Jump to content


coops999

Rutherford/HFO Capital Ltd & HFO Services Ltd - 2007 BC 'debt' now LINK - set aside hearing

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1559 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Aha... just found out that Turnbull Rutherford has changed its name to Peckwater Advisory, as of 16 March this year.

 

Alasdair Turnbull’s CV on LinkedIn is trying to make out that he’s at a new company and is no longer at Turnbull Rutherford. This is not true. The company has simply changed its name and now has an address in central London. Same old stuff.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey B,

 

firstly thanks for all your help very much appreciated, got some answers against your points + some new info;

 

Answers 1st.

 

1. It was Ankur of HFO Capital that told me that HFO Services Ltd had ceased trading.

 

2. No joy with Barclaycard so far, have another number to call tomorrow but not holding out much hope as they are very unhelpful.

 

3. Not a lot I can say other than 1st I knew about the CCJ or CO was in 2012 after the filing for divorce was bounced back by the court.

Failure to act again through ignorance because i believed that HFO & TR's failure to respond to my SAR request would work in my favour.

 

4. Have received paperwork today from KEARNS SOLICITORS acting on behalf of ASSET LINK CAPITAL (No.5) Limited,

they state that HFO SERVICES LTD sold the debt to them on 1st December 2014,

 

 

I have an email from HFO CAPITAL Limited dated 2nd December 2014 offering a reduced settlement figure

& confirming the HFO CAPITAL Ltd would undertake to remove the CO with the LR

& also undertake to contact all relevant Credit Ref Agencies.

 

 

Don't see how HFO Services can sell the debt on 1st December to Link & HFO CApital chase payment on 2nd December.

 

HFO CAPITAL Ltd only confirm on 23rd December 2015 that debt has been sold to LINK and say that HFO CAPITAL LTD

have sold the debt not HFO SERVICES as detailed in the KEARNS Solicitors Paperwork.

 

5. I stopped living at the marital home on 30th March 2006, my ex wife & children continued to live there,

my post was passed to me via my children when I collected them for visits,

I never received any default notice from BC or paperwork relating to CCJ or CO hearing.

 

My Ex-Wife confirms that she never received any paperwork either in relation to the CCJ or CO hearings,

as our split was less than amicable she would have undoubtedly used anything like this to get at me especially as it involved her,

should she not have received paperwork as a co-owner?

 

6. The CO is listed as restrictive on the Land Registry report.

 

7. Link have applied to be substituted as claimant

 

8.They Mention CPR19 in their documentation.

 

Only having received their paperwork today it leaves little time to obtain a copy of the assignment from HFO SERVICES

to LINK or the Copy of the Sales Agreement.

 

No assignment of debt ever received from HFO Services or HFO Capital, no documentation obtained before 2012 when Land Registry Document obtained.

 

I have looked at ASSET LINK CAPITAL (No 5 ) Limited and they appear to be a DORMANT company,

as a dormant company are should they be collecting or attempting to collect monies?

 

Additionally they are applying for costs of £120.00 for the hearing on Friday, can I counter claim for costs in the event that I am successful?

 

I really do appreciate all your help & apologise that I cannot upload the documents as received from KEARNS SOLICITORS today

but I am in hospital due to have an operation at 7am tomorrow so have no access to a scanner.

 

Any help or advice you can give would be really appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you need to prepare a skeleton argument against all this.

 

basically, you have to trash HFO’s actions and their entitlement to the alleged debt, let alone their entitlement to sell it.

 

Can you transcribe the Kearns info?


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DonkeyB,

 

 

apologies for delay in doing this anaesthetic just wearing off.

 

 

KEARNS SOLICITORS LETTER

 

 

Page 1 - Letterhead

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

 

Re: Asset Link Capital ( No.5 ) Limited - & Yourself

The County Court at Guildford - Claim Number 8QC52611

 

 

We act on behalf of Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited and enclose by way of service upon you our notice of acting together with the Application to substitute our client as claimant and the Witness Statement of Andrew James Perkins to be used as evidence in this action.

 

 

The originals of each document have been filed at court.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

( Unreadable signature )

 

 

Kearns Solicitors

 

 

Next 3 Pages are Notice of Change of Legal Representative

 

 

Name of Claimant: Asset Link Capital ( No5 ) Ltd

Name of Defendant: David Cooper

 

 

We KEARN SOLICITORS have been instructed to act on behalf of the claimant in this claim in place of TURNBULL RUTHERFORD SOLICITORS.

 

 

WHAT ORDER ARE YOU ASKING THE COURT TO MAKE & WHY:

 

 

On account of an assignment between HFO Services Limited and Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited whereby all legal benefit, interest, right and title to and in the debt subject of the claim has been legally assigned to Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited, the applicant seeks and order under CPR 19.2 (4) that it be substituted as Claimant with no order as to costs in the form of the draft order appended.

 

 

The applicant consents to being substituted as claimant per CPR 19.4 (4)

 

 

Next Doc.

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANDREW JAMES PERKINS

 

 

I Andrew James Perkins, a solicitor of Messrs, Kearns Solicitors, 5 Trecenydd Business Park, Caerphilly CF83 2 RZ, make this witness Statement to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

 

1. I am a solicitor in the employ of Kearns Solicitors, instructed to act on behalf of the Applicant, Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited, I am duly authorised to make this statement and do

so in support of the Applicants application to be substituted as claimant and opposition of the defendants application to set aside judgement.

 

 

2. The sources of my information and belief are the written and computer records that have been provided to me, and are shown to me at relevant exhibits.

 

 

3. By way of the written assignment completed 1st December 2014 HFO Services Limited sold all rights to and in the subject account to Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited and written

notice of such was provided to the defendant 8th December 2014. A copy of the Notice of Assignment is now produced and shown to me marked ''AJP-1''.

 

 

4. Further to receipt of the Defendants application to set judgement aside and notice of hearing via HFO SERVICES Limited, a copy of which is now produced and shown to be marked

''AJP-2'' complete with the appended copy e-mails that the defendant relies on.

 

 

5.It is of note that within the E-Mail trail that the defendant relies upon there is confirmation that HFO Services limited had sold the account, though the correspondent has mistakenly

identified the servicing agent as the assignee.

 

 

6. Having received the defendants application and noting an apparent change in the address back to the original charge address Asset Link Capital ( No. 5 ) Limited's appointed agent,

Link Financial Outsourcing Limited, wrote to the defendant providing further notice of the assignment and inviting the defendant to consider settlement of the account.

 

 

7. The Defendant was further advised that failing a settlement agreement, an application would be made to substitute Asset Link Capital ( No. 5 ) limited as claimant in the application

and his application would be opposed. There is now produced and shown to me marked ''AJP-3'' a copy of Link Financial Outsourcing Limited's correspondence to the defendant

dated 13th May 2015.

 

 

8. For the purpose of Asset Link Capital ( No.5 ) Limited's application to be substituted as claimant it is clear that such is desirable and fully compliant with CPR 19 by which it should be

granted namely:- (a) The Claimant consents to being substituted as Claimant

(b) The existing party's ( HFO Services Limited ) interest or liability has passed to the new part ( Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited: and

© it is desirable to substitute the new party so that the court can resolve the matters in dispute in the proceedings

( the Defendant's Application to set Judgement aside )

 

 

9. As regard the defendants application to set judgement aside, the applicants belief is that such is so procedurally flawed as to be doomed to failure in that such it lacks any valid

grounds and is so far outside of time as to lack all reasonableness as set out and addressed below.

 

 

10. That the claimant no longer exists as a trading entity

 

 

11. Not withstanding the fact that HFO Services Limited assigned away all of its beneficial interest in the defendants account to the applicant, such that the defendant now owes the

judgement debt to Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) limited, a party's liability to a company does not cease if that company ceases to trade.

 

 

12. That requests the proof of the original contract subsequent to the judgement have never been provided

 

 

13. Judgement was entered on the 4th July 2008 and the time for challenging the same has long since passed, indeed a final charging order was obtained 29th September 2008.

 

 

14. Further the '' requests '' alluded to by the defendant are neither particularised or evidenced, the only reference to a request made by the defendant are to ''SAR requests'' made to

HFO CAPITAL and HFO SERVICES Limited on some unspecified date.

 

 

15. The purpose of the SAR requests under the data protection act 1998 are not for proof of contract, indeed within the e-mails relied upon at no pint is proof of contract requested,

merely all information held relevant to the data subject ( the defendant )

 

 

16. Any non compliance with an alleged SAR request to HFO Services Limited, or its associated companies is irrelevant to the claim for breach of contract and thus generates no defence

to the claim. Indeed such is a matter for the information Commissioner's office, should the defendant wish to take it up with them, though it is reasonable for documentation to be

disposed of some 7 years since enforcement of a county court judgement.

 

 

17. Finally on the point, it is clear from the defendants e-mail to HFO dated 23rd December 2014 at 13.12hrs that the debt is admitted and a settlement offer was made in the sum of

£2,000.00.

 

 

18. CHRONOLOGY of EVENTS ALLEGED

 

 

19. The defendant alleges to have received in response to his , alleged SAR requests, that he received a 2 line response stating that the debt had been sold. Not withstanding this

further confirmation of the assignment, the chronology of the e-mail trail does appear to set out a different chronology of events as follows :-

 

 

(a) 2nd December 2014 @ 17.40hrs. HFO CAPITAL Limited offer the defendant a reduced settlement figure.

(b) 23rd December 2014 @ 13.12hrs. The defendant responds by way of a counter offer proposing a payment of £2,000.00 in full and final settlement subject to updating his credit

file to reflect the debt as satisfied and the removal of any entries upon the land registry.

© 23rd December 2014 @ 13.16hrs. HFO Capital Limited respond to the defendant to confirm that the debt had been sold and provide a contact telephone number for Link

Financial Outsourcing Limited, the agent appointed by Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited to administer accounts and payments upon it's behalf.

(d) 23rd December 2014 @ 14.34hrs. defendant responds to HFO CAPITAL claiming to have sent SAR requests and advising that HFO are legally obliged to comply regardless of the

sale of the account.

(e) 8th January 2015 @ 9.30hrs. Defendant chases HFO for a reply to his alleged SAR requests and threatens the application now before the court in default of compliance.

 

 

20. It is clear from the e-mails that the defendant first mentions the alleged SAR requests after having made a counter offer to settle this outstanding liability and after receiving

notification of the sale of the account and not that he received the confirmation that the account had been sold by way of reply.

 

 

21. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

 

 

In bundle of attachments is a letter from Asset Link Capital dated 8th December 2014, it is addressed to a rented accommodation I was living in but had vacated out on 31st November 2014. The letter confirms that HFO SERVICES Limited have sold the account to Asset Link Capital (No 5 ) Limited. this is exhibit ''AJP-1''

 

 

All other documents are as per previous attachments earlier in this thread.

 

 

Barclaycard have responded today, they have confirmed that the debt was sold to HFO CAPITAL LIMITED HIGHLAND HOUSE, 165 BROADWAY, WIMBLEDON, SW19 1NE

 

 

They have confirmed that debt was sold on : 9th January 2007

 

 

I have asked them to confirm the exact details to me by email. if this information is correct would this not mean that the debt was not HFO SERVICES LTD in the first instance & certainly not theirs to sell in the 2nd instance??

 

 

Hope the above helps, have made some notes of my own but will wait to see what you think is the best way to form the skeleton argument.

 

 

Again thank you so much for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, suggest you PM Andy & Co regarding the question of whether the seven year gap since the CCJ was awarded has any bearing on having Link applying to be substituted as the claimant. As mentioned, I can’t find anything that definitively says a CO can be assigned when the CCJ on which it is based is beyond seven years. COs don’t have a time limit as such, but beyond 12 years enforcement would be unlikely. Sorry I can’t offer more on this – not strong on COs – but I detect a bit of bluster in their statements around this. They may not be totally sure themselves.

 

My suggestion will be that you try and claim that Link has no standing in the matter, and neither has HFO Services.

 

Use the case I linked to earlier – this is evidence that HFO themselves haven’t a clue who owns what, and there is also evidence that they moved accounts between sister companies in a manner that may have been not quite what it seemed. I know the full background, but your headline point must be that Barclaycard have told you unequivocally that the account was sold to HFO Capital Ltd based in the Cayman Islands. It must have been this HFO, because HFO Capital Ireland did not exist at the time of the assignment. HFO Cayman did assign its accounts to the other HFO Capital in early 2008, but I doubt you were informed of this.

 

Therefore how can HFO Services claim title to your alleged account, which they then say they sold to Link? The assignment is totally non-transparent. At present Link has no provable locus in the claim, and if that is accepted they have no right to oppose your set aside – that MUST be your argument. The company opposing the set aside must be the one that provably owns the account. Link cannot prove that yet, and won’t be able to tomorrow. THIS IS CRUCIAL – you must argue that Link has no standing in the case, and is therefore disbarred from opposing your set aside. In legalese, what you must do is oppose their application to be substituted as claimant as they cannot prove title beyond reasonable doubt, because Barclaycard say they sold the account to a different company.

 

Your other track must be that you absolutely never received the original claim or paperwork, and tell them why – your ex would have wanted you to receive it. You had serious domestic problems, and were not aware of leaving any significant debts behind. Do you have copies of any ORIGINAL documents which were supposed to have been sent to your old address? For example, a copy of the claim form, or the CO? They’re sent by the courts, not HFO, so they would have been sent out – you need to know the addresses the court sent them to.

 

State this as the reason why your application is so late, combined with your ignorance of procedure, and the blatant lies and misleading information provided to you by HFO Capital/Services. have the documents there to prove it, e.g.. demands showing HFO Capital were masquerading as the judgment creditor, and that they were owed the money.

 

One aspect of getting a set aside is that you need to be able to show you have a good prospect of defending. So you need to tell the court that HFO Capital and Services, and its sister company Roxburgh, all had their licences rendered as ‘minded to revoke/refuse’ by the OFT because of the lies they told debtors and the unprofessional, misleading and unfair ways in which they treated their ‘customers’. They often put false documents into court case bundles – I can prove this – especially regarding assignments. In one case, they put in a supposed notice of assignment sent by HFO Capital Ireland to a debtor, but unfortunately the letter was dated BEFORE the Irish version of HFO Capital existed. I’ll see if I can find you a copy of it.

 

Another example of their unreasonable and unfair behaviour is that HFO were discussing the account with you and demanding money AFTER they had sold the account – even by Link’s own admission this happened. It’s just not on, and goes straight to the heart of HFO’s deceptive and unfair practices. Also keep pointing out that HFO Capital were demanding the money – at no time did they state they were collecting on behalf of HFO Services, Ever. They were trying to deceive you. Full stop. Have the documents to prove this.

 

And, because HFO have refused your SAR requests, you have been seriously hindered in establishing if you ever even owed the money. That has denied you a basic right. State that if it is found you owe the money, you will happily arrange to pay – say that if Link is so sure the judgment is sound, it should be prepared to back this up, rather than rely on legal technicalities.

 

Link’s noting of the chronology in point 20 is irrelevant. I’ll go through their document shortly and counter their points where I can.

 

Regarding making an offer to settle with HFO, simply say you panicked, are threatened with a forced sale, did not understand the legal situation, and so sought advice. You simply do not know if you owed the money as you were never provided with any documents to show the debt existed or was enforceable, or how the amount adjudged was reached. These were fundamental issues that you have been denied.

 

Get all this down in a witness statement with a statement of truth at the end.

 

It’s a long, long shot, but it’s the only shot you have.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi DonkeyB,

 

 

apologies for delay in doing this anaesthetic just wearing off.

Hope you’re feeling better. Nothing too serious I hope.

 

KEARNS SOLICITORS LETTER

 

 

Page 1 - Letterhead

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

 

Re: Asset Link Capital ( No.5 ) Limited - & Yourself

The County Court at Guildford - Claim Number 8QC52611

 

 

We act on behalf of Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited and enclose by way of service upon you our notice of acting together with the Application to substitute our client as claimant and the Witness Statement of Andrew James Perkins to be used as evidence in this action.

 

 

The originals of each document have been filed at court.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

( Unreadable signature )

 

 

Kearns Solicitors

 

 

Next 3 Pages are Notice of Change of Legal Representative

 

 

Name of Claimant: Asset Link Capital ( No5 ) Ltd

Name of Defendant: David Cooper

 

 

We KEARN SOLICITORS have been instructed to act on behalf of the claimant in this claim in place of TURNBULL RUTHERFORD SOLICITORS.

Point out somewhere that the principal of Turnbull Rutherford, Alasdair Turnbull, was also subject to OFT sanctions as they tried to strip him of his Law Society debt collection licence.

 

WHAT ORDER ARE YOU ASKING THE COURT TO MAKE & WHY:

 

 

On account of an assignment between HFO Services Limited and Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited whereby all legal benefit, interest, right and title to and in the debt subject of the claim has been legally assigned to Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited, the applicant seeks and order under CPR 19.2 (4) that it be substituted as Claimant with no order as to costs in the form of the draft order appended.

I deny that the assignment was proper. Barclaycard on 10 June stated that they sold the account to HFO Capital Ltd (Cayman Islands), not HFO Services. Therefore Link has no standing in the matter and the application should be refused until such time as they can prove title. I attempted to find out such issues, but my valid SARs and requests for info were denied by HFO.

 

The applicant consents to being substituted as claimant per CPR 19.4 (4)

 

 

Next Doc.

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANDREW JAMES PERKINS

 

 

I Andrew James Perkins, a solicitor of Messrs, Kearns Solicitors, 5 Trecenydd Business Park, Caerphilly CF83 2 RZ, make this witness Statement to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

 

1. I am a solicitor in the employ of Kearns Solicitors, instructed to act on behalf of the Applicant, Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited, I am duly authorised to make this statement and do

so in support of the Applicants application to be substituted as claimant and opposition of the defendants application to set aside judgement.

 

 

2. The sources of my information and belief are the written and computer records that have been provided to me, and are shown to me at relevant exhibits.

Therefore all hearsay – he has no proper knowledge of the case prior to assignment, nor knowledge of HFO’s behaviour in the case, nor the seriousness of their investigation by the OFT.

 

 

3. By way of the written assignment completed 1st December 2014 HFO Services Limited sold all rights to and in the subject account to Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited and written

notice of such was provided to the defendant 8th December 2014. A copy of the Notice of Assignment is now produced and shown to me marked ''AJP-1''.

Not received – did HFO know you had moved? Did they have a correct address? Would just be more evidence of admin failure, though.

 

4. Further to receipt of the Defendants application to set judgement aside and notice of hearing via HFO SERVICES Limited, a copy of which is now produced and shown to be marked

''AJP-2'' complete with the appended copy e-mails that the defendant relies on.

 

 

5.It is of note that within the E-Mail trail that the defendant relies upon there is confirmation that HFO Services limited had sold the account, though the correspondent has mistakenly

identified the servicing agent as the assignee.

No, I did not – there was no mistake. HFO Capital clearly masqueraded as the claimant and judgment debtor. At no point did they make clear they were not the creditor. This is wrong. I was deceived – even HFO Capital thought they owned it.

 

 

6. Having received the defendants application and noting an apparent change in the address back to the original charge address Asset Link Capital ( No. 5 ) Limited's appointed agent,

Link Financial Outsourcing Limited, wrote to the defendant providing further notice of the assignment and inviting the defendant to consider settlement of the account.

 

 

7. The Defendant was further advised that failing a settlement agreement, an application would be made to substitute Asset Link Capital ( No. 5 ) limited as claimant in the application

and his application would be opposed. There is now produced and shown to me marked ''AJP-3'' a copy of Link Financial Outsourcing Limited's correspondence to the defendant

dated 13th May 2015.

 

 

8. For the purpose of Asset Link Capital ( No.5 ) Limited's application to be substituted as claimant it is clear that such is desirable and fully compliant with CPR 19 by which it should be

granted namely:- (a) The Claimant consents to being substituted as Claimant

(b) The existing party's ( HFO Services Limited ) interest or liability has passed to the new part ( Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited: and

© it is desirable to substitute the new party so that the court can resolve the matters in dispute in the proceedings

( the Defendant's Application to set Judgement aside )

Again, the claimant has no provable standing in the matter, as HFO Services had no standing. I quote the HFO v Burney case (take a copy). A

 

 

9. As regard the defendants application to set judgement aside, the applicants belief is that such is so procedurally flawed as to be doomed to failure in that such it lacks any valid

grounds and is so far outside of time as to lack all reasonableness as set out and addressed below.

State that you are legally non-versed as a litigant in person, that you were misled by HFO regarding the true legal situation, and that as a litigant in person who only relatively recently found out about the CO and CCJ you respectfully request the court’s indulgence for your legal failings.

 

Also point out that if Link is so sure of the basis of the original claim – which it cannot be – it should be prepared to see the facts of the matter properly addressed and tested in court if necessary. If the evidence you have asked for and have always been denied shows payment is properly due, then you will meet that obligation.

 

 

10. That the claimant no longer exists as a trading entity

???

 

11. Not withstanding the fact that HFO Services Limited assigned away all of its beneficial interest in the defendants account to the applicant, such that the defendant now owes the

judgement debt to Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) limited, a party's liability to a company does not cease if that company ceases to trade.

True, of course.

 

12. That requests the proof of the original contract subsequent to the judgement have never been provided

 

 

13. Judgement was entered on the 4th July 2008 and the time for challenging the same has long since passed, indeed a final charging order was obtained 29th September 2008.

This is misleading. An application can be brought a significant time after a judgment, depending on the circumstances. Also, make clear that your spouse received no notification about a CO. It‘s not something you’d miss.

 

 

14. Further the '' requests '' alluded to by the defendant are neither particularised or evidenced, the only reference to a request made by the defendant are to ''SAR requests'' made to

HFO CAPITAL and HFO SERVICES Limited on some unspecified date.

This is irrelevant. The SAR requests were properly made. Link is not denying they were made. I do not understand the point Link is trying to make here.

 

 

15. The purpose of the SAR requests under the data protection act 1998 are not for proof of contract, indeed within the e-mails relied upon at no pint is proof of contract requested,

merely all information held relevant to the data subject ( the defendant )

That they are not proof of contract is irrelevant. You do not deny having an account, but you were entitled to know what was claimed in the CCJ was properly due, that the account was enforceable, and that for example interest had not been charged where it was not allowed. State that you have also made a CCA request to Barclaycard to get the original contract.

 

 

16. Any non compliance with an alleged SAR request to HFO Services Limited, or its associated companies is irrelevant to the claim for breach of contract and thus generates no defence

to the claim. Indeed such is a matter for the information Commissioner's office, should the defendant wish to take it up with them, though it is reasonable for documentation to be

disposed of some 7 years since enforcement of a county court judgement.

It generates a defence in that I have been denied information that must be given to me on request by law. For example, I cannot be sure I received a valid default notice to allow court action. This is not a de minimise issue. In any event, I am not fully claiming a defence yet as I cannot know what was claimed without being provided with the information legally due which I have attempted to source.

 

17. Finally on the point, it is clear from the defendants e-mail to HFO dated 23rd December 2014 at 13.12hrs that the debt is admitted and a settlement offer was made in the sum of

£2,000.00.

I only admitted that there was a judgment and CO against me. Any offer was made due to pressure from my wife and her need to sell, the overbearing circumstances and the threats made by HFO. I have never admitted owing the judgment amount, as I do not know how it was arrived at. It is only since seeking advice of a legal nature and researching that I have been able to try and discover what happened, and I was naturally daunted by threats of a forced sale made by a company that may not have even had entitlement to any monies due.

18. CHRONOLOGY of EVENTS ALLEGED

 

 

19. The defendant alleges to have received in response to his , alleged SAR requests, that he received a 2 line response stating that the debt had been sold. Not withstanding this

further confirmation of the assignment, the chronology of the e-mail trail does appear to set out a different chronology of events as follows :-

 

 

(a) 2nd December 2014 @ 17.40hrs. HFO CAPITAL Limited offer the defendant a reduced settlement figure.

(b) 23rd December 2014 @ 13.12hrs. The defendant responds by way of a counter offer proposing a payment of £2,000.00 in full and final settlement subject to updating his credit

file to reflect the debt as satisfied and the removal of any entries upon the land registry.

© 23rd December 2014 @ 13.16hrs. HFO Capital Limited respond to the defendant to confirm that the debt had been sold and provide a contact telephone number for Link

Financial Outsourcing Limited, the agent appointed by Asset Link Capital ( No 5 ) Limited to administer accounts and payments upon it's behalf.

(d) 23rd December 2014 @ 14.34hrs. defendant responds to HFO CAPITAL claiming to have sent SAR requests and advising that HFO are legally obliged to comply regardless of the

sale of the account. WHICH IS CORRECT – THEY REMAIN OBLIGED, EVEN IF NON-TRADING.

(e) 8th January 2015 @ 9.30hrs. Defendant chases HFO for a reply to his alleged SAR requests and threatens the application now before the court in default of compliance.

 

 

20. It is clear from the e-mails that the defendant first mentions the alleged SAR requests after having made a counter offer to settle this outstanding liability and after receiving

notification of the sale of the account and not that he received the confirmation that the account had been sold by way of reply.

So what? It was not the sale that forced my actions, just the fact that I had made further enquiries into what I could do about this.

 

21. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

 

 

In bundle of attachments is a letter from Asset Link Capital dated 8th December 2014, it is addressed to a rented accommodation I was living in but had vacated out on 31st November 2014. The letter confirms that HFO SERVICES Limited have sold the account to Asset Link Capital (No 5 ) Limited. this is exhibit ''AJP-1''

 

Did HFO know you had moved? If so, they gave Link a duff address. More evidence of administrative incompetence.

 

 

All other documents are as per previous attachments earlier in this thread.

 

 

Barclaycard have responded today, they have confirmed that the debt was sold to HFO CAPITAL LIMITED HIGHLAND HOUSE, 165 BROADWAY, WIMBLEDON, SW19 1NE

 

Great. The surprise I mentioned! This was HFO Capital Ltd (Cayman Islands), not HDO Capital Ireland.

 

They have confirmed that debt was sold on : 9th January 2007

Which is eight months before HFO Capital Ireland existed.

 

 

I have asked them to confirm the exact details to me by email. if this information is correct would this not mean that the debt was not HFO SERVICES LTD in the first instance & certainly not theirs to sell in the 2nd instance??

 

It’s a reasonable assumption if you have not been made aware of any reassignments in between.

 

Hope the above helps, have made some notes of my own but will wait to see what you think is the best way to form the skeleton argument.

 

 

Again thank you so much for your help.

 

:)


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Donkey B,

 

firstly thanks for all your help very much appreciated, got some answers against your points + some new info;

 

Answers 1st.

 

1. It was Ankur of HFO Capital that told me that HFO Services Ltd had ceased trading.

 

2. No joy with Barclaycard so far, have another number to call tomorrow but not holding out much hope as they are very unhelpful.

 

3. Not a lot I can say other than 1st I knew about the CCJ or CO was in 2012 after the filing for divorce was bounced back by the court.

Failure to act again through ignorance because i believed that HFO & TR's failure to respond to my SAR request would work in my favour.

 

4. Have received paperwork today from KEARNS SOLICITORS acting on behalf of ASSET LINK CAPITAL (No.5) Limited,

they state that HFO SERVICES LTD sold the debt to them on 1st December 2014,

 

 

I have an email from HFO CAPITAL Limited dated 2nd December 2014 offering a reduced settlement figure

& confirming the HFO CAPITAL Ltd would undertake to remove the CO with the LR

& also undertake to contact all relevant Credit Ref Agencies.

 

 

Don't see how HFO Services can sell the debt on 1st December to Link & HFO CApital chase payment on 2nd December.

 

HFO CAPITAL Ltd only confirm on 23rd December 2015 that debt has been sold to LINK and say that HFO CAPITAL LTD

have sold the debt not HFO SERVICES as detailed in the KEARNS Solicitors Paperwork.

If you have this, take it to court and put it in your statement. It is proof that HFO Capital believed they owned the account and that therefore HFO Services did not own it, so the assignment to Link was invalid and Link has no standing.

 

5. I stopped living at the marital home on 30th March 2006, my ex wife & children continued to live there,

my post was passed to me via my children when I collected them for visits,

I never received any default notice from BC or paperwork relating to CCJ or CO hearing.

Can you give us some background to the account? When defaulted, how much, etc. It’s likely that HFO added loads of interest they weren’t entitled to. You can sk Barclaycard for the default balance and date, and sold balance.

 

My Ex-Wife confirms that she never received any paperwork either in relation to the CCJ or CO hearings,

as our split was less than amicable she would have undoubtedly used anything like this to get at me especially as it involved her,

should she not have received paperwork as a co-owner?

Yes, correct, I believe.

 

6. The CO is listed as restrictive on the Land Registry report.

In which case a half-decent solicitor should be able to sell it without a problem – if it’s form K the creditor would be told, though, and probably have a chance to oppose the sale by injunction.

 

7. Link have applied to be substituted as claimant

 

8.They Mention CPR19 in their documentation.

 

Only having received their paperwork today it leaves little time to obtain a copy of the assignment from HFO SERVICES

to LINK or the Copy of the Sales Agreement.

 

No assignment of debt ever received from HFO Services or HFO Capital, no documentation obtained before 2012 when Land Registry Document obtained.

 

I have looked at ASSET LINK CAPITAL (No 5 ) Limited and they appear to be a DORMANT company,

as a dormant company are should they be collecting or attempting to collect monies?

 

Additionally they are applying for costs of £120.00 for the hearing on Friday, can I counter claim for costs in the event that I am successful?

Yes, but you should have got them in today. Do a list anyway. Time at £18 an hour plus expenses, on the basis that they have no standing in opposing the application as they have no title to the account, and cost of the application. Long shot.

 

I really do appreciate all your help & apologise that I cannot upload the documents as received from KEARNS SOLICITORS today

but I am in hospital due to have an operation at 7am tomorrow so have no access to a scanner.

 

Any help or advice you can give would be really appreciated.

 

Looking for proof of HFO’s deceptive assignment letters for you.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey B,

 

 

Thanks for all the help.

 

 

few questions & answers.

 

 

1st paragraph you suggest I PM Andy & Co what does PM mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

private message

however you'll need 30 posts.

 

 

so not yet

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry also meant to say that No Original Documents received by me,

 

 

I have asked my ex-wife who also says that she does not recall ever receiving any documents,

 

 

she is also confident that had she of received such documents she would definitely of made sure I knew about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey answers;

 

 

5. info obtained from Barclaycard: Default Registered on 31st May 2006 / Closing balance as at 8th March 2006 £2404.28 / debt sold to HFO CAPITAL LTD on 9th January 2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go.

 

Here’s an example from 2011 of HFO misleading people regarding what will happen if court action is taken. Note the document says what WILL happen, not what could happen. It is seriously misleading as uses threats that bailiffs WILL visit to frighten people.

 

hfoballif-courtletterclean12-5-11-1.jpeg

 

 

 

Next, here’s the ‘impossible’ document that HFO put into a court case I helped defend successfully in December 2010. This purports to be a notice of assignment sent by Barclays (but which would have been sent by HFO anyway, or Turnbull Rutherford) to the defendant as proof that the debt had been assigned and that he had been informed. It was sworn as a true document.

 

It cannot be the case. Barclaycard could not have assigned the debt directly to HFO Ireland because at that time, it did not exist! It was only incorporated in September 2007, with a different name.

 

This was a clear attempt to mislead the court as to the ownership of an account. The judge told them to do one.

 

tony%20hfo%20023.jpg

 

 

Print these out together with the Burney case, as evidence that (i) HFO have a history of misleading debtors as to the true legal situation, and (ii) they not only don’t know who owns half of their accounts, but have provably attempted to hoodwink the courts with false documents regarding assignments.

 

Also google HFO and look for nasty cases. Tony Hetherington has a good one.

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1179871/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Hurl-brick-window-advises-solicitor.html

 

It’s a bit of a mud slinging exercise, but they have form. That’s why the OFT got involved. In these circumstances, I can’t see how the judge could allow Link to be substituted as claimant, and as the true owner is not contesting, you might just pull off a miracle. Really depends on the judge and how clearly you rally your arguments. Don’t deny you may owe a debt – just say that for circumstances beyond your control, the facts are untested and may be defendable.

Edited by DonkeyB
Mistake – logo was correct.

“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Donkey answers;

 

 

5. info obtained from Barclaycard: Default Registered on 31st May 2006 / Closing balance as at 8th March 2006 £2404.28 / debt sold to HFO CAPITAL LTD on 9th January 2007

 

Excellent. That false document refers to a case from around the same time. It proves they did not always send out Notices of Assignment in all cases, and only made them up when they needed to – and often got them wrong. It’s not an admin error, it’s deception.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry also meant to say that No Original Documents received by me, I have asked my ex-wife who also says that she does not recall ever receiving any documents, she is also confident that had she of received such documents she would definitely of made sure I knew about it.

 

Tell the court you’ll get her to swear an affidavit as such if required.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you remind me – is this being heard at Guildford? Is that your home area? Guildford has a circuit judge facility so tends to cover a wide area for COs etc.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey B ,

 

 

yes case is being held at Guildford at 10am.

 

 

Have just finished my witness statement will forward to you to scan wouldn't mind your feedback.

 

 

Again thanks for all of your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bum. I’m local-ish but out tomorrow morning. Would have been good to attend as a Mackenzie friend. Guildford is where I stuffed the b*****s.

 

Stick to the facts and keep repeating why you did not respond to the claim.

 

Highlight HFO’s documented unfair treatment and misleading practices, also highlighted by the OFT, and show the evidence. Make sure the judge understands that HFO provably have problems with the truth of their assignments.

 

Stress your status as a non-legally trained LiP, and beg some latitude from the judge.

 

You will be allowed to cross-examine their rep. Have some Qs ready around the issues we have highlighted. Ask, for example, how they know HFO Services had title to the account – did they do due diligence to check this, given their established poor reputation and OFT investigation? That’s a tough question to answer – like asking someone why they did business with the Krays. There isn’t a good answer.

 

Also ask the judge directly – and in your WS – to strike out their application to be substituted as claimant until they prove title. A notice of assignment is not enough – ask the judge to order production of the deed of assignment, and the chain of assignment and documentation. I know they’ll struggle.

 

If you succeed in that, then there’s an outside chance you’ll get (a) a win, or (b) an adjournment for them to prove their case.

 

Ask the judge about costs – say you have told Link that you have been disadvantaged by HFO’s failure to comply with the SARs, yet they have ploughed on regardless of your rights. As an LiP, this is unfair on you, as you are prepared to pay any money provably owed, but demand the right of scrutiny.

 

Take three copies of everything – one for you, one for the judge and one for them. Apologise for serving on the day, but say you only got Link’s stuff today, which is also unfair given how long they’ve had. If the judge won’t admit your pleadings, ask that Link’s pleadings also be barred. Just be a pain in points of fairness, but always be polite and reasonable.

 

One killer Q has to be this: if the HFO charging order was so watertight and their case so clear cut, why on earth would they want to sell for pennies in the pound an account that is guaranteed to deliver? Why are link afraid of the facts – which they can’t know – being examined?

 

I’ll look, if I can, at anything else you post. Hopefully one or two others can chip in.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey B,

 

 

please find attached my witness statement, not sure if its any good would welcome your feed back.

 

 

Once again thank you for all of your help irrespective of the outcome tomorrow I am very grateful to you and will be making a donation to the site.

 

 

Shame you aren't around in the morning would have been great if you had been able to get there.

 

 

I will look out for further comments in the morning.

 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I have that, but maybe get your personal details off all your posts! Not that I think you’re bothered...

 

There’s a few minor niggles, but nothing that changes the tenor. It’s better you spend time learning it and preparing your questions and presentation of your points, rather than nitpicking the copy.

 

As I’ve said repeatedly, this is a long shot. It’s unfortunate that nobody has come back to help on the 7-year wait to reassign, but hey-ho, can’t have everything...

 

Good luck. Golden rule is to tell the truth, however painful, and to stress your evidence that questions the assignment and who actually owns the account, plus your denial of the information needed to avoid this action.

 

Let us know how it goes. Back online 7am is if you need owt else.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS This can be done. A Cagger named broken arrow did it after a hell of a time, because the evidence re wrong assignment was strong. It’s long, but it’s an excellent primer.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?144119-HFO-court-claim-**WON**

 

At post #510, he wins... this will give you lots of clues as to what HFO are like and about. Link were utterly stupid and unprofessional ever to do business with such a bunch of undesirables.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Donkey B well here at the court paperwork submitted to the Usher so wish me luck.

 

 

Thanks for all your help, wont say im not daunted by the prospect but will give it my best shot.

 

 

will let you know how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck.

 

One last thing — if the judge adjourns for documents such as proof of assignment, ask for at least two months due to the unprofessional admin of HFO.


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go naill them

Esp link

 

Dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure judge lottery, plus a very thin chance. I saw a judge once who hated the debt industry – very sympathetic to people in trouble or against claimants making things up, and made the b*****s work for it. He was on that Surrey circuit... *Letts* hope it’s him...


“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little late but.......

 

With regards to the Judgment........Enforcement action can be instructed for up to 6 years from the date a judgment became enforceable. The Judgment Creditor are able to continue trying to enforce for longer than the 6 years from date of judgment but they cannot start the first enforcement action past this date. Court permission is required to enforce a judgment debt that is more than 6 years old. Warrants of Control from the county court and Writs of Control from the High Court must be renewed after 12 months if they have not been enforced.

 

With regards to the substituting of parties..... Substitution of a party after the expiration of the limitation date

 

The legislation places restrictions on amendments to an issued claim after the limitation period has expired. One of these restrictions concerns the substitution of one party for another.The relevant rules provide that, where it is not possible to properly continue the action without substituting or adding a party, then such substitution or addition may be allowed.

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...