Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Turnball Rutherford Solicitors have just delivered a Stat Demand for Statute Barred Debt** DISCONTINUED**


Hants38
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4436 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

  • Replies 450
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

DoH, Barclays are mistaken - how else would they know HFO are involved? HFO will, er, easily get a letter from Barclays stating the exact opposite, as we know.

 

There are bigger issues for the defence.

 

Barclays almost certainly will have details of the alleged payment. That's the point to target.

 

If they did own it then they can produce statements - if no one can produce statements then their is no case to answer - i take it a formal s.78 request has been made.

 

They may be mistaken - but the only evidence we have is that they did not own the account - If Barclays cnnot get it right then how is the Judge? He can only make a decision based on the information put before him - and if BC says it was not their account - then he has to accept that it was not their account. Especialy if HFO also fail to comply with s.78 and tries it on.

 

That letter needs to go before a Judge, if it gets that far, whatever other 'evidence' anyone comes up with.

 

When life gives you Lemons make Lemonade :-)

Edited by dadofholly
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did own it then they can produce statements - if no one can produce statements then their is no case to answer - i take it a formal s.78 request has been made.

 

They may be mistaken - but the only evidence we have is that they did not own the account - If Barclays cnnot get it right then how is the Judge? He can only make a decision based on the information put before him - and if BC says it was not their account - then he has to accept that it was not their account. Especialy if HFO also fail to comply with s.78 and tries it on.

 

That letter needs to go before a Judge, if it gets that far, whatever other 'evidence' anyone comes up with.

 

When life gives you Lemons make Lemonade :-)

 

Or keep it in the Lime Light,lol

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to put enough doubt in to show there are triable issues.

 

In SuzieD’s case (albeit with Monument) although Barclaycard claimed they never owned the account, all the statements produced by HFO were in the correct format and had the Barclays details on there, ie. ‘a division of Barclays Bank’. Barclays told SuzieD they had no record of the account. Someone was fibbing, and I think it was Barclays. They just can’t be bothered to dig out the info unless it’s for their mates.

 

HFO would have gotten those statements from Barclays (no way they could have made them up), so Barclays DO retain ALL the account data.

 

Bear in mind that in this case, the allegation of the last payment date was made over the phone by the Wimbledon Spiv, and was not recorded or put in writing.

 

We’re lacking the basic documents here to call it properly. You are spot on, DoH, we can only use the evidence available – but we have to be aware that Barclays might suddenly ‘find’ the info and shoot that fox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few further question Hants – the stat demand came from HFO Capital, yet you say the CCJ is from HFO Services. (ie. that was in the PoC).

 

What does the PoC say exactly? We desperately need to know what they claimed.

 

Would be useful to see their witness statement opposing the set aside, as they sent this with the new claim. Please edit out personal details and post up.

 

And can you please check your credit record? I reckon the Wimbledon Spiv might be trying to claim the recorded default date as the last payment date.

 

Did you ever send the CPR 31 request, as advised?

 

Also, can you please post up the documents you received as a result of your earlier CPR request? We still haven’t seen them.

 

These are the NoA, the letter with the Morgan Stanley logo (which may be the ‘original’ NoA), and the HFO default notice (which will be useless).

 

And can you confirm you have received no response from Barclays to your CCA request, and HFO/TR have still not supplied a copy of the credit agreement?

 

We really must get the derail to formulate your defence.

 

If they have made a mistake in the PoC in saying they bought from Barclaycard, any judge will just allow them to amend it eventually.

 

So all these other points are important.

 

And please get online to check what’s on your credit record regarding this, as well as seeing what is now registered at Trust Online.

 

But the most urgent things are (i) show us the paperwork and the actual PoC and their WS, and (ii) getting hold of the court to find out what the judge ordered.

 

Then we can get the bones of your defence sorted to accompany the set aside application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and get a copy of the letter up shortly it is literally a paragraph in length and is just a covering letter stating that they were making a claim. The documents within it included an application with my signature on it and various statements. It also showed the assignment of debt from Barclaycard to HFO Capital and then HFO Capital to HFO Services.

 

When HFO Services took on the debt they did not hold a CCL, also I have a letter from Barclays saying Barclaycard/Barclays have never owned this debt. So if thats the case how did HFO get it from Barclays????

 

Can we see this stuff as well please?

 

If we don’t see the paperwork, you will be flying blind and your defence will be totally inadequate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hants - Donkey is right we do need to see the info - you have two issues to deal with in the long run. First is the set aside, and then there is the defence to claim.

 

As you have already had one set aside it is going to be more difficult to get another - so we realy do need to tackle the issues head on - and for that we know exactley what we are up against.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Not going to go into detail now untill my setaside hearing has been (This week) but i am taking them on recreated evidence and a debt that was never owned.

 

Yes CPR was sent and details recieved.

 

Once i've had my case i'll post ALL details up :) Am very confident on this one

Edited by Hants38
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi windywoo - whatever happened to your problems with HFO?

 

Have you updated your thread?

 

Yes, they got back to me again with another poor copy of an application form, and T&C's from all over the place. The upshot of it was, there was an accompanying letter from B/Card confirming the account was unenforceable, and they were unable to pursue it through the courts - happy days! Only a few more months until is SB :O)

 

Sorry to hijack your thread Hants.

L/Woods B/Card/Cabot - Unenforceable CCA, SD Issued *WON+COSTS*

Capital One/Cabot - No CCA account irrecoverable.

Citi/DLC Hillesden - No CCA account irrecoverable

MBNA/Aegis - Unenforceable CCA

B/Card/HFO - Unenforceable CCA

Fashion World - No CCA account irrecoverable

TRUECALL IS A GODSEND!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they got back to me again with another poor copy of an application form, and T&C's from all over the place. The upshot of it was, there was an accompanying letter from B/Card confirming the account was unenforceable, and they were unable to pursue it through the courts - happy days! Only a few more months until is SB :O)

 

Sorry to hijack your thread Hants.

 

Thanks - I remember now :-) - so that will be another going nowhere then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...