This is a debt purchase agreement, not a deed. It states an agreement to transfer the creditor's rights, but is silent about obligations.

This bunch of comics have probably pleaded in their Statement of Claim that they acquired the creditor's obligations as well. They need to do so in order to qualify as a creditor under s189 of the CCA 1974.

If they've pleaded othere was a trandfer of bligations and the purchase agreement says not, then they're lying.

If you look at the assignment clause of the original credit agreement, and duties aren't assignable, they're buggered that way as well.

State in your defence that you neither admit nor deny any assignment. That puts them to proof.

I can't emphasise this too strongly: when you submit your Statement of Defence, state that you neither admit nor deny any assignment of the account and of the rights and duties attaching thereto, as pleaded or at all.

In order to be your creditor by assignment - see definition section in CCA s189(1) - HFO must have been given both the contractual duties and the contractual rights.

Look for the assignment clause in the Terms and Conditions. If it provides for an assignment of rights and benefits, then there is no possibility of duties having passed unless you've signed a novation (which most people haven't done).

The way to beat these people is to put them to proof of assignment. Remember to put at the end of your Statement of Defence a standard paragraph that runs:

"Further to the above, the Defendant neither admits nor denies all other things expressly pleaded by the Claimant."

Then look at the assignment clause in your credit agreement. It usually provides for the assignment of the original lender's rights and/or benefits. Those can be assigned with or without your consent.

The assignment of duties needs your consent, and if you haven't given it either in the contract or at all, then under s189(1) CCA 1974, they don't fall within the definition of a "creditor".

A notice of assignment need not be in any particular form.If it states no date (and probably if it states no amount) then it will be a good notice if it sufficiently describes the debt. But if it specifies the date, then it must be strictly accurate. (I think that's either in Chitty or in Treitel).

Can you tell me what that case law is?

I know Chitty's expensive, but your local university library might have a copy.

Since HFO Services - or rather their principal HFO Capital Ltd - are a debt purchase company who deal in assigned debts, you should put them to proof in court of the assignment. See Law of Property Act 1925 s 136, and Chitty's text on contract law concerning assignment, both legal and equitable.

If the date on their witness statement doesn't match the date on their pleadings their case can't succeed.

Basically, you should tick the boxes that state you prefer to settle out of court. As for your defence, if HFO have stated the assignment date as 12 March 2009, all you need do is put them to proof by stating that you neither admit nor deny their allegation that any original lender assigned your account to HFO capital on that date.

You can get CPR 16.5 on the Internet or at your public library.

(1) You have to set out which of the claimant's allegations you admit.

(2) You have to set out which of the claimant's allegations you deny.

(3) You have to set out which of the claimant's allegations you neither admit nor deny, but which you require the claimant to prove.

Remember, admissions and denials are only for facts which, if they existed, would be within your direct knowledge, as opposed to hearsay. Especially theirs.

If the assignment date they put in their statement of case is 12 March 2009, put them to proof on this. Then watch them squirm!

Remember, you must file a fully particularised and pleaded defence that complies with CPR 16.5.

They have to prove four things.

The name of the original lender and the identity of the account. As soon as they do that you can admit those two.

The assignment date. This is where you state that you neither admit nor deny, but require the claimant to prove. If the assignment date on the pleadings doesn't match the date on the notice, you've got them.

The next thing they have to prove is the terms and conditions of the original lender. Put them to proof on this one as well if they haven't produced the T&Cs. If they produce them, and the doc is satisfactory after careful examination, you can admit. But as soon as they see they have to prove the assignment, they probably won't.

It sure does, DonkeyB! If he's dumped a whole lot of vexatious claims in the system, the Law Society still retain the penalty of crucifixion for this sort of conduct. Producing the body or the living person of the slave named Spartacus won't wash either!

They'd have a job! Alasdair Turnbull is the Director of HFOS as well as its solicitor, so he's held to a higher standard in negligence than ordinary members of the public. 'Administrative error' is a lame excuse. See the solicitor's caution under (I think) Practice Direction 22, and CPR 32.14 concerning contempt of court. He really has to take responsibility for his so-called 'administrative errors'. Don't forget, if the defendant isn't careful the claimant can get judgement in miscarriage of justice on a false pleading. Also, PD 9 to CPR 16 states quite categorically that a statement of case mustn't be inconsistent with an earlier one.

HFO's statement of case is exactly the same in my case as in Pank's, which he's posted here as a PDF. HFO Capital were assigned the debt on 12 March 2009 from the original lender, and HFO Services are suing as their agent. There's no mention of an assignment to HFOS, and if their papers disprove their pleadings as to the first assignment, then any talk of a second one is irrelevant.

It's not a matter of bringing contempt proceedings. If the court allowed the substitution of an inconsistent alternative case it would be committing a serious procedural irregularity which could be reversed on appeal.

Does this apply to amended statements of case that are inconsistent with the original? If you're caught making one of those you can get hammered for contempt of court.

If they apply to amend they'd have to submit an application notice. That means they'd have to give reasons. They'd have to be damn good reasons as well, and better than the ones you'd put forward in rebuttal. And if your house is on the line, you'd better believe that appealing is worth the hassle. Telling the truth in court is as important as judicial independence and impartiality. Sacrifice it and you radically subvert the administration of justice.

They can add or substitute a party, because that's a specific exception which is allowed by the rules. It's the content of the statement of case and the primary facts they can't amend so easily. See Practice Direction supplementary to CPR Part 16, paragraph 9.2.

"A subsequent statement of case must not contradict or be inconsistent with an earlier one; for example a reply to a defence must not bring in a new claim. Where new matters have come to light the appropriate course may be to seek the court’s permission to amend the statement of case."

Actually, amending a claim probably won't work - at least it better not. See the Civil Procedure Green Book. CPR 17.3[0] has a commentary that says an amendment to the statement of case is to be disallowed if the amended version is inconsistent with the original. They've verified the original with a statement of truth, which means they'll be caught in contempt of court.

No, you're wrong about assignments. HFOS are the agents of HFOC, so they don't need a deed of assignment between themselves. But as soon as you can put them to proof about the date of assignment (neither admit nor deny), then you can trap them with their inconsistent documents. If the dates don't match they should lose.

Don't forget, you have to submit a particularised defence, properly pleaded. If you don't it's likely the judge will order you to. In that case, address each and every allegation, stating which ones you admit, which you deny, and which allegations you neither admit nor deny but require the claimant to prove. Remember, you can deny only those things you have direct knowledge of, so put them to proof on everything else.

Pank, exactly the same happened to me. HFO Services Ltd issued proceedings on 13 March 2009 through the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre, giving 12 March 2009 as the account purchase date. You've almost certainly got a Notice of Assignment and Default Notice stating another purchase date. What you need to do is to get an N244 and apply for the Claim to be struck out under Civil Procedure Rule 3.4(2)(a) [no real prospects of success] or Rule 3.4(2)(b)[abuse of the process of the court]. Reasons: (1) original lender not identified; (2) timeline too short for their story to be credible; (3) assignment date different from date given in pre-litigation exchanges.

Very probably the whole batch of claims issued on 13 March 2009 have the same egregious purchase date error.

Which means that HFO Services Ltd are facing the biggest disaster since the Death Star met the planet Aleeraan.