HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt

[DonkeyB]

"You should talk to our legal team" - isn't that a quote?

 

If she had testicles, they'd be in your hands right now. Don't squeeze too hard.

 

Oh, go on then!

[DonkeyB]

10% plus a small kickback on success?

[vjohn82]

3% of £721.69 payable ONLY upon full recovery of debt

[middenmess]

3% of £721.69 payable ONLY upon full recovery of debt

 

 

You are joking-----------aren't you?

 

What sort of business are Barclays running--with our money?

[vjohn82]

Nope... wish I was. No wonder they pursue it aggressively. Even if they fail they have only outlayed a nominal sum and utilised staff time marginally.

 

F**** joke

[DonkeyB]

And where does the tax get paid on this?

[DonkeyB]

But if it's assigned absolutely... how can there be any kickback? That doesn't wash!

[DonkeyB]

Poo! Smell! Urgh!

[middenmess]

Wasn't the total disputed anyway--down to £400 or so--making the sum they might have had to pay a huge £12!

 

And to date their costs are running at at least 100 times that!

[DonkeyB]

So it isn't actually 'sold'? So why go offshore? The pong is intense! How can you assign something with no value?

[middenmess]

Can you 'assign absolutely' on credit?

 

 

Have Barclays entered into an agreement under the 1974 CCA with HFO:grin:

 

 

If you haven't paid for it you do not own it!!!!!!!

 

 

Are there any more twists and turns in this saga?

[patrickq1]

"You should talk to our legal team" - isn't that a quote?

 

If she had testicles, they'd be in your hands right now. Don't squeeze too hard.

 

Oh, go on then!

better still put them in an engineers vice and crush em

[vjohn82]

It stink... the whole rotten saga

[broken arrow]

3% of £721.69 payable ONLY upon full recovery of debt

 

So Barclaycard sell these debts,for 3% the other 97% I beleive can be claimed backed as a tax loss.

 

So at worst they lose 3% and only if HFO get full recovery.

 

HFO only pay 3% and recover 100% plus charges.

 

[middenmess]

So Barclaycard sell these debts,for 3% the other 97% I beleive can be claimed backed as a tax loss.

 

So at worst they lose 3% and only if HFO get full recovery.

 

HFO only pay 3% and recover 100% plus charges.

 

 

As the amount of debt in this case was disputed by VJ [and agreed by Barclays?] then if Barclays claimed tax relief on an incorrect sum then would they not be guilty of a tax offence ? [Assuming of course that an actual sale has taken place by an exchange of money]

 

As it would appear that many such 'debts' are sold on whilst 'in dispute' this loss of revenue to the Exchequer must be a considerable amount.

[vjohn82]

So Barclaycard sell these debts,for 3% the other 97% I beleive can be claimed backed as a tax loss.

 

So at worst they lose 3% and only if HFO get full recovery.

 

HFO only pay 3% and recover 100% plus charges.

 

 

Well it's debatable how much they can write off as a loss. That's a figure we will never be given. But you can bet your life they ham it up.

 

As the amount of debt in this case was disputed by VJ [and agreed by Barclays?] then if Barclays claimed tax relief on an incorrect sum then would they not be guilty of a tax offence ? [Assuming of course that an actual sale has taken place by an exchange of money]

 

As it would appear that many such 'debts' are sold on whilst 'in dispute' this loss of revenue to the Exchequer must be a considerable amount.

 

Quite right, the amount of debt was certainly in dispute. It was made up of charges, fees etc.

 

Not to mention that fact that HFO are recording £1467 on my credit file!!!

[patrickq1]

i see a libel charge coming there way could we as a group issue a libel charge against alice...as the debts supposedly according to B.lays have only been assigned and not sold ?well whichever way a libel to include experian and others might make the CRAs think twice without sight of such contracts this way the dca would legaly have to produce a valid assignment just a thought

[Docman]

I'm staggered. I thought HFO would have had to have paid Barclays at least 10% and more likely 15% UP FrRONT, ie in hard cash. Instead, they have got away with 3% ON ACCOUNT. There certainly is a smell here.

 

By assigning the debt, Barclays should be able to claim the balance (97%) against their tax bill in the UK. In theory, the Tax man [HMRC] wouldn't be too bothered because if a UK company such as HFO Services had collected anything above the 3% (plus a small admin cost), then the balance would be subject to UK tax.

 

However, by assigning the debt to a Cayman company which then assigns to a UK company, any profit made by the Cayman copmany would be subect to tax in the Cayman Islands, which since the Caymans has a ZERO taz rate means no tax has to be paid. For example, if HFO Cayman 'buys' from Barclays at 3% and then sells to HFO Services for 90%, the difference of 87% is a profit for Cayman which doesn't loose any money due to tax. Back in the UK, HFO Services has 'bought' the debt for 90%. If it spends another 10% in collection, even if it received 100% (ie the debtor pays in full) HFO has not made a profit and thus isn't taxed.

 

Now this is where it gets interesting. HFO Services in the UK makes a masssive loss according to its published accounts. In other words, it doesn't even collect enough to fund the 90% purchase. But it clearly has some expenses and ends up borrowing. In HFO's case, it 'borrows' (again according to the published accounts) from HFO Capital in Dublin. Since HFO Services can't pay, HFO Capital (in Dublin) then writes off the debt, thereby creating a loss in its accounts. (Perhaps the Irish Revenue should have a look at HFO but of course, such actions may be perfectly acceptable in Ireland!

 

But here is the $64 million question - or to be more precise the £25 million one - With all the money being collected from poor souls in HFO's clutches, and little tax being paid, what happens to the £25 million borrowing from Flemings Private Bank to the wider HFO group that is showing in the HFO Services accounts?

 

A very peculiar smell if you ask me.

[DonkeyB]

Those borrowings are, I believe, the funds of the Nathan family trust - hence Badri Nathan's involvement.

 

However... HFO Capital are now trying to wriggle out of the 'CP2' document (which states that ALL present and future accounts assigned to HFO Capital are instantly reassigned to HFO Services) by claiming only certain accounts are reassigned (not the case - the document CP2 is unequivocal in its wording).

 

This fact presents a problem. If all the debts are instantly assigned to HFO Services in the UK, then tax becomes payable on their face value at this point. The backtrack and claim that only certain debts are reassigned for litigation is a load of bluster and simply not true.

 

The taxman should be taking an interest in this arrangement.

[middenmess]

I'm staggered. I thought HFO would have had to have paid Barclays at least 10% and more likely 15% UP FrRONT, ie in hard cash. Instead, they have got away with 3% ON ACCOUNT. There certainly is a smell here.

 

By assigning the debt, Barclays should be able to claim the balance (97%) against their tax bill in the UK. In theory, the Tax man [HMRC] wouldn't be too bothered because if a UK company such as HFO Services had collected anything above the 3% (plus a small admin cost), then the balance would be subject to UK tax.

 

However, by assigning the debt to a Cayman company which then assigns to a UK company, any profit made by the Cayman copmany would be subect to tax in the Cayman Islands, which since the Caymans has a ZERO taz rate means no tax has to be paid. For example, if HFO Cayman 'buys' from Barclays at 3% and then sells to HFO Services for 90%, the difference of 87% is a profit for Cayman which doesn't loose any money due to tax. Back in the UK, HFO Services has 'bought' the debt for 90%. If it spends another 10% in collection, even if it received 100% (ie the debtor pays in full) HFO has not made a profit and thus isn't taxed.

 

Now this is where it gets interesting. HFO Services in the UK makes a masssive loss according to its published accounts. In other words, it doesn't even collect enough to fund the 90% purchase. But it clearly has some expenses and ends up borrowing. In HFO's case, it 'borrows' (again according to the published accounts) from HFO Capital in Dublin. Since HFO Services can't pay, HFO Capital (in Dublin) then writes off the debt, thereby creating a loss in its accounts. (Perhaps the Irish Revenue should have a look at HFO but of course, such actions may be perfectly acceptable in Ireland!

 

But here is the $64 million question - or to be more precise the £25 million one - With all the money being collected from poor souls in HFO's clutches, and little tax being paid, what happens to the £25 million borrowing from Flemings Private Bank to the wider HFO group that is showing in the HFO Services accounts?

 

A very peculiar smell if you ask me.

 

Makes for great reading--just wish I could fully comprehend it all:smile:

[patrickq1]

hehe somewhere in the eire tax office this company should be scrutinesed me thinks

[DonkeyB]

The HFOC to HFOS assignment document states it refers to 'purchased' debts. Where does that leave them?

[vjohn82]

I'll be taking a good look at all of the documents again... but there is something very wrong. HMRC definitely needs to be taking a look at the bigger picture.

 

Essentially the Nathan family are a private equity firm - the "type" of equity firm responsible for the recent recession according to the Guardian.

 

So not only are they shafting the people who they are chasing; they are also screwing joe public with the other hand.

 

Sticky business this... shame Turnbull tried to state that their court action against me was, and I quote, "a simply debt recovery action".

 

Really? So simple that you decided to discontinue when I dug a little deeper?

[patrickq1]

might be worth filling in this form before the last train to india arrives

https://online.hmrc.gov.uk/shortforms/form/TEH_IRF?dept-name=TEH&sub-dept-name=&location=39&origin=http://www.hmrc.gov.uk

[vjohn82]

Here's a new joke I just heard...

 

Q: What date has been set for vjohn82's re-hearing for costs due to the judge not reading the documents in the last one?

 

A: 19th May 2010 @ 2pm

 

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Oh, wait, it's not a joke