Hfo CCJ/CO now sold to LInk

[DonkeyB]

he is having a laugh... he’s tried this in court before, but at the time Rox was called HFO, HFO was a DORMANT company! So no go there... oh dear...

[DonkeyB]

He has made a noose for himself. Time to invoke the fact that you were not informed of any assignment from HFO Cayman to HFO Ireland, and that the assignment to HFO Ireland was illegal and therefore void.

[riolto10]

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n604/riolto/scan0037.jpg

[riolto10]

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n604/riolto/scan0039.jpg

 

envolope looks second clkass to me and would not have got it only for the post

[riolto10]

agreement most of it is blanked out except for last page

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n604/riolto/scan0038.jpg

[riolto10]

any comments on barclaycard letter and what is my next step oh and thanks everyone for everything

[DonkeyB]

This is so easy. Here’s the record from Companies House showing that HFO Services was DORMANT until the end of 2005. Accounts for a dormant company were posted on 27/6/2006 for the year ended 31/12/2005.

 

When the name change took place, the company was dormant, so could have had absolutely NO RELATIONSHIP WITH BARCLAYCARD. Mr Shah is ill informed and thereby is telling an untruth.

 

HFO claim assignment was 27 November 2005, so there could have been no confusion by Barclays as a result of this. HFO Services Ltd was NOT TRADING AT THE TIME. Moreover, the company was known as Roxburghe for a mere fortnight, over a year before the supposed transaction.

 

[riolto10]

This is so easy. Here’s the record from Companies House showing that HFO Services was DORMANT until the end of 2005. Accounts for a dormant company were posted on 27/6/2006 for the year ended 31/12/2005.

 

When the name change took place, the company was dormant, so could have had absolutely NO RELATIONSHIP WITH BARCLAYCARD. Mr Shah is ill informed and thereby is telling an untruth.

 

HFO claim assignment was 27 November 2005, so there could have been no confusion by Barclays as a result of this. HFO Services Ltd was NOT TRADING AT THE TIME. Moreover, the company was known as Roxburghe for a mere fortnight, over a year before the supposed transaction.

 

 

need to write all this down and get it right thanks again and keep it coming if any of the caggers have anymore in put it would be a great help

[DonkeyB]

The agreement CP2 is unequivocal – it states ALL current and future accounts in their ENTIRE portfolio. The agreement of 15 Jan 2010 cannot be retrospective.

[DonkeyB]

You are going to have to spell his out for the judge.

[DonkeyB]

Hello guests!

[riolto10]

You are going to have to spell his out for the judge.

Donkey could i ask a big favour of you could you if you have the time summorise all this for me like broken arrow did I know its a lot but it will help me put my case and explain it better to the judge cant thank you enough

[DonkeyB]

I am starting to believe that TR’s WS is bordering on contempt of court.

[riolto10]

I am starting to believe that TR’s WS is bordering on contempt of court.

 

was out at the time got a call that there was a letter from them thought what are they up too could not believe it myself when I read w/s

[DonkeyB]

riolto, check your PMs/mail urgently.

[vjohn82]

DB's on the right lines with this one. Shah has been pointed to this error before... by me funnily enough. And I have the evidence to prove it.

 

They are making a proper rod for their own back with this one.

[riolto10]

riolto, check your PMs/mail urgently.

pm you back thanks

[DonkeyB]

Also, all of their assignments – by their own admission – are ineffective! That is fatal to their claim.

 

VJ, you posted this a while back – where‘s it from?

 

"The assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor"

 

Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1, [1942] 1 All ER 404; Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476, [1973] 1 WLR 757 (affd [1974] 1 All ER 161, [1974] 1 WLR 155, CA)

 

This makes a mockery of HFO being able to charge interest from the date of assignment when in fact the alleged debtor might only have been aware of the assignment much later on.

[riolto10]

DB's on the right lines with this one. Shah has been pointed to this error before... by me funnily enough. And I have the evidence to prove it.

 

They are making a proper rod for their own back with this one.

need it get it down in order so as the judge will understand any help is appreciated

[DonkeyB]

I shall also ensure you have unredacted copies of their agreements. That’ll stuff ’em.

[pt2537]

sorry but para 4 of that statement is nonsense

 

Barclaycard confirmed that the current owner was HFO Ireland?

 

How the hell did they do that if they sold it to Caymen?

 

 

lordy lordy, thats just bonkers

[riolto10]

I shall also ensure you have unredacted copies of their agreements. That’ll stuff ’em.

 

have sent you that document could you let me know if you recieve it if not I will try again

[DonkeyB]

Sounds like a notice for a future assignment to me, PT! The Barclaycard NoA from 2005 (!) stated it was sold to Ireland!

 

The issues with Roxburghe/HFO Services confusion are embarrassing for them.

 

• Your account was sold on 16 Nov 05 to Roxburghe (27 Nov to HFO Cayman, according to HFO)

• At this time, HFO Services was a dormant company (proven)

• The NoA from Barclaycard – produced by HFO – claims the account was sold on 27 Nov 05 to HFO Ireland, and you had to deal with HFO Services.

• HFO Ireland did not exist on 27 Nov 05, and HFO Services was not operational.

• HFO are claiming interest from assignment, so want to rely on the assignment document from November 2005.

• The assignment is fatally flawed and is therefore invalid.

• Even if they had sent an NoA at the time claiming assignment to HFO Cayman, they did not inform you of the subsequent reassignment to HFO Ireland. Therefore the PoC if false and the claim fails.

 

Are you following this?

 

PT, how do we try and push for clear contempt with this?

[riolto10]

Are you following this?

 

take it you mean them ?

[pt2537]

Sounds like a notice for a future assignment to me, PT! The Barclaycard NoA from 2005 (!) stated it was sold to Ireland!

 

The issues with Roxburghe/HFO Services confusion are embarrassing for them.

 

• Your account was sold on 16 Nov 05 to Roxburghe (27 Nov to HFO Cayman, according to HFO)

• At this time, HFO Services was a dormant company (proven)

• The NoA from Barclaycard – produced by HFO – claims the account was sold on 27 Nov 05 to HFO Ireland, and you had to deal with HFO Services.

• HFO Ireland did not exist on 27 Nov 05, and HFO Services was not operational.

• HFO are claiming interest from assignment, so want to rely on the assignment document from November 2005.

• The assignment is fatally flawed and is therefore invalid.

• Even if they had sent an NoA at the time claiming assignment to HFO Cayman, they did not inform you of the subsequent reassignment to HFO Ireland. Therefore the PoC if false and the claim fails.

 

Are you following this?

 

 

Now then

 

• The NoA from Barclaycard – produced by HFO – claims the account was sold on 27 Nov 05 to HFO Ireland, and you had to deal with HFO Services.

 

This is the part that ruins them, you see Ireland didnt exsist at that time nor did it hold a CCA licence thus commits an offence pursuant to s39 CCA 1974

 

I cant see how this can get off the ground if submissions are made to the Court on these points as applying logic to this, it is clear that the Claimant lacks standing in the matter.