Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 and Wandsworth County Court


loanbuster
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4564 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

This is a post from another member from a while back, but it does appear they favour this location

 

These are a nasty bunch of tossers who it is believed a number of agencies are investigating. Unlike other debt collectionlink3.gif Agencies [DCAs], HFO claim to have purchased debt from credit card companies etc, so that they can then demand full payment. NEVER NEVER speak to them on the phone!!

 

Send the letter as suggested above with a £1 postal order but do not signlink3.gif your original signature. The chances are HFO will ignore your request but unlike other DCAs who tend then to return the debt to the original creditor, HFO will proceed to take the matter to court. They have favoured Wandsworth or Croydon apparently, rather than use the online facilities through Northampton e Patricia Pearl', courtlink3.gif. One reason may be that many people do not do anything and HFO obtain judgment by default. They then try to enforce the judgment through a charging order if you own your own home. Classic bully boy tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My case is based upon the argument that HFOS do not own, never have owned and therefore do not have legal title to the alleged debt. This is incontravertible based upon the letter from Barclays and also LOP1925 which states the ineffectuality of any Assignment if the DoA is incorrect. This is Halsburys as used by VJ in his case.

 

I will further argue that the NoA could not have been issued by Barclays,as they have written to me to the contrary, so the NoA could only have been processed by HFOS which I understand that they have permission to do so, ONLY if they actually own the debt, by way of a lawful correctly executed assignment agreement meeting the requirements of The Companies Act 1985 s36a and as later amended and where appropriate (Companies Act 2006 part enacted April 2008, fully enacted October 2009). Section 36a now is 44/45) In addition LoP Act 1925 applies.

 

I would assume that in criminal law this would actually be procuring a false document for the intent and implementation of fraud &/or deception, however, Ill keep quiet about that in Court cos DJ's do not like criminal allegations made. These are my opinions of how I see it. It is entirely an opinion and not a claim nor allegation which could be construed as being libellous, therefore you must make your own views on this subject.

 

Furthermore, as the alleged debt was sold to Rox as claimed by BC, lets say that sometime in the future Rox UK Ltd went into liquidation and the receivers were called in to look at accounts and assets for example, they could then say " oh look we've got some unpaid assigned debts here that Rox have never collected / implemented, lets write to these debtors and try and collect them and add to the pot".

 

This would then be to great detriment to the debtors included on this unclaimed list of accounts. If they then pleaded that they paid HFO Services Limited, that is not going to wash with the receivers as they will say, well you knew that the debt was owed to Rox so why did you pay to HFO. This is a valid and significant argument for the Judge to consider. What he must remember is that we are speaking about separate legal entities, all with separate, CRN's DPA Reg CCL Lic. It is indisputable.

 

The DJ clearly has a duty of care & responsibility when hearing these similar cases to ensure that situations such as this are not allowed to occur in order that alleged debtors are not placed in vulnerable positions in the future.

Edited by loanbuster
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what written evidence do they have with the OC, you and the them on it, a Notice of Assisgment written by them and that,s wrong.

 

The sale agreements don,t have names and account numbers on, all they receive is a Cd-Rom, with your 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 understand about the legal entities bit, I sat next to a guy who dealt with a company takeover and loads of legal stuff was discussed.... I had to make notes on it for him.

 

Basically you have Company A which is the Head company (in HFO's case HFO Cayman) who holds ultimate power over the other companies in the chain (usually there is a common pool of directors where management title passes), HFO Cayman can then get its underlings (HFO India, HFO Dublin, HFO Services, Roxburghe or any other company it sets up under its Company A banner) to do the dirty work. In the case of Roxburghe it says it is a non-trading company - in that sense it doesn't buy or sell, has no staff and is just a 'holding' company where they can transfer director funds into..

 

However the fatal flaw in HFO's setup is that they did NOT assign legal title to the other companies in a manner according to the Companies Act, and did NOT realise that HFO Cayman had no reciprical action in the UK Courts (ie the parent company keeps the right to legal action and only assigns COLLECTION to the underlings)...

 

It is the 'legal title' which comes into both the LOP1925 and Companies Act which decides who LEGALLY has the right to take somebody to court and who can legally collect after an assignment has been broken. (Its a favourite of some sub-prime lenders as well... hence Capstone being set up to take people to court when the parent companies cant...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are on dodgy ground hiding in Malta, isn't that where PoundstilPayday are hiding as well, I know one of the payday companies hide there...

 

If Concillian are the parent company now then there is more of the LOP1925 and Companies Act which comes into force, especially if they are using the 'offshore' tax haven stuff....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There we go again BA, the Cayaman Islands DO NOT have reciprical agreements with the UK to bring cases to court here - blatant legal hiding coming along if we can manage to get this into somebodys defence....

 

"The parent company XXX are based in the Cayaman Isalands and do not have the right to take people to court, they are the OWNERS of this alleged debt and are using the COLLECTIONS people to collect. The collections people DO NOT HAVE LEGAL OWNERSHIP of the alleged debt and therefore cannot enforce collection via the courts under the current Companies Act and LOP1925 acts.

 

If somebody can put the above into legalese with the appropriate sections I will be very happy....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There we go again BA, the Cayaman Islands DO NOT have reciprical agreements with the UK to bring cases to court here - blatant legal hiding coming along if we can manage to get this into somebodys defence....

 

"The parent company XXX are based in the Cayaman Isalands and do not have the right to take people to court, they are the OWNERS of this alleged debt and are using the COLLECTIONS people to collect. The collections people DO NOT HAVE LEGAL OWNERSHIP of the alleged debt and therefore cannot enforce collection via the courts under the current Companies Act and LOP1925 acts.

 

If somebody can put the above into legalese with the appropriate sections I will be very happy....

 

Am not sure on this.

 

My account is held, allegedly, by HFO Dublin the owners - but collections are HFO Services.

 

Does not necessarily follow that cayman own this.

 

For instance Arcadia - the parent comapny - own a number of retail companies. All as their own legal entities. so if you had an issue with one of those you would take action against that particular company and not Arcadia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HFOC Ltd Cayman sold all their accounts Jan 08 to HFOC Dublin, it says so in one of their many agreements, the Judge at my set aside raised the point of Jurisdiction for the Cayman Company, he was not sure about the Dublin side though, I think they can bring action but have to have a registered addy in UK, I have recently seen a claim form which gives one of its London addresses, but I think that is registered to another group company.

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

  • 1 year later...

I know this is a fairly old thread, but just wondering about something. When HFO Cayman sold their accounts to HFO Dublin, the wording stated this included any pending accounts - surely pending is not the same as future accounts - the word pending would imply that the accounts mentioned were already in the process of being purchased, but still to be finalised... whereas future would imply any accounts purchased at a later date, maybe a year or longer down the line.

 

I just wonder, then, if the sale agreement between Cayman and Dublin (Jan 2008) actually only sold the accounts already in Cayman's portfolio, or soon to be, rather than accounts which hadn't yet been purchased from the OC at all and unknown to HFO at that time.

 

Any thoughts on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...