Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello. I feel this may be considered to be a petty complaint on my part but would really appreciate views and insight please and I promise to wear my big girl pants and not take offence.  I have lived in my home since 1986. My neighbours moved in a year or two afterwards. In November 2013 I had solar panels installed optimised individually by solar edge and the panels are meant to be ' self cleaning'.  On Wednesday 21.8.19, my semi detached neighbours had a new TV aerial and a satellite dish fitted. It's near to my boundary wall,but clearly fitted on their own wall. I did not look out while his installer was working and did not know what had been done till I went to the front door to see what all the drilling was about then later to get washing in and saw the items on a flex pole. My issue, and this may be where you say I'm being petty, is that the  aerial is angled back and is over my airspace and sitting over my end solar panel. I went next door and told my neighbour my concern about birds sitting on the  aerial and guano issues as well as shading potential interns of the panel.  He said he'd ring the installer. Next morning, he is cleaning in his garden. I saw him and asked if he'd spoken to his installer. He said yes and the chap couldn't get back for 2 weeks.i asked if it could not be sooner, could the aerial not just be slightly moved when the discussion became heated. He said I had no rights to the space above my roof, I had to look at other aerials In the immediate area and he'd taken pictures and would do something if birds mucked Inthe panels and if it was him, he would have bought panels from a company who visited to clean them. I told him I fully appreciated the signal issue but asked could he not have the aerial on the chimney as I do and he told me not to be stupid as he had a dish as well and dishes cannot go on a chimney. I told him I was aware of this. He was by now shouting at me to listen and as I said, it became heated. He then said if I thought the air above my homeward mine I could sort the issue and he would cancel the installer call back. I rang his installer. My neighbours had not recontacted him. He asked if my concern was birds pooping on my panels  and the metal Ariel shadow would have no impact on panel generation and he would ring my neighbour. I am on my own and hate conflict and feel a little intimidated, but am also sure I've done nothing wrong. He told me it was my responsibility to have come out as the work was being done. So, please be frank, am I being petty? Should I just live with this ? I'm aware neighbour issues can escalate and have no desire for that, I just want the darned thing angling slightly away from my solar panel. My aeriels are the chimney ones...his is the new one at the front aspect. Thanks for reading this. 
    • Sorry I should have seen that. Vcs always reply to SARS at the very last minute 
    • Sar(email to VCS) went on 07/08/19 and CPR letter went on 14/08/19 to dcb legal.
    • Thank you all for your input so far. I have now received a letter back from my CPR 31.14 stating 'CPR 31.14 is not relevant to small claims matter, pursuant to cpr 27.2......we are under no obligation to disclose the documentation at this stage.' I assume this response is expected?   I have reworded my defence and made it more succinct, I'm not sure what else I could add?   1. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.   2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.   3. Signage at the site is not sufficient. A sign is present on the left hand side of the entrance, away from the driver, and therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle. On closer inspection this sign states ’Refer to the full Terms & Conditions signs located throughout the car park’. Signs are located so that information is often obscured by other parked cars and is difficult to read. These signs state ‘Entry to or use of this privately operated and managed car park is subject to the current terms and conditions of vehicle control services ltd. Motorists/persons utilising this car park hereby accept in full the terms and conditions.’ Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the car park before knowing what those terms and conditions are. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.   4. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998    In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 
  • Our picks

vjohn82

HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3054 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Have you been taken to court by HFO Capital/HFO Services/Turnbull Rutherford?

 

Have you been contacted about a debt or faced legal action from the above companies?

 

If so please post here the Notice of Assignment (NoA) you received with the details blanked out and any references by the company about the NoA such as a letter/authorative statement/Particulars of Claim/Witness Statement.

 

Many people are not receiving the NoA's from the original creditor (usually Barclaycard) in a statutory Subject Access Requests.

 

Due to the sheer number of claims that have been brought to my attention I have a number of questions I need to put to senior people in a few organisations.

 

Please note this thread is ONLY for HFO Capital/HFO Services/Turnbull Rutherford "victims" to post their Notice of Assignment and, if subject to legal action, the Witness Statement/Particulars of Claim which references the NoA.

 

This will be a big help!!! Thanks for your support!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing - with malice!


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't had anything yet myself but expecting something as their sidekicks Roxburgh have been sniffing around.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Many people are not receiving the NoA's from the original creditor (usually Barclaycard) in a statutory Subject Access Requests.

 

 

You do not need to receive a NOA from the original creditor. You just need to receive written notice of the assignment - it doesn't matter who it's from. See Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824

 

As a result, you will not necessarily get a copy from the original creditor under an SAR as they may not have sent you notice of the assignment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi nicklea

 

I think the point of the thread is the content of the NoA. Of course we know they're issued by HFO, and that is allowable.

 

However, some of the NoAs issued are, we are finding, incorrect in one or two ways - the date of assignment and the identity of the assignee. See VJ's own thread (link in his posts).

 

So yes, the focus is on bogus NoAs - not where they originate from.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VJ, should the thread title include HFO Capital, as that's who these NoAs appear to benefit initially?


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do not need to receive a NOA from the original creditor. You just need to receive written notice of the assignment - it doesn't matter who it's from. See Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824

 

As a result, you will not necessarily get a copy from the original creditor under an SAR as they may not have sent you notice of the assignment

 

This is the point nicklea... I said this:

 

"Many people are not receiving the NoA's from the original creditor (usually Barclaycard) in a statutory Subject Access Request"

 

Note I added "SAR" at the end... this is because one particular company are claiming the NoA are originating from the OC when this is not the case. This is proven when people do an SAR and do not receive the NoA within their bundle. With these particular companies this is endemic.

 

Hi nicklea

 

I think the point of the thread is the content of the NoA. Of course we know they're issued by HFO, and that is allowable.

 

However, some of the NoAs issued are, we are finding, incorrect in one or two ways - the date of assignment and the identity of the assignee. See VJ's own thread (link in his posts).

 

So yes, the focus is on bogus NoAs - not where they originate from.

 

Exactly... HFO claim Barclaycard issue NoA's when they don't... Barclaycard "think" they are selling to a certain company... but the company issuing the NoA put down a different company on the NoA... this makes the assignment defective and we have to question the motive of the company doing this.

 

In my case Barlclaycard sold the account to Roxburghe on the 4th May 2006.

 

HFOS claim that Barclaycard issued an NoA to HFO Capital on the 5th June 2006.

 

HFO claim that Barclaycard "faxed" a copy to their office proving the assignment for their legal case against me

 

BUT

 

The NoA they faxed to HFOS was actually the document I forwarded to them via email... so they never had a copy before I had emailed it.

 

Therefore... HFOS changed the assignee to suit their claim which is an abuse of process/fraud... whatever.

VJ, should the thread title include HFO Capital, as that's who these NoAs appear to benefit initially?

 

I thought so but then I no-one ever receives anything "from" HFOC... only HFOS act on their behalf. If people get confused I think it should be changed but it will do for now methinks...

 

Did you get chance to look at those documents I emailed to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do not need to receive a NOA from the original creditor. You just need to receive written notice of the assignment - it doesn't matter who it's from. See
Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824

 

As a result, you will not necessarily get a copy from the original creditor under an SAR as they may not have sent you notice of the assignment

 

"What is a sufficient notice of assignment? There are only two or three cases on the subject. There is Stanley v English Fibres Industries, Ltd which was accepted and applied by this court in W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke. Those cases show that, if a notice of assignment purports to identify the assignment by giving the date of the assignment--and that date is a wrong date--then the notice is bad. The short ground of those decisions was that the notice with a wrong date was a notice of a non-existing document. Assuming those cases to be correct, they leave open the question whether it is necessary to give the date of the assignment."

 

Red bit is the important bit... if the date of assignment is bad... then the notice is defective. But if a document does not have a date of assignment then the notice cannot be seen to be "bad" so long as it identifies the assignee correctly...

" It seems to me to be unnecessary that it should give the date of the assignment so long as it makes it plain that there has in fact been an assignment so that the debtor knows to whom he has to pay the debt in the future. After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge. But the notice itself is good, even though it gives no date."

 

If the assignee is incorrect then the notice is bad even without a date...

 

Unfortunately for HFO the date AND assignee is wrong... and I believe this to be the case for many others. However I need people to post them up ASAP!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VJ

 

You also need to consider the Van Lynn case, which refers to both the earlier cases. In Van Lynn, Denning MR accepted the 'reasonable certainty' test from a much earlier case. He ruled that NOA could come from anyone provided it informed the debtor with 'reasonable certainty' that the debt had been assigned.

 

The point about HFO's notices is that they purport to come from Barclaycard (and other credit card companies) but do not do so. They are forgeries and thus cannot give any valid notice (following the reasoning in Harrison v Burke).

 

Further the HFO notices also get the name of the assignee wrong - Sevices/Capital etc.


Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the NOA riddle is simple

 

HFO Capital is based in the Cayman Islands and as an offshore company CANNOT bring claims in the UK court, either on its own right or under an EEC ruling.

 

HFO Services is a UK based company (allegedly in West Byfleet) and therefore can bring cases against its clients.

 

Its a clear case of an offshore company using a UK company to defraud the court system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi VJ, email received and replied to ;)

 

What a bunch of ***** - they have a death wish...


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi VJ, email received and replied to ;)

 

What a bunch of ***** - they have a death wish...

 

I particularly like the "committed to an amicable settlement" part. So why apply for a Summary Judgement then based upon the reasons they tried to use during my set aside hearing? Hmmmm... looks like they don't want anything to be revealed in court to me.

 

This is why I need a number of other legal cases actioned by these muppets so that I can alert the judge to their inconsistent statements on assignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also note that Turnbull Rutherford no longer have their address printed on their letterheads but add it in the word processed document... think they're expecting to move soon?


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also note that Turnbull Rutherford no longer have their address printed on their letterheads but add it in the word processed document... think they're expecting to move soon?

 

Who knows? I have a sneaky feeling that HFO will soon be no more... and that Roxburghe will suddenly be the buzzword on the CAG forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how they novate the accounts to Roxburghe. Roxburghe seem to be taking on an awful lot of HFO work at the moment, and are insisting payments are ONLY made to Roxburghe!

 

If HFOS and HFOC lose their CC licences, then surely any accounts they 'own' are stuffed? If they novate the accounts in the knowledge that they are either trading insolvently or about to lose their CC, then I think the F word surfaces...

 

... and my friend at HMR&C is very interested!


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

It will be interesting to see how they novate the accounts to Roxburghe. Roxburghe seem to be taking on an awful lot of HFO work at the moment, and are insisting payments are ONLY made to Roxburghe!

 

Probably in the same cack handed manner they already do? Perhaps we are giving them too many lessons in how to assign an account properly?

 

If HFOS and HFOC lose their CC licences, then surely any accounts they 'own' are stuffed? If they novate the accounts in the knowledge that they are either trading insolvently or about to lose their CC, then I think the F word surfaces...

 

Indeed

 

... and my friend at HMR&C is very interested!

I think ALL at HMR&C should be interested to be honest!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

subbing to another HFO thread,as well as my NOA I have a copy of UK26,s.


US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I PM'ed UK to ask him to look in and to call Barclaycard re his assignment, but haven't heard back from him.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BA... I think yours is one we could possibly look at... any chance of posting up the WS from TR... and the NoA and a statement from yourself with the quote from Barclaycard that the account was sold on a different date to a different company?

 

Hope that's not too much trouble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I PM'ed UK to ask him to look in and to call Barclaycard re his assignment, but haven't heard back from him.

 

Likewise but no reply, same with his e mail, I do have a copy of his NOA

but I guess we need his OK to post.

 

VJ I will scan up tomorrow, although they will be on my thread.

 

MY NOA was Morgan Stanley, UK,s is Barclaycard but near identical.


US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Date on NOA 1 month out from my screen print from Goldfish, asignee the same HFOC,never had NOA from HFOC to HFOS and we know they asign all debts to HFOS from CP2.

Will try and speak to MS/goldfish/barclaycard tomorrow afternoon.


US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TR WS clearly states that MS gave me notice, statement of truth from Miss DN.


US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be great... simply so I can get it screen printed and then used against them in court... I will nail them on this I promise. I cannot abide liars at the best of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VJ

 

I've got 3 NOAs from TR's for the same assignment from Morgan Stanley before MS sold the business Barclaycard. The first one came from TR's, the second a day later on its own, post marked 'SW19' but the third one is dated a month AFTER they issued the N1 claim. with a different date of assignment. The format for copies 1 & 3 is exactly the same as NOAs from Barclaycard. #2 is different again. All 3 state Capital is the assignee but the claim is in the name of Services. I have a court date (Case Mang Conference?) at the end of Jan, so I want to keep the surprise. As soon as I have finished the court hearing, I'll post up the 3 different versions of the 'same' NOA. It should be very useful for others.


Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...