Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

The second Roxburghe was the only one in existence at the time my account was sold...

 

Monumental cock up somewhere in Turnbull's organisations but either way... they have been caught with their pants down on this ;-)

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

GH...

 

Wrong Roxburghe ;-)

 

Check out company ref 3137269 instead.

 

apologies I had a 0 in front of the number (as in the BC letter) my :oops:

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a follow up the question; who paid?

 

TR would have you believe that HFO Capital did. They produced the NoA on Barclays headed paper to add an air of legitimacy to the whole issue.

 

I questioned this assignment and TR conveniently had some account sale agreements laying around... got a minion to type up my personal details (obtained from who knows where?) on an excel sheet to make it appear as if my account was one of a batch sold to HFO Capital.

 

All of their submissions to the court are desperate attempts to convince the court of this assignment.

 

However, it was sold to Roxburghe UK Limited... who changed their name to HFO Services Limited in August 2004 EXCEPT my account was sold to Roxburghe UK Limited in May 2006 when both companies were in existence (a company called DSG Collections changed their name to Roxburghe the same day the other Roxburghe changed theirs to HFO).

 

I wish I could say "you couldn't make it up" but it appears someone did ;-)

i get the feeling this is when HARPER AND BADRI JUMPED SHIPS ? SO IN EFFECT VALIDOR IS IN THE MIX SOMEWHERE ALONGSIDE CONSILLION GROUP ? now its getting a bit sticky ,tax loopholes all over shop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best to leave the tax bits to the tax experts...

 

I still have a case to win of course... as for the costs hearing, well, the Judge is will have a field day with their conduct and I intend to seize upon every grubby detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is known as Hanging Judge Jeffreys because of the punishment he handed out at the trials of the supporters of CAG hehe ,,,hope not lets not have history repeat itself centuries later me being a scotsman an all i would nt stand a chance lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was rather intimating that Judge Jeffreys may like LiPs, and may mete out a suitable punishment to a claimant who may possibly be relying on not completely truthful documents to try and win. Ramsay!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be amusing...

 

This rubbishes all of his evidence in the set aside hearing... all of the evidence in response to my defence... all of the evidence for the summary judgement application... all of the evidence for the response to the costs hearing.

 

Oh deary me... how are they ever going to get out of this one. Admin error? Only one kind at Turnbull Towers judging by the multitude of cases on here...

 

error.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vj this is an awesome piece of work against this seriously dodgy company. Beware of speeding cars though I don't think they are very nice people.

 

This work alone must have cost them any functioning and financially lucrative relationship they had with Barclaycard. They'll not have any tax liability to dodge any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vj this is an awesome piece of work against this seriously dodgy company. Beware of speeding cars though I don't think they are very nice people.

 

This work alone must have cost them any functioning and financially lucrative relationship they had with Barclaycard. They'll not have any tax liability to dodge any more.

 

Couldn't possibly comment on tax issues with this company even if the set up looks like it is geared that way ;-)

 

I'm keeping going with it all... just waiting to receive their defence to my court claim against them and then waiting for the 19th May to come around for the costs hearing for the claim they decided to discontinue.

 

Litigation can be a long slog but it isn't half worth it when you exonerate yourself and reveal mis-management/wrongdoing etc - lots of it in abundance in this case :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vj this is an awesome piece of work against this seriously dodgy company. Beware of speeding cars though I don't think they are very nice people.

 

This work alone must have cost them any functioning and financially lucrative relationship they had with Barclaycard. They'll not have any tax liability to dodge any more.

 

Strange - I do get twitchy sometimes when crossing the road in Wimbledon...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across HFO website but it must be a different company to the one being discussed here [there and everywhere!]

 

About HFO Services

 

about_graphic.gifHFO is a well established and fast-growing global distressed debt investment company headquartered in Europe. The group currently has over $1 billion in portfolios under management.

Adopting a brand new approach that is setting new benchmarks for the industry, we continue to fuel our ongoing investment in technology, analytical processes, infrastructure and, most importantly, people.

Over the past decade, banks and other consumer lending organizations have increasingly turned to selling their non-performing consumer debt to operations like HFO in order to improve cash flow and enhance their balance sheets.

HFO uses state-of-the-art technology combined with a very disciplined and structured approach to debt portfolio purchase and liquidation - a methodology as of yet notably absent in the UK market.

This enables HFO to generate returns well above UK market averages and benefit from the significant growth potential in the market for charged-off debt.

HFO is centred around a value-add model which also reflects our company ethos. This has allowed us to develop a meritocratic culture that rewards those individuals that are driven to succeed.

 

HFO uses state-of-the-art technology combined with a very disciplined and structured approach to debt portfolio purchase and liquidation - a methodology as of yet notably absent in the UK market.

 

That's 'Porky Pies' and 'Blue Peters' in laymans language!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They keep using that term 'portfolio liquidation' = suing by whatever means possible, fair or foul.

 

'...a methodology as of yet notably absent in the UK market'. That's because most of that 'methodology', which has been reported in the Mail on Sunday and even in the House of Commons, has broken every rule in the OFT book.

 

My VJ, the silence from Turnbull Towers is deafening!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i must have been daydreaming did i see a post saying hfoc ireland have shut down ????

 

Wake up Patrick! If you did, you were asleep - don't think that's true. If you find it again, please let us know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...