HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt

[humbleman]

VJ

 

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

[vjohn82]

Wouldn't you just know it?

[vjohn82]

VJ

 

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

 

I'm a workaholic humbleman :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.

[vjohn82]

Here it is patrick

 

[vjohn82]

Looks like a bad Blue Peter job

[patrickq1]

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pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where:- (a) Repealed by s5(5) Theft Act 1978; (b) he is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out any policy of insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement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 The only definition of "pecuniary advantage" is offered in s16(2): (a) (repealed by TA 1978); (b) a person is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out a policy of insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement of the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

[patrickq1]

not sure if this law has been repealed tho cause the new fraud theft act came out in the last few years

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

i could nt open these pdf's keeps telling me an error has occured ? gggrr i hate comps sometimes

[comebackjimmy]

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.

[patrickq1]

brilliant stuff

[patrickq1]

try in ms word format 2003/2007/10 i have all three cheers

patrickq1

ps how are you doing with your case or are you still at the two ing and fro ing do you have a thread will visit it

[broken arrow]

Just listened to it VJ, absolutely brilliant, I wondered why you had been so quiet today;)

[Docman]

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.

[Series3]

subbing

[patrickq1]

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.

[patrickq1]

hi ba dynamite stuff huh ime sending you a link pm see if its pertinant i dont wanna put it on the forum ok

[DonkeyB]

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.

[vjohn82]

You promise to pay us back as quickly as possible???

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Oh dear.... I think their drafting team needs a good shake

[comebackjimmy]

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

[DonkeyB]

Like your sentiments!

[middenmess]

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.

[vjohn82]

Quite right... she doesn't even lie very well either

[DonkeyB]

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.

[vjohn82]

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?

[vjohn82]

Oh and I forgot to mention this...

 

Who wants to know how much Barclaycard sold the debt for???

:lol: