Welcome & HFO Services

[postggj]

Thanks silly girl

 

thats whats needed

 

ill put it in now

[postggj]

In the mayors and city of London county court

 

Claim number ££££££

 

 

 

 

between

H.F.O. CAPITAL LTD (DUBLIN) - claimant

 

and

 

 

££££££££ - Defendant

 

 

 

 

Defence

(Full name and address)

1. I £££££££ of £££££££££ am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by H.F.O CAPITAL LTD (DUBLIN).

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimants Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3.I am unable to properly plead this case as to pleading to the particulars of claim as they fail to comply with the Civil Procedure rules

 

The claimant was sent a request pursuant to CPR 31.14 for documentation in support of the claim. The claimant has failed to produce all the required documentation.

 

See exhibit (a) and response from the alleged creditor exhibit (b)

 

4. . The claimant has failed to also attach a copy of a compliant default notice which they claim has been served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974

 

The claimant has failed to produce the original default notice from the original creditor, welcome financial services.

 

The claimant is mistaken in its belief that it can issue a default notice served under s87 (1) of the consumer credit act in its capacity as an assignee of the account as the alleged account has already been defaulted by the original creditor.

 

5.The claimant has also failed to enclose the terms and conditions that were valid when this account was opened.

 

 

terms and conditions

 

6. As stated, the claimant has failed to supply the terms and conditions of the agreement at the time the agreement was executed by the original creditor. Welcome financial services

I draw the courts attention to point 6 and point seven of the claimant’s particulars of claim,

 

See exhibit (e)

 

The claimant is claiming interest pre and post judgement and is stating their authority in this matter to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

 

The claimant has failed to supply this clause in the agreement for its authority to claim contractual interest in its capacity as an assignee of the account.

 

DEFAULT NOTICE

 

7. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement

 

8. It is neither admitted nor denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant

 

9. Notwithstanding point 8, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination

 

10. The default notice supplied to the defendant by the assignee, HFO CAPITAL LTD is not compliant with the relevant regulations.

 

The assignee, HFO CAPITAL LTD, is mistaken in its belief that it can issue a default notice served under s.87 (1) of the consumer credit act 1974.

 

That enforcement action can only be done by the original creditor, welcome financial services, and not again by the assignee.

 

A credit account can only be defaulted once for which the assignee is fully aware of this.

 

11. The claimant has failed to supply as to the defendants request under CPR 31.14, a copy of the original default notice from the original creditor, welcome financial services.

.

12. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

AGREEMENT

 

13. The defendant draws the courts attention now to the enforceability of the alleged credit agreement.

 

14. The defendant will be relying on the high court judgement

 

WILSON V FIRST COUNTY TRUST 2001 3 A11 ER 229

 

This high court judgement stipulates that any document or acceptance fee added to the amount of credit before calculating interest is unlawful. This stipulates that the amount of credit is then misstated, the agreement is unexecuted as it does not contain all of the prescribed terms.

 

See exhibit (f)

 

The defendant also draws the courts attention again the consumer credit agreement which is lacking in

 

Total amount payable /total charge for credit and

 

The insurance (payment protection) which is lacking its own set of prescribed terms

See exhibit (f)

 

The defendant , although requested has not received, requests an order for the release from HFO CAPITAL LTD or welcome financial services, copies of the underwriting sheet in relation to the sale of payment protection insurance and any/all commission payments received from this sale to welcome elite brokers

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

15.As the claimants have previously denied the defendant the opportunity to see the original documents , see exhibit (a) and exhibit (b). The defendant considers that ample time has already been given for these to be produced. Therefore it is deemed unnecessary for the court to use the CPR procedures to enforce the claimant to produce the following ORIGINAL docmentation.

 

(A) A COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WERE VALID AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE AGREEMENT.

 

(B) A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DEFAULT NOTICE ISSUED BY WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICES.

 

© A COPY OF THE UNDERWRITING SHEET WITH REFERENCE THE SALE OF PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE AND WELCOME ELITE BROKERS

 

"The defendant wishes to allow the claimant additional time to produce the documents mentioned in section 15 and would respectfully ask the court to allow a further 40 days for this. Should the documents not be produced then the defendant asks the court to exercise its powers to strike out the claimants claim.

 

No leave to appeal should be allowed for the claimant as they have had more than sufficient time to provide the original copies and in fact under CPR rules should have had them BEFORE they set the claim in process."

 

 

16. I further ask the court consider striking out the claimants’ case as it fails to comply with part 16 and practice direction 16 insofar that no documents have been supplied and fails to show any consideration to the overriding objective to allow the court to deal with this case justly

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I £££££££ believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed................... ..

 

 

 

 

Date XX SEPTEMBER 20010

 

 

FOR EASE IVE REPOSTED THE AMENDED DEFENCE

Edited September 16, 2010 by postggj

[sillygirl1]

Sounds a lot more positive and reads very clearly.... there are no loopholes there that I can see that would get HFO's legal person a chance to quote "Rankine" at you.

[sillygirl1]

To put it in a nutshell what you have done is to plead your case based on the non-production of vital documents from the claimant, asked the court to allow the claimant 40 days to provide this (ie get a stay...) even though they have had several chances to provide the documents and then to get the claim thrown out if they don't comply.

[postggj]

Thanks

 

we are just about there now

 

ive got them on wilson anyway, case closed, the rest is icing on the cake

[DonkeyB]

Good work fella!

[sillygirl1]

Just don't let them get the cherry......

[postggj]

THEY ARE GETTING NOTHING WITH YOU LOT AROUND:lol:

 

 

GOOD WORK PEOPLE

[dadofholly]

This article might be useful, Cattles (Welcomes parent company) are in deep doodoo....

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=1940

 

I hope they dont go under just yet - i have a claim about to go in with them.

[dadofholly]

Thanks to everyone for their input - and i hope your typeing fingers are ok after all those amendments Post

 

Will print it all off and get my head around it.

 

Thanks again.

[postggj]

well the defence is just about done

 

give it a few days for me to tidy it up

 

the hard bits over so relax

 

as stated, you have WON this on the wilson judgement so relax

 

watch them now squirm:lol:

[dadofholly]

well the defence is just about done

 

give it a few days for me to tidy it up

 

the hard bits over so relax

 

as stated, you have WON this on the wilson judgement so relax

 

watch them now squirm:lol:

 

I will relax don't worry - just want to get it out the way.

 

Next step is to put my complaints in - and look into possibly taking action against them.

 

May also see you soon on welcome thread - am going to put a claim in against them REF: undeclared commisions to broker for car hp agreement.

[postggj]

Just bumping for any more comments on the defence

[dadofholly]

Hi All

 

Thanks once again for help so far - I am looking to begin formaly putting the defence together early next week, so any further comments on the draft proposed by post are more than welcome.

 

In the meantime just one question from me in regards this defence.

 

In August 2005 we sent a letter to the manager of our local branch requesting a settlement figure as we wanted to consolidate our debts. As usual with Welcome it was ignored.

 

We sent a further letter early Sept 2005 as a follow up stating the same - and enclosed copy of first letter. Again this was ignored. As such we never had any further dealings them.

 

They can not say they never recieved them as we have been sent copies by Turnbulls.

 

Now as it is our right to to terminate early under the CCA can this be added to the defence - and if so is it worth adding?

 

Thanks again

Edited September 16, 2010 by dadofholly
fat fingers pressing to many buttons

[postggj]

To be honest, we have more than enough

we have them on wilson

the default notice from welcome (if any) will be defective

ill have a field day on the ppi comission

 

dont try and complicate things and now leave it up to the judge, this is in the bag

 

we can use any further info later when your sar arrives via a witness statement if needed

[dadofholly]

To be honest, we have more than enough

we have them on wilson

the default notice from welcome (if any) will be defective

ill have a field day on the ppi comission

 

dont try and complicate things and now leave it up to the judge, this is in the bag

 

we can use any further info later when your sar arrives via a witness statement if needed

 

No problems - thanks for reply.

[postggj]

In the mayors and city of London county court

 

Claim number ££££££

 

 

 

 

between

H.F.O. CAPITAL LTD (DUBLIN) - claimant

 

and

 

 

££££££££ - Defendant

 

 

 

 

Defence

(Full name and address)

1. I £££££££ of £££££££££ am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by H.F.O CAPITAL LTD (DUBLIN).

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimants Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3.I am unable to properly plead this case as to pleading to the particulars of claim as they fail to comply with the Civil Procedure rules

 

The claimant was sent a request pursuant to CPR 31.14 for documentation in support of the claim. The claimant has failed to produce all the required documentation.

 

See exhibit (a) and response from the alleged creditor exhibit (b)

 

4. . The claimant has failed to also attach a copy of a compliant default notice which they claim has been served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974

 

The claimant has failed to produce the original default notice from the original creditor, welcome financial services.

 

The claimant is mistaken in its belief that it can issue a default notice served under s87 (1) of the consumer credit act in its capacity as an assignee of the account as the alleged account has already been defaulted by the original creditor.

 

5.The claimant has also failed to enclose the terms and conditions that were valid when this account was opened.

 

 

terms and conditions

 

6. As stated, the claimant has failed to supply the terms and conditions of the agreement at the time the agreement was executed by the original creditor. Welcome financial services

I draw the courts attention to point 6 and point seven of the claimant’s particulars of claim,

 

See exhibit ©

 

The claimant is claiming interest pre and post judgement and is stating their authority in this matter to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

 

The claimant has failed to supply this clause in the agreement for its authority to claim contractual interest in its capacity as an assignee of the account.

 

DEFAULT NOTICE

 

7. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement

 

8. It is neither admitted nor denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant

 

9. Notwithstanding point 8, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination

 

10. The default notice supplied to the defendant by the assignee, HFO CAPITAL LTD is not compliant with the relevant regulations.

 

The assignee, HFO CAPITAL LTD, is mistaken in its belief that it can issue a default notice served under s.87 (1) of the consumer credit act 1974.

 

That enforcement action can only be done by the original creditor, welcome financial services, and not again by the assignee.

 

A credit account can only be defaulted once for which the assignee is fully aware of this.

 

11. The claimant has failed to supply as to the defendants request under CPR 31.14, a copy of the original default notice from the original creditor, welcome financial services.

.

12. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

AGREEMENT

 

13. The defendant draws the courts attention now to the enforceability of the alleged credit agreement.

 

14. The defendant will be relying on the high court judgement

 

WILSON V FIRST COUNTY TRUST 2001 3 A11 ER 229

 

This high court judgement stipulates that any document or acceptance fee added to the amount of credit before calculating interest is unlawful. This stipulates that the amount of credit is then misstated, the agreement is unexecuted as it does not contain all of the prescribed terms.

 

See exhibit (d)

 

The defendant also draws the courts attention again the consumer credit agreement which is lacking in

 

Total amount payable /total charge for credit and

 

The insurance (payment protection) which is lacking its own set of prescribed terms

See exhibit (e)

 

The defendant , although requested has not received, requests an order for the release from HFO CAPITAL LTD or welcome financial services, copies of the underwriting sheet in relation to the sale of payment protection insurance and any/all commission payments received from this sale to welcome elite brokers

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

15.As the claimants have previously denied the defendant the opportunity to see the original documents , see exhibit (a) and exhibit (b). The defendant considers that ample time has already been given for these to be produced. Therefore it is deemed unnecessary for the court to use the CPR procedures to enforce the claimant to produce the following ORIGINAL docmentation.

 

(A) A COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WERE VALID AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE AGREEMENT.

 

(B) A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DEFAULT NOTICE ISSUED BY WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICES.

 

© A COPY OF THE UNDERWRITING SHEET WITH REFERENCE THE SALE OF PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE AND WELCOME ELITE BROKERS

 

(D) A COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT/SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN H.F.O. CAPITAL LTD (DUBLIN) AND WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICES.

 

"The defendant wishes to allow the claimant additional time to produce the documents mentioned in section 15 and would respectfully ask the court to allow a further 40 days for this. Should the documents not be produced then the defendant asks the court to exercise its powers to strike out the claimants claim.

 

No leave to appeal should be allowed for the claimant as they have had more than sufficient time to provide the original copies and in fact under CPR rules should have had them BEFORE they set the claim in process."

 

 

16. I further ask the court consider striking out the claimants’ case as it fails to comply with part 16 and practice direction 16 insofar that no documents have been supplied and fails to show any consideration to the overriding objective to allow the court to deal with this case justly

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I £££££££ believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed................... ..

 

 

 

 

Date XX SEPTEMBER 20010

 

 

 

 

RIGHT THEN, THATS THE DEFENCE DONE

 

ILL NOW LIST THE DOCS/EXHIBITS YOU NEED TO SEND ALSO

Edited September 16, 2010 by postggj

[Shadow2009]

Thanks for your reply DonkeyB. I was trying to help after reading that there are other people in horrble situations.

 

Your email to me is disgusting I hope you never have the misfortune to go through what me and my partner are going through.

[DonkeyB]

One issue not yet broached here, as far as I can see, is that of the Contract of Sale/Deed between Welcome and HFO Capital. In all likelihood, the sale agreement they are relying on would have been between HFO Capital (Cayman) and Welcome, ie. pre-Jan 2008. If so, this could be significant, and I think you should be asking for sight of the agreement between HFO and Welcome.

 

In January 2008, HFO Cayman had its assets acquired by HFO Ireland. This would, by necessity, have involved an assignment of all contracts held by HFO Cayman to HFO Ireland. I am not aware of anyone being informed of this assignment, which is a requirement by law. In other cases, HFO have claimed that because both companies are called HFO Capital Ltd, there is no prejudice to the defendant – this is, of course, nonsense. Ownership has changed, therefore the subject of the account MUST be informed. Failure to do so makes any legal action untenable.

 

I'd suggest you start chasing the actual agreement between HFO and Welcome. If it's pre-2008, you have another excellent line of defence. Let's hope it is a pre-2008 agreement – I have yet to see one later than this.

[postggj]

EXHIBIT (A) YOUR REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER CPR 31.14

 

EXHIBIT (B) THE SOLS RESPONSE TO YOUR CPR REQUEST

 

EXHIBIT © ENCLOSE A COPY OF THE PERTICULARS OF CLAIM, HIGHLIGHT IN YELLOW MARKER PEN POINT 6 AND 7

 

EXHIBIT (D) ENCLOSE THE WILSON JUDGEMENT (POSTED)

 

EXHIBIT (E) COPY OF THE CREDIT AGREEMENT

 

 

The right to a fair hearing in disputes concerning property rights

 

Article 6(1) provides the right of access to a court in the determination of a person's civil rights and obligations. The ownership, use and enjoyment of property is a 'civil right' within the meaning of Article 6(1). Therefore in many disputes concerning the determination of property rights, the parties are entitled to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time.

 

A large number of decisions involving property rights are taken by public authorities that may not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal. However, in these instances it does not matter that the decision maker does not comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) provided that the decision is subject to control by a judicial body (ie judicial review) that has full jurisdiction and does satisfy the Article 6(1) guarantees of impartiality and independence.

 

This was considered in detail by the House of Lords in R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Holding and Barnes plc and others 2001 2 All ER 929. The House of Lords held that various planning procedures which involve intervention by the Secretary of State for the Environment are compatible with Article 6(1) due to the availability of judicial review.

 

An example of a breach of Article 6(1)

The Court of Appeal has held that certain provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are incompatible with Article 6(1) - Wilson v. First County Trust 2001 3 All ER 229 .

 

The facts of the case concerned a loan agreement between Mrs Wilson and a pawnbroker in which she received a loan of £5,000. The transaction involved a document fee of £250 and the loan agreement incorrectly stated the amount of credit to be £5,250 because the document fee, which was not itself credit, was added to the sum. The fact that the amount of credit was misstated meant that the loan agreement was not a properly executed regulated agreement because it did not contain all of the prescribed terms.

In consequence, the pawnbroker was required to apply to the court for an enforcement order. However, section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 deprives the court of any power to enforce a regulated agreement from which a prescribed term has been omitted. The Court of Appeal found that, in the absence of any legitimate justification for the policy, the blanket restriction on the enforcement of the pawnbroker's contractual rights under the loan agreement was incompatible with Article 6(1).

 

 

 

 

YOU NEED TO SEND WITH THE DEFENCE TO THE COURT AND HFO SOLS BY RECORDED/SPECIAL DELIVERY, ITS MOST IMPORTANT YOU HAVE CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT

 

LETS SEE WHAT CRAP THE SOLS THEN COME BACK WITH

Edited September 16, 2010 by postggj

[postggj]

Hi donkey

 

ime keeping the defence simple so the judge wont get bored and grasp the points

 

the issue ref the assignment i can allways do via a witness statement if needed

 

have you any recomendations on that as we only have one chance

[DonkeyB]

Thanks for your reply DonkeyB. I was trying to help after reading that there are other people in horrble situations.

 

Your email to me is disgusting I hope you never have the misfortune to go through what me and my partner are going through.

 

Steady on. Your response to the OP was simply incorrect advice - and I have sent you no emails. I'm very sorry if you have had a bad time, but we can't let what is, in my opinion, plain wrong advice stand unchallenged. You suggested that the OP pay monies and admit a debt, which is simply unnecessary.

[DonkeyB]

Hi donkey

 

ime keeping the defence simple so the judge wont get bored and grasp the points

 

the issue ref the assignment i can allways do via a witness statement if needed

 

have you any recomendations on that as we only have one chance

 

I agree, postggj, but there's lots of ways to skin this particular moggie.

 

There's already plenty to defend with, but I do like to pick apart their whole sordid operation. Finding out the TRUE date of assignment and and the TRUE assignee where HFO are involved frequently throws up surprises (ie. we have often found the account was actually sold to someone completely different). The rule is to question absolutely everything HFO claim, however simple and non-contentious it may seem.

 

Their fibs are often their undoing.

[postggj]

So in point 15

 

i can put in a request (d) for this assignment details

 

do you care to write out a few sentance for me to put in on that point for disclosure

[dadofholly]

I agree, postggj, but there's lots of ways to skin this particular moggie.

 

There's already plenty to defend with, but I do like to pick apart their whole sordid operation. Finding out the TRUE date of assignment and and the TRUE assignee where HFO are involved frequently throws up surprises (ie. we have often found the account was actually sold to someone completely different). The rule is to question absolutely everything HFO claim, however simple and non-contentious it may seem.

 

Their fibs are often their undoing.

 

Hi Donkey

 

Thanks for your input.

 

I am as we speak awaiting a response from certain parties regarding the original sale of the debt, and any associated NOA's.

 

Unfortunatley this may take a bit more time yet. I think it may be best to issue defence as is - and add other info - such as issues that may arise with the NOA and with evidence of breaches of the DPA - at a later date, if needed.

 

Any further evidence will be used for complaints - and possible action, even if we win the case hands down. I am in total agreement with you in regards to further exposing their actions.