Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've had another look at their WS and as it definitely states that they are pursuing you as the keeper in point 19 they must lose their case because their PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts.  First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail. The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companys have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   The entrance sign does not include the T&Cs so it is only an offer to treat  not  an offer of a contract. Their only appears to be one type of sign inside the car park which is unusual and a lot of the signage is in too small a print to be acceptable in Law as capable of forming a contract. The signage also includes unlawful demands for extra charges which makes the whole contract invalid.  PoFA 2012 made it quite clear that the maximum  amount claimed was the amount on the sign. This has been reinforced by the Private Parking Code of Practice which states that no extra charges can be made over the signage figure. Indeed a Government Minister is quoted as saying that the extra charges demanded by parking companies are "a rip off" yet they still include them. They are an abuse of process and should be subject to adding exemplary costs payable to the motorist to act as a deterrent to rogue car parking companies.   They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   So it is not as if this is a secret-since it has been out since February 7th 2022 . You would have thought that as this Code was designed to root out the rogues in the industry that the parking industry would already have made adjustments to their activities in order to align themselves with the will of Parliament as proposed by Minister Neil O'Brien  who said   "The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible."   Ignorance of the Law is no excuse but even Gladstones are surely aware that the extra charges are unlawful  it beggars belief that they can aver that they have told the truth on their WS.
    • Evening all,   I am looking for a little bit of advice, any would be appreciated. I am a bit hesitant in giving all the in's and out's as I am not sure of the forums procedures and I do not want to compromise my situation.   Basically as a result of a few issues in my life inflicted/self inflicted I ended up in a bad situation financially. A company brought a debt off a lender I had used and took me to court, I really mis-managed this and although I attended court with a case the verdict went against me. I accepted this but never heard anything back from them and admittedly as I was struggling didn't pro actively seek them out to make payment. So, on my Credit report I had a CCJ due to expire Sept. 2022, which I associated to that particular incident. Anyhow, I have recently received a Notice of Application for Attachment of earnings order, however, this is regarding a completely different debt/Court procedure to the one I participated in. The creditor, to my knowledge has never contacted me and until this week I have never received any correspondence to this case from the creditor or county court.    Basically, I was just after a bit of advice, on how to go about this. I am worried that if my employer is advised of the CCJ, it makes my position uncomfortable, maybe untenable which will only be negative to my situation.    So can I still contest this and possibly get it removed via the courts, can I delay it for 3 months to get it statue barred, do I pay the whole amount (to a company whom brought it at a pittance) or do pay it off and if so, can the figure be negotiated and how long would it affect me credit score?   I apologise for the number of questions, and appreciate any advice. My concern is the application ruining a very good job for me.   Thanks in advance
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Old M&S Store card - HFO claim


MAGDA
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3686 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

Could I just add, Magda, I think it would be an excellent idea if you could ask your solicitors for a detailed list of all the issues they submitted as a defence as well as the letter from HFO saying they're discontinuing and then send that to the OFT pointing out perhaps that given the situation they should not have been after you in the first place. I reckon that this sort of evidence, where HFO discontinue when it is pointed out to them that they have no case, is the biggest and best coffin nail for HFO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi bradholmes, you could be right. I have submitted my own complaints to the OFT though anyway regarding this case, which they have duly noted, and I know a lot of others on here have done the same, so hopefully there will soon be some good news on this, fingers crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever get in writing the fact that M & S informed you the account was sold to Roxburghe and not HFO Capital.

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

Hi BA, No, M&S claimed it was sold to HFO Capital Ltd in the letter they sent to me. They gave HFO's name, but TR's address - and the date of the assignment was a day out, which although not much of a difference, is still wrong. Mind you, Watsons weren't really focusing on the assignment issue too much anyway as there were other, better arguments in my case that could be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What made M&S change their mind on who they first informed you the account was sold to, the same issue happened with Barclaycard, one for the OFT.

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

Well, according to M&S they know them as Roxburghe, so that's what they call them, but they said it was actually sold to HFO Capital - although the agreement between M&S and HFO, of course, was entered into between HFO Cayman and M&S, but HFO claim it was then sold to HFO Ireland - usual HFO tactics to muddy the waters as much as they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All accounts now are being serviced by Roxburghe and not HFO Services as previous, I think they are under the impression that Roxburghe,s CCL will not get revoked, most complaints to the OFT are against Services and Capital, so can you please inform the OFT of this issue ragarding what M&S informed you.they are all part of the same group but are legal separate entities, I am surprised M& S are unsure who they actually sold their accounts to. The same issue happened when people contacted Barclaycard, they were first informed the accounts wre sold to Roxburghe, then informed HFO Capital where known as Roxburghe at the time when the issue was raised, which is incorrect, HFO Services where known as Roxburghe for 17 days, before any sales to HFO Capital. The OFT are aware of at least two cases with Roxburghe/ HFO/Barclaycard issues.

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

HFO are hopeless at getting GENUINE evidence together. They fail in so many ways on simple points too, like getting hold of proper default data and usually have DNs that are defective in one way or another (even the ones they issue themselves are pure bull). Then they go to court and argue all their failings are de minimis, but that everything else works strongly in their favour. Some judges buy it, alas, especially with LiPs.

 

Lots of ways to skin HFO’s cat. Especially when their ‘solicitor’ is terminally useless.

“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

... which is something he should NOT be calling himself. But once a purveyor of inexactitude...

 

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=14958&eclipse_action=getsession

“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

Hes a solicitor of the supreme court.........

 

Which if he is, he should know that changed in Oct 2009 and is now “solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales” the xxxx put this in my WS in 2010.

Edited by broken arrow

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

Snap!

“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

Which if he is, he should know that changed in Oct 2009 and is now “solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales” the idiot put this in my WS in 2010.

 

... but no doubt that is de minimis, or a simple admin error...

“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

Which if he is, he should know that changed in Oct 2009 and is now “solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales” the idiot put this in my WS in 2010.

 

under a statement of thruth..............solicitor of goofy crap comedians or the banana splits would be more apt.

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

That's the trouble with a lot of these cases, some of it is down to the judge you get on the day, isn't it, which if you are a LIP as donkey just mentioned, it can be difficult to argue against an experienced barrister and HFO do instruct pretty good barristers I believe. That was one thing I was really pleased about, that I would have had a great barrister in my corner - makes a huge difference.

 

The OFT are aware of all of the issues regarding this case, I made sure of that some time ago. Hopefully Hfo won't be around too much longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

under a statement of thruth..............solicitor of goofy crap comedians or the banana splits would be more apt.

 

Has anyone ever seen Alice, Bingo and Alan Carr together at the same time?

 

Bingo.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

Their rep who turned up against me did not even know who she was representing, its rare for them to instruct a Barrister and when they have, it has been costly.

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

I set up a company to give dodgy five-star reputation-boosting endorsements to companies in exchange for money.

 

Haven’t had a call from HFO yet.

 

DonkeyChex.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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...