Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, You can't make EVRi investigate something. The only thing you could potentially look to do is take EVRi to court for the value of the lost parcel, however with a value of only £25 there will be limited point to doing that.
    • Is the letter headed Letter of Claim/before Claim or similar? If not, it sounds like more of the threatogram chain. If you're not sure, post up an anonymised copy of the letter and we'll check. HB
    • So guess what, we have received a final demand letter for £100. It states if payment is not made by 11/06 they will have no option but to forward the case to their litigation dept with a view to commence County Court Proceedings. So just wondering if anyone has any advice. Do we ignore this? or do we need to take action? Thanks 
    • hi dx, thanks for helping just re-reading everything this morning and I must have missed this one from uncle in his thread "What you should not do, is not contact the Banks and simply default on payments. "  are you in disagreement with this based on your last sentence?
    • Thanks for the reply and clarification, that might just explain why in my case contact has pretty much ceased. Though with such companies it doesn't mean they won't ever threaten to return to court as a tool to force one's hand if they feel they are not self informed on their chances etc.  But concerning how last year they tried to use the CCJ to get a charging order and the court granted an intirum order on our mortgage using the CCJ that would have been a good 2-3 months beyond the 6 years, should the court not have checked the age of the CCJ in the first case or would they always grant an interim order simply off the back of a CCJ being produced without even checking the age of it?.  Had I not defended that action at the time they may well have got a default using a CCJ older than 6 years which could be a concern going forwards. At the time when I contacted the court to question the paperwork for a final order application the clerk suggested people don't get informed when companies apply for interim charging orders, they are automatic if a claimant has a CCJ and people only get contacted once a date for a final order application goes through. kind of begs the question if such companies can continue a seemingly backdoor method to attempt default action if un-defended if the initial application doesn't need to check the age of a CCJ?.
  • 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 4799 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

Acknowledgement of service received this morning...

 

Defence to follow in due course.

 

Oh the excitement... I think it's going to be qutie funny how they try and wriggle out of this considering the most recent WS they supplied in the costs hearing...

 

You know... the Maureen Cooke letter assigning it to HFO Capital yet HFO Services claiming they have the right of data processing.

 

Should be interesting.

 

Oh and it's from Turnbull Rutherford - or is that HFO Services? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hahaha... they have indeed.

 

Have you noticed that HFO Services principal place of business is now India? Shame they didn't notify the Information Commissioner of this huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Means nothing in practice. My company's capital is £100! £2 paid up! Only when you get to PLC level does it really start to mean anything, and even then it needs to be taken in context with the accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£1,000 is about what Mr T pays himself every 4.5 days, according to the accounts. No doubt all his other directorships reward him well too.

 

I love his biog on the Validor site:

 

"Al is responsible for the development and execution of Validor's legal liquidation strategy"

 

Which translates to:

 

"Al sues people"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acknowledgement of service received this morning...

 

Defence to follow in due course.

 

Oh the excitement... I think it's going to be qutie funny how they try and wriggle out of this considering the most recent WS they supplied in the costs hearing...

 

You know... the Maureen Cooke letter assigning it to HFO Capital yet HFO Services claiming they have the right of data processing.

 

Should be interesting.

 

Oh and it's from Turnbull Rutherford - or is that HFO Services? :D

IT MIGHT BE FROM HFO CAPITAL HE HE

OR IT MIGHT BE A RE CREATION OR IS THAT INCARNATION /

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way they are screwed... simply because I win in either case and I'll explain why.

 

Their only defence in the costs hearing is solely on the claim that HFO Capital are the only company eligible to take action.

 

In my case against them I am challenging the right of HFO Services to process my data.

 

They HAVE to provide a defence BEFORE the costs hearing; if they defend stating HFO Services are the only company eligible to record my data then it's game over on the costs stakes.

 

If they claim in my claim against them that HFO Capital are the only company then my DPA claim succeeds.

 

The paperwork they have already provided prevents from mixing and matching in the interim periods - if they try to I shall rip it apart and have them for contempt of court in the discontinued proceedings...

 

Either way... I win one way or another - whether it is on the costs issue or the DPA claim.

 

The DPA claim is potentially worth £1000 + my costs (which would be around £500+ but I'm considering hiring a specialist Data Protection solicitor for it which would be around £1500+)

 

The costs hearing claim is worth £765.

 

Ball is in their court on this... they can pay my costs and pray I agree to discontinue my action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! Ha! VJ. I really like your style. Poor Alice!

 

I've basically placed them in a zero sum game; they can only succeed on one point (which won't save them in either case anyway).

 

I just want to see what they have to say now to get out of it especially as they have to be very careful with how they word it.

 

Either way, they'll be admitting or denying one course of assignment because that's ALL they can do.

 

The fortunate position I am in is that I can seize upon it in either case...

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think most of us are in the same boat with HFO CAPITAL proccessing our data and it being recorded with experian who by the way have now been made aware of our data being suspect coming from HFO SERVICES but experian are not in the least interested they have refered me back to STAEK DIANE ,so ive written a warning letter to mr alice that he shall be held personally liable for the transfer of data ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tread carefully with it... I'm close to an answer with these people. All will be revealed in their defence I suspect about the line they are going to take.

 

They can't rely upon their assignment docs because they are not valid in English Law... they can't rely upon the NoA because it is not a valid assignment under the LoP s.136 and Barclaycard have confirmed that the DN is not valid which means they were never entitled to be sold the account.

 

This ALL equals unlawful data processing. They cannot get out of it but despite me being very resonable for just over 2 months they refused to do anything about it... hence this court action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another round at Chucklevision Towers...

 

Remember when I asked Caroline Coffe-Smythe for a FULL apology from Mrs Cooke for lying on the telephone etc???

 

Here's Mrs Cooke's response received this morning via post...

 

A5CAGVIEW.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous... apologising for the confusion the letter caused? Errr... no love... I'm quite clear with the content of the letter. What I do have confusion with is why you have failed to carry out the proper investigation, why you lied on the phone and why you only felt it necessary to use your previous letter as a full and final response yet send it to a firm rather than me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least she put it on the right letterhead... rather good evidence that the previous letter was a forgery!

 

Exactly... this proves further the other letter could not have been from Mrs Cooke.

 

Considering that even the legal team accept that the assignment was not to HFO Capital (Coffee-Smythe claimed that Roxburghe on their systems is HFO Services - which we know it isn't) so Mrs Cooke is effectively saying that HFO Capital was not the legal assignee... and that the previous letter sent by Turnbull was indeed a confusion :) He can't rely upon it and as his firm CREATED it I can make a case that it is false representation assuming they do not want to withdraw it... :D :D

 

Bonza... Turnbull... you are screwed... but don't give up please!!! I really want this to go to court so I can expose you... please please please stay the course and ignore my previous settlement offers... I can't wait!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be Gordons by any chance. would it? What the f is going on with this lot? Gordons have barely, if ever, upheld a complaint of this nature - the only action happens when the FOS tells them to look again! Think I see an admin error coming... and improved admin put in place. Winkers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...