HFO claimform - old Morgan Stanley Card Debt **WON**

[hungrybear]

subbing to help any way I can on HFO

 

Like Donkey says if HFOC were the claimant then it really is game on

[hungrybear]

I now understand it like this...

 

1) HFOC purchased the debt from Morgan Stanley

 

2) Morgan Stanley relinquished their rights as a creditor

 

3) HFOC are a Cayman based company who are now the legal "assignee"

 

4) HFOC are NOT a creditor under s.189 of the CCA because they are not a registered UK company

 

5) Any assignment of a consumer credit account to HFOS is invalid as HFOC do not have a consumer credit licence

 

6) Therefore any assignment to HFOS would also be invalid

 

Am I wrong on these points? I think it's as simple as it gets really.

 

In effect... every debt purchased by HFOC is an Xmas turkey.

 

in 4) Yep, they cannot be a creditor as defined in 189(1) within part II of the Act and according to 189(2) they cannot sign CCA documents.

 

and 5a) HFOC may not operate in the uk and/or obtain a CCL without registering at companies house under the companies act 2006. It is explicit on this point that offshore finance and credit companies may not operate in England without registering and filing returns/accounts.

 

6) The contract (CCA agreement) would be rescinded under English Law at the point of sale to HFOC

 

Think that pretty much covers it. They are trying to keep their assets offshore and their collection activities only in the UK. Unfortunately offshore assets are..., well offshore

[hungrybear]

This is terrific. I have long wondered about this scenario. Am hanging on to every word. Have encountered this before as (some) MBNA and Cabot accounts were assigned by MBNA via Dublin to Cabot Financial (Euope) Ltd but Cabot (UK) Ltd administered the account.

 

I have seen the sales document and it is assigned offshore and I know of 3/4 court cases which Cabot dropped when the sales doc (or deed of assignment) appeared on the scene. Unfortunately (for this reason) none of these actually went to court so the issues were never examined.

 

BA your Judge needed a good shake!

 

 

take a look at Companies Act 2006 c46 part 34 s1050. Part 34 is all about offshore companies and what they cannot do in the UK. s1050 specifically prohibits acting in credit and finance in endland and wales without registration at companies house. And of course without this they cannot get a CCL either

[hungrybear]

You sure HB? I thought you mentioned another section earlier on regarding this?

 

 

Here's a link to the statute:

 

Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)

 

I may have quoted 1045/6 before in some contexts.

 

1050 is specific to credit and financial and 1050(6) says that you have to unless you prove otherwise.

 

as with all statute, it's good for insomnia

[hungrybear]

HFO Capital in Ireland and Cayman have CC licences in the UK.

 

 

Agreed and all three come up as current on the database.

 

but how come the dublin one says its for a 'Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)'

 

and for cayman islands, how do does the CCL registration sit with this - their CCL pre dates this:

 

Companies Act 2006

1050 Accounts and reports: credit or financial institutions

 

(1) This section applies to a credit or financial institution—

(a) that is incorporated or otherwise formed outside the United Kingdom and Gibraltar,

(b) whose head office is outside the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and

© that has a branch in the United Kingdom.

(2) In subsection (1) “branch” means a place of business that forms a legally dependent part of the institution and conducts directly all or some of the operations inherent in its business.

(3) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an institution to which this section applies—

(a) to prepare the like accounts and directors' report, and

(b) to cause to be prepared such an auditor’s report,

as would be required if the institution were a company formed and registered under this Act.

(4) The regulations may for this purpose apply, with or without modifications, all or any of the provisions of—

 

• Part 15 (accounts and reports), and
  
• Part 16 (audit).
  

(5) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an institution to which this section applies to deliver to the registrar copies of—

(a) accounts and reports prepared in accordance with the regulations, or

(b) accounts and reports that it is required to prepare and have audited under the law of the country in which the institution has its head office.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.

[hungrybear]

Exactly hungrybear. This is what needs unravelling!

 

Unfortunately my expertise is in another part of the Companies Act, though I think I need to do a bit of reading...

 

 

the link's in #363 above

[hungrybear]

BA if you look at 4 in cpr 19.4:

 

Procedure for adding and substituting parties

 

19.4

 

(1) The court’s permission is required to remove, add or substitute a party, unless the claim form has not been served.

 

(2) An application for permission under paragraph (1) may be made by –

(a) an existing party; or

 

(b) a person who wishes to become a party.

 

 

(3) An application for an order under rule 19.2(4) (substitution of a new party where existing party’s interest or liability has passed) –

(a) may be made without notice; and

 

(b) must be supported by evidence.

 

 

(4) Nobody may be added or substituted as a claimant unless –

(a) he has given his consent in writing; and

 

(b) that consent has been filed with the court.

 

 

(4A) The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs may be added as a party to proceedings only if they consent in writing.

 

(5) An order for the removal, addition or substitution of a party must be served on –

(a) all parties to the proceedings; and

 

(b) any other person affected by the order.

 

 

(6) When the court makes an order for the removal, addition or substitution of a party, it may give consequential directions about –

(a) filing and serving the claim form on any new defendant;

 

(b) serving relevant documents on the new party; and

 

© the management of the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

So it cannot be done on a whim?

[hungrybear]

TR is not a real person for obvious reasons... I'm not sure where the law stands on that.

 

Where's the WS from them?

 

 

CPR is quite clear that court documents must be signed by a real person and if on behalf of a company that person must at least have the title and capacity of manager. This is specifically stated for anything that requires a statement of truth.

 

CPR 22 is I think the right bit and there may be a bit in 5 as well

 

I think it says also something like 'the person who signs must print their name clearly below the signature' as well. But it is specific in CPR that a statement of truth must be signed by a person - how can the court direct or ask 'TR - paralegal'?

 

Therefore I would say that the 'statement of truth' cannot be relied on and that it is not a legitimate document.