HFC Bank/1st Credit

[new-me2010]

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

 

Mystery letter received this morning from 1st Credit about HFC Bank

 

The problem is I have never used HFC and it doesn't equate with any amounts I have owing or in dispute

 

Can someone have a look please and give me some idea of which letter I should use?

 

[silverfox1961]

I would send letter 18 from here:

 

The Consumer Forums - Debt collectors

 

If, as you say, this is not your debt, they would have a hard job proving it.

 

Usual rules

 

No signature

recorded delivery

 

fox

[Revenant]

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further

borrowing or to extend their borrowing

 

Above is from the OFT Guidelines so by suggesting that a payment can be made by Credit Card they are in breach as you would be incurring extra debt to pay them, that's given that it was your debt anyway

Good luck

R

[veryweary]

HFC are the creditor behind numerous credit cards eg - Marbles and store agreements eg PC World.

 

Send letter 18 as advised and see what they come back with.

 

Ist Credit have a habit of sending out a new system generated threatening letter each week to try and bully people into paying accounts, so don't be fazed if you receive them. They're just empty threats.

 

Once you get a response to your letter post it up and others will advise you on what steps to take next.

[lilly white]

OK THIS is A NOA,

 

I would not reply to this letter before you have a read

 

The Assignment of the Debt

 

 

19. If the Claimant was not zzzzzzzzzzzz Bank then it is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful and is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court.

 

 

20. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:-

 

136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

21. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

 

196. Regulations respecting notices.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

 

22. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

 

23. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

 

 

24. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

 

 

 

 

25. It is further averred that to be valid the the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).

 

 

 

[lilly white]

also get a sar of the bank they give you the account numbers

 

Do this 1st then you will know more then these people in their bus stop

[lilly white]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1925/cukpga_19250020_en_16#pt11-pb5-l1g189