HFO Capital

[astonmartin]

hi all, I received a county court claim form from Wandsworth County Court on Friday 13th August 2010 (I know!) It is for a debt that HFO Capital in Dublin say they purchased from Morgan Stanley in September 2007, and HFO services have been trying to threaten me by sending photos of a house I used to share with my former partner, plus an experian report on me, which says I am a joint owner of the house my children still live in with my former partner. I guess I was silly enough to keep my name on the deed to the property, but I only did this with the best interests of my kids at heart i.e. if my ex met someone else, something were to happen to her (heaven forbid of course), and the possibility of her new partner being entitled to her house. Anyway, I left my name on there since we split up around five years ago, just to ensure I had some kind of say in the kids getting the house, and now these parasites are clearly trying to go after my so-called interest in that property. I requested the CCA, which turned up TWO months later as a poor photo copy, and about a quarter of the original size, and barely readable without very good eyesight, which I sadly do not have. I have panicked and tried to tell them I cannot afford a lot of money as I am on mimimum wage, but they repeatedly asked for unreasonable amounts of money. All the while I have been advised by National Debtline (to be honest they are either usless or just short of useful), but I needed someone to help me, and their name came up in Google when I searched for debt help.

 

I have tried to negotiate with HFO Services, even though the CCA looks a very poor quality copy, and has the word 'application' and 'apply before' in the text. Seeing as I did owe the money to Morgan Stanley, I had to take this seriously. I had stopped paying Morgan Stanley when I became unemployed. over three years ago, but I am now working, but only for minimum wage, and was trying to get a DMP through the national debtline. HFO services sent my case to their solicitor Turnbull and Rutherford, who sent me a letter to the property I no longer live at, which is nearly forty miles away, and I do not drive, so I could not pick this letter up until I was made aware of it's arrival, which happened to be around a week after it being posted, as my children and their mum were away on holiday. I sent a letter to the solicitor to ask for more time to deal with HFO services as I had no idea the solicitor letter was there, and I apologised for any delay in replying, and gave the solicitor my address which I have lived at for the last three years, and that I had made HFO aware also that I no longer lived in that house, or indeed that area. Yet they still sent all mail plus that very important letter to an address where I do not live. Upshot was that T&R said thanks for the letter, but their client (yeah right they are one and the same aren't they?) still intends to persue a charging order on my interest in the property. I replied to say that they need to get a CCJ, which I have to default on first before any further action can be taken (correct?). I then sought advice from National Debtline to go for a DMP, to avoid me having to deal with these mercenaries personally. I informed T&R of this and asked them to hold action until the DMP people contacted them.

 

This is where we are at now, the solicitors have ignored my request, and hit me with this court claim, without even trying to negotiate an offer with me. The thing is, the claim says it's HFO Capital that is taking me to court, and not HFO Services, can they do this with them being based outside the UK? I am not trying to dodge paying my debts, I am simply trying to avoid being ripped off by people who do not own it, and also avoid any unnecessary hassle for all concerned, including my children, who's home they are clearly trying to snatch.

 

I have magnified the copy of the CCA and the small print says:

 

"Please issue me with a Morgan Stanley Dean Witter card and pin. If my application is accepted, I agree that I will be bound by the terms and conditions of the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter cards and cheques, as varied from time to time (the "terms and conditions" ). I confirm that all details I give are true and complete. I understand that the bank my obtain and disclose information to and from credit reference agencies and for fraud prevention purposes. I further understand that the bank will use a technique known as "credit scoring" in processing my account application and that the bank will also use thie technique throughout the life of the agreement. I understand that if I am not eligible for a platinum card now, the bank may issue me a Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Card. I am over 18 years of age and a UK resident."

 

Lower down it says "To take advantage of all the benefits of the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter platinum card, apply before 15th April 2000"

 

then the box with my signature says "this is a credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. Sign it only if you wish to be legally bound by it's terms."

 

The rest of it is an application form style where I was asked to fill in my name, address, employment details, how long I was in employment, how long I lived at the address and my household income etc etc. Hope this helps give a clearer picture of what I was actually sent a copy of.

is this not the actual CCA? I am lost now

 

is this not a CCA but an application form? at the bottom of the form I asked to transfer a balance over to the new card. There is only my signature on it also, noone else's. Also, the terms and conditions have not been included in the copy I was sent. I need advice really urgently though, as I have until 14 days from 12th August to respond. Many thanks for all the responses so far, just hope that someone can shed some light on what I can actually do here.

 

Can I also add that I received no copy of the CCA with the court claim, should I have done?

 

here are a few links to the documents I have been sent:

 

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af34/gazz007/CCA_zoomed.jpg

 

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af34/gazz007/NOA.jpg

 

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af34/gazz007/default_letter.jpg

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated. I apologise if this is vague, my nerves are shot here and I am trying to get everything into one post as I do not have long to respond to this claim with my offer.

Edited August 17, 2010 by astonmartin

[cerberusalert]

Post moved and new thread created.

[lord_tiger_putin]

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated. I apologise if this is vague, my nerves are shot here and I am trying to get everything into one post as I do not have long to respond to this claim with my offer.

 

The DN is invalid anyway and I am sure you will be able to claim Unlawfull Rescission.

There are many reasons why it is invalid, am I correct that the issuers address is also missing?

 

I am sure many will further advice you but it seems that there will be enough for you to work with!

[astonmartin]

There is no address on the DN. Can you explain why the DN is invalid please? I am at the CAB tomorrow so I need all the info I can gather before going there. Thanks for the reply

[lord_tiger_putin]

I compiled 2 checklists, one what a DN should contain and the 2nd what fix term agreement should contain. Here they are:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20339&d=1280176856

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20348&d=1280221455

 

Both are statutory documents that has a prescribed form.

 

On the DN a number of statements are missing, as well as the creditors address. It seems that the dates will be valid if they used 1st class, if it were send 2nd class, then it fails on that as well. Did you Kept the envelope it came in?

[lord_tiger_putin]

Did the original creditor send a DN, they had to before they could terminate the agreement and passed it on for collection. Once an agreement terminated another DN cannot be issued. Whether they can issue a DN after they bought a debt is doubtful, maybe someone else will conform it or proof me wrong but I do not think they can. I think they will need the original DN issued by the original creditor to use in court. It seems that they do not have it and therefore issued this "DN".

 

A credit card agreement is only slightly different than a fix term agreement and it do not need the amount of credit, amount of payments, etc. and no early settlement terms. Hopefully the checklist can still be of use to you.

[astonmartin]

right, I have gotten myself mixed up here, apologies. Ok, it's like this. When I was contacted by HFO first by post, they sent me the default notice you see in the photo, that was what I was sent. The solicitor's copy does have HFO services address on it, but not HFO Capital's address, are they not the creditor and not HFO services? I thought a collections agent cannot issue a default notice? am I right in thinking this?

[astonmartin]

I did get a default letter from morgan stanley, but I have no idea where it is now. Why did HFO services send me the default notice with no address on it, then Turnbull and Rutherford then issued a default with the Collections agent's address on it (HFO Services), I have read somewhere that a collections agent cannot issue the default, is this correct? There is no address for the creditor (HFO Capital) on the default notice sent to me by the solicitor - does this help me?

 

EDIT: There is the second sheet with the things listed in your checklist mate, sorry about that. The remaining question though is why did the agent send me the default with no address in the first place? then the solicitor send me another copy of that notice, with the COLLECTIONS AGENT address on it, with no mention of the creditor's address anywhere on the default notice.

Edited August 17, 2010 by astonmartin

[lord_tiger_putin]

It needs the address of the creditor, not the agent. This alone makes it invalid.

 

I am trying to find another thread I have seen earlier today with EXACTLY the same DN, even the dates!

[lord_tiger_putin]

Here is the thread, it could also be helpful to you. It seems the poster is in exactly the same situation as you!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273620-Turnball-Rutherford-Solicitors-%28HFO-Capitial-LTD%29-V-Me-Help-needed!!-%28Pics%29%283-Viewing%29-nbsp

[astonmartin]

so can I defend this court claim based on the default notice being issued with the collections agent address on it and not the creditor's? sorry if I appear thick, this is all new to me.

[lord_tiger_putin]

so can I defend this court claim based on the default notice being issued with the collections agent address on it and not the creditor's? sorry if I appear thick, this is all new to me.

 

The DN is IMO only small fry, have a look at the other thread, it seems that you NOA was issued a few days before the company exist officially! It seems that they were based in the Caymen Islands before and therefore could not have bought the debt legally. They could have done it only after the 18th Sep 2007, 5 days after the debt were assigned to you.

[lord_tiger_putin]

EDIT: There is the second sheet with the things listed in your checklist mate, sorry about that. The remaining question though is why did the agent send me the default with no address in the first place? then the solicitor send me another copy of that notice, with the COLLECTIONS AGENT address on it, with no mention of the creditor's address anywhere on the default notice.

 

Don't take my word for it but it seems from their history that not all documents are "real", it could be extremely useful if you can investigate their documents a bit further. I haven't dealt with them personally, it is only from what I have read here.

[lord_tiger_putin]

so can I defend this court claim based on the default notice being issued with the collections agent address on it and not the creditor's? sorry if I appear thick, this is all new to me.

 

You will need to get confirmation for what I think. I think they issued only this DN because they do not have the original and cannot get hold of it. They cannot do it but they probably rely on the fact that you do not know the rules and procedures and that they can get away with it.

[astonmartin]

The DN is IMO only small fry, have a look at the other thread, it seems that you NOA was issued a few days before the company exist officially! It seems that they were based in the Caymen Islands before and therefore could not have bought the debt legally. They could have done it only after the 18th Sep 2007, 5 days after the debt were assigned to you.

 

so do you think I may be able to defend this claim based on the fact that they bought the debt before they were legally registered to do so? Thanks for all this advice btw lord_tiger_putin, I really appreciate the time you're giving me.

 

if anyone else can offer an opinion on the NOA that would be great also.

[lord_tiger_putin]

You will need to get confirmation for what I think. I think they issued only this DN because they do not have the original and cannot get hold of it. They cannot do it but they probably rely on the fact that you do not know the rules and procedures and that they can get away with it.

 

Have you had a read on that thread, this is where they discuss the issues about the NOA and other.

[astonmartin]

I am just reading it now mate thanks

[vjohn82]

My thread on how to handle HFO

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?272561-How-to-handle-HFO-Services-HFO-Capital&p=3079731&viewfull=1

[astonmartin]

thanks vjohn, do you think I have a case for defence based on this seemingly fraudelent NOA? surely Morgan Stanley would not have sold the debt to an unregistered company?

[vjohn82]

I think you do yes.

 

There are simply steps you now need to take.

 

1 - A Part 18 / CPR 31.14 request for all documentation to be disclosed to allow you to enter a defence.

 

2 - A SAR to the original creditor (costs £10) and this will again reveal everything the OC (original creditor) has on you (in theory).

 

I take it you have received the claim via Northampton? What date is on the claim form?

[astonmartin]

no, it's from Wandsworth county court, the claimant is HFO CAPITAL and it's dated 12th August 2010. Am I still ok to start a defence? did you see the photo of my NOA? is five days before being registered as the company named on the NOA still illegal?

[vjohn82]

You first need to acknowledge service... file this at the court on the 26th August. You then have until the 9th September to file a defence.

 

In the meantime, a Part 18/31.14 request to HFO and an SAR to Barclaycard.

 

VJ

[astonmartin]

no mate it was wandsworth county court, claimant listed as HFO CAPITAL, served on 12th August 2010. have you seen my photo of the NOA I was sent? does five days still give me grounds for a defence?

[astonmartin]

sorry for the double post mate - pc playing up

[astonmartin]

it's not Barclaycard, it's Morgan Stanley, do I still send this to Morgan Stanley yes?