HFO Monkeys, I mean lack of services, I mean [problem]sters - let's get them!

[jimbarino]

Hi Everybody.

 

Firstly, happy new year to one and all.

 

Been away for a week, just a quick update and sinisterly to bump my post count to 20 so I can upload scans of the letters so far. Nothing in the mailbox as yet, am drafting the SAR to Citi which will go on Tuesday and a pre-emptive-strike for specifics about the assignment as suggested.

 

Had an attempted phonecall last week (27th) from a different number with the usual bad caller ID, very snotty woman on other end, got her to hang up in the end, she tried to claim that "this matter had to be discussed right now on the phone", I politely replied with "only in writing please" and she kept saying that the time had passed for letters and it had to be resolved today, she told me she had already sent me many letters earlier this year to my address (she gave me my current address which i've been at for nearly 3 years but still definite lies as the letter a couple of weeks ago was the first i'd heard from them). I just kept insisting that she put everything in writing so that my solicitor could deal with it from here on, the line went very quiet with some foreign language muttering probably from a supervisor at which point she just said, "i'll have to go now" and hung up.

 

Small victory in some ways, she was quite adamant that she had to resolve the matter on that day but when I said it was in the hands of my solicitor she went away, interesting, didn't even ask to confirm my solicitor's details which would be the norm in my experience, just hung up. Haven't had a call since and I was getting about 6 a day.

 

Right, time to scan and black-out some letters.

[FORMISTER]

Of course they sent all their letters recorded delivery so they have the proof of sending them??? I thought not. They obviously know your looking into it now and are worried , so are trying to panic you into paying.

Well done for standing up to them but don't talk to them in future, send them the harrassment by telephone letter in the library, in the meantime if you do accidently pick up , refuse to confirm your security details, this will wind them up and they can't discuss with you. But avoid talking in the first place

 

Here's a link to the letter http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?493-Harassment-by-telephone-response-letter

Edited January 2, 2011 by FORMISTER

[jimbarino]

Scan and desensitised version of first letter received from the HFO Threat-O-Matic from 14-12-2010 received 16-12-2010

Edited January 2, 2011 by jimbarino
Attempt to get image to attache at better size

[FORMISTER]

Link doesn't work

[jimbarino]

Sorry, first upload didn't go as planned so deleted and re-added, system keeps shrinking my images to 216 wide though.

[FORMISTER]

Try converting it to PDF

[jimbarino]

And here's the second one received while my CCA was being snail-mailed to them.

[jimbarino]

Good idea, didn't think of that, will do and re-post both

[jimbarino]

Ok, here's both as PDFs so they should be more readable.

00 - Initial Demand Letter 2010-12-14 - desensitised.pdf

02 - Second demand 72hr notice 2010-12-20 - desensitised.pdf

Edited January 2, 2011 by jimbarino

[FORMISTER]

The second one is very familiar . I have had 5 72 hours before litigation letters. It should read 720 hours before our system sends you another 72 hours before litigation letter as they will churn off monthly.

 

The first one says your subject to HFO's 12% contract interest. You have no contract with HFO, so thats crap. If there is a valid agreement then you are bound by the terms of that, HFO don't get to make their own up

[FORMISTER]

If your CCA request has now past the 12+2 days then send them the account in dispute letter. They shouldn't be able to legally try and enforce the debt and get a charge on your property while the account is in dispute.

 

Secondly report their thretogram to the OFT and tell them this was the first letter you received from them. They have no proof of sending you any before.

[jimbarino]

Yeah, in my dealings with other DCA's i've had the same letter churned out to me several times, I found a great template letter which I amended very slightly which points out a few facts about their inability to read post sent back to them. I had this with Phillips not long ago with something that was sold down a long chain from Ruthbridge which i'd originally CCA'd to Zinc to Uncle Tom Cobbly and then to Phillips, the same threats every two weeks to the day, I replied rec del each time and still the threats churned out (obviously to push me into calling which I won't do).

 

Finally a letter to the MD at their non-po-box address with copies of original letters, proof of posting and proof of delivery got this all stopped and the dish ran away with its tail between its legs so to speak. No doubt it'll be sent to someone else but that in itself proves their inability to substantiate their claim.

[FORMISTER]

So it was sold in August 2006. This means it was sold to HFOC Caymen and immediately re-assigned to HFOS (through the CP2 contract). Phone BC and ask them who it was sold to, as it may not of been either of them, mine wasn't it was sold to Roxborough UK (another HFO relation).

 

Who does HFO claim owns it now? If they still say HFOC they mean HFOC Ireland, which it can't be as they didn't exist then and you haven't had any assignment telling you it was been.

[jimbarino]

CCA passes deadline on 11/01/2011, dispute letter already prepared ready to go.

 

Is there a correct format for reporting these sorts of things to the OFT? I've never had to get them involved in anything before so any advice here would be extremely helpful.

[jimbarino]

Lol, thanks Formister, i've been reading all the CP2 stuff - if you're a HitchHikers fan, it's like the BabelFish and God, one proves the existense of the other but they try to deny it. It's with Citi, not BC, the original contract was 1997 so good luck pulling the docs from back then, they'll have been destroyed under the 7 year rule probably by now much like some old medical notes from my childhood which I needed desperately when I started having a problem with my eye.

[FORMISTER]

Just go to the OFT website and then click on consumer direct and then to complaints form. Or ask Coledog, I think CD has a name of someone from the OFT who are investigation HFO

[FORMISTER]

Oh right Citi. Not sure about the 7 year rule but Barclays apparently hold records for 12 years (although they will only send you 6 on a SAR). Yes I know the HitchHikers bit.

[jimbarino]

Of course, i'm preparing a pre-emptive-strike letter to them which will of course remind them of their CCA request deadline seeing as they like to remind us of deadlines. As suggested earlier, i'll be asking for details of the sale/assignment, who exactly owns it now including company numbers, copy of contract to which I am apparently bound, terms and conditions etc.

 

I wouldn't normally talk to them at all but there's been mixed feelings in other threads about whether you should answer to them or not, I have some pretty sophisticated telecoms technology attached to my landline which does inbound CLI matching and routes all the DCA's I have on record to a generic message which starts with a very loud beep and a 5 second pause then instructs them to write to me at the address they have on file, they are advised that each attempt to call me is logged and they are played a audio number (eg 36) which is the number of times they have concurrently rung me, this call, one-sided though it is is also recorded so I can get any background chatter there might be. HFO are upto 76 so far and the worst is their agent actually listens to the entire message including the number of times called.

 

It automatically adds the call to an activity log in a database based on their caller ID. I wish I could do this with my mobile.

[FORMISTER]

Top stuff, I would pass this info to the OFT as well. I was getting dozens of phone calls a day from them until I read them the riot act and sent the harrassment letter, not had a phone call since.Actually just one, offering me £900 off my £1200 debt. I said no thanks and hurry up and take me to court

[jimbarino]

My guess with the 12 years versus 6 for SAR bit if my experience in industry is right is an (cough, ahem, thinking outloud) 'falsehood', i'm sure I read the phrase "any and all" documentation somewhere relating to an SAR which if DCA and/or OC rely on this to enforce with but there's information withheld or unavailable, a clever solicitor could steer a judge to order the remaining data which they probably won't be able to produce, the case could probably proposed for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient supporting evidence.

 

Result - DCA 0, Consumer 1!

 

But that's a whole other debate mi amigo!

[FORMISTER]

Well Donkey when he catches up with the thread will give you better advice about that than I can. I tend to know what I know as it's happened to me or i've been following a few other threads. Still learning, but enjoying it

[jimbarino]

A solicitor friend of mine used to just say to me with regards to pushy legal firms, "the quicker you get them into court, the quicker you can make an idiot of them".

 

I remember doing some work on a server at the firm the worked for and I was doing an upgrade on his office PC when a call came in, he was very polite with the people that called him regarding a case, he simply said to them, "I believe this is simply a matter for a judge to decide, I look forward to meeting you in court at your earliest convenience".

 

His firm has a stupidly high win rate on this basis as the other side usually backs down as they are hoping you don't actually want to go to court.

[FORMISTER]

Im waiting for HFO to take me to court so I can get compensation from them. The buggers don't seem to want to though

[DonkeyB]

That letter – 00 Initial Letter – is priceless. Let’s just say it wins every war. Idiots.

[jimbarino]

Thanks Formister, all of you are very helpful and the only way we learn is to share our experiences.

 

I did have one open question, I was reading another thread which mentioned that CCA74, s77/s78 isn't as valid as we believe in securing proof of debt and doesn't provide some of the protections against dispute and that technically, DCA's are complying when they only send a copy of the application form/t&c.

 

I had a look at the OFT site on s77/78/79 here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/unenforceable-credit-agreements

 

It says we can get a copy of the agreement, a statement and copies of "certain other documents mentioned in the agreement". It goes on to say they cannot make the debtor pay the debt prematurely, get a court judgement, take back hired or used security in the agreement but it then says they can ask you to pay what you owe, send a default notice, pass info to a credit reference agency, pass information to a debt collector, sell the debt, take the case to court. Doesn't some of that contradict itself?

 

There's a useful PDF here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf specifically about s77/78/79.

 

I suggest we read and understand 2.16 onwards as it sounds to me like we're partially relying on something we belive they have to do but in fact they don't. This is particularly worrying as it doesn't really put a burden of proof upon the creditor. It does ask them to explain why, if they reconsitute a copy of the agreement.

 

There's been a case recently, Carey v HSBC Bank PLC [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) where, if I read it right, the judge ruled that the agreement was still enforceable (in that particular case) without a signature.