Hfo CCJ/CO now sold to LInk

[DonkeyB]

I’m doing my best. A lot of it is over my head, but the clear point seems to be to show that the claimant’s evidence does not show proof – exactly the opposite, in fact!

[pt2537]

No, you need to show that the Defendant has a prospect of success no matter how remote, at trial of winning the case to defeat a summary judgment application.

 

you dont need to show that you will win, but that you MAY win,

 

So id focus as well on the substantive points that may win the day for you at trial, i think that the section 78 point is a triable issue, for example, was the agreement dead or alive, was the default notice compliant? if it wasnt then its a bad notice and therefore the agreement cannot be terminated and thus the s78 request is valid and the reply is not valid as the document is not easily legible for starters and i have enough case law to show this point on its own can succeed at trial.

 

As well, the judge should not allow the matter to become a mini trial,

 

 

just some more pointers

 

Do we have a skeleton argument? Swain and Hillman is a useful case on summary judgment too and its citied in the blackstones reference

 

Also

 

consider the Defence that has been entered, does it need amending? is that the reason why they applied for SJ

 

If it does need amendment due to errors or weaknesses which have become apparent then this may assist

 

Amendment

34.21 There are many cases where the defective nature of one side’s statement of case becomes clear

at the hearing of an application for summary judgment. If the defect is one of how the case is

put rather than of substance, the court has a wide power to allow an amendment to correct

the problem, which can be exercised at the hearing (Stewart v Engel [2000] 1 WLR 2268).

[broken arrow]

To clarify the situation

• HFO Capital made a claim
  
• Riolto submitted a defence
  
• HFO Capital made an application to strike out the defence
  
• Riolto submitted a WS in response to their WS
  
• HFO Capital have responded to Rioltos WS with a supplementary WS
  

 

So where are we at-

 

• HFO Capital (Ireland) started court proceedings
  
• You defended the claim
  
• They have applied to strike out your defence
  
• Their evidence includes a NoA, to prove the account was sold to HFO Capital (Ireland)
  
• You have contacted the OC, who have informed you in writing it was sold to Roxburghe
  
• Your letter is proof that HFO Capital (Ireland) have no legal standing in the matter
  
• They claim in their WS the NoA came from Barclaycard under a statement of thruth
  
• You have contacted Barclaycard who deny this
  
• You have evidence the NoA must have come from them
  
• Furthermore the NoA is defective even if the claimant is HFO Capital (Ireland), as the date of assignment is incorrect
  
• The NoA states the account was sold to HFO Capital (Ireland) 2 years before the company existed
  
• The WS contradicts this, stating the account was sold to HFO Capital (Cayman) a legally separate company
  
• Their WS states your account was then transferred under an Intra group agreement to HFO Capital (Ireland) in 2008
  
• This would be impossible, because HFO Capital (Cayman) had an agreement with HFO Services to assign, all existing and future debts to HFO Services, therefore HFO Capital could not have transferred your account to HFO Capital (Ireland) as it would have already been transferred to HFO Services
  

 

Summary of the situation up to Riolto submitting his WS.

[pt2537]

To clarify the situation

 

• HFO Capital made a claim
  
• Riolto submitted a defence
  
• HFO capital made an application to strike out the defence
  
• Riolto submitted a WS in response to their WS
  
• HFO Capital have responded to Rioltos WS with a supplementary WS
  

 

Well i think it takes the pee a little with their late submission of docs and statements etc,

 

But the judge does have the powers to allow them to be admitted in to evidence, this is the trouble

[riolto10]

Having read pt2537 comments I think I just need to prove to the judge its not a mini trial and I have good evidence to think that I may win at trial I have printed off his comments on Stewart v engel and swaine v hillman and I think there is good prospect of sucess

[broken arrow]

The Roxburghe/HFO Capital issue alone is triable, but there is so much more.

[riolto10]

The Roxburghe/HFO Capital issue alone is triable, but there is so much more.

its all good info and proves there is a case for me to win i hope now it goes well tomorrow and thank you all for your help without you I would not have got this far

[dadofholly]

its all good info and prove there is a case for me to win i hope now it goes well tomorrow and thank you all for your help without you I would not have got this far

 

Was going to say good luck - but dont think you will need it.

 

Have read that shower of s*@/e they call a WS - you MUST raise the "iffy" issues with the OFT after tomorrow is out of the way.

[riolto10]

Was going to say good luck - but dont think you will need it.

 

Have read that shower of s*@/e they call a WS - you MUST raise the "iffy" issues with the OFT after tomorrow is out of the way.

with all you help I think I can now go to something I would have never dared to a few years ago when my wife died I am off to bed soon but will check up on this site in the morning hope you all have a good night

[coledog]

HFO sol will probably want to 'persuade' the judge that they want this dealt with here and now - they did this with tonyc, you need to concentrate on a few ' key points' that puts doubt in the judges mind. Make sure that you fully understand these.

 

It is a mind game, try and connect with the judge, smile and explain you are a LIP and believe strongly that their are problems with HFO's claim and you have grounds to defend this, insist that you need time to do this. Have you got a friend or anyone to go with you for moral support?

[dadofholly]

with all you help I think I can now go to something I would have never dared to a few years ago when my wife died I am off to bed soon but will check up on this site in the morning hope you all have a good night

 

You too - and keep us up dated as soon as you get any news.

[riolto10]

will do everything you say have not got anybody but will have the knowledge you are all behind me

[DonkeyB]

WS sent to Riolto – will post it up after the event, as some of the content is very sensitive and will be meaningless if redacted. Caggers will see the outcome and the method.

 

For some strange reason I’ve stopped getting notifications on this thread... weird!

[broken arrow]

Best of luck for today, hope you get a half decent Judge, the author of their WS,s should be ashamed, he knows the truth.

[the_shadow]

Good luck today.

 

S.

[AndyOrch]

Best of luck Riolto hope Donkeys WS does the job for you.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[DonkeyB]

A judge would have to be blind, drunk and incoherent* not to see through HFO on this one. But such things do happen, sadly.

 

(*Did I just describe the UK judiciary?)

[AndyOrch]

A judge would have to be blind, drunk and incoherent* not to see through HFO on this one. But such things do happen, sadly.

 

(*Did I just describe the UK judiciary?)

[riolto10]

Have rang barclaycard spoke to cliff who say carol williams does not take calls asked him three times who it was sold to and he said rox told him what was said in carols letter he said hfo capital rox the same company until I explained it to him , his reply was I did not know that and he wished me good luck, just going over things before leaving

 

thanks all for the good wishes

[broken arrow]

claims form:

 

Claimant

hfo capital limited

riverside two

sir john rogerson:s quay

dublin 2

ireland

 

defendant

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

brief details of claim

monies owed by the defendant to the claimant pursuant to an interest bearing credit agreement whitch is regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 between the defendant and barclaycard (the orginal lender )the debt due thereunder having been assigned to the claimant

 

value

xxxxxxx

 

poc

[DonkeyB]

But this looks as though it’s the front, basic bit –*there should be more inside.

[broken arrow]

Have rang barclaycard spoke to cliff who say carol williams does not take calls asked him three times who it was sold to and he said rox told him what was said in carols letter he said hfo capital rox the same company until I explained it to him , his reply was I did not know that and he wished me good luck, just going over things before leaving

Same group, different company, run by same ****........

 

I will email you a few more bits.

[DonkeyB]

Have rang barclaycard spoke to cliff who say carol williams does not take calls asked him three times who it was sold to and he said rox told him what was said in carols letter he said hfo capital rox the same company until I explained it to him , his reply was I did not know that and he wished me good luck, just going over things before leaving

 

Be prepared to tell the judge that in court!

[broken arrow]

Be prepared to tell the judge that in court!

 

You could print off your post.

[DonkeyB]

Last minute skelly sent.

Edited February 17, 2011 by DonkeyB