HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt

[rhodium78]

If I may ask so that I can understand when a debtor having received a faulty DN

could accept (notify) the creditors breach of contract:

1) without needing to wait for anything in writing from the creditor whether or not specifically stating that the creditor had terminated?

2) or only on a receipt in writing specifically stating that the contract is now terminated?

3) or merely on a demand for the full balance of the contract, whether from the OC or a DCA?

4) or without the necessity of any of the above?

 

thx

 

In contract law, technically, them sending you a faulty default notice is not grounds enough to state a breach of contract, even if the figures are wrong or the format is wrong, etc... in CCA it would be a breach.

 

In contract law that would be a rescission for inadequate reason by the debtor but if the creditor later requests full amount on the back of the faulty DN, then as they have not complied with statute, they can't ask for it and them asking for the full amount is equivalent to repudiation of a term because this term is that you will pay in monthly instalments x amount.

 

Also, by them terminating the agreement on the back of a faulty DN, they are again repudiating the contract and are only entitled to arrears and not the full amount as statute has stated that for them to recoup the full amount, the process must be followed.

 

There is an uneasy compromise between CCA and contract law when we investigate the topic of a faulty DN.

 

It is always IMO to avoid getting into the contract law part of it as you are then liable at least for the arrears on the back of the faulty DN whilst using CCA, you are potentially not liable for anything.

[mot22]

In contract law, technically, them sending you a faulty default notice is not grounds enough to state a breach of contract, even if the figures are wrong or the format is wrong, etc... in CCA it would be a breach.

As we are discussing agreements governed by CCA then would I be correct by saying that CCA statute takes precedence over Contract Law.

I imagine it must other wise CCA would be obsolete in terms of what you've said here?

 

In contract law that would be a rescission for inadequate reason by the debtor but if the creditor later requests full amount on the back of the faulty DN, then as they have not complied with statute, they can't ask for it and them asking for the full amount is equivalent to repudiation of a term because this term is that you will pay in monthly instalments x amount.

So one would need to wait for point (3) of my list and again the

"terms" falling under the regulations within the CCA take precedence over contract law ?

Also, by them terminating the agreement on the back of a faulty DN, they are again repudiating the contract and are only entitled to arrears and not the full amount as statute has stated that for them to recoup the full amount, the process must be followed.

I take it you mean that the creditor has confirmed the termination in writing?

which would be point (2) on my list.

 

There is an uneasy compromise between CCA and contract law when we investigate the topic of a faulty DN.

 

It is always IMO to avoid getting into the contract law part of it as you are then liable at least for the arrears on the back of the faulty DN whilst using CCA, you are potentially not liable for anything.

This seems a contradiction. Is it not the CCA that stipulates only the arrears are due if a faulty DN has been issued?

How does using CCA potentially make a debtor not liable for anything?

Or are you referring to when there has not been a DN served prior to demand of full balance?

 

Many thx.

 

PS: I've just realized (1) and (4) are the same..

So it's down to 2 out of the 3 on my list..lol

Edited May 24, 2010 by mot22

[rhodium78]

As we are discussing agreements governed by CCA then would I be correct by saying that CCA statute takes precedence over Contract Law.

I imagine it must other wise CCA would be obsolete in terms of what you've said here?

 

Statute always overrules case law which is what contract law has developed from but CCA does not cover every eventuality. Also, in CCA, a DN gives protection to the debtor as regards a creditor terminating the agreement if the debtor repudiates the contract by not paying. CCA has contract law elements in there and is geared to have certain processes in place to protect the debtor if certain events occur.

So one would need to wait for point (3) of my list and again the

"terms" falling under the regulations within the CCA take precedence over contract law ?

I take it you mean that the creditor has confirmed the termination in writing?

which would be point (2) on my list.

 

This seems a contradiction. Is it not the CCA that stipulates only the arrears are due if a faulty DN has been issued?

 

You are wise young Jedi but when a case goes to Court, the arrears are not claimed, the full outstanding amount is so that is not allowed without a compliant DN and due to that, they can't get judgement. DCAs never go for arrears, even when they know they have a faulty DN.

 

How does using CCA potentially make a debtor not liable for anything?

 

As above... technically, the debtor is liable for arrears, just like in contract law... but no one ever claims arrears only. They claim the full balance on the back of a DN.

 

Or are you referring to when there has not been a DN served prior to demand of full balance?

A DN is not required to demand arrears... it is done so the DCA can terminate the agreement or demand the full balance. That is why the points above are about faulty DNs... if the DCA just wanted arrears, they would take you to Court (see next para) just for the arrears without a DN. By issuing the DN, they want the full balance and hence why in the claim, there is the full balance.

 

Particular regard must be paid to the intention of the DCA by use of notices... by issuing a (faulty) DN, the DCA has the intention of claiming the full balance, but in contract law and CCA, they can only claim arrears BUT in Court, they claim for everything which is why the debtor is not liable until they fix their act up.

Many thx.

 

PS: I've just realized (1) and (4) are the same..

So it's down to 2 out of the 3 on my list..lol

Apologies if I repeated myself and rambled on... it's late.

 

Ps. It can be argued that the DCAs are precluded from getting a money judgement as a result of their faulty DN. That is a discussion for another time...

Edited May 24, 2010 by rhodium78

[mot22]

Apologies if I repeated myself and rambled on... it's late.

Please, no need, as you said, the hour was late...I'm appreciative for your thoughts. Besides as I am neither "wise" nor a "Jedi", it is I that should apologise for my inexperience. Indeed I am in need of one of those coloured fluorescent light bulb "thingies". Not to duel with although it might come in handy one day but rather to illuminate. As your user name suggests, what you say may be more valuable than gold! So thx..

 

If I am understanding this then the CCA not merely protects the debtor from the creditor but more specifically that the debtor is protector from the rights a creditor has under Contract Law?

I'm thinking out load so apologies if this is all nonsense.

In relation to the acceptance of the creditors breach, it seems that a debtor must first be proficient enough in Contract Law to have been aware and understood to have accepted that the creditor had indeed breached the terms of the CCA.

If not then that ability to accept the creditors breach would be lost and the contract is deemed to endure.

In that regard CCA does not seem to protect the debtor from the rights that Contract Law affords the creditor which seems to be a contradiction?

Having said that and specific to a debtors acceptance (or not) of a creditors breach, when you say...

but when a case goes to Court, the arrears are not claimed, the full outstanding amount is so that is not allowed without a compliant DN and due to that, they can't get judgement.

...then which takes precedence (if that's an appropriate term)? The protection of the CCA for the debtor by virtue of a non compliant DN, or the protection of Contract Law for the creditor by virtue of the debtor having not accepted the creditors breach due to his ignorance of Contract Law?

If CCA truly protects the debtor then would not the endurance of the contract the creditor is arguing for become irrelevant?

 

Lastly, I have seen many posts elsewhere alluding to the ignorance of OC's by their issuance of faulty DN's. I was not so convinced and what you have said regards their objectives is interesting. In other words, for the debtor it is (hopefully) about the Law, for the OC it's a numbers game.

 

Ps. It can be argued that the DCAs are precluded from getting a money judgement as a result of their faulty DN. That is a discussion for another time...

Further enlightenment is always welcome..

Apologies to the OP if this is all an intrusion or off topic..

Many thx..

Edited May 24, 2010 by mot22

[rhodium78]

You flatter me Good Sir... but it is undeserved.

 

If I am understanding this then the CCA not merely protects the debtor from the creditor but more specifically that the debtor is protector from the rights a creditor has under Contract Law?

 

More like the CCA is protector of the rights a debtor has under Contract law. To be honest, you can't see them as oil and water... they both work with each other and CCA implements certain "standards" which were present in contract law such as DNs, etc.

 

I'm thinking out load so apologies if this is all nonsense.

In relation to the acceptance of the creditors breach, it seems that a debtor must first be proficient enough in Contract Law to have been aware and understood to have accepted that the creditor had indeed breached the terms of the CCA.

If not then that ability to accept the creditors breach would be lost and the contract is deemed to endure.

In that regard CCA does not seem to protect the debtor from the rights that Contract Law affords the creditor which seems to be a contradiction?

 

The debtor because of the actions of the creditor must unfortunately be proficient in CCA and basic contract law but my understanding of CCA and the thinking behind it is that the bill draftsmen of CCA had an inkling of faith in the creditors in the context that if they were going to use a DN, then it must follow certain format and which is why the format is clearly illustrated so as not to make any mistakes. My hypothesis and it is only a hypothesis in to their mindset, is that it was assumed by the bill draftsmen that the creditors will adhere to the protocol set out in the Regs and Act and that if not, the Judicial system will uphold it. Unfortunately as we know, that is not true and which is why the debtor in my opinion should be conversant with the CCA and the basics of contract law.

 

In contract law, the use of a DN is not new at all. DNs were issued for a breach of a term... that was incorporated into CCA and there are multiple instances of shipping, freight, etc. contracts where a "faulty DN" in the context of a contract was deemed to only entitle the sender of the DN to arrears but then we have something called "special damages" which further complicates matters and depending on the term breached, etc., might allow the sender of the DN for the full amount requested.

 

 

Having said that and specific to a debtors acceptance (or not) of a creditors breach, when you say...

...then which takes precedence (if that's an appropriate term)? The protection of the CCA for the debtor by virtue of a non compliant DN, or the protection of Contract Law for the creditor by virtue of the debtor having not accepted the creditors breach due to his ignorance of Contract Law?

If CCA truly protects the debtor then would not the endurance of the contract the creditor is arguing for become irrelevant?

 

I have to state that the last thing a LiP wants to do is start quoting contract law as it is not intuitive and has a lot of different facets and exceptions to it.

 

You are looking at contract law protecting the creditor, it doesn't. It protects both parties. Also, it is not either contract law or CCA... It is both. CCA ensures that the creditor has to jump certain hurdles to be entitled to taking action on the debtor's breach. Imagine a world without CCA :-|. In the contract there is no DN, no cooling off period, nothing lke that (similar to some very dodgy commercial loan agreements). So what happens is that you miss a payment or are late with it... the creditor can pull the facility. There are a few cases where in a commercial loan contract, the debtor (company) defaults on the payment, the lender sends the DN to the debtor as per the contract, and HOURS later pulls the facility and demands full payment. That was deemed to be fine in contract law.

 

I have not seen that argument yet by a DCA of the contact enduring despite their breach but all it takes is one clever dicky of a solicitor/barrister on their side to look at it holistically and think of ways of getting the debtor to pay.

[Santos L Helper]

Hi all

 

I am at present involved in litigation and have only received a letter via CPR 31.14 showing/advising of an assignment from the OC to the Claimant (which was on their own letter headed paper) sent by a firm of solicitors (acting on behalf of the claimant) and not the OC or the Claimant.

 

It is also 4 digits short of my account number.

 

Is this classed as a legal notice of assignment which will suffice for the purpose of this claim even though the claim was started before I set eyes on this assignment?

 

Regards

 

Santos

[Guest]

.........A DN is not required to demand arrears... it is done so the DCA can terminate the agreement or demand the full balance....By issuing the DN, they want the full balance and hence why in the claim, there is the full balance........

 

so, this then is consistent with s87 re 'to demand earlier payment of any sum'. the 'earlier payment' being the full balance?

[rhodium78]

This is all semantics I believe but earlier payment of any sum equates to the future instalments. They are already entitled to the unpaid arrears accrued under the agreement. The DN entitles them to future instalments as well so when they issue court proceedings, they are claiming the arrears and all the future instalments together.

[Guest]

This is all semantics I believe but earlier payment of any sum equates to the future instalments. They are already entitled to the unpaid arrears accrued under the agreement. The DN entitles them to future instalments as well so when they issue court proceedings, they are claiming the arrears and all the future instalments together.

 

i know what you mean re arrears. but was just clarifying that, as you say, the 'to demand earlier payment of any sum' includes for eg demanding the full balance (which of course includes any arrears).

Edited May 27, 2010 by Ford
typo

[vjohn82]

...

Edited July 3, 2010 by vjohn82
edited to comply with court order

[patrickq1]

dont keep us in suspense too long vj

[vjohn82]

...

Edited July 3, 2010 by vjohn82
edited to comply with court order

[broken arrow]

Interesting eh, Darragh

[vjohn82]

...

Edited July 3, 2010 by vjohn82
edited to comply with court order

[darragh]

This is good - very good. .... so in 2007 the system was still recording Roxburghe as the buyers and if i do another subject access request this week the system will magically now produce HFOC as the buyer. ... Wish I had business partners like this.

[vjohn82]

As I have said already... TR bank with Barclays (as does the entire Concillian Group I believe) so you can imagine the conversation that was had ;-)

 

Can't have a rogue CAGGER spoiling their little enterprise now can we?

 

However, the letters are still monumental cock ups because they introduce more questions than answers.

[patrickq1]

from 2006 to 2007

 

 

GRAHAM WHITE PO BOX 342 LAVENDER PARK ROAD WEST BYFLEET SURREY KT146NA 01932 332 032 0870 744 6240 fax

Roxburgh UK Ltd

PO Box 342

WEST BYFLEET

KT14 6YX

GRAHAM WHITE & CO 94 HIGH STREET BUSHEY HERTFORDSHIRE WD233HD 020 8950 2206 020 8950 0250 (fax)

Graham White Registered No UC5092048

PO Box 342 Lavender Pk Road West Byfleet Surrey KT14 6NA

ROXBURGHE INTERNATIONAL CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED

Registered No. 01330036

BEACON HOUSE, PYRFORD ROAD, WEST BYFLEET, SURREY, KT14 6LD

Roxburghe International Plc - Debt collection agency

Roxburghe (UK) Limited

ROXBURGHE (UK) LIMITED

Registered No. 03137269

KINGS PARADE, LOWER COOMBE STREET, CROYDON, SURREY, CR0 1AA

03/08/2004 DSG COLLECTIONS LIMITED

13/12/1999 ROXNET ONLINE LIMITED

08/03/1996 ROXNET ON LINE LIMITED

[patrickq1]

ive left out the ufo's bit as we all know that lol

[darragh]

now i know why ive been put on hold!

[patrickq1]

lol

[broken arrow]

I wonder if John Varley would be interested in who now pulls the strings at Barclays?

[patrickq1]

i think he would nt be too happy to find that some of his staff are auditing accounts from thin air....worth asking if he really approves of what is happenning and bearing in mind that he has been now made aware of what is happenning he should now consider himsef to being involved to vj asking for a forensic accountant to investigate the use of the NAMED COMPUTORS THEY ARE USING TO FIND THIS DATA isnt that right vj..they need to name the computor terminals where they found this evidence...

[patrickq1]

have we not had any guest's for a while

[broken arrow]

have we not had any guest's for a while

 

Your Taleb obsession is worrying Patrick

[vjohn82]

I've already contacted John Varley but he was quite happy to allow Maureen Cooke to lie and fudge her way through a phone call. It seems they would rather deal with a bunch of pettifoggers than actually adhere to proper financial standards.

 

The coincidence of schedule 2 is the most surprising aspect of this... it's such a shoddy document it is untrue.

 

They will have a hard time explaining why a 6 month data protection act complaint did not yield it and a court case going on since July 2007 did not yield it.

 

What did you say Coffee-Smith? It just "appeared"???

 

Hilarious.

 

Oh and "might be due to computer constraints at the time"???

 

What? The computers keyboard did not have an F and a C so they had to type "ROXBURGHE" instead of "HFOCAPITAL"???

 

As I have said, I imagine that the BC systems work on a form of Access which I was programming with relative ease between 1999 and 2003 and understand both the limitations of the system and the benefits. It would never benefit a company to use Roxburghe (a company who HFO Services were called for 3 weeks) over and above the alleged LEGAL assignee HFO Capital.