HFO CAPITAL/services/turnbull CCJ

[vjohn82]

Document CP2 will win the day on this I suspect... morons... even with the evidence staked against them. But then if people are not prepared to go through with the complaints against them then they will continue...

 

We have to keep on with this in order to bring them to account.

[melmumof3]

what should i do firstly then guys??... i need some pointers, cant get my head around it all...

[Docman]

mel

 

I agree with DB - relax. You can't do anything as far as the appeal until you get a copy of the application setting out the grounds for the appeal. That should come from the court in the New Year. If you haven't heard anything from the court by, say 11 January, then you should call the court to track down a copy of the application.

 

As regards M&S, I still think it would be a good idea to find out why they have written to you now. I suggest you address your letter to

 

Ms Christine Haslam

Head of Compliance & Operations

Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc

Kings Meadow, Chester CH99 9FB.

 

and enclose a copy of the letter you received. Don't bother with whoever the monkey was who sent the letter unsigned. Ms Haslam, for her sins, was only appointed as a director a couple of months ago but she will now have to deal with the mess.

[vjohn82]

As above really Mel... you can't do anything other than wait for the appeal documentation. You could, I suppose, request that the "funts" send you a copy/outline the detail of the application but they are not in a giving mood lately... they're a bit worried of landing themselves in dungheaps when they attempt to hold a phone and talk at the same time.

[DonkeyB]

We have some very interesting developments coming from Mel. Looks like HFO may have blown their own legs off with a shotgun...

 

Watch this space!

[DonkeyB]

We'll have to hold fire for a little while on this while Mel digests the info , but the news is truly astonishing. In the 'they couldn't be that stupid, could they?' kind of astonishing.

 

Patrick, calm down dear, it's only a court case.

[broken arrow]

We'll have to hold fire for a little while on this while Mel digests the info , but the news is truly astonishing. In the 'they couldn't be that stupid, could they?' kind of astonishing.

 

Patrick, calm down dear, it's only a court case.

 

And I had just finished my WS for my set aside!

[DonkeyB]

Think you may have more material coming, BA! Very significant material!

[patrickq1]

SEEING AS ALICE IS COMPILING EVIDENCE ROM CAGGERS PERHAPS HE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THIS FROM THE DAILY MAIL ,REMEMBER KEEP THESE LINKS TO INTRODUCE TO COURT AS BACK UP DATA FOR THE JUDGE SO HE CAN SEE WHAT SORT OF A DESPERADO HE IS DEALING WITH ,

TONY HETHERINGTON: 'Hurl a brick at her window,' advises solicitor | Mail Online

[melmumof3]

SEEING AS ALICE IS COMPILING EVIDENCE ROM CAGGERS PERHAPS HE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THIS FROM THE DAILY MAIL ,REMEMBER KEEP THESE LINKS TO INTRODUCE TO COURT AS BACK UP DATA FOR THE JUDGE SO HE CAN SEE WHAT SORT OF A DESPERADO HE IS DEALING WITH ,

TONY HETHERINGTON: 'Hurl a brick at her window,' advises solicitor | Mail Online

that was an interesting read thanks patrick for posting, ive not seen it before.

[patrickq1]

there are more news stories on alice and group of companies will find a few more for you later,it is worth buying the sunday mail this weekend a bit about the reconstruction of documents,now as far as reconstruction geos we all know how honest alice is at reconstruction.....and also as far as exiting caymens in 2008 seems she forgot to mention this ac to all previous court cases they have instigated it is also worth noting that no books have yet been produced in the republic as of yet but i have a freind of the familly who is a senior tax evasions investigator for the irish goverment lets see how fast alice can scarper and as for the documents not to be shown i have nt seen those particular documents alice mentions , but alice does leave open a space for a witness of the bearer of the documents ; although they claim it is still subject to litigation i am sure the other party can confirm that this may not be correct i wonder if they would nt mind the bearer of the documents cominf forward as a witness and see just how much alice has been subverting true justice, if they have sent the letter to the judge and told porkies that wont go down too well will it and also why where you not informed or why was nt the judge informed of the change of companies it certainly was not by mistake that alice forgot to mention it as it was already pointed out before another court so it is of no suprise you must inform the judge of this and also inform the judge that they must have deliberately witheld this information in otherwords attempted fraudulent and vexhatious prosecution....,this is still a company acting outside the judicial system of the uk law so if they have or are trying to still make claims outside uk law and not tell the taxman whenever they have been successful in such claims where does this money go consillian ? the group who have they sold the capital to ? as hfo capital has new directors ie as it it alice, so much paperwork ime left in a bit of a muddle working all this out ,but rest assured we will get to the bottom of this soon...

patrickq1

Edited January 8, 2010 by patrickq1

[melmumof3]

ive just pottered thru the papers submitted, they go to say that hfo ireland bought my debt july 08, but they still submit the 'account sale agreement' with the paperwork, hfo capital cayman dated sept 2006, with no new account sale agreement for the 2008 debts...

 

roy chubby brown 'who the frick is alice!'

[patrickq1]

ha ha alice in wonderland keep those papers of the forum for the time being mum like i said before why were you not informed of this change and why was nt the judge informed and why were nt anyone on cag informed ?

[melmumof3]

ha ha alice in wonderland keep those papers of the forum for the time being mum like i said before why were you not informed of this change and why was nt the judge informed and why were nt anyone on cag informed ?

 

i shall do patrick..

why oh why... i feel a song coming onnnn.....

[DonkeyB]

Patrick - stick a lid on it for now! Please!

 

Mel, try this...

 

BBC - Radio 4 You and Yours -HFO Services Ltd

[patrickq1]

for the benefit of ALICE

False Statements

 

Misrepresentation at Law in England

General

Generally speaking, the law of misrepresentation, when substantiated at law, taints the otherwise lawful formation of a contract. A false statement made during contractual negotiations may be a mere statement with no contractual effect, or become a term of the contract. Where a representation is untrue, it will constitute a misrepresentation. An actionable misrepresentation renders the contract voidable, that is, valid until voided by the party relying on the misrepresentation when entering into the contract.

Actionable misrepresentation

An actionable misrepresentation comprises a false statement of fact made by one party to the other which induces the other party to enter into the contract. The statement made will usually be in words, but it is possible that other forms of communication will be sufficient to amount to a misrepresentation. In the case of Spice Girls v Aprilia World Service BV, CA (2002), a misrepresentation by conduct appeared in promotional material for the company. The person made the representation in the knowledge that Ms Halliwell was leaving the group.

There are two elements of an actionable misrepresentation to be considered:

1. False statement of fact

The false statement of fact must relate to an existing fact or past event. Therefore, the following statements do not amount to a misrepresentation if false:

a) Future conduct or intention

A statement as to future conduct or intention will not amount to a misrepresentation. However, where such a statement is made and that person never had the requisite intention he claims to have had, this will amount to a misrepresentation as an exception to the rule. In Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) a statement was made by company directors that money raised was for the business. In fact to pay the company’s debts, and the directors were liable for fraudulent misrepresentation.

b) Mere puff

It is not enough that the statement made is a ‘mere puff’, that is to say, vague statements of hyperbole of extravagant praise used in promotion of a business. Such statements must be false as well as ambiguous.

c) Statement of opinion

A statement of opinion is not treated as a statement of fact unless the maker of the statement knows that the opinion they are giving is false or if they have special knowledge, that is to say, in a better position to know the true facts regarding the subject matter. In these situations, such an opinion may well be ruled to be a misrepresentation. In the case of Bisset v Wilkinson (1927), the owner of a farm stated that he believed it would hold 2000 sheep, even though it was not a sheep farm. It was held to be a statement of opinion, and therefore there was no misrepresentation of fact.

This case can be contrasted with the case of Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884) where a vendor lied about the tenant being ‘most desirable’, even though he knew this was not true. It was held that there was a misrepresentation of fact as the vendor was in a position to know the true facts.

In any event, statements made negligently with the intention that they be relied upon will amount to a misrepresentation of fact.

d) Statement of law

A statement of law will not constitute a misrepresentation of fact.

e) Silence

The general rule is that mere silence will not amount to a misrepresentation. There is no duty to disclose facts which would affect the other party’s decision to enter into the contract. In the case of Hands v Simpson Fawcett (1928), a commercial traveller was not under a duty to disclose his motor convictions at a job interview. This general rule is, however, subject to certain exceptions:

(i) Half truths

Where a statement is true, but does not reveal the whole truth which therefore makes the statement misleading, it will be a misrepresentation.

(ii) Change of circumstances

Where a statement is true when made, but due to a change of circumstances or lapse of time it becomes false, there is a duty on the maker of the statement to correct it. Failure to do so will amount to a misrepresentation.

(iii) Contracts Uberrimae fidei (of the utmost good faith)

Where a party is in a strong position to know the truth, there is a duty to disclose all material facts. The most common type of contract in this class are contracts of insurance.

(iv) Fiduciary relationship

Where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, there is a particular duty to disclose all material facts upon the fiduciary to their principal to discharge their fiduciary duties..

(v) Active concealment

This involves going beyond remaining silent and involves concealment of a defect. Where this may be provided, it will amount to misrepresentation.

2. Inducement

It is not enough that a false statement has been made. The false statement must have induced the other party to enter into the contract. There are four conditions which need to be satisfied in order for there to have been an inducement:

a) Material statement

There will only be an inducement if the statement made is material. It must represent a fact upon which a party decides to enter into the contract, although it does not have to be the sole inducement, it is sufficient that it is one of the inducements.

b) Known to the plaintiff

There can not be an inducement unless the misrepresentation made was known to the claimant. In the case of Horsfall v Thomas (1862), the active concealment of a defect in a gun was held to be a misrepresentation, but the buyer did not inspect the gun so he was not to know about the misrepresentation, therefore it did not induce the contract.

c) Intended to be acted upon

The statement made must be intended to be acted upon by its maker.

d) Actually acted upon

If the claimant relies upon the misrepresentation when entering into the contract, this will amount to an inducement, even where the claimant did not take advantage of an offer to check the statement made.

However, where the claimant relies upon their own judgement, or having made their own investigations, there will be no inducement as they have not relied upon the misrepresentation.

Types of misrepresentation

Misrepresentation can fall into three different categories: Fraudulent; negligent; and innocent. The remedies available for misrepresentation depend upon which category it falls within.

1. Fraudulent

Fraudulent misrepresentation was defined by Lord Herschell in Denny v Peak (1889) as a false statement “made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false”, that is to say there is absence of honest belief.

2. Negligent

There are two types of negligent misrepresentation:

a) At common law

Traditionally, damages could only be claimed for fraudulent misrepresentation. In the case of Hedley Byrne and Co. v Heller and Partners Ltd (1994), the House of Lords extended common law negligence to negligent statements which cause loss.

The duty of care owed must arise from a ‘special relationship’, that is to say, where one party has special knowledge about the subject matter, that person can reasonably assume that the other party will rely on the statement.

b) Under the Misrepresentation Act 1967

Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides a statutory claim for damages for negligent misrepresentation:

‘Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable

notwithstanding

that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had

reasonable

grounds to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true.’

Thus, section 2(1) deems all non-fraudulent representation are negligent. The burden of proving that there was no negligence falls on the maker of the statement.

3. Innocent

Where one party makes a statement which he reasonably believes is true, there will be no misrepresentation and the statement will be regarded as ‘wholly innocent’.

Damages can not be claimed where there had been an innocent misrepresentation, however the plaintiff may rescind the contract and be entitled to an indemnity to restore him to the position he was in before the contract was made.

[melmumof3]

good stuff DB

[vjohn82]

Ok I have finished reading a little bit about the appeals process.

 

CPR Part 52 deals with this specifically - PART 52 - APPEALS - Ministry of Justice

 

Mel can file a respondent's notice under 52.5 2(b) asking to uphold the order of the lower court for reasons different from or additional to those given by the lower court.

 

But you have 14 days after being served with notice of the appeal in which to do this so we need to get moving to make sure we get all of the facts together.

 

Practice Direction 52 states:

 

7.2 A respondent who wishes only to request that the appeal court upholds the judgment or order of the lower court whether for the reasons given in the lower court or otherwise does not make an appeal and does not therefore require permission to appeal in accordance with rule 52.3(1).

(Paragraph 7.6 requires a respondent to file a skeleton argument where he wishes to address the appeal court)

 

7.6

Except where paragraph 7.7A applies, the respondent must file a skeleton argument for the court in all cases where he proposes to address arguments to the court. The respondent’s skeleton argument may be included within a respondent’s notice. Where a skeleton argument is included within a respondent’s notice it will not form part of the notice for the purposes of rule 52.8.

 

 

7.7A

(1) Where the appeal relates to a claim allocated to the small claims track and is being heard in a county court or the High Court, the respondent may file a skeleton argument but is not required to do so.

 

(2) A respondent who is not represented need not file a skeleton argument but is encouraged to do so in order to assist the court.

 

 

Summing Up

 

To give you the best chance of knocking their appeal into the stratosphere the following will help:

 

 

• File a Respondent's Notice
  
• File a Skeleton Argument to assist the court (even though there is no need to do so)
  

As I have been mentioned in the proceedings as releasing a document which Turnbull alleges was not allowed to be disclosed I am more than happy to respond with an affidavit with a statement to the effect that the document was not disclosed in contravention to any order by the court and that the document has no privileged status.

 

It is a simple document for me to fill in and get stamped by the court; you just attach it to your notice bundle.

 

The effect of this will force Turnbull to retract it as part of the appeal, or make the argument look spurious, and weaken his case for appeal.

 

What do others think to this and are there any more comments to add?

[melmumof3]

good work VJ, thankyou.... just need some right worded pointers

[vjohn82]

good work VJ, thankyou.... just need some right worded pointers

 

 

Ok... this iis as simple as I can make it

 

1) You need a response to their appeal notice where you submit additional information in support of your case and which puts dents in his.

 

2) A skeleton argument (which is not needed because you are an LiP but it will be looked upon as good practice by the Judge).

 

3) In order to refute TR's claim that the document you relied upon should not have been disclosed we need to nip that statement in the bud because it casts doubt on the how the document was obtained.

 

4) Therefore you need a written statement from me (an affidavit) to disclose as evidence to show the court the document is genuine and has been disclosed in a public hearing and that the TR are using it as part of a current claim against me (this also has an interesting effect on my case ;-))

 

4) He also claims you "downloaded" it from the CAG Forum; how does he know this for certain? We need to question his integrity in bringing this appeal when he knows full well that all other action has never mentioned HFO Capital ever.

 

I'll get to work on a skeleton argument for you to present

[melmumof3]

thanks VJ, sounds all good!...

[vjohn82]

Has anyone checked this thread out?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/120057-cabot-test-case-2.html#post2384353

 

Talks about Cabot assigning debts to Cabot Ireland to avoid tax... Cabot stated it was an "admin error" and when they decided to take someone to court other CAG members stepped up to confirm that they had also been supplied these documents which confirmed assignment to Ireland...

 

Could be worth a read considering HFO Capital state everything was transferred from Cayman to Ireland!!!

[oxford10]

Hi Vjohn82

 

That thread you linked to increases my theory that the whole banking mess including the debt collection industry is based on money that has never existed (E.G. you can never realise the value of an asset until is liquidated). Also as the DCA's buy these debts for pence also reenforces my theory. What is needed in this country is to get back to old style banking in that you would only be loaned what you could afford. The courts and the government could solve this for future but as it stands GAG seems to be the only white knight in the field. As shown by the use of screen shots of GAG in court! What would be interesting to know are there any commercial solicitors in the forum on our side?

[patrickq1]

original deed of assignment doucmentation and full disclsure of the current beneficial owners. documentation that should set the cat amognst the pigeons huh

[patrickq1]

4) Therefore you need a written statement from me (an affidavit) to disclose as evidence to show the court the document is genuine and has been disclosed in a public hearing and that the TR are using it as part of a current claim against me (this also has an interesting effect on my case )

it would also help greatly if UK was adjoined to this with statement and confirming his position with regards to an appeal by him and all others..

i too am sitting on the HFOC assignment

as we have discovered before the caymen and irish connections are the same way operated as Cabot so we need to ask the Tax Man if he is going to act on this scurrilous code of tax avoidance soon we will see the end of turnbum and lady die