Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Include that in your witness statement along with that letter as an exhibit.
    • Yup, well so far they have lied to me about responding to a CCA,  are threatening me with a default notice that they don't have, produced a knocked up version of my NOA, sent me 29 pages of spew for an agreement. No wonder they pay 5 p in the pound for that crap.
    • Paragraph 2. I think there should be further down and also you should make the point that the payment to was made unilaterally and without the imposition of any conditions. Paragraph 3 – this is unnecessary because you are not claiming as an entitled third-party. This worries me because it makes me feel that you haven't fully read around because this is a paragraph which you would include where you were suing EVRi as a beneficial third party because you had actually made your contract with Packlink or some other broker. I think you need to revisit and do some more reading. I'm afraid I have a sense that you have simply copied this from somebody else's witness statement without understanding that it wasn't necessary. Please can you post the amended draft. Other than the suggestions above, it looks okay – but let's see it again for a further appraisal. In terms of the evidence, parties bundle, I think it might be an idea to start off with the correspondence with EVRi and then go onto the other evidence. You will have to amend the index page accordingly. You could shorten this bit. Take 19 is pretty well blank and you may as well miss it out also, there seems to be some repetition of emails and the email chain. I think will be worth going through and getting rid of duplicates if you can. 49 pages is a bit long and it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number. I have a feeling that 50 pages as the County Court limit anyway. The judge will be happier with you if the bundle is smaller. Maybe you could reduce the size of some of the images or messages et cetera. You have got several messages which straddle onto a second page so that things like sign off information and standard confidentiality information become orphans. A bit of manipulation and they could be joined to their parents I think. Page 31 as an example. So is page 19. You may only be up to shorten the whole thing by 56 pages – but I think it would be a good idea. 56 pages is, after all, 10%. If you can do more then so much the better
    • Investment by Dutch brewing giant will create 1,000 new jobs and reopen dozens of closed pubsView the full article
    • Qantas agrees to pay millions to settle lawsuit accusing it of selling tickets to cancelled flights.View the full article
  • 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

HFO chasing 3 CITI Loans + **WON PPI**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3737 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

  • Replies 309
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ok have heard back from citi with a bit more info, they have given me a date in 2007 that it was sold to HFO SERVICES

Was this in writing, there is now a conflict in who the account was sold to, as the NoA states it was sold to HFO Capital.

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

Cannot have been sold to Services can it?

I have never known one and the claimant themselves are saying it was sold to Capital, you need to get back to citi with your concerns and you want a printout with the correct info on.

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 have it in writing AND a copy of the letter..when at work tomorrow will scan and post. Def says Services was later in 2007 than jan .

 

PS apologies for delay..a delayed xmas and Manic first week back!

 

 

Sorry when I say letter I mean a copy of the Original letter Citi say was sent... As I say I ll dig it out tomorrow. Thanks all much appreciated as always!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

That’s a made up HFO copy – can tell by the grammatical errors.

 

But they claim it was sold DIRECTLY to HFO Services? Previously they’ve claimed HFO Capital owned it!

 

Time for sight of the sale agreement or deed of assignment. This should be interesting – this is a very tangled web HFO are weaving.

Edited by DonkeyB
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to say you couldn’t make this up... but they have, literally. You now need to ask Citi DIRECTLY whether they have acquired this information from HFO, or whether it is from their own records.

 

If it is not from their own records, then the ICO will want to hear about this. It will be a case of HFO providing the info, not Citi – and that is absolutely a no-no under an SAR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a made up HFO copy – can tell by the grammatical errors.

 

But they claim it was sold DIRECTLY to HFO Services? Previously they’ve claimed HFO Capital then too Services!

 

Time for sight of the sale agreement or deed of assignment. This should be interesting – this is a very tangled web HFO are weaving.

 

Cheers Donkey

 

 

How can I get sight of sale agreement or deed of assignment?

 

 

re Citi DIRECTLY, shall I send their data protection team a letter asking for exatly that?

 

what does everyone think? And what does this mean for me this letter? or is it too early to say?

Edited by batleyboy
additon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Donkey

 

 

How can I get sight of sale agreement or deed of assignment?

 

 

re Citi DIRECTLY, shall I send their data protection team stating exatly that?

 

what does everyone think?

 

First up, they have already claimed that HFO Capital Ltd is the debt owner (see post 43, second image). Therefore the notice of assignment fails. Bye bye debt.

 

Do you have a copy of any NoA that HFO claims to have sent you? This could be fun...

Link to post
Share on other sites

First up, they have already claimed that HFO Capital Ltd is the debt owner (see post 43, second image). Therefore the notice of assignment fails. Bye bye debt.

 

Do you have a copy of any NoA that HFO claims to have sent you? This could be fun...

 

OK cool I thought as much to a degree but being green with this I didnt want to assume anything.

 

No I havent had any NoA from HFO, everything I have is on here ...... to be honest I d rather not contact them at all as heard nothing from them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is relevent that it has taken months and several letters from you to get this from Citi, they did not send anything remotely about this in the first batch of data. Did you threaten them with court action or the ICO for non compliance?

 

Congratulations because I cannot get anything out of Citi!

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cole, no i got nothing like this in first batch ( see one of earlier posts) Only sent them to letters on thread so nothing TOO heavy. Odd that I got some and you didnt as I m fairly certain my letters come from you so doubt I did anything any better,,,

 

so so far letter in post 43 show capital, Noa shows services, is it really that simple?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you should update your complaint to OFT using your previous reference number but possibly request some more information from Citi. Did Citi send a covering letter with this and what did that say?

 

But BBoy, you are a star! :-D

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whizz back through your thread for the data team address. Ask them, as a continuation of your SAR request, whether that latter was sourced from HFO or whether it was a copy held by them since August 2008. If they answer honestly, there will be problems. If they lie, we will know (because there is only one answer!) and there will be problems.

 

The date HFO record for purchases is hardly ever the same date the account ‘left’ Citi. Did your SAR show up statements such as when and to whom the account was sold?

 

Make it clear you require the information recorded on Citi’s systems. The fact that they have clearly used info and probably a document supplied by HFO (probably by someone who doesn’t understand the assignment trail) will be the cause of a very serious complaint. It would mean that the NoA sent is NOT contemporaneous with the assignment, and that it has been possibly produced to assist HFO in getting monies out of you (I don’t need to spell out the consequences, but the OFT would want to hear). It was not sent to you in August 2008, clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, folks – HFO are a whisker away from being booted out of business by the OFT. Getting to the root of this possible deception with false documents could really be useful. It won’t do Citi any good either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...