HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt

[vjohn82]

Ok guys... try to stifile your laughter!!!

[vjohn82]

 

[broken arrow]

Ah, the new coffee maker, 3 weeks to come up with that load of crap!

[DonkeyB]

Another trainee solicitor - haven't they got any proper ones? What a pile of.

[broken arrow]

So are Barclaycard saying they sold the debt without a deed of assignment.

[DonkeyB]

So what about all the issues you raised? She has not dealt with the substantive points.

 

Is this all the CEO thinks you deserve?

[DonkeyB]

Yup - she is admitting it is a simple contract. Not a deed. And she has got a lot of that wrong, with regard to S44. Perhaps she forgot to read it first.

[vjohn82]

Guys... you have email (copied in) but for the benefit of CAG.

 

Dear Caroline,

 

I want to thank you for confirming that the contracts signed between Barclaycard and HFO Capital are "simple contracts" and not "deeds of assignment" as previously inferred by Cormac Toomey and indeed the solicitors representing the various factions of HFO.

 

I now have the necessary proof to demonstrate how these documents could not possibly have had the effect of being effective deeds under the Law of Property Act 1925. This proves without question that my personal account has not be transferred to HFO Capital via any effective legal route.

 

Your comments have finally provided the evidence I require and I am grateful for it.

 

I eagerly anticipate your answer to the Default Notice issue.

 

Regards,

 

vjohn82

[DonkeyB]

The simple fact is that the default notice was not compliant. She has said it referred to all these things - maybe, but they were all wrong. And it came from Mercers, not Barclays. And did not give enough time to remedy.

 

Hope she's looking for a new job selling sky hooks.

[vjohn82]

A bit sarcastic but hey, I'm that kinda guy

[broken arrow]

Deeds can now be signed by one company director | Pinsent Masons LLP

 

mentions a bit about simple contracts near the end.

[vjohn82]

The simple fact is that the default notice was not compliant. She has said it referred to all these things - maybe, but they were all wrong. And it came from Mercers, not Barclays. And did not give enough time to remedy.

 

Hope she's looking for a new job selling sky hooks.

 

I've heard she is marginally better at making coffee than Cormac

[broken arrow]

If there is only one signature, I believe it should still be attested.

[vjohn82]

The simple fact is that the default notice was not compliant. She has said it referred to all these things - maybe, but they were all wrong. And it came from Mercers, not Barclays. And did not give enough time to remedy.

 

Hope she's looking for a new job selling sky hooks.

 

I have provided some "clarification" as requested but to be honest I have already clarified the Regulations on two previous occasions.

 

She has merely plagarised Cormac...

 

We're not worthy!!!

[vjohn82]

If there is only one signature, I believe it should still be attested.

 

It should... even s.44 of the Companies Act she referred to says so:

 

44. (2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a) by two authorised signatories, or

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

[DonkeyB]

A key to this could lie in HFO's Articles of Association. Need to check whether they provide any one director with total executive and discretionary powers to do things like sign contracts alone.

 

The HFO documents were NOT witnessed, anyway, so really it's a moot point.

[DonkeyB]

Blimey, we're all on the ball today. Maybe we should apply for jobs as trainee solicitors at Barclays.

[vjohn82]

Does anyone else think that Ken Apter has done every debtor with a BC account which has been sold to HFO/Cabot a HUGE favour???

 

I think we all owe him a drink for his either deliberate actions or amazing stupidity.

[vjohn82]

Blimey, we're all on the ball today. Maybe we should apply for jobs as trainee solicitors at Barclays.

 

I did but my Frappucinos were not up to scratch

[vjohn82]

Todays guest is.................................

 

Courtney? Nelson? Turnbull himself???

Edited April 6, 2010 by vjohn82

[broken arrow]

Section 44:-

 

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a) by two authorised signatories, or

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) every director of the company, and

(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

(4) A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(5) In favour of a purchaser a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with subsection (2).

A “purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

(6) Where a document is to be signed by a person on behalf of more than one company, it is not duly signed by that person for the purposes of this section unless he signs it separately in each capacity.

(7) References in this section to a document being (or purporting to be) signed by a director or secretary are to be read, in a case where that office is held by a firm, as references to its being (or purporting to be) signed by an individual authorised by the firm to sign on its behalf.

(8) This section applies to a document that is (or purports to be) executed by a company in the name of or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a company.

[DonkeyB]

Anyway - and importantly - I don't think those sections of the 2006 Act were in place in early 2007 when the sale document in question was signed. I don't think section 44 came into effect until 6 April 2008.

 

So there. Gotcha! Relying on the wrong Act!

[broken arrow]

Anyway - and importantly - I don't think those sections of the 2006 Act were in place in early 2007 when the sale document in question was signed. I don't think section 44 came into effect until 6 April 2008.

 

So there. Gotcha! Relying on the wrong Act!

 

It does not get away from the fact that execution of documents, signed by one person, needs to be attested.

 

44.2b

[vjohn82]

Anyway - and importantly - I don't think those sections of the 2006 Act were in place in early 2007 when the sale document in question was signed. I don't think section 44 came into effect until 6 April 2008.

 

So there. Gotcha! Relying on the wrong Act!

 

D'oh... why didn't I remember that?

 

That's what I put in my first letter to Toomey the Teamaker

[broken arrow]

We have 2 guests.