HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt

[broken arrow]

This is just screaming out for an application...

 

Do you think Beating HFO in court might damage my prospects with the company?

 

 

VJ I can give you a reference, as you are honest, reliable, but I guess they are not looking for that:rolleyes:

[vjohn82]

VJ I can give you a reference, as you are honest, reliable, but I guess they are not looking for that:rolleyes:

 

Well I have built up a substantial portfolio of evidence that they like to use in court cases. I suppose that might help???

 

Here's a new letter from them...

Edited April 10, 2010 by vjohn82
letter moved to end of discussion

[Rhia]

Sorry I only managed to get as far as "the cutting edge of finance" and collapsed in a blubbering heap. SeaHorse applied a few times to Cabot (not sure if they ever realised it was him). Sadly he never got the job.

 

Will they ship you out to Mumbai as part of the training schedule?

[DonkeyB]

Tell you what guys... if we did work for them, they'd win more cases. But there's as much chance of that as England winning the World Cup. Or Wayne Bridge asking John Terry to be his Best Man.

[pt2537]

Tell you what guys... if we did work for them, they'd win more cases. But there's as much chance of that as England winning the World Cup. Or Wayne Bridge asking John Terry to be his Best Man.

i have been approached by a number of debt purchase companies to work in their legal teams,

 

the second word to the answer i gave was "OFF"

 

 

i could never work for companies who are sooo unfair, unreasonable and down right sickening to genuine honest people.

 

Thats why im where i am

[andrew1]

Tell you what guys... if we did work for them, they'd win more cases. But there's as much chance of that as England winning the World Cup. Or Wayne Bridge asking John Terry to be his Best Man.

 

Post deleted, in bad taste John Terry Jokes are not nice!

[DonkeyB]

I confess that one reason I play rugby is that I can take everything out on some poor sod legally... John Terry wouldn't last five minutes in a rugby match! But then I'm crap at football.

[patrickq1]

Sorry I only managed to get as far as "the cutting edge of finance" and collapsed in a blubbering heap. SeaHorse applied a few times to Cabot (not sure if they ever realised it was him). Sadly he never got the job.

 

Will they ship you out to Mumbai as part of the training schedule?

 

i would much rather being shipped to the Punjab much much better curries

[patrickq1]

ok i need to start my case to present to a magistrate for HFO CAPITAL to remove The Default they have entered it has also affected my wifes credit ..so i want to take it all the way ,

help please ,i think i am better to keep it of the forum what you think guys n gals had to put gals lol dont wanna be seen as being sexists do we

patrickq1

[DonkeyB]

New thread Pat - back to square one! Full explanation of who, what, where, when and why.

[patrickq1]

yes will do start new thread as on my old thread i did digress it into two threads lol ...my mind runs away with me and i end up seeing both Nat West and Hfo as being in the same calibre of people ..so i will start tomoz..thanks all

patrickq1

[citizenB]

This is just screaming out for an application...

 

Do you think Beating HFO in court might damage my prospects with the company?

 

Ummm, yes

[citizenB]

VJ, thought I would just pop this post from dad here. The last sentence is very apt .

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2814871.html

 

To Mischon de Reya and Mr X of Counsel:

 

This thread exists exclusively to assist Shakespear62 in preparing his litigation against American Express. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

It is possible that for you even to read this might to amount to a breach of your professional codes of conduct and be impermissible for Mr x to advance at trial.

[vjohn82]

Interesting. So essentially the correspondence I have entered into with others on this site to advise on legal issues could be considered to be privileged?

 

Hmmmm

[vjohn82]

I'm getting peed off with Barclaycard to be honest... this Maureen Cooke issue doesn't seem to be progressing as they have referred all correspondence to their legal team.

 

Is this Barclaycard beginning to crap themselves a little or what? Since when does a simply issue of lying require their own solicitor's intervention?

 

Hmmmm

[volvodriver]

Since more and more of these highly respected, upstanding institutions are being caught with their trousers down.

[vjohn82]

I sent this:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have recently been the subject of a vexatious litigation exercise by HFO Services administered by their owners Turnbull Rutherford Solicitors. They decided to discontinue after doubts were raised about the assignment process and I have put in an application for my costs of defending the claim.

 

I raised two formal complaints for different aspects of the case but I am now in a position, despite Barclaycards refusal at times to correspond, to take the action necessary to enforce your firm to acknowledge the failings that have been highlighted in the case.

 

So, for the avoidance of doubt, I shall set out where I believe the issues are and hopefully you will have a response to them.

 

DEFAULT NOTICE

 

Under section 87 a Default Notice is required before an account can be sold, deferred, terminated etc. This can be found in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but for easy reference the relevant statute paragraph states:

 

87.—(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "

default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by

reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as

terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e) to enforce any security.

 

A Default Notice is necessary before the creditor can become entitled to carry out any of the functions listed “a” through to “e”. I assume you will not take exception to this point?

 

Barclaycard claim they sold the account on the 4th May 2006, according to the records anyway, but the only deed of assignment in existence, if it can be called one, has been provided to me as per document VJ1. Therefore the account has been sold and Barclaycard must believe that section 87 (a) has been fulfilled on that point alone.

 

The Default Notice for the account is attached as per VJ2. Section 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states:

 

88.—(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form

 

The regulations for the “prescribed form” of a Default Notice can be found in the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 which came into operation on 19th May 1985.

 

If you believe the Default Notice meets the requirements of the Act and associated Regulations I would require, as a resolution to this legal notice, a statement to that effect. Otherwise I require a statement to the effect that the Default Notice does not meet the requirements of the Act or the requirements specified under schedule 2 of the Regulations as cited.

 

ACCOUNT SALE

 

The account was alleged to have been sold on the 4th May 2006 to Roxburghe. Equally it has been suggested it was sold to HFO Capital and, at other times, HFO Services. Quite frankly the assignment issue is a complete and utter mess. However, I shall attempt to address this point on the documents which were disclosed in the proceedings that were issued against me.

 

I have attached the Notice of Assignment, as per VJ1, which was created by the company concerned (HFO Capital – but note the sale date is wrong).

 

During the proceedings another document was released which is a contractual arrangement (the deed) between Barclaycard and HFO Capital which signed over a portfolio of accounts. I have attached the document as per VJ3. At the end of the document (page 8) there are two signatories: Ken Apter for Barclays Bank PLC and Kevin Harper for HFO Capital Limited.

 

Legally speaking this document has no weight. I say this because the agreement must be governed by English Law and therefore clause 36A of the Companies Act 1998 the following applies:

 

“Execution of documents: England and Wales.

 

(1) Under the law of England and Wales the following provisions have effect with respect to the execution of documents by a company.

(2) A document is executed by a company by the affixing of its common seal.

(3) A company need not have a common seal, however, and the following subsections apply whether it does or not.

(4) A document signed by a director and the secretary of a company, or by two directors of a company, and expressed (in whatever form of words) to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.”

 

This section was neither repealed nor altered under the Companies Act 2006 which came into force in November 2006. The document submitted only has two signatories, one for each party to the agreement, and therefore it is not valid under English law.

 

CONCLUSION

 

A case can be made that the account was terminated via a defective Default Notice which means the contract in force at that time was unlawfully repudiated. Once Barclaycard terminated this account they allowed all of my personal information to be transferred to the HFO group of companies via a deed of assignment which is not valid under English Law. This is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and a breach of contract. To say I am not happy is an understatement as I have only managed to uncover everything as a result of defending vexatious litigation by HFO Services.

 

I trust that the above legal points are taken into account and I look forward to hearing from you with your proposals to resolve this matter for me without the need for legal recourse. Please be advised I require a response within 14 days.

I received this:

 

[DonkeyB]

I can't see what Barclaycard's problem is. Any misdeeds are by the assignee. If the assignee has created a document it shouldn't have, then BC should hang them out to dry, not protect them, to show they mean business. If they try to protect HFO, then this will bite them very hard on the arse.

 

Their misdeed was in believing the assignee would behave reputably and fairly, which should hardly be a worry for a bank these days.

[DonkeyB]

Oh, I see, time for the legal bollox gobbledegook from a condescending clever dick 'trainee' solicitor - and no straight answers to your questions.

 

Power of attorney is sod all to do with this. That document in question was clearly titled as a deed of assignment, not power of attorney. HFO were not collecting on behalf of Barclaycard. If that was the case, then both Barclaycard and HFO have misrepresented the situation to you and to the courts.

[DonkeyB]

Or maybe he's referring to the Maureen Cooke letter? Is he suggested that Barclays gave power of attorney to HFO to make up letters on its behalf? Could he really be admitting to this?

[the_shadow]

Or maybe he's referring to the Maureen Cooke letter? Is he suggested that Barclays gave power of attorney to HFO to make up letters on its behalf? Could he really be admitting to this?

 

 

Hmm I read it as he is stating the deed of assignment is *the* power of attorney document where they give the permissions for HFO to take all necessary decisions in relation to this case.

 

I wonder if it would be most useful if any letters were sent from HFO stating they would have to "seek instruction from their client" in relation to this debt.

 

S.

[broken arrow]

Well VJ he is looking forward to your response, as am I.

 

I would now be chasing a copy of the so called Deed from Barclaycard, they must surely have one, written of course by HFO as Barclaycard do not seem capable of writing their own legal documents.

 

Unfortunately HFO are not very good at writing them.

[DonkeyB]

Better ask pt2537 to have a butchers at this. I've never come across such a shabby attempt at a substantive response from a solicitor - it is so supercilious as to be contemptuous (which I'm sure is the intention).

 

What exactly is he expecting you to reply to?

[DonkeyB]

pt, you appeared as if by magic...

[patrickq1]

Power of Attorney like you say DB absolutely nothing to do with this case,asignment was issued by HFO albeit a Fake asignment as it tunred out to be,Barclay's now wish to say it is a power of attorney,so they wish now to be a Legal Party to the dispute and should be treated as so ,This should make it easier now to identify that The staff named on Barclays documents are guilty of malicious actions with the intent of causing harm both to your standing and character imo

there are so many possibilities now they wish to open the door and since you also have legal privelage on here hehe good find DB