HFO Services Limited and barclaycard debt

[broken arrow]

Hello again Uk26, have just arrived back home, my reading of the NOA issue is if you are going to shout fraud, beware of the consequences and costs if you cannot prove it.As to the rest of the hearing, it is can they produce the valid documents next time, if not I guess his patience will have been tested and hopefully he will strike the claim out.

 

All for now

 

Broken arrow

[broken arrow]

How can he award costs to them if you win???

The judge said UK26 could win the case but if you cannot prove their NOA is dodgy he can award costs to them.Its a mad world.

[Docman]

Hi BA & UK26 (and to Mr T and Di),

I agree it’s a mad world, especially as to costs. However, I thought it was up to HFO to show that their NOA was OK. Surely, all that a defendant has to show (if anything) is that, on the balance of probabilities, the NOA was not from the OC. The fact that a SAR on the OC didn't produce a copy of the NOA, the fact that the NOA letter came from SW19 and didn't have the correct address should all go in favour of a defendant. The killer blow in my view, of course is that S196 of the LoP Act 1925 requires the OC to send by registered i.e. recorded delivery, just to avoid these kind of disputes.

UK, I suggest you leave any allegations of fraud out of the county court, galling as it is. As I said above, it just isn't up to the county court and could annoy the DJ. All you have to do in the county court is to call into question the provenance of the NOA, not prove it a forgery.

Meantime, it might be helpful if anyone with dealings with our Wimbledon crew have a good look at their witness statement and advise UK.

[car2403]

I suppose the point is that they make a statement saying the NOA was from the OC and it's up to you to prove otherwise.

[broken arrow]

In the witness statement HFO seem to be admitting that the NOA is from them and that Barclaycard allow them this privilege as their "goodbye letter"

[car2403]

In the witness statement HFO seem to be admitting that the NOA is from them and that Barclaycard allow them this privilege as their "goodbye letter"

 

Even better.

 

They've disproven their own case to take legal action, then.

[broken arrow]

Even better.

 

They've disproven their own case to take legal action, then.

 

Thats my thinking as well as s 136 of LOP act states any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor.

 

When you read these assignments from HFO it is written as though it is by the OC.

[Docman]

I wonder if it worth asking Barclaycard if they have authorisied a 'goodbye letter'?

 

It seems to me they are allowing another limited company (HFO) to pass themselves off as BC. If they say they DO allow another company to issue letters as though that company was BC, then I think letters are in order to the DTI (or whatever Mandy will call his new department); another to the OFT querying whether this is a breach of BC's consumer credit licence; and to the FSA for allowing an unregulated firm to pass itself off as BC - all the letters copied to the CEO of Barclays Bank in his ivory tower in Canary Wharf.

 

Of course, if BC do not confirm the 'goodbye letters', well HFO do seem to have cooked their goose with the Court

 

- oh, sorry nearly forgot my manners - Hi, Mr T & Di. Bye, bye Mr T & Di.

[car2403]

I wonder if it worth asking Barclaycard if they have authorisied a 'goodbye letter'?

 

It seems to me they are allowing another limited company (HFO) to pass themselves off as BC. If they say they DO allow another company to issue letters as though that company was BC, then I think letters are in order to the DTI (or whatever Mandy will call his new department); another to the OFT querying whether this is a breach of BC's consumer credit licence; and to the FSA for allowing an unregulated firm to pass itself off as BC - all the letters copied to the CEO of Barclays Bank in his ivory tower in Canary Wharf.

 

Of course, if BC do not confirm the 'goodbye letters', well HFO do seem to have cooked their goose with the Court

 

- oh, sorry nearly forgot my manners - Hi, Mr T & Di. Bye, bye Mr T & Di.

 

I'm sure Companies House would be interested in hearing what is going on, especially regarding one Company plagarising themselves as another in written form.

[miss muppet]

Yes, a very good point by Car and also wouldn't Companies House be interested in two companies trading whilst insolvent, think thats an offence. You can email them about this, they're quite quick in replying.

 

Don't worry too much about the warning about losing and costs, this is what my daughter and I were told in our battle against 1st Crud at a set aside hearing but on reflection after we got over the upset of the first hearing, I realised that the Judge may have been trying to help us when she pointed out that we had raised several matters of contention i.e. the default, NOA etc and made sure I did overkill with the next hearing which we won. Sent a very wordy statement in before the case to the Judge and the other side which I'm quite sure he had read before daughter's second hearing. Think the judges have to be seen to be playing fair with both sides. By the way was the default in the name of the original creditor and did it have their address on it ?

 

Also from my earlier post which I forgot to add is a quote from Susan Edwards, Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading (May 2008)

 

"...There has been a suggestion that debt collectors can avoid complying with section 77 and 78 by claiming that the agreement is no longer 'live' in some way as it has been 'terminated' based on section 103 of the Act. This talks of a 'trader' who was the creditor under a regulated agreement, implying that 'trader' is no longer a creditor once an agreement is ended. Section 103 however deals with where the customer no longer owes any money at all and therefore it is correct to say that he is no longer a debtor and the trader is no longer his creditor. Where money is still owed, section 103 would not apply, since the consumer would not be entitled to a termination statement..."

 

I'm quite sure it will all go well next time thats if the other side is still trading by that time!

[broken arrow]

From a post by Bluefairy.

Hi again - just had an interesting conversation with someone at Barclaycard, they confirm that this fake letter is not sent out by them - HFO send them oiut. They are aware of it, but the lady I spoke to didnt know why they were doing it (but we do dont we!!). I asked her to confirm in this in an email, but she couldnt due to virus dangers but she did ask me to write in with a copy

[broken arrow]

I have also today sent a letter to Morgan Stanley with regards to NOA,s.

[UK26]

I have written to Barclaycard but do not get a response.

[lectus123]

Yes, a very good point by Car and also wouldn't Companies House be interested in two companies trading whilst insolvent, think thats an offence.

 

Trading whilst insolvent in itself is not an offence. The directors have to take every step to minimise losses to creditors, and if continuing trading enables this, then the directors can quite legally continue trading. Turning the corner of insolvency may just be one deal with creditors or a new investor away.

[broken arrow]

Have spoken on the phone to Goldfish with regard to NOA and their not being a copy in my SAR documents,the answer, we leave this to the asignee to inform,when I stated this goes against the LOP 1925, he stated this was their policy.I then asked for a copy of this policy in writing he declined saying I have already had this document, which I have not, he was unwilling to send me a new copy.If HFO are allowed to inform on the OC,s behalf, why are they writing these letters as though they are from the OC.

[miss muppet]

What about the business of the delivery company, does such a company exist and if not who to complain to.

[broken arrow]

have posted a thread on legal issues re: NOA,s any input would be appreciated.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/163133-notice-assignment-question.html

[broken arrow]

Can not say to much at the moment but have had some very interesting conversations today!

[miffedpuppy]

It would seem to me that if HFO are sending out letters purporting to come from BC, and BC are aware of this they are both in breach of sections 3, 5, 6 & 7 of the Unfair Trading regulations 2008.

[babybear39]

Report HFO to TS and the OFT and report BC to the SRA.

[broken arrow]

Can not say to much at the moment but have had some very interesting conversations today!

 

Have got some people very interested in these NOA,s, they even got away with using one in court against me and got judgement in their favour, there may be trouble ahead!

[broken arrow]

UK26 sorry to be using your thread so much mate , will pm you in near future with what I am up to. They can not print off pm,s.

[UK26]

Can i apply for a Wasted costs order???

[patrickq1]

PART 48 - COSTS – SPECIAL CASES

[patrickq1]

Wasted Costs Orders

and see also Section 53 of the Practice Direction about Costs supplementing CPR Parts 43 to 48 ("the Costs PD")). However it should be noted that parts of CPR 44.14 (and Section 18 of the Costs PD) appear also to deal with some aspects of the same subject, although not in identical terms or to the same level of detail as CPR 48.76.

hope this helps

patrickq1