Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you. They insisted that they claim they have an "allocated settlement" figure per day. Make a note of this and make sure it gets into your witness statement and onto the judge. This is a scandal and even more evidence of the abuse of the system. It has nothing to do with justice. It is purely economic's for them. Once again, insist on seeing their contract with Packlink. You shouldn't take their word for anything without evidence. Also standby as I will post a link to a similar case where a very interesting discovery has been made about Packlink's terms and conditions and how Evri are responsible to you in any event. We are applying for judgement on that. It will take about six weeks. I'm sure it will be available by the time you go to trial. Also, it is outrageous that they wasted your time and the mediator's time agreeing to compromise when they already had a fixed sum in mind. This is not about compromise, this is about setting a condition from which they will not move. This is an abuse of the court process. It is an abuse of the mediation process. Make sure it all goes into the witness statement. The judge needs to know  
    • Update: they actually showed up to mediation this time. The mediator seemed pretty understanding that I had a previous claim with Evri last year where they didn't show up to mediation and ended up settling in full before court. And how evri are infamous for following this "dragging out protocol" even when they will lose. Evri spoke the usual speil of my contract is with packlink not them, to which i briefly explain to the mediator the Rights of Third Parties Act 1999 etc. Best they could offer was a "goodwill guesture" of £20 plus covering the court fees so £55 total. Said they have an "allocated settlement amount per day". the mediator could already tell it wasn't going nowhere so we had no deal.
    • The payer is not responsible for registering and making sure that VAT is charged correctly.
    • Thanks for the advice to date..armed and ready to go
    • pers id be writing back pointing out the parking tickets are private land cannot ever be FINES. dx  
  • 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 Services


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4806 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 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes - that figures as the West Byfleet address is just the post box. The staff seem to work in SW19 which is where all the correspondence is posted.

 

I would try BA's number for BC.

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indieboy

 

If you have a mobile phone many of them will have a voice recorder or such like - maybe under the media section?

 

Play around with it and try it out ringing a freind. With mine i start the recording and then dial the number i wish to call and it records both sides of the conversation.

 

As Coledog says - ask for any confirmation in writing - even if you manage to record the call - just adds extra weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi to all and a happy new year!

 

Here's a reply I received from the OFT re: HFO Sevices

 

Tele No

(0845) 722 4499

Our ref

Epic/Enq/E/97683

Fax

(020) 7211 8877

Date

29 December 2010

Email

enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Mr XXXXX,

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

Complaint Against: HFO Services Limited

Licence No: 0555914

 

Thank you for your email received on 21 December 2010.

 

I am very sorry to hear about the difficulties you have been experiencing however, the OFT has no authority to become involved in individual disputes between consumers and traders so we cannot advise you directly in this matter.

 

I enclose a list of organisations which can offer you help and advice. For specialist, face-to-face assistance, or intervention, you may wish to seek legal advice either through a local Citizens' Advice Bureau or directly from a legal adviser. The Financial Ombudsman Service can help with most complaints about consumer credit products and services if the consumer has failed to satisfactorily resolve the matter directly with the consumer credit licensee itself.

 

I can confirm that the business you mention holds a consumer credit licence. Under the Consumer Credit Act, holders of consumer credit licences must be fit and competent to do so and the OFT has a duty to monitor the fitness and conduct of all traders who hold such a licence.

 

The OFT has issued guidance to consumer credit licence holders engaged in the debt collection industry. The guidance is intended to ensure that debt collectors treat individuals fairly. Non-compliance with this guidance will call into question the fitness of licence holders and applicants. You can view our guidance at: www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/debt-collection

 

We have therefore noted the details of your complaint, and we will consider this alongside any other complaints we have received with a view to any consumer credit licensing or other action we may decide to take. If we do take any action against this trader, it is likely that we would need to disclose your identity to this trader along with details of your complaint. I should therefore be grateful if you could sign the enclosed consent form and return it to me. Unfortunately, we cannot disclose any details about any action we may take, due to legal restrictions on the OFT relating to disclosure of information.

 

Thank you again for writing to us and bringing this matter to our attention.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Abi Adenuga

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Office of Fair Trading

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now. as I have mentioned before. I am moving abroad next week and will be working out in Asia for an undecided amount of time.

 

I am now worried about how to handle this whole HFO/Barclaycard/BCW situation that I have been trying to keep on top of so far. I know for a fact that the BCW/Aktiv Kapital acc is statute barred and that the HFO/Barclaycard will be SB by February 14th. I tried calling BC the other day and was passed around a few lines before being hung up on. I then called back again and was put on hold for an hour before giving up so it looks like sending letters is the way forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I threatened them with legal action if they didn't cease and desist and it seems like it worked.

 

And now, due to a visa mess up, I won't be going to Asia for another couple of months so hopefully I can persuade HFO to do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update:

 

I called Barclaycard today regarding the letter they sent last month. They confirmed that the account had been sold to HFO services in 2007 and was now out of their hands.

 

I also checked my credit report online and the strange is that Barclaycard don't show up. The credit agreement that is in default shows as being a credit card debt owed to HFO services Ltd which shows a default date of 01/05/2007.

 

I asked the guy at Barclay card about the default date on the account and he said that it entered default in September 2006. The last payment made on the account was February 2006 so how does this relate to the law with regard to it being statute barred? Is it from the last date the account had a payment made on it or the date that it entered default?

 

Also, did HFO have any right to put a default date of 01/05/2007 on the account under their name?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Barclaycard told me that under section 78 of the consumer credit act they do not need to supply a signed credit agreement for a credit card contract, it only appies to loans and mortgages.

 

Rubbish – not if they want to enforce it in court. But that’s true for satisfying a s78 request (Carey).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

I called Barclaycard today regarding the letter they sent last month. They confirmed that the account had been sold to HFO services in 2007 and was now out of their hands.

Technically yes, but they must still keep records.

 

I also checked my credit report online and the strange is that Barclaycard don't show up. The credit agreement that is in default shows as being a credit card debt owed to HFO services Ltd which shows a default date of 01/05/2007.

HFO can take over Barclaycard’s entry, but the dates must be accurate.

 

I asked the guy at Barclay card about the default date on the account and he said that it entered default in September 2006. The last payment made on the account was February 2006 so how does this relate to the law with regard to it being statute barred? Is it from the last date the account had a payment made on it or the date that it entered default?

The proper default date is roughly when a due payment has been missed, so in your case the default began some time in March 2006. Barclaycard can take up to six months to report the default to the CRAs, but they must put an accurate date on. Clearly HFO have made up their own date – you must complain about this.

 

Also, did HFO have any right to put a default date of 01/05/2007 on the account under their name?

See above

 

As usual, HFO amending the facts to suit themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks for that.

 

I still haven't heard anything from HFO since that call from Roger last month but Barclaycard told me that they had sent them a copy of the executed agreement (unsigned) on Jan 5th so I'm expecting to hear from them soon.

 

I was thinking about making a pre-emptive strike and getting a lawyer to send them a letter confronting them with the facts that I have so far. Would this be a good idea or should I wait until they send me out a letter? Bearing in mind that they've failed to reply to the last two letters that I've sent them and haven't sent written contact since last October.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prepare a CPR 18 request asking if they have a signed executed agreement, and if they have not, state that they must tell you as much. Any response must be made within 7 days and accompanied by a statement of truth. An honest reply will be tantamount to stating they KNOW they cannot enforce the reconstituted agreement in court.

 

Barclaycard are talking bow-locks – there is no such thing as an unsigned executed agreement! They have clearly sent HFO a reconstituted agreement. I believe they are doing this because they think it will save them money retrieving microfiched agreements – and will save them the problems of those agreements being unenforceable. They are so, so wrong, but only if the victims know the facts.

 

They obviously have a strategy of trying to turn the Carey ruling completely on its head and hoping judges are too stupid to spot their obfuscation. Fecking annoying and abhorrent behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...