Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
    • Well, what I've read from various sources suggest if a CCJ is 6 years old that if becomes pretty much ineffective for enforcement purposes in its original form.  And that if it's about to expire then the claimant needs to apply to the court to extend the original CCJ within the final year.  Even if they do apply for an extension within the 6 years they have to have a very strong argument for doing so such as the person being out of the country or could not be traced, basically show they were actively still perusing the debt I guess. Now if a claimant ever does apply within the 6 years to extend the CCJ, would the person named on if be notified by the court that such an application has been made?.  In my case I've heard nothing from the court so assume no such application has been made.  The original CCJ in my own case is now a year beyond the 6 years of issue so must now make things even less likely again. So whilst the CCJ exists that they have not enforced it in that time must surely make it unlikely they can now take it back to court because as said it would be very rare for a judge to agree to such action now. That said, I guess they now can't use the CCJ to continue with any action for an attachment order to our mortgage either?
    • Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK There are 37 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.  
    • Well, they trashed their last election manifesto pledges, so nothing new really is it? They just find weasel words to try to claim they haven't actually failed if you just look at it just a little squinted and in this particular way  - and are stupid.
    • I think they're inventing stuff now. They seem to know they won't be around to implement any of it.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt


vjohn82
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4798 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

VJ

 

How the H*** did you manage to get 22 minutes out of her.

 

I'm a workaholic humbleman :D:D:D

 

She gave some pretty interesting information away. I am in the process of transcribing this... it will take me until tommorrow as there are a lot of interruptions etc.

 

Classic stuff... right up there with my meritforce lark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The implications of this letter not coming from MAUREEN has now taken a new turn,This is pretty serious and could mean the removal of alice from his position his w.s in front of a judge must also have serious consequencies to his position as a lawer and also as a business director trying to gain pecunary advantage

Obtaining a pecuniary advantage

s16 TA68 states that:

(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (2) The cases in which a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where:- (a) Repealed by s5(5) Theft Act 1978; (b) he is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out any policy of insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement of the terms on which he is allowed to do so; or © he is given the opportunity to earn remuneration in an office or employment, or to win money by betting (3) For the purposes of this section "deception" has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act. The elements of the actus reus are similar to the offence of obtaining property by deception: there must be a deception – this has the same meaning as for s.15 (according to s.16(3) TA 1968) there must be causation – as above there must be the obtaining of a pecuniary advantage. The only definition of "pecuniary advantage" is offered in s16(2): (a) (repealed by TA 1978); (b) a person is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out a policy of insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement of the terms on which he is allowed to do so, or © a person is given the opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration in an office or employment, or to win money by betting. Section 16(2)(b) covers the situation in MPC v Charles above where writing the cheque backed by a card obtains an unauthorised overdraft even though the deception operates on the mind of the person accepting the cheque and not on the mind of a bank officer. In most cases, the granting of credit may be machine-based with reference to a bank officer only being made when larger sums of money are involved. Where the pecuniary advantage is the obtaining of an overdraft facility at a bank, it is only necessary to show that the facility was granted, not that the defendant actually used the facility.

Section 16(2)© clearly covers those people who claim to have qualifications which are in fact false, and because of these qualifications they are employed. Further, according to R v Callender (1992) CLR 591 where a self-employed accountant made deceptions, the section was held to apply equally to employment as an independent contractor and employment as a servant. The defendant is charged under s16 if the deception is detected before payment is made. Thereafter, the defendant has obtained payment under s15. As to betting shops, if the defendant goes into the shop just before the horse race is due to start, places the bet and very slowly begins to count out the stake money as the commentary relays the progress of the horses, the opportunity to win has been obtained and the defendant can be convicted if they pick up the money and run out when it becomes obvious the nominated horse will not win.

[edit] Mens rea

 

There are two elements to the mens rea of this offence:

  • there must be a deliberate or reckless deception (see above)
  • the defendant must be dishonest (see above).

But there is no need to prove an intention to permanently deprive.

i rest my case me lud hehe

 

Today at 17:30 I spoke to Mrs M Cooke who confirmed the following:

 

1) She was ASKED to write a letter at the request of Michelle Kuhler of HFO Services but NEVER did so

 

2) She NEVER POSTED the letter to the address on that letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi patrickq1

 

I have Linux Mint and it has good utilities for writing PDF's. However, if you continue not having any luck I will post in another format. Haven't time now but let me know and I will get it done tomorrow.

 

Also, have now figured out why output did not look very good (resolution 150 -> 300) so could re-post in higher res if anyone is struggling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

VJ

 

This is more than 'brilliant stuff' as patrick says. It is dymanite! You have here employees of a regulated financial services firm (Barclays) making certain admissions and a solicitor's firm in the middle. I'm going to have a re-read of the thread and post something more appropriate tomorrow. But you are right about one thing, just where do you go with this now.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

my daughter who is at universty in 4 year studying forensic phsycoligy says she was very untruthfull and was trying to get herself out of a jam...

she has also unsuccesfully tried to use a disclaimer by indicating she was not working in that dept..but also tried to clarify two things

1. she sent the document

2. she did not send the document,she gave permission for a company to use another companies letterhead and logo including another companies terms and conditioons,and this is without proof that an actual assignment

exists and if it does she does not know who the true purchaser was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HFO will claim your debt was assigned to HFO Capital Ireland. It was not. The M&S contract is with HFO Cayman.

 

Also, you are not subject to HFO's T&Cs. This is legally wrong. You can only ever be subject to the original T&Cs that M&S issued. What a bunch of fibbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here are MS word doc versions. Hope you have better luck with these.

 

I have linux and used openoffice to save a .doc format so this is all a bit experimental.

 

Please also note the following:

 

1. The account number on BOTH documents is preceded by 000

 

2. On the M&S one you can see the sentence that says "We refer to your account....." The font size and possibly the font is different to the rest of the letter whatever that may mean!

 

To answer patrickq1 nothing is happening with my case and I have no thread on it. I typically ignore everything that arrives, except for filing, and don't play tennis with anyone. I have no intention of communicating anything to anyone unless they take some sort of legal action. Indeed, I was a recipient of a number of SD's from 1st Credit awhile back and ignored them, to find no further action was taken on those accounts other than another round of begging letters.

 

This strategy has served me very well so far. In this case I had a further letter from solicitors, which I ignored, which was months ago and they have taken no further action up to this point.

 

I dont know why this is working but it is possible they know enough about my affairs to know they will not be able to get anything back, and I do not necessarily recommend this strategy for everyone, particularly those that have assets.

 

Knowing my luck the trouble will now begin having put up this post!

 

To comment on DonkeyB's post; Yep, totally agree. As I said in my post above the T&C's caused some amusement at the time.

 

I have learn't a lot from this site. In the absence of having to fight any of my own battles at the present time I am very happy to lend my limited services to others where I can.

HFO T&C.doc

M&S HFO NOA.doc

M&S NOA.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of observations after listening to the recording...

 

If that performance on the phone by Mrs.M.Clarke is the level of intelligence and competence that satisfies the criteria to become Head of Operations within the Barclaycard Debt Sale Teams then what chance have we of ever getting a responsible reply from those minions below her with whom most of us have to deal with?

 

It is also frightening to realise that it would probably be people of similar capabilities and standards of truthfulness that will be in charge of 'recreating documents' that will be used in Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of observations after listening to the recording...

 

If that performance on the phone by Mrs.M.Clarke is the level of intelligence and competence that satisfies the criteria to become Head of Operations within the Barclaycard Debt Sale Teams then what chance have we of ever getting a responsible reply from those minions below her with whom most of us have to deal with?

 

It is also frightening to realise that it would probably be people of similar capabilities and standards of truthfulness that will be in charge of 'recreating documents' that will be used in Court.

 

Couldn't agree more. What is sad is that clearly HFO were pulling the strings and getting someone weak at Barclaycard to do their bidding. I don't think they quite understand or realise how serious the implications of this may yet become.

 

This is a clear subjugation of the process of law, in creating a document on request without knowing whether the content of the 'cod letter' is true, with the sole intention of it being used in court to influence a judge.

 

Whichever of her version of events she chooses to stick by - and there were many in that conversation - they are all explosive, and all totally undermine the claimant's case fundamentally in its defence of its conduct.

 

Let's hope the SRA, the OFT, possibly the police and certainly the CEO of Barclays see it this way.

 

If they don't, they have cataracts of convenience, which is a difficult - but not impossible - disease to cure. I'm sure Tony Hetherington and Private Eye would agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more. What is sad is that clearly HFO were pulling the strings and getting someone weak at Barclaycard to do their bidding. I don't think they quite understand or realise how serious the implications of this may yet become.

 

This is a clear subjugation of the process of law, in creating a document on request without knowing whether the content of the 'cod letter' are true, with the sole intention of it being used in court.

 

Whichever of her version of events she chooses to stick by - and there were many in that conversation - they are all explosive, and all totally undermaine the claimant's case fundamentally.

 

Let's hope the SRA, the OFT, possibly the police and certainly the CEO of Barclays see it this way.

 

If they don't, they have cataracts of convenience.

 

This is the thing DB... I don't think that those authorities will care. They are only interested in keeping their own gravy trains going to be honest.

 

I'll be in touch with the court tommorrow to see if another hearing date has been set.

 

I might aswell tell you this... Mrs M Cooke now refuses to speak to me. I wonder who is behind that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...