HFO Capital/Services/Roxburghe - OFT Minded to Revoke Licences!

[psyduck]

"Roxburghe said its consumer credit licence remains in force pending the appeal. The company has also applied for, and received, interim permission from the new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in readiness for the transfer of consumer credit responsibilities in April."

[enterprise_seo]

This is fantastic news. I particularly enjoyed HFO/Roxburghe's bleating that it's not fair etc. Tell that to all their victims. I understand Alasdair Turnbull's expulsion form the Law Society's group licence is totally unprecedented! Well, I suppose that's what happens when you obtain dodgy Court Orders by deception, as they did specifically with me (and I have kept all the paperwork).

 

I've been trying to trace the person at the new FCA who will have taken over monitoring of HFO/Rox/Turnbull Rutherford, etc. It used to be Polly Ashford at the OFT but I've spoken at length to the FCA just now and there is no-one there of that name, nor can they tell me who the person is who is looking after this.

 

Anyone got any ideas? Because one thing is sure: they must NOT be allowed to get another licence to trade.

[broken arrow]

[email protected]

[Scouse Magic]

This is fantastic news. I particularly enjoyed HFO/Roxburghe's bleating that it's not fair etc. Tell that to all their victims. I understand Alasdair Turnbull's expulsion form the Law Society's group licence is totally unprecedented! Well, I suppose that's what happens when you obtain dodgy Court Orders by deception, as they did specifically with me (and I have kept all the paperwork).

 

I've been trying to trace the person at the new FCA who will have taken over monitoring of HFO/Rox/Turnbull Rutherford, etc. It used to be Polly Ashford at the OFT but I've spoken at length to the FCA just now and there is no-one there of that name, nor can they tell me who the person is who is looking after this.

 

 

Something Stinks here

 

The FCA were contacted today Re:Roxburghe and the OFT's Decision to refuse to renew the licence. The FCA advise that Roxburghe can continue to trade but the FCA does not handle individual complaints and that complaints should be referred to the financial ombudsman.

 

Why are they allowing this

 

 

 

 

Totally unhelpful for a new regulator

[patrickq1]

try what do they know freedom of information

[broken arrow]

The FCA have picked up the baton from the OFT and they will do a good job.

[enterprise_seo]

I spoke to an FCA officer called Peter and I described the matter in full; he said he'd ask around and get back to me.

 

Sure enough he left a message on my answering machine about an hour later; here is a transcript of the key part of his message:

 

We do have intelligence on these people [HFO Services/HFO Capital, Roxburgh UK Ltd/Turnbull Rutherford Solicitors] and it is likely that they

would not

pass our robust authorisation process.... We do have a robust authorisation process and we do have intelligence on these people so they would

not

be able to obtain a consumer credit activity licence from us.

 

I think that's a fairly conclusive statement, wouldn't you agree? HFO/Turnbull Rutherford will never be able to practice as debt spivs again.

 

I have a £55 a month standing order payable to them every month for a Court Order which they obtained by deception. I will be phoning my bank first thing this afternoon to cancel it, and encourage everyone else in a similar position to do the same.

 

Next: it is my belief that HFO/Turnbull Rutherford is trading whilst insolvent, which is a criminal offence. IF sufficient numbers of people were to read this and cancel their standing orders or direct debits to HFO/Turnbull Rutherford then this would make their financial situation untenable and we would be able to obtain a winding-up order to close HFO/Turnbull Rutherford Solicitors for good, and perhaps get Alasdair Turnbull a criminal record into the bargain. Or perhaps even a custodial sentence.

 

The years I've waited for this!

[Shelley181146]

I was paying s/o on behalf of someone for years on a 'court order' but once that amount had been paid, stopped to s/o end of last year.

 

Turnbull Rutherford have been calling and sending letters to say acct not settles blah blah and today they received a letter saying all future communications and payments must be forwarded to HFO Capital.

 

Needless to say, they won't be getting anything!!!

[DonkeyB]

Then please contact the FCA and complain about this – it’s exactly the kind of behaviour they’re looking for as evidence!

 

Did they send regular annual statements of account? Did they try adding interest that was not allowed under the judgment?

[enterprise_seo]

I was paying s/o on behalf of someone for years on a 'court order' but once that amount had been paid, stopped to s/o end of last year. Turnbull Rutherford have been calling and sending letters to say acct not settles blah blah and today they received a letter saying all future communications and payments must be forwarded to HFO Capital.

Needless to say, they won't be getting anything!!!

 

This shows a desperation on the part of all companies in the HFO/Rox/Turnbull Rutherford Solicitors 'group' to get hold of as much in the way of liquid cash as they can.

 

Many people will recall very recently getting letters from them saying that they will be 'let off' a certain percentage of the total debt if they pay the remainder of the account up front. By doing this the spivs hope that they will receive the readies in hard cash so as to offset their insolvency.

 

It is also quite a cynical act: if you know in advance that you won't be allowed to trade as a debt spiv because you've lost your licence, what better way to try and raise extra cash than by offering a large discount if the account is paid off as a lump sum? Presumably there will have been people who have been tempted into doing just that. In the light of HFO et al losing their licence these victims must now be asking themselves "Why did they make such an offer?" Well now you know!

[fecked off]

I have a CCJ which is collected direct from my wages via an AOE, should I be looking to get this stopped ?? If so how do I get this done ?? I doubt that my pay-bills dept will just stop without the courts say so.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I have a CCJ which is collected direct from my wages via an AOE, should I be looking to get this stopped ?? If so how do I get this done ?? I doubt that my pay-bills dept will just stop without the courts say so.

Before taking any action it would be wise to await the final outcome of the FCAs deliberations.

[fecked off]

Before taking any action it would be wise to await the final outcome of the FCAs deliberations.

 

Thanks will do, I too have received "the letter" today from HFO Capital requesting all correspondence and enquiries to them from now on.

[broken arrow]

Thanks will do, I too have received "the letter" today from HFO Capital requesting all correspondence and enquiries to them from now on.

 

Can you give a little background on the original creditor, which HFO claimed Services or Capital and did you defend the claim.

[broken arrow]

Thanks will do, I too have received "the letter" today from HFO Capital requesting all correspondence and enquiries to them from now on.

 

Capital are based in Ireland, Services used to do all the collections, they're based in UK, probably trying to collect as much as they can out of the UK as possible.

[enterprise_seo]

I got the letter yesterday. They seem to be shifting their assets to Ireland and, looking at the information in the footer, there seems to be a Maltese connection there as well. No doubt the completely legal tax arrangements managed through a Maltese holding company will be where the bulk of the money ends up. As a group they are quite adept at squirreling away money in one tax haven or another, so HMRC will probably want to have a look at this as well, I expect.

 

I only hope the FCA will be brief in their deliberations.

[fecked off]

Can you give a little background on the original creditor, which HFO claimed Services or Capital and did you defend the claim.

 

HFO services on behalf of MBNA.

 

Did not defend as I was "green" to their ways back then, big mistake.

[Shelley181146]

Then please contact the FCA and complain about this – it’s exactly the kind of behaviour they’re looking for as evidence!

 

Did they send regular annual statements of account? Did they try adding interest that was not allowed under the judgment?

 

I have visited my archives of records and dug out the Turnbull Rutherford file for this historical debt.

 

This is how the debt unravelled;

Mercers chased missing pyts Sept 2004

Acct passed to Credit Solutions Jan 2005 - the usual formal demand, discount letters etc

Wescots involved and paid 3 X £8.00 whilst I sorted out personal issues

Acc t ret'd to B/C Nov 2005

Lots of calls from a call centre in India and threats - all notes taken still in my possession

Judgment for claimant Apr 2008 £xxx.xx

Legal advice taken and requ judgment set-aside Sept 2008 - dismissed

Variation Order made Oct 2008 £xxx.xx

Instalments agreed min amount monthly

Letter to T/R requesting breakdown of pyts received and balance o/s Oct 2011

Continued with monthly s/o until summer 2013

However, it appears I have OVER PAID by £23.07 - What on earth was I thinking about????

 

Now whilst going through my file I have identified their original Claim form particulars and it reads as follows;

 

"On satisfaction of the claim and costs and interest there will be an unpaid balance of ------------(left blank) to be paid by the defendant which is accruing interest at the rate of 12% P.A

 

Therefore, as their claim did not state a further balance amount - there is nothing outstanding on this account ( IS THERE?) - infact, quite the opposite - they owe me £23.07 plus interest.

 

Would I be opeing a can of worms to claim it back?

 

For those of you who may want to research HFO Service Limited a little further you might find this link useful; http://www.gbrdirect.eu/AvailableProducts.aspx?code=446327&regAuthor=IECROCR

Edited April 7, 2014 by Shelley181146
Amendments

[DonkeyB]

I have visited my archives of ecords and dug out the Turnbull Rutherford file for this historical debt.

 

This is how the debt unravelled;

Mercers chased missing pyts Sept 2004

Acct passed to Credit Solutions Jan 2005 - the usual formal demand, discount letters etc

Wescots involved and paid 3 X £8.00 whilst I sorted out personal issues

Acc t ret'd to B/C Nov 2005

Lots of calls from a call centre in India and threats - all notes taken still in my possession

Judgment for claimant Apr 2008 £xxx.xx

Legal advice taken and requ judgment set-aside Sept 2008 - dismissed

Variation Order made Oct 2008 £xxx.xx

Instalments agreed min amount monthly

Letter to T/R requesting breakdown of pyts received and balance o/s Oct 2011

Continued with monthly s/o until summer 2013

However, it appears I have OVER PAID by £23.07 - What on earth was I thinking about????

 

Now whilst going through my file I have identified their original Claim form particulars and it reads as follows;

 

"On satisfaction of the claim and costs and interest there will be an unpaid balance of ------------(left blank) to be paid by the defendant which is accruing interest at the rate of 12% P.A

 

Therefore, as their claim did not state a further balance amount - there is nothing outstanding on this account - infact, quite the opposite - they owe me £23.07 plus interest.

 

Would I be opeing a can of worms to claim it back?

 

Forget it – they can’t take you to court again. They have split the claim, and have clearly come a cropper. They can whistle for the rest.

 

They are perfectly entitled to only claim part of the monies due, but if that’s the judgment, that’s all they can EVER have. Game over. Irrespective of the drivel they put in the claim, they are legally not allowed to issue another claim on the same evidence/account.

 

If that little ******* Uzair Shah is pretending they can enforce for monies not in the judgment, then he is lying through his teeth – deliberately misleading you.

 

And you MUST report this to the FCA. It’s exactly the kind of thing Turnbull Rutherford is in trouble for. Help them lose their licence for good – if the client HFO has instructed this, they also know it to be wrong, so stuff them both over.

 

Demand your overpayment be returned – you have satisfied the terms of the judgment.

[Shelley181146]

:whoo: That's music to my ears DonkeyB.

 

I have drafted 'nicely' worded letter (NOT) to demand my O/P back and it will be wisking it's way tomorrow by R/D.

 

That's one envelope I am looking forward to receiving from the postman for a change, lol.

 

Thanks DB.

[DonkeyB]

Anytime – but please, please contact the FCA!

[DonkeyB]

...and if you Google ‘split claim’, you’ll find some reference to the statute that says you can’t do it. Bryan Carter, Sigma and and HFO can be added to the search. Get your facts and arguments spot on!

[sillygirl1]

This lot really are trying to continue to mislead people - and I really hope the FCA act fast and stop them altogether - then investigate the outstanding court claims to see where they can repatriate monies to the poor mislead people - but of course it won't happen!.

[broken arrow]

I got the letter yesterday. They seem to be shifting their assets to Ireland and, looking at the information in the footer, there seems to be a Maltese connection there as well. No doubt the completely legal tax arrangements managed through a Maltese holding company will be where the bulk of the money ends up. As a group they are quite adept at squirreling away money in one tax haven or another, so HMRC will probably want to have a look at this as well, I expect.

 

I only hope the FCA will be brief in their deliberations.

The Maltese based company is Concillian.

[broken arrow]

HFO services on behalf of MBNA.

 

Did not defend as I was "green" to their ways back then, big mistake.

 

How long ago was this?

Do you still have the claim form?