geoffmr1 V HFC/ Weightmans

[MARTIN3030]

Great to see some final input...I know Geoff was getting a little desperate-its understandable-but I also know that he has learned something and thats the beauty of pooling together.Hats off to Paul-some info thats worth its weight(mans) in Gold ......Hopefully now sorted for the moment.

 

Edited August 29, 2008 by MARTIN3030
as requested

[geoffmr1]

Well I thought it was about time I came back to update this thread.

 

Witness statements have still not been exchanged as we agreed to postpone this whilst negotiations were continuing, however last week I rejected their final offer because they will not let the idea of a charge over my property drop.

 

I have a Law firm working for me now, although I'll still be representing myself in court.

 

I still haven't had a signed Disclosure list yet & Weightmans only sent a notification on Saturday that they had applied to the Court to substitute HFC for Phoenix Recoveries. I will be sending my own letter today suggesting this is rejected as Phoenix bought this debt on May 20th 2008 & they could have made this application at the Case management conference instead of pretending the solicitor was representing HFC. I also have a few other issues with regards Weightmans conduct which will also be included.

 

Weightmans are requesting Witness Statements be exchanged on October 31st but again I'm rejecting this as mine are ready & they should have prepared their's long ago.

 

Finally Weightmans are now claiming their costs are going to be £6000 as opposed to their original estimate of £4500. One of the items they have listed under expenses are 'profit costs' & I would be interested to know what these are??

[humbleman]

The account is clearly in dispute thus the court action, could they sell a debt that is in dispute. In any case where does it say that they can sell the debt.

[citizenB]

Hi geoff, Hope you are well.

 

I am pleased you have managed to get some legal representation to help you with the papework. I am not sure what that reference to "profit costs" are. Perhaps one of the legal bodies on CAG will know. I think it is unreasonable they are jacking up the costs in any case, after all most of the delays are down to them. I am not sure, but I think you are able to challenge costs. Sparkie and Paul Wilton will know I am sure.

[geoffmr1]

Hi Humbleman & CitizenB,

 

I have questioned whether HFC were entitled to sell this alleged debt due to the fact that I am challenging the validity of any supposed agreement. I will wait to see what sort of response I get from the court.

 

I will certainly be challenging costs should they win although at this moment in time I can't see how they can win. Only an incompetant Judge could let them win & I would challenge such a decision.

 

In any case as I've pointed out if they had substituted Phoenix for HFC at the beginning or at least prior to the case management conference then they would have saved the application costs that they are trying to put on me now.

 

One solicitor I spoke to (I didn't employ him due to his costs but he does specialise in this field) was adamant that you have to sign a new agreement each & every time a new credit card is issued even if it is just a renewal. You just need to be able to show that a new card has been issued. I didn't get too in-depth into this area as I couldn't afford his service so I had to leave it.

[citizenB]

Hi Humbleman & CitizenB,

 

I have questioned whether HFC were entitled to sell this alleged debt due to the fact that I am challenging the validity of any supposed agreement. I will wait to see what sort of response I get from the court.

 

I will certainly be challenging costs should they win although at this moment in time I can't see how they can win. Only an incompetant Judge could let them win & I would challenge such a decision.

 

In any case as I've pointed out if they had substituted Phoenix for HFC at the beginning or at least prior to the case management conference then they would have saved the application costs that they are trying to put on me now.

 

One solicitor I spoke to (I didn't employ him due to his costs but he does specialise in this field) was adamant that you have to sign a new agreement each & every time a new credit card is issued even if it is just a renewal. You just need to be able to show that a new card has been issued. I didn't get too in-depth into this area as I couldn't afford his service so I had to leave it.

 

I think this has been debated on the consumer credit agreement thread. If I can find the posts, I will link them for you. You are sounding a lot more positive which is good.

[Hopeful1]

Hi Geoff it's great to see you back.

 

My negotiations are stalling with the same thing - their insistance on a charging order. My sol cannot understand their insistance on it as he feels any agreement reached will be binding enough. Costs are also another issue.

 

I'm glad you've been able to employ a solicitor. It really helps take the worry out when you're not confident in what your doing, doesn't it?

 

As i said, it's great to see you back and particularly as you sound so much more positive. I shall be very interested in the outcome of the issue over the sale of the debt. I too thought that new agreements should be issued with each new card. If i see any useful info i'll post it up.

 

Best wishes Geoff

[robcag]

Hi Geoff

 

I agree with cB and H1, you're sounding much more positive, confident, and dare I say it, knowledgeable.

 

Keep up the pressure and the good work!

 

Cheers

Rob

[geoffmr1]

Just a little update:

 

In their application for HFC to be substituted for Phoenix Recoveries they requested that no hearing was necessary. However, as I stated above I was going to object to the change. I sent a letter of complaint to the court regarding Weightmans behaviour & an objection to the substitution & a further hearing has been called for the mid November. Maybe they'll be granted their wishes at the hearing but at least I know I'm causing them problems all the way now.

 

Funnily enough I also know they are worried about this case going to trial. They offered me a settlement figure which they claimed was their final offer & I rejected it. A couple of days before witness statements were due to be exchanged they sent another offer which was £900 lower then their original final offer. They are also asking on what grounds I believe the 'Priority Application Form' will prove to be unenforceable in court, seen as they're solicitors & have already had my defence maybe they should actually read it!!

 

Does anyone know what actually happens at an application hearing??

[robcag]

Hi Geoff

 

Just a little update:

 

In their application for HFC to be substituted for Phoenix Recoveries they requested that no hearing was necessary. However, as I stated above I was going to object to the change. I sent a letter of complaint to the court regarding Weightmans behaviour & an objection to the substitution & a further hearing has been called for the mid November. Maybe they'll be granted their wishes at the hearing but at least I know I'm causing them problems all the way now. ----

 

Funnily enough I also know they are worried about this case going to trial. They offered me a settlement figure which they claimed was their final offer & I rejected it. A couple of days before witness statements were due to be exchanged they sent another offer which was £900 lower then their original final offer. They are also asking on what grounds I believe the 'Priority Application Form' will prove to be unenforceable in court, seen as they're solicitors & have already had my defence maybe they should actually read it!! Quite right ... tell them nothing. If they're too stupid to read it ... tough!

 

Does anyone know what actually happens at an application hearing??

 

My account of mine is here (posts #283 and #288 ) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/124572-hfc-no-agreement-amended-15.html#post1534683

and

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/124572-hfc-no-agreement-amended-15.html#post1535858

 

Looks like they'll be wearing their brown trousers to the hearing Geoff.

 

If they lose their application you should get costs for that (include anything you can think of which has cost you anything as a direct result of the application). Prepare a schedule of costs to hand to the Judge if neccessary, although the Judge might calculate the time etc. him/herself.

 

I'm not sure whether this should be submitted to the court 24hrs in advance or not, but my Judge was OK about not doing that, and was the first one to mention that I was entitled to costs for the oppositions failed application. I handed my schedule over anyway as I'd include mileage at 40p per mile and car parking fee.

 

Good luck with it

Rob

[REST ON A SUNDAY]

Hi Hopeful,

 

I won't give exact figures for obvious reasons but if it goes to court they want 10.5k plus 4.5k charges, however if I settle now they'll accept somewhere over 9k.

 

Although when you say it like that it seems like they are knocking off just over 1k for early settlement but thats not the case.

 

My most recent statement from HFC shows a balance of less than 9k & thats from the beginning of this year. Since then I've paid over £500 off it. What they are saying is that I'm not taking into account the £1500 charges that were put on when Weightmans were instructed, however I'd love to know what they done to earn that money, secondly their settlement offer letter clearly states that their client will cover their own litigation costs if I agree to settle with them, well to my mind instructing solicitors is part of the litigation process & therefore why should I pay their charges!!

 

 

just dropped in on this thread so not aware of all the facts but the £1500 looks like a collection charge from here typicaly 12.5% or is it 17.5% of the alleged debt thes collection charges depending on what year the application form was signed are effectively ilegal ....... i think some government guidelines forbid them .

 

has this £1500 been removed ??

[geoffmr1]

Hello all,

 

I am off to Court tomorrow for the Application Hearing, it will be interesting to see who turns up to represent Weightmans. They have prepared a Witness Statement for this hearing (which they at least had the decency to send to me), it was prepared by one of the Weightmans office girls. They have confirmed that Paul Schut (the man behind Phoenix Recoveries) won't be there & I cannot see that anyone from HFC would turn up seen as they sold the alleged debt, so as I say it'll be interesting.

 

I have to laugh at Weightmans stupidity, they sent a letter to the Court pointing out the lack of a signed Disclosure List was caused by the holiday season & an administrative error but that both HFC & Phoenix agreed to the contents of said list. A couple of days later they sent another letter to the Court explaining that to save me from anymore confusion they wouldn't supply the signed Disclosure List until after the Application Hearing. Well less than a week after this they sent me Witness Statements & surprise, surprise a signed Disclosure List by Phoenix & its completely different to the original unsigned one. I look forward to showing the Judge this tomorrow & to see Weightmans explanation.

 

Anyway now a request for some info. Firstly I'm aware that without a valid agreement HFC were not entitled to sell this alleged debt, however can someone let me know what act covers this?? Is it the data protection act & if so what part??

 

For the second request I have a little more time as my actual case is to be heard a week before Christmas. In my defence (which Paul kindly supplied) there are references to case law regarding unenforceable agreements, I would be grateful if somebody could give let me know where I can print off this case law & what parts I actually need to show in court or if I have to show the whole case??

[citizenB]

Crikey, that came round quick geoff. Good luck for tomorrow, it certainly seems as though weightmans have a left hand/ right hand problem.

 

Do you know which case laws you require. If you can put the details here, I will have a look round for them.

[car2403]

I'm not sure they need an enforceable agreement to sell the debt - the Law of Property Act covers how it should be notified to you, but the CCA doesn't cover that situation specifically. At the end of the day, an unenforceable debt is still a debt, so they can sell it on, but that doesn't mean you have to pay it. PM'ing Paul will probably get you the answer you need, if he doesn't look in on the thread.

 

As for the caselaw, I have most of it - you need to take the case summaries, not the entire case unless you need to refer to specific parts in depth, (you won't) with you and have copies to hand for the Judge and the other side. If you want to post up here what you want I'm sure we'll get it all together for you. (I'll need your email address by PM, or you can email me at my CAG address - in my signature - if you like)

[geoffmr1]

Hi Citizen B & Car2403.

 

Thanks for the help, the case law that is referred to in my defence is:-

 

Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) EWCA Civ 299

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co (1988) All ER (D) 339

Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd (1978) AC 95

Dimond v Lovell (2002) 1 AC 384

 

Car I will pm you my email address now.

[citizenB]

Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007)

 

 

Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)

[humbleman]

Do also remember to point out to the Judge that Phoenix Recoveries (UK) Ltd, doesn't exist at the companies house, may be even take a printout from their site to show this.

[car2403]

Hi Citizen B & Car2403.

 

Thanks for the help, the case law that is referred to in my defence is:-

 

Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) EWCA Civ 299

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co (1988) All ER (D) 339

Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd (1978) AC 95

Dimond v Lovell (2002) 1 AC 384

 

Car I will pm you my email address now.

 

I don't have Orakpo and Dimond, but I can get the others over to you now.

[pt2537]

I don't have Orakpo and Dimond, but I can get the others over to you now.

I do;)

[geoffmr1]

Hi all,

 

Well I'm off to Court now so will hopefully update you all later. I'm fully expecting to lose this round but in reality it will give me a good idea of the actual trial in December as its being held in the same place/court.

 

Its also my opportunity to show how Weightmans have been behaving which will hopefully make the Judge aware of their tactics. I've marked down & highlighted where Weightmans haven't complied with a Court direction & also where each & every time they use the same excuse of an 'Administrative Error', that seems to be their favourite get out of jail card.

 

I will mention that Phoenix Recoveries aren't registered at Companies House but I don't suppose it will hold much sway.

 

Paul I will pm you my email address for that Orakpo v Dimond case, once again many thanks.

 

Car & Citizen, thanks for the others they were received safely.

[robcag]

 

Well I'm off to Court now so will hopefully update you all later.

 

 

Good luck Geoff

 

Rob

[geoffmr1]

I've just returned from Court & to say I'm p***ed off would be an under statement.

 

The Judge today was a stand in Judge & not the original one I saw at the Case Management Conference or the one who is taking the actual trial (thank god, because if it was her then Weightmans could show up with no paperwork whatsoever & still win).

 

As expected they were granted their wish to substitute Phoenix for HFC, however what has really annoyed me is the fact she completely dismissed all my complaints regarding their behaviour. The Judge had no problem with Weightmans supplying a late and unsigned disclosure list & then changing it a couple of months later. The fact that the last page of said document was the same even though the first two were different was all she cared about. The blatant lies & contradictions from Weightmans which were presented to her were ignored.

 

The fact is the Judge had a waiting room full of people & there appears to only be one Court room & one Judge at this Court, she was clearly in a rush & one of her first cases had over-run & she had sent the poor bloke back out to the waiting room so she could deal with some 'quicker' cases first (mine was one of those cases).

 

At least I remained polite which was extremely difficult considering, although my tongue has been bitten so hard I wouldn't be surprised if it falls off.

[car2403]

Ah, the good old "Judge lottery" kicks in again.

[geoffmr1]

It's a joke. At least half a day has been assigned for the actual trial so thats something.

 

As a Judge she made a great impersonation of a lame duck!!

[citizenB]

Oh geoff, what rotten luck.