hfo

[dadofholly]

She will need to check on which track this is then as am sure you can not issue a CPR 18 on small claims - but will check out the info i have.

 

The issue with Welcome is that this will go to some numpty in complaints dept - who won't get it, and just write back to her telling her they have already replied or to send another tenner.

 

Welcome are the masters of putting things off, time wasting and not giving a straight answer.

 

A CPR 31.17 LBA has already been sent asking the same questions - would it not be better to follow it up via the court?

 

My only concern is we could be in the same position, (how do we get truth from welcome), in a months time.

[dadofholly]

...and perhaps a question along the lines of:

 

Did HFO Capital Ltd have a valid consumer credit licence at the alleged date of sale, 6 February 2008?

 

It’s a killer question.

 

Would that be to HFO or welcome?

 

If welcome - you would just get a stupid answer back. I have had 3 on the same question.

[broken arrow]

My thought was if Vanessa did a draft order for directions, if she got the set aside.

[broken arrow]

...and perhaps a question along the lines of:

 

Did HFO Capital Ltd have a valid consumer credit licence at the alleged date of sale, 6 February 2008?

 

It’s a killer question.

 

I can answer that one..............NO

[DonkeyB]

There is no track, so CPR still applies, I hope ... but technically, there is a judgment still in place, so they could ignore any requests. Be foolish to ignore a reasonable request, though.

[dadofholly]

Be foolish to ignore a reasonable request, though.

 

This is Welcome Finance we are talking about

They only do foolish.

 

My view based on experience of dealing with them on a few matters is, take them to court. Even then they will try it on - but believe me it's the only thing these guys understand and the only time they take any notice. (Go that from the inside). They get threats of complaints and court action all the time - it's water off a ducks back to them.

 

Will leave it up to Vanessa - i am just concerned we will be back here discussing their non-compliance again in a few weeks.

[broken arrow]

No doubt TR will produce one of the late witness statments a couple of days before the hearing.

 

Therefore, Vanessa needs a draft defence ready if the Judge asks do you have any real prospects of defending the claim.

I then also would have draft directions to anything she needs, documents, questions etc .

[DonkeyB]

Sorry, I was talking about the CPR to HFO, not Welcome. Welcome have no standing – but vanessa has already written to them anyway under threat of CPR 31.17 – need to push this for a full response or simply do an N244.

[dadofholly]

Sorry, I was talking about the CPR to HFO, not Welcome. Welcome have no standing – but vanessa has already written to them anyway under threat of CPR 31.17 – need to push this for a full response or simply do an N244.

 

Gotcha

 

We are on the same hymm sheet then - i just got the wrong verse

[vanessa82]

hi

thanx for all your help everyone, going to send the original letter back to welcome stating it is not an sar , but cpr give them 7 days and if not then do n244.

 

with the cpr to hfo not really sure what to send, as dont really know too much about cpr, will read up and come up with a draft

[vjohn82]

...and perhaps a question along the lines of:

 

Did HFO Capital Ltd have a valid consumer credit licence at the alleged date of sale, 6 February 2008?

 

It’s a killer question.

 

That would be better on a Notice to Admit Facts (CPR 32.18) phrased in the form of an affirmative statement. I'd suggest this is the route we follow for all HFO claims as soon as we receive them. Get them on the back foot straight away and the best thing is they have to reply to it!

 

I used it twice in my HFO cases and it killed them stone dead.

 

She will need to check on which track this is then as am sure you can not issue a CPR 18 on small claims - but will check out the info i have.

 

The issue with Welcome is that this will go to some numpty in complaints dept - who won't get it, and just write back to her telling her they have already replied or to send another tenner.

 

Welcome are the masters of putting things off, time wasting and not giving a straight answer.

 

A CPR 31.17 LBA has already been sent asking the same questions - would it not be better to follow it up via the court?

 

My only concern is we could be in the same position, (how do we get truth from welcome), in a months time.

 

As already stated, it is trackless right now and therefore Pt18 applies.

 

I'm close to suggesting that the original creditors should be added as a party to the proceedings in some way, perhaps being called as witnesses. That way they cannot start fudging the docs for any reason or fail to find what is needed.

 

hi

thanx for all your help everyone, going to send the original letter back to welcome stating it is not an sar , but cpr give them 7 days and if not then do n244.

 

with the cpr to hfo not really sure what to send, as dont really know too much about cpr, will read up and come up with a draft

 

I've attached a Pt18 request I used recently... you need to amend it to suit your circumstances and change addresses etc...

Part 18 Request.doc

[the_shadow]

I've attached a Pt18 request I used recently... you need to amend it to suit your circumstances and change addresses etc...

 

VJ,

 

I wonder if that request could ever be backed up in court with an application, it appears to be a SAR more than a CPR18. Remember CPR18 is for information purposes only, so its seeking clarification on points etc. CPR31.14 is used for requesting documents.

 

Far better in my opinion to do a CPR18 seeking clarification on points and get them to disclose the documents in their reply which then makes the documents fair game under CPR31.14.

 

Just my opinion.

 

S.

[vjohn82]

It does look like an SAR... I agree. But the time limit for complying with one is 40 days by which time a case like this can be done and dusted evidence wise.

 

A part 18 request clarifies a case from the start. Once litigation proceedings have commenced there is no need to retreat to the DPA as the CPR takes precedence IMO.

 

I've used this format for every case I have dealt with, inc. HFO, and have had a satisfactory response each time.

 

CPR 31.14 states:

 

31.14

(1)A party may inspect a document mentioned in –

 

(a)a statement of case;

 

(b)a witness statement;

 

©a witness summary; or

 

(d)an affidavit(GL).

 

(e)Revoked.

 

Part 18.1 (b) states:

 

give additional information in relation to any such matter,

 

whether or not the matter is contained or referred to in a statement of case.

 

The second sentence is the important bit... whether or not it is referred to. It encompasses quite a lot and with HFO you need to be on sure ground as they have a LOT of documents you need to be serviced with in light of their DPA difficulties and intra-group assignments. None of these would ever be referred to in a statement of case unless you bring them up on a Part 18.

 

A CPR 31.14 is limited in the sense that you can only obtain documents mentioned in the POC or Witness Statement... like I say we know HFO has some major issues with CCL and DPA registration and if they aren't referring to the assignments in their POC a Pt18 request is the only way to obtain them.

[the_shadow]

With respect I think you are missing my point...

 

The response to a CPR18 MUST BE accompanied by a statement of truth which then brings it into the CPR31.14 realm of requesting what documents are mentioned in the CPR18 response.

 

S.

[vjohn82]

With respect I think you are missing my point...

 

The response to a CPR18 MUST BE accompanied by a statement of truth which then brings it into the CPR31.14 realm of requesting what documents are mentioned in the CPR18 response.

 

S.

 

A small amendment to the letter stating that the Part 18 request brings into play the CPR 31.14 aspect of disclosure might be useful to sort of tie up the loose end? Either way I would argue that a Pt18 request has to come before CPR 31.14 if the POC does not refer to documents which make up 31.14 request.

 

Would you agree?

[the_shadow]

A small amendment to the letter stating that the Part 18 request brings into play the CPR 31.14 aspect of disclosure might be useful to sort of tie up the loose end? Either way I would argue that a Pt18 request has to come before CPR 31.14 if the POC does not refer to documents which make up 31.14 request.

 

Would you agree?

 

I dont think it needs it..

 

All I'm saying is that the CPR18 imho should be used to just ask questions which force them to reveal documents in their answer, i.e. (being simplistic here).."Is this debt a CCA1974 regulated debt?, is there a written contract/agreement for this debt?"

 

They reply "Yes it is, Yes there is"... you then under CPR31.14 ask to see the agreement they confirm is in existence under their response as they have now disclosed the document to you albeit reservedly.

 

...and yes if the PoCs are bad I would ALWAYS seek a CPR18 first but I would do as I've stated above and get disclosure under their responses to the questions.

 

S.

[vjohn82]

Which is exactly what I have said. Why bother writing two letters? Write a part 18 request and then state that if a document reveals itself you request disclosure of that document under 31.14. It's in the interests of all parties to further their case and assist the court. There have been many occasions where people forget what to write or miss sending a letter. Of course sending two letters incurs twice the postage fee which might be of a concern to someone on a low income.

 

I just know, from experience, of how HFO work. It's amazing how many documents and letters they never receive...

[the_shadow]

Which is exactly what I have said. Why bother writing two letters? Write a part 18 request and then state that if a document reveals itself you request disclosure of that document under 31.14. It's in the interests of all parties to further their case and assist the court. There have been many occasions where people forget what to write or miss sending a letter. Of course sending two letters incurs twice the postage fee which might be of a concern to someone on a low income.

 

err no it isnt.. your asking for the chicken and the egg to be together... until they respond to the CPR18 letter they havent disclosed the documents mentioned in the response hence you cant request under cPR31.14.

 

I just know, from experience, of how HFO work. It's amazing how many documents and letters they never receive...

 

Yep absolutely I just wouldnt want anyone to think they would definately be able to enforce an application to disclosure on the back of that letter thats all.. If HFO respond to them then carry on using it.

 

S.

Edited February 24, 2011 by the_shadow
changed wording as no guarentees in life either way

[vjohn82]

I've read a little more on it. It could potentially damage a Part 18 request including anything other than the request itself. Best to follow shadow's advice. Part 18 first... then post the reply here.

[vanessa82]

hi all

Just thought I d let you know received a letter from the sra this weekend they stated in response to my complaint about tr's conduct a file has been opened in the conduct investigation unit and will be allocated a caseworker in next 4-6 weeks

[dadofholly]

Be interesting to see what they come up with.

[DonkeyB]

Must be a very thick file by now!

[broken arrow]

Hi Ness, there will be some paperwork coming your way in the near future.

Edited February 27, 2011 by broken arrow

[vanessa82]

hiya

what paperworks that ba?

[broken arrow]

hiya

what paperworks that ba?

Draft paperwork as promised.