HFO services / Barclycard

[dogtrainer]

Hi DonkeyB will they not try to imply that because they say they have sent letters I received contact from them so it is not SB.

[DonkeyB]

Not a chance. Unless they can prove you have acknowledged the debt, in writing or by making a payment, they are stuffed. The OFT guidelines are clear. Being in regular contact is not a one-way thing – it requires a response and an acknowledgement. They had their five years to take you to court!.

 

Statute barred debt

2.13 This guidance applies to the pursuit of debt regardless of its age. We will be

carrying out further work on this aspect of debt recovery including analysis of

relevant legislation and practice throughout the UK.

2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by

the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that

experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists

b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be

unfair as follows:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from

the creditor during the relevant limitation period

• if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt

is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to

attempt to recover the debt

• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for

example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally

recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal

provisions, and

• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970.

 

 

Otherwise a debt would NEVER become SB simply because the creditor chose to write to you once every couple of years, which is clearly ridiculous. They have made little attempt to collect. It’s their problem – their business model is so shoddy that they are only now beginning to chase accounts they claim to have bought in 2006 and 2007.

 

I’d like to see them try to claim it’s not SB in court, because it’s the 1980 [CORRECTION – 1973 – SEE BELOW] act that will apply, not the OFT guidelines. Funny how they ignore the OFT guidelines when it suits them, and quote them when it suits them!

Edited December 10, 2010 by DonkeyB

[dogtrainer]

Cheers Donkey

Was looking into SB Debt and ended up on the Credit services association web site they don't like us here on the CAG.

 

Its about Statute Barred Debt… To collect or not to collect, that is the question?!

I quote

"Lets set aside the issue of the proposed reduction to the limitation period for a moment and give a little focus on the actual collection of Statute Barred debt.

 

Thanks to my nemesis, the Consumer Action Group website, there is a lot of misinterpretation of statute barred debt, what can and cant be done and the rights of the consumer and DCA.."

[FORMISTER]

I like his next sentance which says "To make things worse the OFT seem to have misinterpreted the law also"

[DonkeyB]

Sorry, you’re in Scotland, so it’s the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 that applies, which is even clearer:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52?view=extent

 

 

6. Extinction of obligations by prescriptive periods of five years.

 

(1) If, after the appropriate date, an obligation to which this section applies has subsisted for a continuous period of five years—

 

(a) without any relevant claim having been made in relation to the obligation, and

 

(b) without the subsistence of the obligation having been relevantly acknowledged,

 

then as from the expiration of that period the obligation shall be extinguished:

Provided that in its application to an obligation under a bill of exchange or a promissory note this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (b) thereof were omitted.

 

 

HFO have made no claim, therefore the issue is extinguished – just as HFO’s consumer credit licence should be.

[dogtrainer]

HFO have made no claim, therefore the issue is extinguished – just as HFO’s consumer credit licence should be

 

Hopefully it will be soon with any luck.:lol:

 

I was thinking I will leave sending the SB letter till after the new year to make sure that is over the 5 years with HFO.

but just remembered my last payment is noted in both the statements from B/C and the computer print out that it was 14th February 2005 so its well over 5 years .

 

What do you think should I send it or wait till the new year?

[DonkeyB]

Do it when you need to – if they are stupid enough to issue a claim, then getting costs should give you a nice Christmas bonus.

[coledog]

Sounds hopeful - go for it when you you feel comfortable with it, 5 years and no payment or written acknowledgment should nail it I think.

[dogtrainer]

It would be good to see your originals.

 

HI all been tiding up and guess what I found the originals from Mercers and letters from HFO.

 

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp316/dogtrainer05/Hfo0012.jpg

 

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp316/dogtrainer05/Hfo0013.jpg

 

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp316/dogtrainer05/Hfo0014.jpg

 

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp316/dogtrainer05/Hfo0015-1.jpg

Edited December 13, 2010 by dogtrainer
Oops forgot one of the letters

[FORMISTER]

The NOA doesn't say which HFO the debt was sold to, so you would presume it was HFOS as it's on their letter head. Of course they never are though, would of been sold to HFOC Caymen on that date, then immediately re-assigned to HFOS. Their paper work really is rubbish. I made a complaint about the lack of transparency with their paper work and which company they are refering to , to the OFT.

 

Are you in Scotland? Is this stat barred?

[FORMISTER]

Mind you , you must be there or there abouts for SB in England. Don't put it past HFO to find a £10 phantom payment, which was never made.

[broken arrow]

The NOA doesn't say which HFO the debt was sold to, so you would presume it was HFOS as it's on their letter head. Of course they never are though, would of been sold to HFOC Caymen on that date, then immediately re-assigned to HFOS

More likely sold to Roxburghe.

 

Of course they never are though, would of been sold to HFOC Caymen on that date, then immediately re-assigned to HFOS.

 

they made up this agreement to allow them to sue in the UK as the Capital had no jurisdiction, funny how the said document says all accounts , but since they say a distinct pool of accounts, not a real problem either way as all their assignment docs are flawed under English law

[FORMISTER]

It's about the same date as mine, and that was sold to Poxy Roxy, not that any paperwork has ever mentioned it (except from BC SAR)

[broken arrow]

It's about the same date as mine, and that was sold to Poxy Roxy, not that any paperwork has ever mentioned it (except from BC SAR)

 

hang on to that mate, much better than any letter from some lowly advisor at Barclaycard saying it ws sold to HFO Capital.

[FORMISTER]

Indeed I will. You give HFO enough time and rope and they eventually hang themselves

[dogtrainer]

Yep it was sold to Poxy Roxy and SAR from B/C proves that .

 

Yes I am in Scotland and I think is SB.

[FORMISTER]

Then your pretty much laughing then mate. Although after a while, when you know what your doing and getting great advice on here from people, you almost begin to enjoy playing games with them. Their paper work and lies are extrodinary and it's facinating to watch them unravel. But probably just best to knock them out the ball park when your absolutely sure of your facts

[coledog]

Whoops - name on one letter, would remove it but well done in finding that.

[dogtrainer]

Well spotted CD

I had removed name but somehow it kept coming back thats it fixed now

[dogtrainer]

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

 

dogtrainer

[dogtrainer]

Hi all hope you had a good Christmas and have a prospers New Year .

 

Well there has been nothing els from BC (now well over their 40 days ) or HFO.

 

I checked my credit report (Experian) and there is different default date on it from the letters I have got. also the balance on it is about £1200 less then they claimed in their Letter in post one .

Going to send LETTER BEFORE ACTION to BC .

Also thinking on sending an SAR to HFO to see what they come up with.

[FORMISTER]

The results to your SAR have probably been delayed because of the Holiday season, but send them a recorded letter telling them they haven't complied (think there is one in the Cag Library). No point wasting £10 on sending one to HFO, unless anyone else has an opinion otherwise.

[FORMISTER]

As for the balance, it probably contains HFO's made up charges and interest, I wouldn't think too much of it until you have all your documents. You can get your defaut changed if it's not the same as the default you get back from BC, but I wouldn't worry too much about it at the moment. Have you had results from a CCA request from HFO?

[dogtrainer]

The SAR 40 Days were up on the 23rd so thats why I was going to send the Letter before action to them.

As for the CCA there has been nothing from HFO that a month now.

[FORMISTER]

Have you now sent a account in dispute letter to HFO?