Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • 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
      • 161 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

HFO services about a welcome finance loan


gwk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4540 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 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hello all,well i had a look at my equifax report and guess who appears on there,youve guessed,HFO!!,under the heading loan from hfo services ltd,outstanding balance £4983,so where do they get the figure of nearly £8000 from,the start date is 18/03/04,so in other words they had been sold the account,not so according to welcome the account was sold to them 11/05/06,and the last payment was made to welcome august 2005,so how can hfo have taken over the account in 2004.These dates dont add up whatsoever,also the default was added by hfo on the 01/05/06,a full 10 days before welcome said they sold the account to them,any help or advice would be welcomed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all,well i had a look at my equifax report and guess who appears on there,youve guessed,HFO!!,under the heading loan from hfo services ltd,outstanding balance £4983,so where do they get the figure of nearly £8000 from,the start date is 18/03/04,so in other words they had been sold the account,not so according to welcome the account was sold to them 11/05/06,and the last payment was made to welcome august 2005,so how can hfo have taken over the account in 2004.These dates dont add up whatsoever,also the default was added by hfo on the 01/05/06,a full 10 days before welcome said they sold the account to them,any help or advice would be welcomed.

 

Personally I think that info about dates being wrong is useful for any future legal challenge they may try :)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all,well i had a look at my equifax report and guess who appears on there,youve guessed,HFO!!,under the heading loan from hfo services ltd,outstanding balance £4983,so where do they get the figure of nearly £8000 from,the start date is 18/03/04,so in other words they had been sold the account,not so according to welcome the account was sold to them 11/05/06,and the last payment was made to welcome august 2005,so how can hfo have taken over the account in 2004.These dates dont add up whatsoever,also the default was added by hfo on the 01/05/06,a full 10 days before welcome said they sold the account to them,any help or advice would be welcomed.

 

When the account is sold to HFO they would take over the original account and CRF info. So the start date you refer to would be the start date of the account - not of when HFO took the account over.

 

Does it give a default date?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the account is sold to HFO they would take over the original account and CRF info. So the start date you refer to would be the start date of the account - not of when HFO took the account over.

 

Does it give a default date?

 

it does give a default date of 01/05/06,but the last payment was made to welcome on the 26/08/05,and no other payment or acknowledgement of the debt has been made since then.They put the default on just over 9 months from last payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an old Welcome trick - have welocme confirmed in writing to you the date of the last payment?

 

If not you may need to issue them with an SAR.

I have issued welcome with a sar request which they recieved on friday,but they said they will write to confirm last payment and when the account was sold to HFO.I have also sent a cca request to HFO,so ill have to sit tight for now and wait for their response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have just got off the phone to welcome and they said they have posted a letter confirming date of last payment and when the account was sold to hfo,so a little bit of ammunition to fight these scumbags

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just spoken to welcome finance compliance department,and they have told me that the last payment was made on this account on 28/05/04 for £70,not the 26/08/05 for £15 as originally stated,they have sent me a letter with all the information requested on,but as yet have not recieved it,so they are going to send me another one out.They also stated that the account was originally sold to DLC not HFO,i did ask why the default was put onto my credit file nearly a full 2 years after last payment and they seemed unable to answer that,can anyone tell me where i stand with regards to this and also the matter of welcome originally selling the debt to DLC not HFO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they sold it twice. This is the problem with Welcome, as I’m sure DoH will say – their record keeping is trash.

 

You need absolute proof of when that last payment was made. Does that correlate with your records? I’m not surprised the letter never materialised.

 

Don’t trust what they say at face value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it’s another case of the default being added a long time after the actual default – last payment August 2005, default added May 2006. That it not on.

 

If you want to kick up a fuss – under threat of a claim by you for compensation – write to HFO demanding that the default be removed, as it was not applied to the account in a timely manner in relation to the actual breach, as required by the OFT’s guidance. It should be applied within six months maximum, so Feb 2006 – drop off end of Jan 2012. See what happens – if it’s still there in March 2012 go for the tossers.

 

Maybe act on this then, adjusting the dates to suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have sent me a letter to say that the last payment was made on 28/05/04 for £70,as i no longer have the original agreements or records for that account i cannot cross reference.So DLC have sold it onto HFO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HFO are under a duty to respond again to your SB letter.

 

Perhaps send it again, and copy the resent letter to the OFT, together with a further letter asking why the default was recorded some 15 months after the default.

 

Make it clear you will sue if the record is not removed from your credit file. As HFO claim now to be the creditor with all the rights and benefits (and as they DO know when the dates of payments were, as Welcome would have given that info on assignment as part of the contract), it is down to them. They cannot fob it of as Welcome’s fault now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have sent me a letter to say that the last payment was made on 28/05/04 for £70,as i no longer have the original agreements or records for that account i cannot cross reference.So DLC have sold it onto HFO.

 

Doubt it. DLC is part of Hillesden (the chicken farmers), and at at that time (of assignment) it did mainly debt collection – I think their purchase activities grew later. So the muppet at Welcome has probably confused debt collection activity with sale action.

 

This is the kind of nonsense Welcome spout, and which you have to be aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...