Hfo capital limited

[coledog]

Doubt that they keep any actual money there though, for longer than 5 minutes

[DonkeyB]

Don’t think Bart123 wants to comment. Shucks.

[tony c]

thank you all and db pt and our mckenzie pls meet up for a beer and everyone else too it would be good

[pt2537]

With this case, the devil was really in the detail.

 

I will speak to Tony and if he is in agreement, then i will post up a break down of the points which we found and which were problematic for the opponents.

 

It is fair to say that it beggars belief, it really does.

[tony c]

With this case, the devil was really in the detail.

 

I will speak to Tony and if he is in agreement, then i will post up a break down of the points which we found and which were problematic for the opponents.

 

It is fair to say that it beggars belief, it really does.

 

 

pt no probs mate you can post up whatever you think is appropiate to show those "people" in the poor light that they deserve.

Edited February 9, 2011 by the_shadow
Deflamatory comments removed

[DonkeyB]

C'mon Tony, tell us what you really think!

[tony c]

morning mate just felt like a scream at those parasites lol

[dadofholly]

Be interesting to see the points they had problems with - probably their entire initial claim

[pt2537]

ok, i will type up the main points when i get a free minute.

 

there is sooo much that its gonna take time

[broken arrow]

ok, i will type up the main points when i get a free minute.

 

there is sooo much that its gonna take time

 

Can,t wait:smile:

[dadofholly]

ok, i will type up the main points when i get a free minute.

 

there is sooo much that its gonna take time

 

Sounds like Cag will need a bigger server.

 

Can i have the film rights?

[pt2537]

Well firstly the pleaded case lacked any depth or detail, it did not mention any dates of letters, default, agreement, infact there was very little anything

 

Then, well there was this point

 

 

3. In respect of paragraph 1, the Defendant can make no admission as to the business

which the Claimant undertakes as this is outwith the Defendants own knowledge. The

Defendant however denies that on the 22nd August 2007 the Defendants account was

assigned either by legal assignment or by equity to the Claimant being HFO capital

Limited (Ireland), the reasons for this denial are as follows.

 

3.1 The Claimant company did not become incorporated in Ireland until 18th

September 2007.and even at that point, the Claimant companies name was not HFO

Capital Limited, it was in fact Salaka Limited at September 2007.

 

3.2 The Claimants own solicitors now concede no assignment to the Claimant dated

22nd August 2007 has occurred thus contradicting the Claimants own pleadings. The

Claimants pleadings ought to properly plead the facts, which it relies upon pursuant to

CPR 16. The Claimants current statement of case is contradicted by its own witness

evidence and is embarrassing to the Defendant. If the Claimant cannot properly

formulate its claim how can the Defendant be expected to know the case that it is to

meet. This point alone gives rise to an abuse of the Courts process in obstructing the

just disposal of this matter. The Defendant contends that the Court ought to use its

case management powers under CPR 3.4(2) and dismiss the Claim for the reasons

outlined within this Defence. The Claimant has no prospect of succeeding with its

pleaded case and the Claimants failings go far beyond minor technical breaches, they

represent substansive failures on the Claimants part and suggest that the Claimant

does not know the facts of its own case. In the event that the Claimant seeks to amend

its statement of case, the Defendant will also require leave to amend and costs of the

aforesaid amendments from the Claimant.

 

3.3 The Claimant company did not hold a Consumer Credit Licence with the Office of

Fair Trading until 26th March 2008 as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to

take part in licensable activities. Any activities carried out prior to this date such as

debt collection would give rise to a criminal offence pursuant to s39 Consumer Credit

Act 1974.

 

3.4 The notice of assignment produced by the Claimant in the witness statement of Mr

XXXXXXXXX avers that there was an assignment to the Claimant company on the 22nd

August 2007 however this document is clearly inaccurate and the date of assignment

to the Claimant must therefore be incorrect due to the Claimants own admissions. The

Defendant understands notice of assignment relied upon by the Claimant was

produced by the Claimant under licence by Barclays Bank Pic to use their letterhead.

It is not permissible to give notice of a future assignment per Pickthall vs Hill

Dickinson Lip &Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 543 (11 June 2009) accordingly the

assignment fails for want of notice. There can be no assignment from Barclays Bank

Pic T/A Barclaycard to the Claimant contrary to the Claimants pleaded case.

 

3.5 The Defendant approached Barclays Bank Plc under the concerns, which had been

raised to ascertain who the assignment had been concluded with and who was able to

give good discharge under the Contract. By letter dated 25th November 2010 Barclays

confirmed that the Defendants account had been sold to HFO capital, however, the

address given being PO Box 342. West Bvfleet. Surrey. KT14 6YX. United

Kingdom, upon investigation with the Office of Fair Trading's Consumer Credit

Licence Register, was confirmed to be the correspondence address of HFO services

Limited a separate trading company.

 

3.6 Within the statement of Mr XXXX he refers to the case of Bateman v Hunt as

the proposition that the Claimant need only show the last assignment. The Defendant

will say that Nemo dot quod non habet applies, as the Claimant cannot obtain

something directly from the original creditor, which the original creditor does not own

at that point. It is evident that the Claimant will need to show a chain of assignment

for it to obtain good title and locus in this matter and as matters stand the Claimant

has not done so. The Defendant is embarrassed by the Claimants contradictions in

respect of the assignment.

 

3.7 Accordingly the Defendant avers that no assignment has taken place in

accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925. Accordingly the Claimant has no

locus in this matter. The Claim is an abuse of the Court process.

 

3.8 Furthermore, the Defendant refers to CPR 32.14(1) and avers that the substantial

material differences between the Claimants pleaded case and the witness statements

submitted during these proceedings shows that the Claimant has signed a false

statement of truth. Furthermore the Defendant avers that the Claimant and its

representatives would have been fully aware that the facts of the pleaded case were

incorrect and that this is not a mistake but a clear attempt to frustrate proceedings and

obstruct the just disposal of the matter. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is

in contempt of Court.

 

The above on its own is problematic for them, remember it was HFO Capital based in Ireland that claimed title to the debt and it was impossible that when they claimed to have purchased it, to have actually purchased it, even in equity.

 

I will try and detail the further points as i can, bearing in mind i am very busy currently

[broken arrow]

Very good PT, very well put and very useful for the future.

[coledog]

PT - you are are a diamond gezzer, that makes sense to a dog of little brain, drinks alround

[pt2537]

PT - you are are a diamond gezzer, that makes sense to a dog of little brain, drinks alround

oooh dont worry, there is plenty more to tell than that mate

[coledog]

Cannot wait, marra

[riolto10]

So that’s an offer of £14k turned into, ooh, how much? Oh yeah... a negative number when costs are added!

 

Well done Tony, Cathy and pt2537. Just a shame the evidence could not be scrutinised in court.

maybe it will next week

[bh2362]

hi guys sorry to hijack the post, Paul I have been trying to send you a PM, but your button has been removed

I would appreciate if you get a spare minute to come over and take a little look at my thread, im trying to type some POCs to get an order for the court to let my data me processed manually by the credit reference agencies.

it fails under section 12(1)

any way im nearly would appreciate some help.

if your busy dont worry mate.

Might be some use to some of you all in this thread also if we can get this right.

[humbleman]

well done Tony and PT

[tony c]

you have e mail (i feel like tom hanks lol)

[tony c]

pt give us a bell mate pls

[tony c]

any news anyone ??????????????????????????????????????????????????

[lop]

Great thread, good victory - they were so silly not to accept your offer. Good outcome. I hope you had a hangover the next day

[tony c]

afternoon people hope all are well baby mia is doing superb catch you all soon

[coledog]

Hi Tony

 

lovely to hear it!!