HFO -v- Number6 Success!

[Number6]

Today I attended court to defend against HFO's claim for a credit card debt that they purchased from Morgan Stanley. This was a second hearing, the first was adjourned for procedural reasons.

 

The first thing I'll say is that if the quality of the 'legals' employed by HFO is anything like the quality of the two that I've come up against then no-one has anything to fear from facing HFO in court! Complete muppets!

 

I was defending the claim on four main grounds:

 

1. MS were in default of CCA S78(6) and were not entitled to bring action in the first place

 

2. No Default Notice was ever issued.

 

3. The copy 'agreement' they sent did not comply with the Copies of Documents Regulations

 

4. The 'agreement' is unenforceable

 

HFO denied receiving documents from me; however I had proof of Recorded Delivery with me in court.

 

The 'legal' rep from HFO did not have a copy of the CCA with him which surprised the judge enormously.

 

When challenged about Prescribed Terms he referred to the seperate document of Terms and Conditions which he said was part of the agreement. It was dated 2008 (only four years out of time synch!) and the term he quoted was something totally irrelevant anyway.

 

He was then challenged as to why he felt HFO were entitled to bring action whilst in default; he proceeded to tell the judge that S127 gave them the right to enforce whilst in default The judge asked "you want me to look up section 127 then?", yes was the answer. So the judge then read out all of S127, turned to the HFO guy and said "so explain to me how that helps you". Silence ensued! After a few seconds I helpfully said that I thought S78(6) might be more appropriate for him to refer to.

 

At this point I was really getting into the swing of things and starting to enjoy myself ripping the HFO reps arguments apart but the judge chose to call a halt to proceedings. He said, in polite terms that (HFO) were completely unprepared for the hearing, that they had no just cause to bring action and that he was striking the action out.

 

So, I won, easily as it happened.

 

The moral is, prepare carefully, be sure of your facts, be confident and polite and you can do it.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Number6

[PGH7447]

Well done - did you go for costs?

[Number6]

Well done - did you go for costs?

 

Thanks, and no I didn't go for costs.

 

Maybe I should have done but somehow I couldn't be bothered, I suppose mainly because that's one thing I wasn't prepared for and I would have had to have plucked a figure out of the air

 

Anyhow, there we go.

[broken arrow]

Well done No6.

[pt2537]

Congrats

 

so thats why you were lookin for the 1983 Regs the other day then

[Josie8]

Congratulations:d

[42man]

Great result....well done !!

[rich2568]

Super Number6. Well done!!

 

My friend is in a battle with them at the mo- look at my thread "HFO- A New DCA On The Block"

 

I`ll take heart from your experience!!

[Number6]

Congrats

 

so thats why you were lookin for the 1983 Regs the other day then

 

Yes pt, it was.

 

Thanks very much for your help.

[Number6]

Received the striking out order from the court today.

 

Thought I'd post a link to it.

 

http://birchbrush.co.uk/financial/hfo/striking%20out1.jpg

[sillygirl1]

Congratulations - it's great fun when you can get a solicitor told off in court, I had GMAC's 'little girl' twice, once outside in the waiting room where she was conversing with her mates about their 'greatest successes', the court usher told them to go to the breakout room or end their conversation if they wanted to remain... and once inside the court when she stated 'its down to the Judge on the day of the hearing'. The Judge told her it wasn't and they were not to use that excuse again in her courtroom when she was present.

[Number6]

Hi Sillygirl.

 

You're absolutely correct in saying that it's good fun getting the opposition told off in court. During my hearing I felt my spirits rising by the second as soon as I realised the HFO 'legal' bod was a brainless muppet.

 

I got the distinct impression the judge thought exactly the same about him as I did, I could almost literally feel the judge warming to me as time went on. The HFO rep really had not the faintest idea about the CCA, he'd obviously been briefed to speak, parrot fashion, about section 127 and he knew absolutely nothing else! As we walked out of the courtroom I told him to his face that he was an embarrasment to his profession and that perhaps he should prepare better, or at all next time; his face was like thunder as he stomped off

[Number6]

Actually, I need some advice now.

 

I want to now go after Morgan Stanley / HFO or whoever, and a few others to get them to remove any adverse information they may have supplied to CRA's and also to get damages for any 'harm' their actions have caused me. What is the best procedure for this? Can someone point me to any explanatory threads please?

 

Next, this may sound greedy but then why not? What is the concensus of advice here or legal opinion on going after any lender that has been proven to have no agreement, or an unenforceable agreement for the balance of any payments that I may have made to them. If they have no agreement then presumably the lender has no right to, or legal recourse to claim any payments as any original loan or credit would be deemed to have been a 'gift'? Opinions please?

[angel_1]

Well done number6

 

its warming to hear of your success and we all learn from others that have gone before us, so many thanks

 

have a good day all ciao maz

[lookinforinfo]

Well done Number 6 especially as it was against HFO who do need to be put in their place.

The sobering thought is that most peole tend not to go to Court and so HFO et al win these cases by default. I do dislike this part of our judicial system where decisions go through because the defendant does not turn up. In the light of the consequences that could arise from a conviction it surely should be encumbent on a Judge to ascertain that the Appelant has the requisite documents in Court to prove their case.

I know the Court has limited time, but it does seem that they prefer to put these cases through "on the nod" perhaps thinking that the Court will amass

more fees from the defendant if they wish to set aside the Judgement.

That is not justice in my book.

[Number6]

Well done Number 6 especially as it was against HFO who do need to be put in their place.

The sobering thought is that most peole tend not to go to Court and so HFO et al win these cases by default. .

 

Sobering indeed.

 

I for one would be more than happy in principle to help anyone in my area who is up against HFO, or indeeed anyone else, to prepare their court case and even to go to court with them as 'moral support' or backup if that would assist anyone.

 

Put them all in their place, it's about time!

[angel_1]

Thank you very much for your lovely offer, i may just take you up on it if i get anything from hfo, for the time being im battling against original creditors and cl finance,, holding my own at the moment but so early days yet

 

have subscribed to the thread so i can learn more along this mad journey of ours in getting justice and being debt free

 

have a fun day all ciao for now maz

[sillygirl1]

Well done Number 6 especially as it was against HFO who do need to be put in their place.

The sobering thought is that most peole tend not to go to Court and so HFO et al win these cases by default. I do dislike this part of our judicial system where decisions go through because the defendant does not turn up. In the light of the consequences that could arise from a conviction it surely should be encumbent on a Judge to ascertain that the Appelant has the requisite documents in Court to prove their case.

I know the Court has limited time, but it does seem that they prefer to put these cases through "on the nod" perhaps thinking that the Court will amass

more fees from the defendant if they wish to set aside the Judgement.

That is not justice in my book.

 

A lot of this has to do with the way they (HFO et al ) word their documents stating "you MUST consult a solicitor when you go to court." Which scares a lot of people. You DO NOT need a solicitor, in fact in several cases I've been to court none showed up! I wish more people realised this and that the court often has people to help you fill in the forms. You don't need to do lots of legal wording but just sticking to the point helps.