Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Have HFO Srevices sent you your credit report or any other info?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4561 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have received a letter from HFO Services claiming that they have purchased an old personal credit card debt and treatening legal action unless I phone them.

 

The letter does not mention attachments but a number of sheets were stapled to it and the muppet had left a posit stuck to the letter saying 'First Class post with attachments'.

 

The attachments included an Equifax credit report about me, a company credit report on the limited company I am using to run my small business and a Balliffs Action sheet which amusingly contains a colour photo of a house that I don't recognise and bears no relationship to the block of flats that I live in.

 

The T&C on the company check website have been broken as the 'subject of the search' was not the company but me and the data is 'for personal use only'. Equifax are also investigating how HFO were able to obtain a report without my permission.

 

I have complained to ICO and written to HFO with a complaint, CCA and DPA requests.

 

Has anyone else experienced this type of behaviour from these lowlifes?

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome

 

Thankfully I have no dealings with them, but from several threads on her, the 'Google Street Level photo' is something they use.

 

I would think that you would have a claim for substantial damages in connections with the Data Protection issues, and hopefully as already mentioned above, you will receive many other responses soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naughty indeed,, this company really should be closed down immediately and all court cases stopped. They seem to rely on dubious information and are committing criminal acts in terrifying potential debtors.

 

Why not contact your local MP and get them in on the act, they could ask questions in the House as to why this company is allowed to get away with despicable acts.

 

Don't forget to contact the Ministry of Justice about this as well, they seem to have some teeth to deal with these companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wishing to defend them but I wonder if we are overreacting here.

 

If they have purchased a credit card debt then they can search Equifax if the agreement permits the owner of the account to do so. It's a definate no no if this isn't permitted or if the debt isn't yours.

 

The company search is dodgy if they've broken the terms and conditions of the website they got it from but most company record data is public information and could be obtained from Companies House.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be in breach of copyright too. I'm sure Google don't give permission for companies to print their streetview pics for commercial purposes. Might be worth a letter to Google UK head office enclosing copies of what they sent.

 

Has anyone else had photos sent to them by a DCA?

These are video links to show how I deal with Debt Collectors.

 

Fly fishing for C.A.R.S

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtzK8FqE6k&feature=related

 

Frederickson International don't accept my card type

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZBULlWW6Q&feature=related

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wishing to defend them but I wonder if we are overreacting here.

 

If they have purchased a credit card debt then they can search Equifax if the agreement permits the owner of the account to do so. It's a definate no no if this isn't permitted or if the debt isn't yours.

 

 

Not sure you're correct on the above, the original contract remains with the original creditor, if they've defaulted/terminated an agreement and then sold it on I'm not so sure it carrys that the new owner of the debt has the same rights where a credit report is concerned and in some cases debts are sold with the rights of the debt but not the duties (or the other way around)

 

But in any case, it is my opinion that for a company acting in the manner in which HFO appeared to have acted upon in which they have searched the credit file of an alleged debt questionable as pre my comment previous) but they have then gone on to send that to the alleged debtor without first contacting them, how do they know the debtor hasn't moved on? was it sent under secure means? and all manner of things can come in to play when sending out credit details of an alleged debtor...especially when it's pretty much 'first contact' so to speak.

 

Overeacting? On the contrary I'd say Coledog has been a little sedate, I'd certainly be upping the ante with HFO and whomever else I could get to listen. Allowing these DCA's to ride roughshod over the woman/man in the street with their underhanded and in some circumstances somewhat dangerous (from an information point of view) actions by being complacent is not the way forward.

I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever write to them, you could include a copy of this, just to play tit for tat...

 

clipboard1f.png

 

Keen observers will note that the above is actually Roxburghe House. HFO Services would appear to be not much more than a dummy operated by Roxburghe.

 

Or maybe you'd believe the HFO website...?

hfo_hq.jpg

 

Hmmmm, now which picture looks more believable? Tough one, LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the image on HFO's website is a call centre in India where they rent a desk or two.

 

I note that HFO's website does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, in that it fails to show their company registration number or registered office address. Worth dropping an email to Companies House about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update

 

First of all - thank you very much for your kind messages.

 

No reply yet from HFO they should have received my complaint and CCA/SAR requests on 12th July. Also, have written again to Equifax with complaint.

 

The company who issued the credit report have suspended their customer's account and written to them (interestingly the 'customer' appears to be Turnbull Rutherford as their SW19 postcode is actually on the report).

 

I cannot identify the house photo they sent or where it came from but it is not in my post code also the account number on the sheet with the photo is not the same as the one on the letter.

 

I have contacted the OFT today and am sending a complaint and all the information to them. ICO have advised me to try and sort the matter out with HFO first but don't know if I should send them a complaint anyway?

 

HFO claim to have bought this debt from Citi Card - should I be writing to them with CCA/SAR requests?

 

Also there is another thread on Consumer Forums - 'HFO Services advice please?' where Mccarthybaby seems to be having similar problems with HFO sending info which they shouldn't be.

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi

 

Put account in dispute in July and all I have received back are some copies of statements which they have received from Citi and forwarded to me. Had an 'interesting' phone call in August 'apologising' for sending me the personal data when the account was in dispute and requesting I ignore it - even though the account was not actually in dispute when they sent the data and there is no way I would ignore it.

 

Nothing back from official complaints - just 'your complaint has been noted'. Equifax have been the biggest pain as they seem to be of the opinion it is quite acceptable for a DCA to act in this way.

 

Do need to send a SAR to Citi - been too busy interferring in other people's threads!

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Put account in dispute in July and all I have received back are some copies of statements which they have received from Citi and forwarded to me. Had an 'interesting' phone call in August 'apologising' for sending me the personal data when the account was in dispute and requesting I ignore it - even though the account was not actually in dispute when they sent the data and there is no way I would ignore it.

 

Nothing back from official complaints - just 'your complaint has been noted'. Equifax have been the biggest pain as they seem to be of the opinion it is quite acceptable for a DCA to act in this way.

 

Do need to send a SAR to Citi - been too busy interfering in other people's threads!

 

Not interferring, helping, keep up the good work:-)

Edited by broken arrow

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain they have searched my credit file for a debt that isn't mine,they knew too much when they called me yesterday.

 

How nice of them to apoligise to you coledog,they have a heart afterall,you "Interfered"(helped) on my thread so i'm returning the compliment:lol::lol:

 

Now stop" interfering" and send that SAR off:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be in breach of copyright too. I'm sure Google don't give permission for companies to print their streetview pics for commercial purposes. Might be worth a letter to Google UK head office enclosing copies of what they sent.

 

Has anyone else had photos sent to them by a DCA?

 

 

I have raised this issue directly (via a friend who is a google employee) with google's street view solicitors, and it is their view that there is nothing they can do to stop HFC doing this, and google's suggestion is to get your house taken off streetview.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - you sent my photos to Google although it is not my house. The problem is the way these photos can be used to frighten and harass people who don't realise it is taken from Google Streetview and think someone is watching them. The same thing applies to the other data used. This is why the authorities need to take action.

 

I had a phone call from them prior to getting the letter saying 'we have information about you, you are Cole T. Dog and you live at ........ yes?' this was without verifying who the hell she was talking to and before me telling her to blow.

 

Actually, no one else has reported receiving any photos to CAG in the last few weeks so I am wondering if they have realised they are on dodgy ground.

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think them sending you a pic of your house is simply intimidation, there is no other reason for it, they have your geographical address, sat nav gets them there easy enough.

I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have raised this issue directly (via a friend who is a google employee) with google's street view solicitors, and it is their view that there is nothing they can do to stop HFC doing this, and google's suggestion is to get your house taken off streetview.

 

Do you know how to go about removing your home.

 

I'm in the process of removing myself from 192.com,to say they make it as difficult as possible is an understatement.

 

To date iv'e not received any correspondance of this nature personally,it's a low trick in my book.

The more the consumer fights back the dirtier they play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

Just send back to the DCA the following message

 

Be careful as we have a PHOTO of your Car in the neighborhood -- and we'll charge you with the serious offence of Stalking if you don't BACK OFF and send a WRITTEN APOLOGY NOW.

 

You don't have to prove anything either -- Google works BOTH WAYS. If people misuse it you can as well and Google won't give any info out to sleazebag DCA's either.

 

Get just as dirty with these scumbags -- they only win because 90% (less now thanks to CAG) of their "customers" i.e "victims" usually get so scared of Debt collection they will often pay up at the first demand.

 

Incidentally Don't worry about CRA's etc etfc -- the best way forward is to TEAR UP any credit cards etc and get TOTALLY OUT OF DEBT. If you've got problems you wouldn't be on CAG in the first place so its time to say --Credit --NEVER AGAIN. Tough I know but IT WORKS once you've cleared the existing debt millstones from around your neck.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...