HFO CAPITAL/services/turnbull CCJ

[vjohn82]

I find it hard to believe this can be put down to a clerical or admin error.

 

Especially as they have a current case with me with... guess what... the exact same problems.

 

I would be tempted to put in a joint complaint to the SRA and the OFT as soon as all is said and done

[melmumof3]

Righto, I think there is something very wrong here.

 

This Default Notice is asking for the full balance within 7 days. That is wrong. Also the Notice is not in the correct format.

 

Date of assignment according to the notice is 30 July 2008

Date of DN is 27 March 2009

 

So if they are saying they sent this the day after purchase that is totally incorrect, it looks more like 9 months ??

 

Did you ever receive a Notice of assignment from HFO ?

Did you ever receive a Default Notice from the original creditor which is where it supposed to come from ?

 

I find it hard to believe this can be put down to a clerical or admin error.

no, never received from either parties the NOA or DN... im just going to sort out some pics of what i have when ive taken out peronal details...

[DonkeyB]

Yes, VJ, but when you're using a John Bull Potato Printing Kit to recreate documents to fit your case, you're bound to make mistakes

[DonkeyB]

no, never received from either parties the NOA or DN... im just going to sort out some pics of what i have when ive taken out peronal details...

 

This is the modus operandum of HFO, Mel. They only send out copies of these documents when you defend and kick up a fuss, and then they claim the had been 'previously sent' in their witness statement.

 

Lots of us know from experience that they were never sent in the first place. Coincidence? I think not.

[melmumof3]

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010894.jpg

 

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010896.jpg

 

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010897.jpg

[vjohn82]

This is the modus operandum of HFO, Mel. They only send out copies of these documents when you defend and kick up a fuss, and then they claim the had been 'previously sent' in their witness statement.

 

Lots of us know from experience that they were never sent in the first place. Coincidence? I think not.

 

I think we need to collate all of these cases into one thread when all is said and done... and basically pitch it to the OFT and hopefully this will finish them off in their current guise. It's disgraceful that they can continue to get away with these things.

 

I wonder if John Bull has anything to comment on the matter?

[vjohn82]

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010894.jpg

 

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010896.jpg

 

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010897.jpg

 

 

Ok... the Notice of Assignment? IT IS THE EXACT SAME ONE I RECEIVED... SAME FONT... SAME SPACING... SAME FORMAT ETC.

 

What are the chances of Marks and Spencer using the same format as Barclaycard huh?

[melmumof3]

Ok... the Notice of Assignment? IT IS THE EXACT SAME ONE I RECEIVED... SAME FONT... SAME SPACING... SAME FORMAT ETC.

 

What are the chances of Marks and Spencer using the same format as Barclaycard huh?

no chance....!

 

M and S confirmed they didnt send the letter, they say they allow the DCA to use their logo etc....

[vjohn82]

no chance....!

 

M and S confirmed they didnt send the letter, they say they allow the DCA to use their logo etc....

 

 

Wow... if you could get that in writing this would be the nail in the coffin... have you heard of the Law of Property Act 1925? Read up on section 136 and 196... you might find some interesting points regarding this.

 

I would also look at the Fraud Act 2006 ;-)

[DonkeyB]

Ususal HFO rubbish.

 

The M&S NoA, allegedly sent by them, has the same grammatical error that appears in ALL of HFO's made up NoAs - they use 'effect' when it should be 'affect'.

 

Oddly, M&S seem to think they sold it to HFO Services at Wimbledon (not to HFO Capital, and their agents in deepest Surrey, as per the alleged NoA).

 

I think that's why seeing the REAL sale document regarding your account could be crucial, because I'm starting to suspect that HFO are playing fast and loose with facts as to who actually buys/owns these accounts.

 

Also, as they have already applied to amend the PoC, I think they would be hard pushed to amend it a second time. An inaccurate PoC invalidates their claim. You may be well advised to raise this point in writing and copy it to the court urgently (ask it to be attached to your trial bundle) - I'm sure a better legal brain can advise on this.

 

Alas, they will state that all these documents are genuine. Pants on fire...

[DonkeyB]

Wow... if you could get that in writing this would be the nail in the coffin... have you heard of the Law of Property Act 1925? Read up on section 136 and 196... you might find some interesting points regarding this.

 

I would also look at the Fraud Act 2006 ;-)

 

We've been over this ground countless times across the forums... sadly they can and do get away with it. Although it smells, it doesn't really get to the legal nub of the document's role in this case - which is whether it was sent in the first place at all, irrespective of who it came from.

[vjohn82]

Ususal HFO rubbish.

 

The M&S NoA, allegedly sent by them, has the same grammatical error that appears in ALL of HFO's made up NoAs - they use 'effect' when it should be 'affect'.

 

Oddly, M&S seem to think they sold it to HFO Services at Wimbledon (not to HFO Capital, and their agents in deepest Surrey, as per the alleged NoA).

 

I think that's why seeing the REAL sale document regarding your account could be crucial, because I'm starting to suspect that HFO are playing fast and loose with facts as to who actually buys/owns these accounts.

 

Also, as they have already applied to amend the PoC, I think they would be hard pushed to amend it a second time. An inaccurate PoC invalidates their claim. You may be well advised to raise this point in writing and copy it to the court urgently (ask it to be attached to your trial bundle) - I'm sure a better legal brain can advise on this.

 

Alas, they will state that all these documents are genuine. Pants on fire...

 

I submit that they committing a number of fatal errors... how can they be spelling the word wrong 2 years after spelling my one UNLESS they make up documents around the same time?

 

I think this could run and run... they won't be able to amend their PoC again... they still have it all to prove anyway.

 

I feel a big complaint coming on.

[vjohn82]

FRAUD ACT 2006

 

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply

any article—

(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in

connection with fraud, or

(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

10 years or to a fine (or to both).

 

If anyone can show me how these do NOT apply to mine and mel's cases then I shall not pursue this... but I feel very strongly now that HFO are abusing a position of trust by using their "legal firm" Turnbull to screw people over and supply fake documents.

[citizenB]

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010894.jpg

 

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010896.jpg

 

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu186/mel28089/P1010897.jpg

 

 

1st letter from M&S, Notice of Assignment clearly states it was assigned on 30.07.2008. - 30th July 2008

 

2nd letter from M&S dated 30th October 2009, in respect of a call made by you.. that the assignment took place on 30th JUNE 2008.

 

The POC clearly states that HFO was assigned/purchased the account on 26th March 2009.

 

Something is very, very wrong.

[melmumof3]

Ususal HFO rubbish.

 

The M&S NoA, allegedly sent by them, has the same grammatical error that appears in ALL of HFO's made up NoAs - they use 'effect' when it should be 'affect'.

 

Oddly, M&S seem to think they sold it to HFO Services at Wimbledon (not to HFO Capital, and their agents in deepest Surrey, as per the alleged NoA).

 

 

 

Also, as they have already applied to amend the PoC, I think they would be hard pushed to amend it a second time. An inaccurate PoC invalidates their claim. You may be well advised to raise this point in writing and copy it to the court urgently (ask it to be attached to your trial bundle) - I'm sure a better legal brain can advise on this.

 

 

DB, do i just print off a copy of what ive posted up, then deliver it to court with covering letter asking to attach to my trial bundle yes?

[hungrybear]

Couple of quick observations, I think its vital we dont get mel tied in too much of a knot at this stage

 

The unsigned 'm&s'letter is of no real legal value because it is not signed. BUT they did not expect you to contact m&s and get the second signed and dated letter from a real person at m&s.

 

This letter from M&S surely shows the first sentence of the POC to be wrong. Do we need to get any more complicated than that? Inaccurate POC sod off? The entity making the claim did not purchase the debt from the OC on that date or at all, here's a letter from the OC to prove it.

 

I do not think they intend the DN to be one (shame they metion 87(1) at the top). It's designed to be a 'new generation' threatogram. However the creditor etc etc is wrong.

[DonkeyB]

I notice there is someone called Treehugger watching this thread who has been registered since 2007 but has never posted. Treehugger, do you work for Turnbull Rutherford?

[vjohn82]

Couple of quick observations, I think its vital we dont get mel tied in too much of a knot at this stage

 

The unsigned 'm&s'letter is of no real legal value because it is not signed. BUT they did not expect you to contact m&s and get the second signed and dated letter from a real person at m&s.

 

This letter from M&S surely shows the first sentence of the POC to be wrong. Do we need to get any more complicated than that? Inaccurate POC sod off? The entity making the claim did not purchase the debt from the OC on that date or at all, here's a letter from the OC to prove it.

 

I do not think they intend the DN to be one (shame they metion 87(1) at the top). It's designed to be a 'new generation' threatogram. However the creditor etc etc is wrong.

 

I agree... the PoC offers more than enough rope for HFO's case to be completely strung up.

 

The assignment is the smoking gun ;-)

 

I notice there is someone called Treehugger watching this thread who has been registered since 2007 but has never posted. Treehugger, do you work for Turnbull Rutherford?

 

It would not surprise me at all... perhaps they are trying to get tips on how to write PoC's?

[hungrybear]

Oh yes I see the tree thing, How are you Mr. Turnbull?

 

You'd think after nearly three years on cag he'd be boned up on the law a bit by now

[DonkeyB]

Treehugger may be completely innocent, but there are also other registered non-posting lurkers who only visit certain posts. We know who you are... so we'll be vigilant. You don't have to post on a thread to subscribe now, so the 'sleepers' from the DCAs can look in almost anywhere AND receive alerts to new postings.

[Docman]

I notice there is someone called Treehugger watching this thread who has been registered since 2007 but has never posted. Treehugger, do you work for Turnbull Rutherford?

 

I noticed this poster a couple of weeks ago and thought the same. Odd being on CAG for so long and never posting.

 

Treehugger, next time you are looking in, why not express an opinion?

[DonkeyB]

Can you point us to it Mel?

 

Docman, I think Turnbull Rutherford's 'handles' are all so witty! Because we're nice and we help people, we're all treehuggers. Geddit? You wouldn't believe their latest one... just ask VJohn!

[hungrybear]

Couple of quick observations, I think its vital we dont get mel tied in too much of a knot at this stage

 

The unsigned 'm&s'letter is of no real legal value because it is not signed. BUT they did not expect you to contact m&s and get the second signed and dated letter from a real person at m&s.

 

This letter from M&S surely shows the first sentence of the POC to be wrong. Do we need to get any more complicated than that? Inaccurate POC sod off? The entity making the claim did not purchase the debt from the OC on that date or at all, here's a letter from the OC to prove it.

 

I do not think they intend the DN to be one (shame they metion 87(1) at the top). It's designed to be a 'new generation' threatogram. However the creditor etc etc is wrong.

 

 

yes mel post a link.

 

Donkey, Docman, (treehugger) care to comment on the above?

[DonkeyB]

Mel, don't worry about them looking in - lots of DCAs do it. I'm sure that they will have identified you already if they want to, just from your situation, court dates, etc.

 

The basic fact is their paperwork is defective, if not disingenuous and economic with the actualité. M&S have done you a huge favour by confirming some facts which don't tally with HFO's drivel.

 

If HFO can't be sure who owns the debt or when it was assigned, how can you be sure they even own the debt? This is the big question you have to ask HFO in court, in front of the judge.

[Docman]

Ok... the Notice of Assignment? IT IS THE EXACT SAME ONE I RECEIVED... SAME FONT... SAME SPACING... SAME FORMAT ETC.

 

What are the chances of Marks and Spencer using the same format as Barclaycard huh?

 

And exactly the same font as the NoA that I 'received' from Morgan Stanley (before the sold their accounts to Barclaycard)!