HFO Claimform - old welcome loan from 2004 - **DISCONTINUED**

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Do you really mean that we can't trust DCA's BA

IMHO sly, underhand and institutionally corrupt:jaw:

[broken arrow]

Do you really mean that we can't trust DCA's BA

IMHO sly, underhand and institutionally corrupt:jaw:

 

I will miss them when they have gone...........

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As long as they go far,far away and vanish up their own ar:madgrin:spects

[the_shadow]

Please can I remind people that Defences and advice given by PM are a no-no, for two major reasons, 1) If the defence/advice is incorrect then who will be able to spot/correct it and 2) It negates the sharing aspect of this forum, people found advising by PM will be moderated.

 

GH If you want help with your defence, post it up for advice.. we cant conjur up something out of thin air I'm afraid as we dont know the circumstances fully and in any event would you want to present something thats not written by you to the judge? You have a large number of HFO experts sitting on this thread just waiting to advise you but they need feeding with information

 

S.

[gloryhunter]

Please can I remind people that Defences and advice given by PM are a no-no, for two major reasons, 1) If the defence/advice is incorrect then who will be able to spot/correct it and 2) It negates the sharing aspect of this forum, people found advising by PM will be moderated.

 

GH If you want help with your defence, post it up for advice.. we cant conjur up something out of thin air I'm afraid as we dont know the circumstances fully and in any event would you want to present something thats not written by you to the judge? You have a large number of HFO experts sitting on this thread just waiting to advise you but they need feeding with information

 

S.

 

i understand where you are comming from i am working on my defence with a trusted cagger and will post up when we are done GH

[dx100uk]

dont forget to inc as in post 138

they think this is a credit card...welcome dont do credit cards....

 

dx

[gloryhunter]

dont forget to inc as in post 138

they think this is a credit card...welcome dont do credit cards....

 

Dx

 

noted dx

[coledog]

Right

 

Suggested defence and have gone through the thread and docs. Have not yet worked in anything about this being a loan not a credit card, the letter dated 8th March re: request for information really is pants. Please feel free to comment. Let's nail um

 

 

1. I (your name) of (your address) am the Defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by HFO CAPITAL, RIVERSIDE TWO, SIR JOHN ROGERSON QUAY,DUBLIN 2 IRELAND.

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimants Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3 Unless expressly stated, references to paragraph numbers herein are references to those paragraphs set out within the Claimants Particulars of Claim.

 

4. The Claimants pleaded case is not sufficient for the purposes of CPR 16.The claim as pleaded is poor and does not contain sufficient particulars to permit the Defendant to file a properly particularised and pleaded defence. The claim as pleaded is lacking the most basic facts and details such as date of default, date of service of notice of sale and date of demands made by the claimant. Further, no documents supporting the claim in the particulars have been offered.

 

5 The Defendant made a request for disclosure, pursuant to Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules, to the Claimant, to allow the Defendant to properly respond to the claim on 25th May 2011, by recorded delivery. The Claimant has not responded to this request.

 

6 The Defendant also made a request to the Claimant for disclosure of the Credit agreement for this account on 25th May 2011 under Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78(1) by recorded delivery. The Claimant has failed to send the relevant documents in responded to this request.

 

7. The Defendant is a litigant in person and requires sight of the following documentation to enable a proper defence to be entered.

Original signed agreement

All Terms and Conditions referred to by the Claimant

Original Default Notice

Original Notice of Assignment

 

8 In respect of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, the Defendant can make no admission as to the business which the Claimant undertakes as this is outwith the Defendants own knowledge. The Defendant however denies that on the 2nd August 2007 the Defendants account was assigned either by legal assignment or by equity to HFO Capital (Cayman Islands) and then to the Claimant, the Claimant being HFO capital Limited (Ireland) of Riverside Two, Sir John Rodgersons Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland on 31st January 2008, The Claimant is put to strict proof of these paragraphs as it is evident that the Claimant will need to show a chain of assignment for it to obtain good title and locus in this matter and as matters stand the Claimant has not done so. These paragraphs are denied in their entirety for the following reasons:

 

8.1 No such notice compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925 has been served on the Defendant detailing the assignment or assignments from the original creditor to the current Claimant. The Claimant has failed to show a chain of assignments or privity.

 

8.2 The Claimant company (HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland)) did not hold a Consumer Credit Licence with the Office of Fair Trading until 26th March 2008 as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to take part in licensable activities. (Exhibit A). Any activities carried out prior to this date such as debt collection would give rise to a criminal offence pursuant to s39 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The transactions Between HFO Capital Ltd (Cayman Islands) and HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland) have NOT been validated by the OFT and therefore the transactions are invalid, and the debt must reside still with HFOC Cayman. As HFO Capital Ltd (Cayman Islands) does not currently hold a Consumer Credit License, there appears to be no owner of this account who has locus standii to litigate in this matter.(Exhibit B).

 

8.3 The Defendant has made enquiries with Companies House and has obtained information that the Claimant company HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland) is no longer registered at the address stated but actually at 22 BRIDGE STREET, RINGSEND, DUBLIN 4 (Exhibit C)

 

8.4. It is evident that the Claimant will need to show a chain of assignment for it to obtain good title and locus in this matter and as matters stand the Claimant has not done so.

 

8.5 Accordingly the Defendant avers that no assignment has taken place in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925. Accordingly the Claimant has no locus in this matter.

 

9. In respect of paragraph 3, the Defendant acknowledges having an account with the Original Lender but does not have in their possession any such agreement and is not therefore able to comment thereon. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the date and terms of such an agreement. If, which is not admitted, such an agreement exists, the precise terms and date of any such agreement are not admitted.

 

10. It is averred that if any agreement did exist that the aforesaid agreement would be a regulated agreement within the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the Act"). It is not admitted that any alleged Agreement is enforceable within the terms of the Act. As the Defendant does not have a copy of the said agreement the Claimant is put to strict proof that the aforesaid agreement was properly executed and has been enforceable at all times since its’ inception

 

11. Paragraph 4. The Defendant received a Default Notice issued by HFO Services dated 31st March 2011 (Exhibit D). This defendant avers that this document is not compliant with the s87 of the Consumer credit Act 1974. In addition, the Claimant is required to prove the “said sum” referred to in Paragraph 4 and what this refers to.

 

12. Paragraph 5. The Defendant received a Notice of Assignment dated attached to a letter sent to them on 11th March 2011 (Exhibit E) There is no date of issue on the Notice of Assignment, and the Claimant averts that this does not comply with the Law of Property Act 1925 so reasons outlined in point 8. The Claimant has failed to show a chain of assignments or privity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of paragraph 5.

 

13. In respect of paragraph 6, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof as to the collection agents’ demands both written and verbal. The Defendant’s first contact with the Claimant’s collection agent, HFO Services was a letter headed ‘Reminder – Notice of Assignment’ dated 28th February 2011 followed by further correspondence detailed below

 

13.1 The letter dated 28th February 2011 (Exhibit F) implies that the Claimant had previous contacted the Defendant and given Notice of Assignment, the Defendant denies that this was the case

 

13.2 The Defendant received a letter dated 8th March 2011 following a telephone conversion with the Claimant’s agent headed ‘Request for Information’. This letter claims that a copy of a credit agreement is attached but it was not. The letter contained only random documents dated 2004 and obtained from Welcome Finance which bare no relevance to the Claimant’s current claim. (Exhibit G)

 

13.3 The Defendant then received a letter dated 25th March 2011 containing personal details about the Defendant’s mortgage and included property and implied that the Claimant would be able to obtain a charge against property and Order to Obtain Information (Exhibit H)

 

13.4 Following receipt of the above correspondence, the Defendant has been forced to make complaints about the content of these letters and access to personal data by HFO Services, to the Office of Fair Trading and Information Commissioner’s Office.

 

14. Paragraph 7 is denied, no document entitling the Claimant to such monies has been produced. In any event, the Claimant has no locus in this matter and therefore no entitlement to claim such monies. The Claimant has failed to issue a compliant Notice of Assignment and annual statements.

 

15. Paragraph 8 is denied; the Claimant’s attempts at claiming post judgment interest are an attempt at unjust enrichment. The Defendant refers to s74 County Courts Act 1984 and section 2 of the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 as a statutory bar on the Claimants claim to interest. Furthermore no contract entitling the Claimant to post judgment interest has been adduced in evidence.

 

Section 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

16. The Claimant is in breach of its obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78(1). The Defendant made a request in writing for a copy of the executed credit agreement.

 

17. Accordingly s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 acts as a bar on enforcement and per HFO services Limited vs Kirit Patel, Claim number 8QC52414, before His Honor Judge Platts, the Claimants claim ought to be dismissed.

 

Notice of sums in arrears.

 

18. Pursuant to s86 (A-C) Consumer Credit Act 1974 there is a duty to serve notice of sums in arrears. The Claimant has not served such notices nor has it pleaded such, therefore the Defendant avers that by virtue avoidance of doubt the notice referred to within this paragraph are in addition to the Default notice not in place of.

 

19. Furthermore no OFT arrears sheet as required by s86©(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 has been served.

By virtue of the failures outlined in Para 14 & 15 above the Claimant is not entitled pursuant to s86D (4) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to levy any interest from the point of the failure to serve the aforesaid notice of sums in arrears nor is the Claimant entitled to levy any default charges during the period of non compliance.

 

Default under s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

20. The Claimant pleads that the Defendant breached his contract. By virtue of a breach of contract and pursuant to s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant is required to serve a default notice in the form prescribed by Consumer Credit Default Enforcement and Termination Notices Regulations 1983(The Regulations). No notice compliant with the Consumer Credit Act was served therefore the Claimant is barred from terminating the agreement and demanding the sums claimed from the Defendant. In respect of the defects within the Default notice, the Defendant relies upon the following particulars of the breaches:

 

20.1 The Default notice served fails to state adequately the name and address of the Creditor, thus breaches regulation 2 and schedule 2 Para 2(1) of the Regulations

 

20.2 The Default notice served fails to contain an adequate description of the agreement sufficient to identify it as. Furthermore there is no reference to the type of agreement concerned within the body of the notice. This is a breach regulation 2(2) and schedule 2 Para 1 of the Regulations.

 

20.3 The Default notice served fails to specify the information required by Regulation 2 and schedule 2 paragraphs 3(a-c) of the Regulations. Furthermore the notice demands the full balance outstanding, this is not permitted as the service and expiry of a Default notice in accordance with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 is required before a creditor can become entitled to demand accelerated payments.

 

20.4 Furthermore, the Default notice provides that the Debtor should make a “down payment of 40% of the balance”. Schedule 2 of the Regulations do not allow for such an ambiguous statement to be made in respect of the action required to be taken under paragraph 3© of schedule 2 of the Regulations.

 

20.5 The Default notice served fails to contain the statutory wording required by regulation 2 and schedule 2 Para 4 of the Regulations. For the avoidance of doubt the regulations require the wording specified by the schedule to be used without variation as laid out at Regulation 2(6) of the Regulations.

 

20.6 The Default notice fails to adequately state the balance of the account due to the inclusion of interest and default charges within the outstanding balance and which the Claimant is not entitled to charge due to the matters pleaded above.

 

20.7 The Default notice is bad and no enforcement is permitted. The Defendant relies of Harrison vs. Link Financial Limited [2011] EWHC B2 Mercantile to support this.

 

Statement of Account

 

21 The Claimant first contacted the Defendant about this matter in February 2011 although the Claimant claims that the account was assigned to them in 2008, the Claimant has failed to send Annual Statements showing the balance of account as required under Section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 amended 2006 and is therefore not entitled to claim interest. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

22. In view of the above, it is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant as alleged or at all. Accordingly, the Defendant avers that

 

22.1 The Claimant has failed to show standing in this matter

 

22.2 The Claimant has failed to provide any clear evidence of assignment and ownership. There remains considerable doubt over who this account was assigned to and the Claimant has provided no proof.

 

22.3 The Particulars of Claim state that ‘The Claimant was assigned the defendants debt and all rights and obligations attached thereto by Barclaycard (original Lender).'. The Claimant’s further statements contradict this original statement as these aver that Barclaycard did not assign this to the Claimant (HFO Capital Ltd (Dublin)) but to another HFO Company.

 

22.4 The Claimant has failed to supply sufficient particulars and supporting documentation despite requests for these

 

23. Therefore, the Claimant’s Claim should be dismissed and the Claimant should pay the Defendants costs to be summarily assessed on an indemnity basis.

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

[broken arrow]

I like the new address CD, Ringsend, how apt

[coledog]

Pity they did not tell anyone they were moving! Maybe they have made a bit of an ass out this, bummer!

Edited June 5, 2011 by coledog

[gloryhunter]

Ok defence was faxed this morning rang the court to check they have it (they do ) so i guess its sit and wait now :)would like to thank CD for all the hard work you have been a star, thanks to everyone for your input off on a week's break will post up as soon as i get anything backGH

[DonkeyB]

It’s more than enough to stuff ’em over. Great work CD.

[pebbles71]

subbing

[DonkeyB]

Brig, got notification of this post by you... but nowt here!

 

Lets be clear on the threat of bailiffs there is a process to go through before any such action

can be taken.

1, the claimant issues issues the claim

2 A hearing

3 The claimant has to win

4 If a payment arrangement order is made by the judge that you have keep no bailiffs can be used.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi DB just checked this has been moved to a new HFO thread and it' s on there ok

must be the gremlins or the ghost maybe.

[DonkeyB]

Found it! New thread here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?308703-HFO-Services&p=3443220#post3443220

 

Thanks Brig.

[gloryhunter]

Hi guys just back from my little hoilday got home to find this letter from T&R with all the papare work they sent me in the frist place! no NOA no original singed agreement no T&C'S etc etc should i phone them and see what they have to say for themself's or let them take me to court? i have had no reply to the cca sent to both HFO and T&R LIKE I SAID T&R sent me the same doc's as they sent befor!!!! Also had a reply from OFT asking if i can sign a consent form and send it back to them (in the post already GH

exhibit a1.1.pdf

[coledog]

Hi

 

Welcome back - don't know, will have to think about this ... inclined to tell them to stick it. Certainly got a quick response!

[DonkeyB]

That does not even pretend to be a response to a CPR request. It is misleading. Let him file his AQ - not sure how he can, as you haven't received one yet.

 

Mr Shah, the pretend solicitor, is going to find this letter sent to the OFT. Isn't he, GH? Send ASAP.

 

And, for the avoidance of doubt, Uzair Shah is NOT a solicitor.

[coledog]

Only ever phone them if you can RECORD THE CALL, could be interesting.

[DonkeyB]

Especially if copy is sent to the OFT!

[broken arrow]

ah Mr Shah, now theres a thought, all those statements of thruth..........

[gloryhunter]

Right after sleeping on it think i will let him file his questionnaire with the court Donkey should i send the letter to oft? cant see what proof they have that they own this debt there is NO doc's to prove it is unless they are hoilding back !!! i like the last bit " U nder the civil procedure rules both parties have a duty to resolve this dispute as efficiently as possible and without UNNECESSARY expense" ummmmmmmmmm over 5k intrest Unnecessary ;(

[DonkeyB]

Yes, sent to OFT.

[gloryhunter]

Morning Donkey have a look

OFT1.pdf

Edited June 11, 2011 by gloryhunter