HFC-No Agreement? - Amended defence help please **WON**

[conar686]

M arlins have got back on the trail and I've fobbed them off again as HFC has not supplied a corresponding LoA.

 

They are bleating as its costing them money to get their wedge from Restons whom I pay the CCJ to.

 

I've sent them a SAR, complained to my TS as they want me to call 0870 numbers.

 

Got an 'if you don't pay us we'll' go back to the courts and make you pay us direct letter' which is what I've asked them to do so I can have a bash at getting the thing set aside.

 

I've posted them the attached so lets see what occurs

 

31 Jan 09

I do not acknowledge any debt to your organisation

 

Sir/Madam

Thank you for you ‘unsigned’ letter dated 28 Jan 09 the contents of which are noted. I am unable to comply with your request for the following reasons

a. I have sent you a Subject Access Request dated 27 Jan 09, requesting all data on all systems the deadline for which is 12 Mar 09, until you comply fully we are in dispute. Please confirm that you have received this request by return.

b. You state that Marlin own the account yet despite repeated requests HFC has failed to provide me with their letter of assignment, I therefore refute your claim.

c. I am in dispute with HFC as they have not complied with my Consumer Credit Act request for a copy of the executable copy of my agreement.

d. I would welcome a return to court as it will give me the opportunity to have the CCJ set aside as the Consumer Credit Agreement sent is illegible and does not contain the prescribed terms and I was never sent a default notice.

e. This matter is the subject of a Financial Ombudsman Service complaint reference xxxxxxxxxxxx

Given that this matter may be subject to legal proceeding, I will be expecting, with any letter before action, for you to provide, under the Civil Procedures Rules, to ensure that all parties are on an equal footing, all the information you will rely on in court therefore avoiding an unnecessary burden to the court's resources.

Should you decide to return to court, I will expect notice of 1 month, as to the date, time and place to enable me to prepare my case in rebuttal?

With respect to your statement regarding the potential of a visit from a representative of your organisation, OFT rules and regulations clearly state that you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).

Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives, to visit me at my property and if you persist in sending "doorstep callers" to my home, you will be reported for harassment and be liable for damages for a tort of trespass.

You would also be liable for conspiring in a tort of trespass by acting in defiance of my instructions and sending someone to visit me nevertheless. Should it be necessary, I will obtain an injunction.

It should be no surprise for me to inform you that I am fully aware of my consumer rights in this matter and I expect your behaviour in this matter to be in line with the Office of Fair Trading guidance on debt management a failure to do so will result in a complaint to my local Trading Standards (TS).

I might add, that should you consider legal action in this matter, I am more than capable of defending such a claim and more so to making a counterclaim as I consider this case vexatious. Should a successful Counterclaim Judgment be entered you would be subject to additional costs.

I will not reply to unsigned letters in the future, sending more will result in a complaint to my Trading Standards. I require all future dealings in writing to this end you may use the email addr above to facilitate ease of communication.

In closing, I suggest that you l request HFC to comply with my requests for data, look at the agreement yourselves assess the risk and then send the account back to HFC where it rightfully belongs.

 

 

Yours Faithfully

[andyr666]

Subscibing...very helpful information

[angel_1]

subbing and wishing you lots of luck

 

hope to learn something new from your thread laters angel x

[tedney]

subbing, lots of luck robcag, I have similar issues with OC.

[RonnieRightHook]

This is an absolutely fascinating thread and it's been a pleasure to spend a couple of hours reading through it - all the best in your battles ahead. Subbed up.

 

RonnieRightHook

[Marino13]

great thread, providing a lot of helpful advice, thanks to all posters....

[joneseyblod]

Subscribing very helpful and useful info

[louloujs]

Subbing because I'm at war with Restons.

[robcag]

Hi All

 

Just thought I'd update this thread as there were several posts in the last few pages asking if there was anything else to report.

 

 

One point which may be of interest to people who have been contacted by Marlin (with an alleged NoA) is the fact that having checked my Credit Report, the 2 HFC accounts are still being updated by HFC as 'Default' (up to and including Aug 2008 ), there is nothing as yet from Marlin/Phoenix.

 

 

On that score the latest is that after me refusing to cooperate with the Marlin monkeys by not answering their security questions when they telephoned me several times in the early months of this year, they finally got fed up and one of the chimps said something like " ... well we know what to do then, we'll take the next step. ..."

 

I don't know which of my accounts he was referring to, or what he meant, but around that time Marlin started reporting both the accounts as being in default at the CRAs, which are also still being updated by HFC, so a bit naughty of one or both of them!

 

To be dealt with at a time of my convenience, hopefully with the result of financial compensation to me!

 

 

Apart from a letter from Mortimer Clarke (their trainee solicitors )at the end of Feb this year threatening me with a Statutory Demand for the alleged outstanding amount for the account which is the subject of this thread (the one 'discontinued' by HFC/Restons), it all seems to have gone quiet.

 

I didn't report the letter on this thread because I was hoping the SD would materialize as I was quite looking forward to giving them a slap and being awarded costs for doing so, a bit like having your cake and eating it I suppose!

 

However I have to report disappointment on that score as they were obviously bluffing.

 

Cheers

Rob

Edited August 13, 2009 by robcag
added 'not' (bolded)

[robcag]

Another small update;

 

I've recently received an Order from the Court (below) telling me that Phoenix have been substituted as Claimant in place of HFC. It seems this was some kind of 'mass' application by Phoenix as there were 10 claim numbers on the Order (2 of them mine), but I was completely unaware any application had been made.

 

Having phoned the court office this afternoon to inform them that this claim had been discontinued I was told the Order would be sent back to the Judge informing him/her of that fact to see whether the Order should be revoked, so I'm now awaiting notification of the result of that.

 

When I said I was prepared to make an application to set aside the Order I was told that it would not be necessary, so we'll wait and see on that angle!

 

I haven't the foggiest idea why Phoenix want to be substituted as Claimant as the OC (HFC) discontinued due to the dodgy DN, and the arguments at the court hearing (not full trial) which I attended didn't even proceed as far as arguing the unenforceable 'agreement'!

 

 

Order;

 

 

Cheers

Rob

[letitbeme]

Hi There, have you received a notice of assignment from HFC prior to this court order?

LIBM

[robcag]

Hi There, have you received a notice of assignment from HFC prior to this court order?

LIBM

 

Hi

 

That would be telling, if you get my drift!

 

Certainly nothing sent by Recorded Delivery as required by the Law of Property Act 1925

 

Cheers

Rob

[car2403]

Blimey. Thought this was dead and buried. Clearly not. Got your gloves ready, Rob?

[robcag]

Blimey. Thought this was dead and buried. Clearly not. Got your gloves ready, Rob?

 

Hi Chris

 

I don't think they'll go as far as trying to re-kindle this, after all they'd be a bit silly to do that wouldn't they!

 

I think it's probably a case of one of the inexperienced monkeys at Mortimer Clarke listing all their ex-HFC claim numbers that have already gone through my local court on one mass application to be substituted as Claimant without checking the status of each claim.

 

In my experience they do tend to muddle their bananas and coconuts up. I had a letter from MC several months ago saying that a Judgement had been obtained against me in Northampton County Court, quoting the claim number of the claim this thread is about (and quoting inaccurate amounts claimed)! They went on to make threats of further enforcement action on the strength of that imaginary 'Judgement', of which I can't remember the details of right now because the letter is in the middle of a large pile and I can't immediately find it. However, they were talking pure BS, and I remember at the time thinking "bring it on !"

 

But if they do want to have another go, I'm ready for them!

 

Cheers

Rob

Edited October 5, 2009 by robcag
added (in blue) [on the strength of that imaginary 'Judgement']

[letitbeme]

Oh Yes! That’s the one “Certainly nothing sent by Recorded Delivery as required by the Law of Property Act 1925”

LIBM

[SB100]

Rob, if you have a minute could you look at my Restons thread please?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/199150-sb100-hfc-default-compliant-10.html#post2479683

 

Cheers

[robcag]

Another small update;

 

Having phoned the court office this afternoon to inform them that this claim had been discontinued I was told the Order would be sent back to the Judge informing him/her of that fact to see whether the Order should be revoked, so I'm now awaiting notification of the result of that.

 

When I said I was prepared to make an application to set aside the Order I was told that it would not be necessary, so we'll wait and see on that angle!

 

I haven't the foggiest idea why Phoenix want to be substituted as Claimant as the OC (HFC) discontinued due to the dodgy DN, and the arguments at the court hearing (not full trial) which I attended didn't even proceed as far as arguing the unenforceable 'agreement'!

 

 

In the absence of a fax machine I've written a letter to the court referring to the phone conversation and asked for it to be added to the case file (for the record), and posted it Rec Del to the court.

 

I stated the claim should not be subject to the Order detailed in post #436 above for the reason that the claim was wholly discontinued by the OC (HFC) in June 2008, and that there could never be a valid reason to issue a fresh claim in the future because of the nature of the reason for discontinuance.

 

Cheers

Rob

[means2anend]

PHEW...

 

I have spent the last 9 hours reading this thread from beginning to end.Only came across this thread from a cross reference from another thread but it was like reading a suspense novel.

 

Check out the Channel 4 dispatches documentary on Marlins and their shoddy practices....i also am awaiting for a CCA agreement for past 3 months from Marlin/Cabot/Allied International UK/WestCot/Link/Lowells.All the same no appearance of a TRUE COPY of THE ORIGINAL EXECUTED SIGNED AGREEMENT.

 

Rgds Pt 2537 and Robcag

 

means2anend

[volvo]

subbing

[disgruntled2007]

sub

[vjohn82]

Sounds exciting... subbing

[Rhia]

Me too!

[blueotter]

good news,keep up teh good work people,i'm waiting for my hfc one to be re-assigned after restons showed no interest in pursuing it

[robcag]

Hi All

 

Well time for me to report the latest shenanigans from MC.

 

I still get periodic phone calls from MC (which I don't answer as I know their number - programmed into the phone), and the occasional begging letter trying to get me to make payments (which I totally ignore), but I've recently had a couple of slightly more interesting threats from them. There's usually a spate of phone calls with number witheld on the same day that MCs number shows up - purely coincidental of course!

 

A few weeks ago they wrote saying that they "... refer to the payment schedule previously agreed in respect of the above debt ..... however you have not made a payment since XX/XX/2008. Blah blah" Now I wonder what payment schedule that was?

As usual I filed it in the 'ignore' pile (which is quite large and scattered).

 

Next came a 'NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INSTRUCT AN AGENT TO MAKE A RECONNECT VISIT' telling me off for failing "... to make payments and address the matter outstanding." and further stating that if I failed to contact them within 7 days, an independant licensed agent will visit me at home to " ... reconnect us so we can discuss your account and repayment proposals."

Damn ... I must have missed him! It would have been a wasted visit anyway because they should have realised by now what my payment proposals are!

 

Then today I got an even funnier letter. Short and to the point.

Because I've upset them by not playing ball, they have " ... instructed Marston High Court Enforcement Officers and Certificated Bailiffs to act on our behalf ... ".

 

I hope they do actually turn up, it could get quite interesting, especially if the police need to attend! I could do with a new front door! I can't remember if they were the cowboys featured on a fairly recent TV documentary.

 

Cheers

Rob

[citizenB]

Hello robcag

 

Hmm, surely they cant send a bailiff for this type of account ? That is a threat that should be reported to the OFT! I think it was Rossendales and Marstons that were mentioned in the tv programme