HFO claimform - old Morgan Stanley Card Debt **WON**

[pt2537]

A number of their statements of truth are signed TR, which is not a real person, just the initials of Turnbull Rutherford, is this allowed?

If the statement of truth is defective then the party may not rely on the contents of the document without leave of the Court

[broken arrow]

Well folks, time to sign off for a few days to spend Christmas with the family, I would like to wish all CAGgers a Happy Christmas, especially my friends in the HFO fan club.

 

This time last year I had a CCJ and a Charging order, but with the help of some very good people turned it all around, so to others please never give in.

 

So I will back on the 29th and once again Happy Christmas

 

 

and finally as it is the time of the year to be charitable a Happy and healthy Christmas to those at HFO, Turnbull Rutherford and ROXBURGHE, look forward to continuing the fight in the new year.

 

Hope you had a happy Christmas all at HFO, now for a horrible new year:lol:

[DonkeyB]

Hope you had a happy Christmas all at HFO,

 

I don’t!

[broken arrow]

pt would it be possible for you to give your opinion on the agreement in post 70 of this thread,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?285107-HFO-Services-are-threatening-me-over-a-5-yr-old-debt/page4

 

it would be much easier if we could pm you, thank you in anticipation.

[pt2537]

in what respect?

 

is there any thing specific you want me to comment on?

 

and yes, the lack of PMs in frustrating, alas i fear Lord Lucan will be found before i get an answer as to why i cannot PM anymore

[broken arrow]

in what respect?

 

is there any thing specific you want me to comment on?

 

and yes, the lack of PMs in frustrating, alas i fear Lord Lucan will be found before i get an answer as to why i cannot PM anymore

 

would it be enforceable as the PPI has not been separated from the main loan.

[pt2537]

well i would first need to ask, if the PPI was truly optional ,just because its badged as such dont mean it is, there are a lot of issues to investigate.

 

IF the PPI was not optional then one could argue the credit is incorrect and a charge for credit is included in the credit.

 

Also the fact that the PPI hasnt been stripped out may well allow an argument under s18 CCA 1974 that the repayments are not correctly stated for each part of the credit

 

that would be where i would look personally

[oilyrag]

Yes pt, I too have a PM which was returned by the site on the basis that you had elected not to receive PMs.

 

regards

oilyrag

[pt2537]

going back to the Citi credit agreement

 

the PPI misselling, there is a very helpful checklist on john pughs website, which details what a solicitor should look at and questions which should be asked.

 

It would be a good starting point, i cant post a link, as the heavy hand of moderation has removed many links to his website it seems, despite him being

 

A) a cca barrister

B) a public access barrister

C) a barrister who works on CFA basis

 

but id look there first.

 

And then look at London North Securities vs Meadows, Woolerton v Blackhorse, Yates v Nemo and also look up Beachcomber60 on here, as his case was also won on credit being wrongly badged as a charge for credit.

 

it is far easier in my opinion to attack the PPI if it was a condition of the loan, than going at the multiple agreement

[broken arrow]

going back to the Citi credit agreement

 

the PPI misselling, there is a very helpful checklist on john pughs website, which details what a solicitor should look at and questions which should be asked.

 

It would be a good starting point, i cant post a link, as the heavy hand of moderation has removed many links to his website it seems, despite him being

 

A) a cca barrister

B) a public access barrister

C) a barrister who works on CFA basis

 

but id look there first.

 

And then look at London North Securities vs Meadows, Woolerton v Blackhorse, Yates v Nemo and also look up Beachcomber60 on here, as his case was also won on credit being wrongly badged as a charge for credit.

 

it is far easier in my opinion to attack the PPI if it was a condition of the loan, than going at the multiple agreement

 

Cheers for the info.

[broken arrow]

Original judgement and charging order set aside, they have 14 days to submit a new claim.It was not a CMC it was a hearing.

 

Happy anniversary, a year ago today I got my set aside, I think they have missed the deadline for re submitting the claim, by about 350 days.

[broken arrow]

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=2327

[melmumof3]

tick tock hey BA!... shame i have a CCJ now, but wonder where it stands if the entity would no longer exist?

[broken arrow]

Mel, remember I to had a CCJ, if the OFT do remove their licence and the whole of their assignments can be proved illegal then who knows.

[patrickq1]

i think you will find that the oft would instruct all agancies to remove all HFO CCJ's ,they did with mine and that instuction was sent to Experian it came direct from the OFT

patrickq1

also it may then be probable to sue for damages if hfo still exist as a legal entity ?

[broken arrow]

I have finally got round to starting my complaint to the OFT( I have been very busy the last 6 months) it is going to be long and detailed, but will highlight some very important issues, I therefore would like to encourage other readers of this thread who have genuine complaints to do the same and hopefully we can shutdown them for good.OFTFleet Bank House2-6 Salisbury SquareLondonEC4 8JX

[broken arrow]

HFO seem to want to bury themselves, thanks a lot bye bye..................Tick Tock

[broken arrow]

3 years since my initial hearing, how time flies when you are enjoying yourself.

[coledog]

Stressful - when OFT interview you tell them how you you feel about this and how this has affect you and your family, for what, someone else's greed!

[broken arrow]

Thought I would BUMP this post, as its that time of year again.

[coledog]

Do not think they will be so bloody cocky this year - and I have nicked (no pun intended) that Santa, so it may be appearing in some odd places!

 

I have a letter with the ' VALIDOR LEGAL PART SUE KA' signature - and I have not a clue what it is supposed to mean??

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

:deadhorse::painkiller:Could this be the last gasp, the death rattle and the dreadful Bingo loosing control

of his bowels:madgrin:

[coledog]

Very artistic Brig :lol:

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I just had a very evil Bingo with a big bulge at the back of the trouser departmeny,

lying on his back doing the diening fly:madgrin:

[DonkeyB]

Merry Christmas Bart123! Nice of you to look in!