Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I cant think of any other explanation and it does mean the virus is spreading, transmitting and mutating. I understand some of the lockdown restriction removal, but removing mask and distance is just madness, but I suppose people were heading that way anyway with Johnson and crews antics and messaging.
    • No, I am asking for help and was actually dithering about the petition. Please take it off if you think not helpful. Thanks!   
    • i was simply airing on the side of they never got it for whatever reason. its not really an issue that do date you've not got the statements cabot aren't chasing and rarly go anywhere with OD debts, they simply hope most people are mugs and think a DCA has magical powers.  
    • Added about CPR PD 16 (7.3)(1) in into and ending   In the County Court at xxxxxxxxxx                                                                                            Claim No. xxxxxxxx Between: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd (Claimant)   And   Jasonaaa (Defendant) Witness statement of Jasonaaa I, Jasonaaa, at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, will say as follows: INTRODUCTION 1.       I am the Defendant in this case and will be representing myself. The facts contained in this statement are known to me, save as where expressly stated and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.   2.       It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed 10p to 15p in the £1 and to which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Lowell Portfolio I Ltd issue claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt with costs to maximise profit.   3.       As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debt (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   4.       With regards to paragraph 4 in the Claimant’s Witness Statement they claim:   ‘The original agreement is not exhibited because: a.       A copy was provided to the Defendant at the outset; b.       There is no legislation requiring the Assignor to retain a copy of the original Agreement; and c.       The Claimant does not now have access to a copy of the Agreement.     DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 5.       The Defendant states that no letters have ever been received from the Claimant (including any Notice of Assignment), with the first contact from them being this claim. Therefore, the Claimant is to put strict proof to their claim by providing proof of delivery for these letters. If the Claimant cannot provide this, then the Defendant invites the Court to strike the claim out based upon a failure to adhere to Paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Practice and Protocols.   6.       The Defendant claims that his request of November 2019 under the CPR 31.14, of which the Claimant has confirmed receipt, for the disclosure and production of a verified and legible copy of the Agreement has not been adhered to, by way of the fact that a Service Contract is entirely missing from the Claimant’s evidence.     7.       It is accepted that the Defendant has in the past had a contractual relationship with Vodafone.   8.       A Default Notice is a technical notice required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in certain circumstances in relation to credit agreements. The Claimant will argue that the debt does not arise from a credit agreement, and is therefore not regulated by that Act, no Default Notice would have been sent. Whilst this might be the case, this does not exempt the Claimant from following Contract Law, where it is stipulated that where there is an official contract in place and there is an alleged 'breach of contract', the Claimant is lawfully obliged to send notice of this breach, and to have given a reasonable amount of time for the breach to be remedied. The Defendant argues that he has not received any correspondence, in line with Contract Law, to notify him of the alleged breach. As such, the Defendant argues that the Claimant has not behaved properly, both in Pre-Action Protocol, nor have they followed the official guidelines set out by Contract Law in the issuing of the Default. The Defendant invites the Court to strike the claim out, on this basis, and argues that the Default is unlawful and should be immediately removed from the Defendant’s credit file.   9.       Considering the above, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence of assignment/balance/breach as requested by CPR 31.14 and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered a Contract; and (b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.   10.   As per CPR 16.5(4), the Defendant alleges the Claimant has not proved their allegation that the money is owed.   11.   As the Claimant alleges to be an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act.   12.   The alleged amount claimed includes an early termination charge amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge, which is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.       ORDER SOUGHT   13.   As the Claimant has been unable to disclose any agreement upon which this claim relies as per CPR PD 16 (7.3)(1) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:   ‘a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing’   the Defendant respectfully invites the court to strike out the Claimant’s statement of claim.   STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   Signed: Jasonaaa Dated: 27 July 2021
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Turnbull Rutherford and SRA complaints


loanbuster
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3543 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

Made an initial complaint to the SRA. they phoned me and asked for further details and gave me the correct e-mail addy to reply to :

 

[email protected]

 

If you have a valid complaint and can document it, then everyone who can complain should do so without delay. I have told the SRA that they will, in due course be receiving daily complaints about our friends fairly soon.

 

I therefore urge anyone who has a problem with TR, get your complaint off now to the SRA.

 

At very least we need to create enough noise to enable the SRA to suspend TR's right to use the solicitors umbrella OFT licence. Without this they will not lawfully be able to carry out the regulated activity of debt collection.

 

Reading between the lines whilst speaking to them, I get the feeling that they already have a significant number of complaints already.

 

If you want action, then help yourself, get writing now !!!!!!!!!!

 

Everything I come accross of significance Im sending them daily. they'll soon get the message.

 

After reading the Silverpoint posts, I cannnot believe how stupid Alice can be for not smokescreening this activity. Is it stupidity or are they having a game with us all, or do they just not give a f*** ??? The net is closing on you Alice, faster than you may think, our secret weapon is about to be launched - aimed at you fella !!! My advice to you Alice - get yourself an Equity Card - you'll be needing it !!!!

Edited by loanbuster
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sent a set of 'personal information' through the post by HFO. One report was a credit report on the company I work for. By obtaining this, the recipient broke the terms and conditions of the provider as they did not have any claim against the company and did not seek the company's permission to carry out the credit check.

 

When I spoke to the provider they could not identity HFO as a customer BUT there is a small section in the report that says 'direction from' and gives the post code of the recipient. This was - you have guest it, Turnbull Rutherford who were a customer. The provider suspended their account and wrote to them but no more was heard. I have emails confirming this.

 

I can report this episode if you feel it is worth it. I have reported it to everyone else.

 

TR seem to have associated themselves too closely with HFO's antics for their own good and have brought down the professional standards of a 'law firm' if they ever were one. I know who to contact if I ever need anyone to handle a dodgy legal matter.

Edited by coledog

At your Service

 

Please Double click the Star and leave a message if I have helped you

 

Please support CAG and they will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything which is in slightest dishonest, deceitful, underhand, unprofessional.

 

The entire exercise must not only to prove anything which is outright illegal, but also anything which will provide a general form of discreditation without being considered slanderous or libelous. It is illustrating the mindset and lengths that they will go to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything which is in slightest dishonest, deceitful, underhand, unprofessional

 

This is the perfect defnition of a 'Turnbull Rutherford'.8-)

At your Service

 

Please Double click the Star and leave a message if I have helped you

 

Please support CAG and they will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071026100300AANuJfG

 

Came accross this on yahoo answers

 

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

 

HFO SERVICES are a very poorly run debt purchasing business based in Wimbledon. The Managing Director is Kevin Harper, an odious man who it seems has upset a whole lot more people than just yourself. Try having a look at the Consumer Action Group's website for a whole host of complaints about HFO and their solicitors, Turnbull Rutherford (which is run by Alasdair Turnbull). Their approach to debt is 'pay up or get paid', they actively chase homeowners and offer them remortgages, which is an illegal practice.

IF YOU ARE BEING CHASED BY HFO - IGNORE THEM!

They are witless and toothless, speak to your solicitor and if they keep calling report them to the Police for Criminal Harrassment.

Source(s):

 

I used to work for them in 2006.

  • 3 years ago

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sent a set of 'personal information' through the post by HFO. One report was a credit report on the company I work for. By obtaining this, the recipient broke the terms and conditions of the provider as they did not have any claim against the company and did not seek the company's permission to carry out the credit check.

 

When I spoke to the provider they could not identity HFO as a customer BUT there is a small section in the report that says 'direction from' and gives the post code of the recipient. This was - you have guest it, Turnbull Rutherford who were a customer. The provider suspended their account and wrote to them but no more was heard. I have emails confirming this.

 

I can report this episode if you feel it is worth it. I have reported it to everyone else.

 

TR seem to have associated themselves too closely with HFO's antics for their own good and have brought down the professional standards of a 'law firm' if they ever were one. I know who to contact if I ever need anyone to handle a dodgy legal matter.

 

Turnbull Rutherford does not merely ‘associate’ itself with HFO Services. Apologies to those who’ve seen all this before, but here’s the proof, attached – according to the OFT’s CCA register, Turnbull Rutherford actually RUNS HFO Services. They are one and the same. This fact is crucial to any complaint – occasionally, TR say they don’t know what HFO have done, but this cannot possibly be an excuse.

HFO Licence Details.jpg

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep writing to the SRA, send them everything which is relevant, they will soon get fed up, and will acknowledge that a real problem exists. I have sent them 14 e-mails containing very valid info during the last 3 days. Keep at them, wear them down, its the only way of making your voice heard. They must understand that consumers are not just going to go away, and these scams needs exposing. Same with the OFT, keep hitting them with info, they may get repeats, but its the volume that they will have to take notice of. I think its time for a bit of media involvement very soon. Have written long letters to Daily Mail, BBC etc all with very valid supporting documentation. See solicitors from hell site, someone has posted on there, and is also a link to a Beeb request for info for a new programme they are making. Perhaps they may well consider this mob. If the info is true and factual in all respects, then it can't be libelous, so use it

 

Remember - keep hitting these organsiations with info !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

How about this:

 

I have proof that Turnbull Rutherford used deception to get a Charging Order through the Court.

 

You know how you have to send your N9A form to the other party and expect them to send it to the Court? Well that's what I did, but they didn't send it to the Court, thus giving the impression that I was not mounting a defence and therefore the Court found judgment against me by default, and in absentia. (Wasn't even my local court). In a subsequent telephone conversation with TR it was admitted that they had witheld the N9A in so many words, as I "should have sent it Special Delivery, shouldn't you".

 

Upon this CO obtained by deception they got an Interim Charging Order.

 

Then upon the Interim Charging Order the got the Final Charging Order.

 

But that's not all....

 

To make things even more difficult for me they actually MADE UP another case based on the same alleged debt. Again, I have full Court papers to prove that this occurred. It was thrown out by my local Court on the grounds that it was bogus (the DJ was not amused for having his time wasted!).

 

I just got a nasty letter from them saying that they had the Final Charging Order on my home and that their clients HFO Services (er, that's themselves, of course) reserved the right to take "further enforcement" if I didn't pay them the £4,000 they now demanded from a debt which they had admitted 2 years ago no longer exists, and for which they paid about £200.

 

And the OFT is just thinking about revoking their licence?

 

!!!???

Edited by enterprise_seo
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this:

 

I have proof that Turnbull Rutherford used deception to get a Charging Order through the Court.

 

You know how you have to send your N9A form to the other party and expect them to send it to the Court? Well that's what I did, but they didn't send it to the Court, thus giving the impression that I was not mounting a defence and therefore the Court found judgment against me by default, and in absentia. (Wasn't even my local court). In a subsequent telephone conversation with TR it was admitted that they had witheld the N9A in so many words, as I "should have sent it Special Delivery, shouldn't you".

 

Upon this CO obtained by deception they got an Interim Charging Order.

 

Then upon the Interim Charging Order the got the Final Charging Order.

 

But that's not all....

 

To make things even more difficult for me they actually MADE UP another case based on the same alleged debt. Again, I have full Court papers to prove that this occurred. It was thrown out by my local Court on the grounds that it was bogus (the DJ was not amused for having his time wasted!).

 

I just got a nasty letter from them saying that they had the Final Charging Order on my home and that their clients HFO Services (er, that's themselves, of course) reserved the right to take "further enforcement" if I didn't pay them the £4,000 they now demanded from a debt which they had admitted 2 years ago no longer exists, and for which they paid about £200.

 

And the OFT is just thinking about revoking their licence?

 

!!!???

 

Have you reported this to OFT? For the attention of James Waldron.

At your Service

 

Please Double click the Star and leave a message if I have helped you

 

Please support CAG and they will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HFO Services had a CO on my property, I had this set aside as the account was actually sold to one of the HFO Capitals, they were given the opportunity to carry on with the claim, they chose to discontinue, was your CO, Services or Capital and was this correct 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

It was HFO Services. There was no confusion between which of their companies owned or bought the debt, as far as I'm aware. But that's not where they fall down, in my case. Where they fall down is that the original judgment was obtained by deception, because they did not send my N9A form to the Court. Therefore the Court thought that I was not mounting any kind of defence or engaging in any kind of dialogue, and so found in their favour. The judgment was given them in default. I didn't even know about it.

 

I wonder if anyone else has found that their N9A form has been strangely witheld, or that a court has found against them by default?

Edited by enterprise_seo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Notes For Defendant clearly state: "complete form N9A and send it to the claimant at the address given for payment on the claim form, within 14 days”, so I did.

 

I was just doing what I was meant to do.

 

But in the light of what happened subsequently this procedure may change completely. It seems that we now live in an age where lawyers cannot be trusted to abide by the rules. Unlike the humble defendant, in this case, who followed the rules to the letter (didn't get me very far, did it? In fact it nearly cost me my home. I'll know not be so naive as to trust a lawyer in future.)

 

Edited by enterprise_seo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always take the line when dealing with 'legal' stuff to copy in ALL parties, including if you get a letter from the 'solicitors for rent' to send a copy to the courts for your file.... (without telling the solicitors company). That way you are covered for THEIR misdoings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, well if Carlsberg made 'lawyers' it would NOT be TR! Have you reported this to the SRA and MOJ also? Suspect that you have, but just asking

At your Service

 

Please Double click the Star and leave a message if I have helped you

 

Please support CAG and they will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

I have just been reading this thread with great interest. Am I right now in thinking that TR and HFO are the same people? Two weeks I received a letter from TR stating that I needed to pay the judgement registered against me in 2008. I nearly had a heart attack as I knew absolutely nothing about it. TR said they were working on behalf of the claimant ....... HFO of course. I feel really stupid that I never twigged they were one and the same. I feel even more stupid a very hacked off that these lowlifes have got one over on me. I have done a bit of digging and the original debt stemmed from a credit card for about £400. The debr now is over £3,000 due to all the interest they have added. I have taked forms to the court today to get it set aside, i so hope i can then I can fight back with all guns blazing!! does this warant a complaint?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Suzie

 

Have you started your own thread on this? We may be able to help. You will need to give reasons for not receiving any notification of the Claim and show that you have grounds for a defence. HFO is indeed run by one Alistair 'Alice' Turnbull of TR.

At your Service

 

Please Double click the Star and leave a message if I have helped you

 

Please support CAG and they will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Notes For Defendant clearly state: "complete form N9A and send it to the claimant at the address given for payment on the claim form, within 14 days”, so I did.

 

I was just doing what I was meant to do.

 

But in the light of what happened subsequently this procedure may change completely. It seems that we now live in an age where lawyers cannot be trusted to abide by the rules. Unlike the humble defendant, in this case, who followed the rules to the letter (didn't get me very far, did it? In fact it nearly cost me my home. I'll know not be so naive as to trust a lawyer in future.)

 

 

 

As you must have accepted all of the claim your are correct to send to the claimant, if you had not admitted part or all of the claim you then send form N9B to the court.

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

Yes, Turnbull Rutherfors and HFO Services are the same people. The principal director/partner of both is given as Alasdair Turnbull. Actually there is more than one HFO company as well.

 

There is not only HFO Services Ltd (company reg. no. 05120067) but also HFO Capital Ltd (registered in the Republic of Ireland, company reg. no. 446327) and a previous, now lapsed, company also called HFO Capital, which was registered in the Cayman Islands (company reg. no. MC138277). There are no fewer than seven different addresses for HFO Services/Turnbull Rutherford listed in the register.

 

Your debt of £400 now stands at £3,000. Similarly, mine nows stands at slightly over £4,000, due to the (rather inflated and punitive, I would think, but then I'll let the Court decide) 12% being added to the debt which has since been written off by the original lender (so the original debt no longer exists anyway - all TR/HFO hold is an empty title bolstered up by COs obtained by deception).

 

The good poiint about copying to all parties - actually the MOJ is one place I haven't copied to, so I'll get one off to them today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Turnbull Rutherfors and HFO Services are the same people. The principal director/partner of both is given as Alasdair Turnbull. Actually there is more than one HFO company as well.

 

There is not only HFO Services Ltd (company reg. no. 05120067) but also HFO Capital Ltd (registered in the Republic of Ireland, company reg. no. 446327) and a previous, now lapsed, company also called HFO Capital, which was registered in the Cayman Islands (company reg. no. MC138277). There are no fewer than seven different addresses for HFO Services/Turnbull Rutherford listed in the register.

 

Your debt of £400 now stands at £3,000. Similarly, mine nows stands at slightly over £4,000, due to the (rather inflated and punitive, I would think, but then I'll let the Court decide) 12% being added to the debt which has since been written off by the original lender (so the original debt no longer exists anyway - all TR/HFO hold is an empty title bolstered up by COs obtained by deception).

 

The good poiint about copying to all parties - actually the MOJ is one place I haven't copied to, so I'll get one off to them today.

 

and Roxburghe..............

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...