HFO Services- a new DCA on the block?

[I've got no money]

Dear Donkey B,

 

The next hearing is to be treated by the court, as the court order stated, as an application to dismiss the judgment. Upon my success, because HFO Services have failed to provide satisfactory evidence of title, I will file my cost claim prior to the hearing.

 

I am confused now - dismiss what Judgment...

 

Can you post a copy of the Order - when is the hearing

 

Do you know how to prepare a costs statement. If not I'm happy to post an example of one I've used

[rich2568]

Its all about assignments then -which could be the way to unpick HFO`s POC when it arrives- as advised by IGNM.

 

I had posted on the following thread- also very interesting- have a look:wink:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/149916-notice-assignment-both-parties.html

[Docman]

A deed of assignment should always be produced in court - there is an argument BUT it is only an argument that they should redact anything which identifies other individuals

 

Don't forget CPR 31.14 - it has to be produced AND also

Court of Appeal decision in Van Lyn Developments where Lord Denning said that you have a right to inspect an assignment to satisfy yourself that it is valid.

 

I've heard that HFO have argued in court that the Van Lynn case overrules the Harrison v Burke case about the correct date being required. IMHO, this isn't true. Lord Denning gave the lead judgment in both cases in the Court of Appeal and therefore both cases are equally binding. Denning MR 'distinguished' Van Lynn on the facts and then clarified what the true test should be thus:

"

I think the correct interpretation of this statute was given by Atkin J in Denney, Gasquet, and Metcalfe v Conklin ([1913] 3 KB at p 180). It is quite plain from his judgment that no formal requirements are required for a notice of assignment. It is sufficient if it brings

"to the notice of the debtor with reasonable certainty the fact that the deed does assign the debt due from the debtor so as to bind the debt in his hands and prevent him from paying the debt to the original creditor."

 

 

It seems to me to be unnecessary that it should give the date of the assignment so long as it makes it plain that there has in fact been an assignment so that the debtor knows to whom he has to pay the debt in the future. After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge. But the notice itself is good, even though it gives no date."

 

So, if this is the test and the NOA (usually from HFO we know) just states the assignee is HFO Capital Ltd, I would argue that there is no reasonable certainty. Any reasonable person on being told of the assignment of a UK credit card debt by a UK company (Barclays) to a limited company (HFO Capital Ltd) where the debt was then being collected by a UK company (HFO Services Ltd), would reasonably expect the assignee to be a UK company. If you check with Companies House, there is no listing for HFO Capital Ltd and therefore there can be no reasonable certainty that the assignee exists. The addition of HFO Capital Ltd from Ireland sometimes into the proceedings only serves to add to the uncertainlty. Any views?

Edited April 23, 2009 by Docman
typos

[DonkeyB]

The addition of HFO Capital Ltd from Ireland sometimes into the proceedings only serves to add to the uncertainlty. Any views?

 

I'm not aware of HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland) being used as a vehicle in UK cases, whereas HFO Capital Ltd (Cayman) has been.

 

However... I wonder why they want two companies with identical names? Seems a bit odd - most organisations would want to distinguish between their group companies.

 

Now consider this. If a court claim is won by default, for example, by HFO services acting on behalf of HFO Capital, and the defendant pays up, who's to know which HFO Capital gets the money or which of the two companies HFO Services was acting on behalf of? Of course, if you defend and ask for the assignments etc you'd know which HFOC it is, but it raises some interesting possible scenarios (not that I'm suggesting anything ontoward may be going on, your honour...).

 

(And nice to hear HFO Services and its director get a dishonourable mention in the House of Commons last night - Hansard extract here, starts halfway down page

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090422/debtext/90422-0019.htm#09042277000160

 

read and enjoy)

Edited April 23, 2009 by DonkeyB

[I've got no money]

I've heard that HFO have argued in court that the Van Lynn case overrules the Harrison v Burke case about the correct date being required. IMHO, this isn't true. Lord Denning gave the lead judgment in both cases in the Court of Appeal and therefore both cases are equally binding. Denning MR 'distinguished' Van Lynn on the facts and then clarified what the true test should be thus:

"

I think the correct interpretation of this statute was given by Atkin J in Denney, Gasquet, and Metcalfe v Conklin ([1913] 3 KB at p 180). It is quite plain from his judgment that no formal requirements are required for a notice of assignment. It is sufficient if it brings

 

"to the notice of the debtor with reasonable certainty the fact that the deed does assign the debt due from the debtor so as to bind the debt in his hands and prevent him from paying the debt to the original creditor."

 

 

It seems to me to be unnecessary that it should give the date of the assignment so long as it makes it plain that there has in fact been an assignment so that the debtor knows to whom he has to pay the debt in the future. After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge. But the notice itself is good, even though it gives no date."

 

 

So, if this is the test and the NOA (usually from HFO we know) just states the assignee is HFO Capital Ltd, I would argue that there is no reasonable certainty. Any reasonable person on being told of the assignment of a UK credit card debt by a UK company (Barclays) to a limited company (HFO Capital Ltd) where the debt was then being collected by a UK company (HFO Services Ltd), would reasonably expect the assignee to be a UK company. If you check with Companies House, there is no listing for HFO Capital Ltd and therefore there can be no reasonable certainty that the assignee exists. The addition of HFO Capital Ltd from Ireland sometimes into the proceedings only serves to add to the uncertainlty. Any views?

 

It just shows that they don't understand the law

 

On the date point - the law is clear you don't have to put the date of the assignment on the NoA but if you do it has to be accurate - the reasn for this is that if the date is wrong then you must be referring to another assignment - so consequently they haven't given notice at all

 

Docman - I'd be happy to stand up and argue your interpretation - it sounds OK by me

[babybear39]

One thing that is for sure is that if the assignment is absolute, the chasing DCA can bring court action on it's own but if the assignment is equitable then the OC/or owner has to be named as co-complainant.

[Docman]

BB

 

I don't know if HFO Capital Ltd in Cayman has 'serious legal problems' or whether its directors have resigned. My spies tell me that it is in 'good standing', ie it has paid its fees and submitted its company return. If anyone wants to know who the directors are, I'm afraid it will cost anyone £300+. I'm not spending that!

 

HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland) is different. It is also apparently trading and details of the directors are availabe fromt the Irish Companies Registration Office on payment of a fee of about £3. Of course, I wouldn't publish Mr Harper's address in Chelsea or Mr Turnbull's address either as that would be against the CAG rules. i just point out that the information is available on public documents in Ireland.

[DonkeyB]

Bulldog, you need to moderate your last comment a bit - could you edit out anything that's possibly inflammatory, or use softer language like 'allegedly' or 'possibly'? Otherise Cagbot will be on his way over with his great clunking boots!

[car2403]

Questionable posts edited

 

Please do not make potentially libelous comments - this site would be unable to defend any claim whether the statements you are making are accurate or not. Such comments are against the forum rules and will be edited and made subject to further moderation if deemed necessary.

 

We have to take a hard line to protect the forum.

 

Bumping again, as still relevant

 

[patrickq1]

i suppose we should write without prejudice we should be ok ?

Without Prejudice Correspondence Not Admissible in Subsequent Proceedings Unless Wholly Unconnected

Ofulue v.Bossert, HL, 11/3/09

The House of Lords held that the normal rule, that statements made in negotiations between parties to litigation with a view to settling it were inadmissible, applied even where it was invoked in relation to negotiations in earlier proceedings between the same parties. The House was not intending to make an extension to the existing rule, rather it was strongly arguable that the principles governing the admissibility in subsequent proceedings of a statement made in without prejudice negotiations to settle earlier proceedings should be the same in subsequent proceedings. In the present case, there was no basis for exempting the without prejudice offer from that rule.

[DonkeyB]

Probably not.

 

But as Mr T is the sole director of HFO Services Ltd and also the sole director of Turnbull Rutherford Ltd, the firm behind Turnbull Rutherfors Solicitors (and also the company secretary of HFO Services Ltd), it is very difficult to see how a mistake or error by either the claimant or solicitor could be argued in court. Mr T is the 'mind and managment' behiind both the claimant (HFO Services Ltd) and the solicitor representing the claimant in court.

 

OK guys, I think I have the goose in the oven on this one (if not burned to a cinder).

 

Have a look here, at the OFT's public register of Consumer Credit licences.

 

Public Register

 

If you do a search on HFO, you get three results. The HFO Services result is particularly interesting, as it includes this little extract, highlighted in yellow:

 

 

Note what it says - Turnbull Rutherford RUNS HFO Services! I think that says it all. They are not, in any way, interdependent and anything to the contrary should not be implied in their correspondence, I believe.

 

As if we needed more proof, have a look at this person's publicly-available profile on LinkedIn:

 

Agnieszka Kaminska - LinkedIn

 

The job description suggests almost a single company entity - wonder who pays the salary!

 

Also, on the CCL site, have a look at HFO Capital Ireland. It says it's a UK-incorporated body! How come, if registered in Eire? Maybe I'm missing something. You can also view the bosses of the Cayman company on the third link, should you feel the need.

 

Any thoughts?

[Battersea Bulldog]

Dear Docman,

 

Well done. Can we argue conflicts of interest? The solicitors acting for the claimant are one of same thing. Alistair T is the mind management, however his signature does not feature on any of the documents in my case. However, I recall the Woolf guidelines says that senior managers should sign documentation. Is there anything in the CPR that says that Alistair T should sign claim form/witness statement?

 

I am very interested to collect the information on HFO Capital Ltd Cayman Islands, being a bit thick, I could not find the link you referred to. Please help.

[DonkeyB]

Just click on the link in my post above, or here -

 

Public Register

 

- should open up a new browser window. In that page, there's a link halfway down the page says "CLICK HERE TO SEARCH THE CONSUMER CREDIT REGISTER"

 

Try that!

[Battersea Bulldog]

Sadly, it says the link appears to be broken

[DonkeyB]

Works for me, but try this:

 

http:// www2.crw. gov.uk/pr/default.aspx

 

Cut and paste this, then take out the spaces.

[Battersea Bulldog]

Thank you. Brilliant. The people recorded as the directors resigned from HFO Service July last year. However, they are still recorded as the directors of HFO Capital Ireland as of today. No sign of Alistair T! I suspect there has been a falling out and the directors resigned both in HFO Services and HFO Capital in July 2008 which may mean Alistair T is the sole director of HFO Capital. If that is the case, the registry is incorrect and therefore not valid. What are yur views?

[I've got no money]

I think that what we need to do is to speak to the SRA - the Solicitors Regulation Authority and see if they have a view - they're usually helpful if you ring them up. They'll usually give you a provisional observation and if they think that there is an issue they'll ask for a written complaint

 

I'm mid way through some assignments for my degree so I won't have time before next Friday

 

I'm not sure about the conflict point - but (and is a random thought) - are they therefore LIP's who can't claim the Solr costs.

 

If anyone has access to a good library - have at look at Cordery on Solicitors and the volume on Halsburys Laws that covers Solicitors.

 

Has PT got access?

[DonkeyB]

Thank you. Brilliant. The people recorded as the directors resigned from HFO Service July last year. However, they are still recorded as the directors of HFO Capital Ireland as of today. No sign of Alistair T! I suspect there has been a falling out and the directors resigned both in HFO Services and HFO Capital in July 2008 which may mean Alistair T is the sole director of HFO Capital. If that is the case, the registry is incorrect and therefore not valid. What are yur views?

 

Mr T is a director of all the companies, in fact. I imagine there was no split, just a business deal. Be careful with your speculation, Bulldog - we need to stick to facts and what's available in the public domain!

[Battersea Bulldog]

Dear DonkeyB, Mr T is not a director of HFO Capital according the Office of Fair Trading website.

[DonkeyB]

Sorry, he is part of HFO Capital Ireland, but not the Cayman one. I think you can see that Harper and Nathan are still very much pulling the group strings.

[fedup21]

look up turnbull & rutherford as well on oft link, ontrack investgations is appears to be another company run by Turnbull, I think.

[patrickq1]

Ally (Agnieszka Kaminska) | MySpace.com

 

IS THIS THE SAME PERSON BIT YOUNF TO HAVE COVERED ALL THEM JOBS

[I've got no money]

It sounds as if there is a really complicated network of companies which need properly investigating

[Battersea Bulldog]

I cannot find Turnbull & Rutherford on OFT site. Please help

[fedup21]

I cannot find Turnbull & Rutherford on OFT site. Please help

Sorry bulldog, I should've been a bit clearer. Go to cca search, then just type turnbull where it says company name, think it's the second box on left side. Two pages of search results come up, second page at bottom you will find HFO followed by ontrack investigations. apologies for misleading you and saying search turnbull! Hope that helps!