7 per day. The debt they were chasing me for did not exist - and I certainly wasnt paying for something that didnt exist. Now HFO have passed this to Roxburghe....... Quote from the letter from roxburghe this morning. ''should litigation commence, and in the event of judgement or decree being entered against you, it may affect your credit rating, and you will liable for all fixed legal fees and any statuory interest, which will be added to the debt. Alternatively we may instruct local external field representatives to call at your presmises to collect the full outstanding balance unquote Last bit made me smile - sounds like they want to visit me without the court knowing about it. Is it a threat? Can I report it to anyone? APologies if this is in the wrong thread - please advise if so, and I will move it.
  5. Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere in this forum........... OFT imposes requirements on 1st Credit over debt collection practices 20/09 25 February 2009 The OFT has taken action against 1st Credit Ltd requiring the company to improve its debt collection practices. The OFT has imposed 'requirements' on 1st Credit using consumer credit powers, after an investigation found that some of its business processes and procedures failed to meet satisfactory standards. As a result, 1st Credit Ltd and its associated companies must: refrain from issuing statutory demands warning of bankruptcy where it is unlikely that proceedings will be initiated not discuss legal action with consumers unless it is likely that such action will be taken ensure that sensitive cases involving vulnerable individuals, for example those with mental health or medical problems, are dealt with appropriately, and ensure that all matters of concern raised with them by the free advice sector and other third parties are dealt with appropriately. 1st Credit must also report back to the OFT every six months providing statistics regarding the number of enforcement actions it has taken against debtors. Failure to comply with the requirements could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 for each occurance and/or possible revocation of 1st Credit's consumer credit licence. In 2008, following receipt of an application to vary an associated company's licence, the OFT carried out an in-depth investigation into the business practices and procedures employed by companies operating under the 1st Credit banner. In assessing the companies' competence to carry out consumer credit activities, the OFT conducted on-site visits and reviewed complaints received about 1st Credit Ltd's debt collection practices via consumers, Citizens Advice, CCCS and Consumer Direct. The OFT raised concerns about its dissatisfaction with 1st Credit's behaviour and confirmed that it was looking to impose requirements to improve some of the company's business practices. 1st Credit acknowledged the problems and, as allowed under the Consumer Credit Act, proposed necessary changes to address the OFT's concerns. Ray Watson, OFT Director for Consumer Credit, said: 'The OFT welcomes the constructive approach that 1st Credit has taken in responding to the OFT's concerns about its activities. 'Debt collection firms have a clear legal obligation to deal fairly and proportionately with consumers. This is more important than ever given the current economic climate, when people may already be suffering as a consequence of debt problems. We will continue to use our licensing powers to take firm action to protect consumers where debt collectors engage in oppressive behaviour or practices that fail to comply with our guidance.' NOTES 1. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires debt collectors, businesses that offer goods or services on credit and/or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire, to be licensed by the OFT. 2. In 2003 the OFT issued the Debt Collection Guidance which sets out minimum standards for those intending to collect debts. Failure to comply with the Debt Collection Guidance may call into question the fitness of a business to hold a consumer credit licence. 3. Following implementation of the OFT's new powers under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 on 6 April 2008, where the OFT is dissatisfied with any matter in connection with a business, a proposal to carry on a business or any other conduct by a licensee, associate or former associate, the OFT may impose 'requirements' on the licensed business. Requirements may require a business to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified for the purposes connected with addressing the OFT's dissatisfaction, or securing that matters of the same or a similar kind do not arise. 4. If a single requirement is not complied with, the business concerned could be subject to a financial penalty of up to £50,000. The OFT may also refuse or revoke a licence if it decides that a trader is not fit to hold one. 5. Decisions to refuse or revoke a consumer credit licence or to impose a requirement or financial penalty are made by an adjudicating officer for and on behalf of the OFT. Before a decision is made, the adjudicating officer issues a notice to the trader. The trader is then given the opportunity to make representations to the adjudicating officer. In the event that the determination is adverse, the trader has the right of appeal against the determination to the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal. 6. Alternatively a business may make a proposal to address the OFT's dissatisfaction pursuant to section 33D(4) of the Act. In these circumstances the OFT is not required to issue a notice that it is minded to impose requirements if the proposed determination is in the same terms as the proposal made by the business. This was the process followed by 1st Credit. 7. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 requires the OFT to take into account 'credit competence' when assessing applications. Businesses operating in a high risk part of the market such as the debt collection sector are now subject to greater scrutiny at the licence application stage and greater monitoring throughout the life of the licence. 8. The fact that requirements have been imposed on 1st Credit Ltd appears on the consumer credit register. Download the requirements imposed (pdf 2.44 Mb). We will monitor 1st Credit Ltd's compliance with the requirements. Any complaints about non-compliance should be sent to: Enquiries Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX [email protected] 9. OFT advice for those being pursued by debt collectors is: don't panic or ignore the problem, seek help and advice from your nearest Citizens Advice Bureau and contact those who you owe money to as soon as possible. 10. On 6 April 2007, the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme was extended to cover consumer credit. This provides consumers with an effective means of resolving consumer credit disputes which have occurred since the scheme's start date if the consumer has failed to satisfactorily resolve the matter directly with the consumer credit licensee itself. The FOS can be contacted at: The Financial Ombudsman Service South Quay Plaza 183 Marsh Wall London E14 9SR Telephone: 0845 080 1800
  6. I have had nothing but trouble and stress from HFO. A few months ago I got in touch with my local Trading Standards. They have now asked me to sign a statement, as they are are commencing legal proceedings against HFO. Am more than happy to do so. For info - I am in Middx - so if anyone else in Middx contacts the Uxbridge Trading Standards office - they would love to hear from you.
  7. HI all i am not sure if I have come to the right place for advice on this, or even if am posting in the correct part of the site. I apoligise if I have erred. Five years ago, out of the blue, I received mail stating I was being sued for 1/4 million pounds for a patent infringement. First of all, I thought it was a joke - but it wasnt - and still isnt. I will try and keep this as simple as possible. I started manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing an item in 1998, and had already found out that it could not be patented. Things were going well until the dreaded letter. Someone reckoned they had a patent for this item. His date of application for the patent was June 1999. I have photographic evidence showing clearing that I was selling the item prior to that - the photographs have dates on them. I have spent thousands defending myself. I also found out that they guy that is suing me is getting legal aid somehow!!!. Once my funds had run out, my solicitor pointed this out to the judge, and he promptly granted me legal aid too - but this was little consolation as I had become almost bankrupt, and the business had died. I now have a patent lawyer defending me on a pro-bono basis. The guy that is sueing me has ''sacked'' two lawyers. They both told him that he cannot win as the photographs and dates have been verified by a professional photographic company. He still maintains they are fake. He has also complained to the law society about his lawyers. I have found out he has nothing and is unemployed, and I am unlikely to get any of my fees back. The case has now been hanging over my head for 5 years - and is really getting me down. I cannot afford to put it back into court myself for two reasons. A - it would be money spent, without a chance of getting it back, and B - I simply havent got the money to do it. The guy appears now to just want to leave the case in court and let me stew. He has also been spamming several USA based outlets where I supply the items too, and giving them a hard time. Is there any way I get this finished without additional expense? Any advice or help appreciated.
  8. I wrote to Trading standards about HFO. They have today contacted me with regard to making a statement, as they are most interested in prosecuting them. The guy from TS is visiting me during 2nd week of July (he is on hols for 2 weeks from now) - he is absolutely furious that harrassing telephone calls caused me to change my phone number which I have had for 20 years. He is also incensed by the way that HFO get details - eg send a card from First Direct Logistics, then send you the claim for payment. I will keep you informed.
  9. Hi Patrick My original post on this gives more info...... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/139784-yet-another-hfo-thread.html#post1487956 thanks
  10. I am also stll having problems with HFO. I have requested CCA, but so far without response. I was getting numerous very harrassing telephone calls from them, despite my request that they cease this. I have a severe heart condition, and many of the calls were bringing on bad angina attacks. I made them very aware of this when they first called. After the first couple calls, I simply stated to them that I did not have any debt with them so had no reason to discuss anything and put the phone down. Sometime there would be 3 or 4 calls in a 10 minute period. When doing a 1471 for the calls, some were from their office, but most were from mobile phones or a network which was not recognised. This got so bad, that I have now had to change my telephone number - a number which I had for over 20 years - and had to go through all the hassle of trying to make sure all my contacts have the new number. I have this morning receiving a letter frmo Turnbull Rutherford informing me that they have been instructed to commence legal proceedings unless the debt is settled within 14 days. The amount in this letter is £415.77. This is the third different amount they have mentioned. The initial contact from HFO was for £209.50. I dispute that this debt exists. Should they go ahead with legal proceedings, I will be nable to attend a court in their area as I am unable to travel. Should I respond to the letter from Turnbull Rutherford? or just await a letter fromt he court? Any advice appreciated
  11. Thanks for response Doc - appreciated. I can assure you that I will be sticking to my guns on this. I dont allow companies like that to walk into my life and make demands. Will keep you updated thanks bigmac
  12. OK - am going to try and keep this as simple as possible, but that is a challenge on its own. 5 years ago, I had a mobile phone from ''3''. I had it for a month, wasnt happy, and I sent it back. They acknowledged receipt of the phone. They then invoiced me for £291.60. I argued about this obviously, and after many communications, they finally admitted that they had made a mistake. That was that - or so I thought. I heard nothing else for 3 years - until 2 weeks ago. I got a letter from ''3'', informing me they assigned the debt to HFO Capital limited (aka HFO Services limited). Apparently they had passed the debt with effect from 31 May 2007. But dont inform me until now? strange. The next day, I get a card from First Direct logistics, say they have a package for me, but were unable to deliver it. This card was sent through the mail - so how they knew they couldnt deliver the package is beyond me. It had a reference number, and asked me to call, quoting the reference no. so they could arrange redelivery. I called it, and left a message with the ref no. 6 days later they call me. The aske me to confirm my name and address so they could redeliver the package. I found this strange, and just said to redeliver to the name and address on the package, and refused to give them my details. 3 days later, I get a phone call from HFO asking for payment of my ''3'' debt. This conversation got very heated - and the guy ''Shane'', said they would continue to call me 3 times a day until they got payment. It didnt matter to him that as far as I was concerned there was no such debt. Today, I get a letter from HFO, basically demanding payment. Oddly enough the amount claimed this time was £410.23 - an increase of almost £120 from the original amount in the letter from ''3''. Co-incidence that the reference number on the card from First Direct Logistics was the same 8 figure digit as the HFO reference number? I wrote to ''3'' about this over the weekend, and they have called me today, to confirm that they have passed the debt to HFO. It doesnt seem to matter to them that there is no debt, as they have already admitted it was a mistake at their end. They just repeated several times that all correspondence regarding this should be sent to HFO. This conversation also got rather heated. The wording in the HFO letter received today (the letter has a heading........LEGAL INFORMATION at the top). The wording does certainly not sound as tho it is legal information. for example..... HFO's collection strategy is dynamic and focused on you......This sounds very much like a threat. if we do not hear from you with 14 days, your account will be moved from my desk for further action...............I cant see that as being legal jargon. This will cost you money. The extra cost and aggravation does not seem worth it for a debt of £410.23.............CERTAINLY not written by anyone in the legal profession. There are various strange occurances within all the correspondences. The original letter from ''3'' had the HFO reference number on it. When they called today, I asked him how they knew the HFO reference number. He said they dont have any record of my HFO number. Then how did it appear on the letter from them? My guess is that HFO sent the letter out on behalf of ''3'', on their headed paper, with ''3's'' address on it, to make it look legitimate. Also, todays letter from HFO services begins with the wording.............''We recently sent you confirmation that your debt has been assigned to HFO...''. The only confirmation I had received about this, was supposedly from ''3''. First Direct logistics and HFO are registered at the same address. - co-incidence? I dont think so. I called First Direct bank today to ask whether they had anything to do with First Direct logistics. They have been inundated with this question and are passed all information to their Brand protection department to investigate. I am ceraintly not going to pay this debt - it does not exist. it is totally wrong that companies can write to simply anyone, demanding payment for anything. I am in my 50's and already suffered a major heart attack. The stress brought on by this could put me back in hospital. I have passed all information to BBC's watchdog, and have had a chat with The Office of Fair Trading about it, who advised to deny the debt in writing to both companies. They MUST respond in writing within 14 days apparently. Searching around the internet, I have found various forums with many complaints about HFO and First Direct Logistics. Apparently they are already under investigation by several police forces, Oftel, and the Trading Standards Office. Companies like this should not be allowed to cause so much trouble and harrassment to anyone. Am not sure what the next move will be by either of them (3 or HFO), but this certainly is not good for my health.
  13. my first time here - just thought I'd say hello. Excellent informative forum - having problems with HFO, and when I googled them, it took me to these forums. Just going to start another thread about them
×
×
  • Create New...