HFO CAPITAL/services/turnbull CCJ

[melmumof3]

As Docman has often pointed out, if they don't know who actually owns the account, how can it be brought to court? They have stated it has been assigned to HFO Services... therefore HFO Capital no longer owns it, according to the contract document HFOC and HFOS that is also on VJ's thread. They can't have it both ways.

 

In VJ's case, if the court does not accept that the supposed notice of assignment to HFOS was valid, then it's end of story.

 

Just need to find a way for Mel to use this in court. After all, HFO/TR can't object to her using stuff from the forums, because they've done it themselves!

you are on my wave length for once lol...

 

i was thinking the same, HFO cant seem to figure out who i owe the money to, ive just had a large spread of their letters across floor, either stating RE: HFOS or HFOC....... ,i too know not WHOM i owe the money to!!...

 

i am going thru all i have, i have my Experian credit file printed, it states that HFOS are the creditor on it. bank default of £4,461,... they are claiming in court total £3,565.... whats all that about?.

 

i cant believe they have used john's forum id in their response....IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT i feel.

[melmumof3]

So your not going to use the Oliver North defence then?

'I have no recollection of that matter, sir'

 

(from the senate iraqgate enquiry in the states - that was his reply to pretty much every question as I recall)

??? lol

[DonkeyB]

Quite right Mel - you don't owe the money - but you need to give a succinct reason!

[melmumof3]

Quite right Mel - you don't owe the money - but you need to give a succinct reason!

DB/ Sir, the 1 reason i do not owe the money, is because i do not have a credit agreement, the alleged agreement is meerly an application form for a credit card........

[hungrybear]

As far as I am aware I have never been nor am I indebted to HFO Capital as the claimant asserts in the first sentence of their POC. Furthermore, as far as I am aware there is no NOA, enforceable regulated agreement or DN compliant with section 87(1) of the CCA with which the claimant could argue the contrary

 

-hows that for a starter for 10 then

[melmumof3]

As far as I am aware I have never been nor am I indebted to HFO Capital as the claimant asserts in the first sentence of their POC. Furthermore, as far as I am aware there is no NOA, enforceable regulated agreement or DN compliant with section 87(1) of the CCA with which the claimant could argue the contrary

 

-hows that for a starter for 10 then

 

is this my succinct reason HB?? you know im hard work! lol.

[melmumof3]

DB/ Sir, the 1 reason i do not owe the money, is because i do not have a credit agreement, the alleged agreement is meerly an application form for a credit card........

ok theres 3 reasons now i dont owe money.... :-|

[hungrybear]

I simply offered it up for critique. I thought is summed most of the main points up - what do you think is more important

[melmumof3]

I simply offered it up for critique. I thought is summed most of the main points up - what do you think is more important

well, i thought my 'agreement' would be the most important thing, docman thinks my NOA is my weakest part of the argument.

i know little, im hoping i learn. i will learn. im trying to be like a sponge, and absorb it all in. im getting more and more confused, and i dont think im gonna know where to start.

 

this is what i know!! lol

the alleged CCA, is merely an app form. i disagree that the app form they have produces represents an agreement because its missing the prescibed terms, der der, the terms which are clearly not on back would not fit on the back of form.....

the notice of assignment date states 30/7/08 , the claimants (hFOC) own evidence contradicts their particulars of claim.....

i have my M and S letter stating they sold the debt to HFOS on 30/6/08, a different date and a different assignee.

the law say, a NOA must be given, s 136 law of property act.

id quote 'van lynn' paragraph 'with reasonable certainty', and i have copies of WF harrison case, which is referred to in van lynn.

 

Default notice is required under sec 87

i neither admit or deny that any DN was ever rec'd in prescribed format.

DN invalid. to be vaild, needs to be accurate in terms of scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy such breach.

sec 88 of the act, the date before which any breach can be remedied must be stated in DN

this date must not be less than 14 days after date served of DN.

date given by HFO was 'within 7 days of this letter'

accordingly the dn was invalid.

 

im just getting this down, am i going on the right track?

Edited December 1, 2009 by melmumof3

[hungrybear]

well, i thought my 'agreement' would be the most important thing, docman thinks my NOA is my weakest part of the argument.

i know little, im hoping i learn. i will learn. im trying to be like a sponge, and absorb it all in. im getting more and more confused, and i dont think im gonna know where to start.

 

this is what i know!! lol

the alleged CCA, is merely an app form. Because it does not contain the prescribed terms in sch6 etc

the notice of assignment date states 30/7/08 , the claimants (hFOC) own evidence contradicts their particulars of claim.....The claimant would appear unsure who owns the alledged debt

i have my M and S letter stating they sold the debt to HFOS on 30/6/08, a different date and a different assignee.So HFOC did not purchase and do not own as stated in the POC. So I cannot see how they can be a claimant even if it were proven that a debt did/does exist

the law say, a NOA must be given, s 136 law of property act.

id quote 'van lynn' paragraph 'with reasonable certainty'

hang on gonna have another look and add...

 

After a FACT there has to be a why its a FACT.

[DonkeyB]

Mel, have another look here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/231293-help-defence-ws-required-8.html#post2616745

 

Their documents, CP2, represent the assignment between HFO Capital and HFO Services. This is all the proof you need that HFO Capital does not own the debt. They are, well and truly, hoist by their own petard.

 

Print out three copies of this and take it to court with you. If TR object, simply tell the judge you only became aware of this evidence today - which is true. It blows their case out of the water.

[melmumof3]

Mel, have another look here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/231293-help-defence-ws-required-8.html#post2616745

 

Their documents, CP2, represent the assignment between HFO Capital and HFO Services. This is all the proof you need that HFO Capital does not own the debt. They are, well and truly, hoist by their own petard.

 

Print out three copies of this and take it to court with you. If TR object, simply tell the judge you only became aware of this evidence today - which is true. It blows their case out of the water.

i was just reading it...

 

thankyou. im thoroughly grateful for all the time, and efforts of everyone spending time helping me

[hungrybear]

Donkey I had a read through johns stuff looking for hole in your arguements (for mel's benefit). Then I thought, hang on a mo, why have capital and services gone to the bother of this 'CP2' assignment nonsense. Then the little bell went off in my head - 2006!!! Must be companies act 2006. And I think it is. Here's the bones of it Companies Act 2006 c46 part 34 section 1046 2a:

 

(2) The regulations—

(a) must, in the case of a company other than a Gibraltar company, require the company to register particulars if the company opens a branch in the United Kingdom...

 

 

Here's the link to part 34:

 

 

Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)

 

Because if they did have a UK branch then they would have to fill returns and accounts (1050) because they are a credit/financial company.

 

1050 Accounts and reports: credit or financial institutions

 

(1) This section applies to a credit or financial institution—

(a) that is incorporated or otherwise formed outside the United Kingdom and Gibraltar,

(b) whose head office is outside the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and

© that has a branch in the United Kingdom.

 

 

So the fact that Capital have not registered particulars at Companies House means that they DO NOT HAVE A UK BRANCH which therefore means they cannot instruct action in courts of England and Wales

 

 

- that is the point of 'CP2' in johns thread. If they operate in England then they have to file returns and accounts

 

Hung, drawn and quatered

 

And the reason why they cannot bring this action against Mel?

Edited December 1, 2009 by hungrybear

[melmumof3]

Donkey I had a read through johns stuff looking for hole in your arguements (for mel's benefit). Then I thought, hang on a mo, why have capital and services gone to the bother of this 'CP2' assignment nonsense. Then the little bell went off in my head - 2006!!! Must be companies act 2006. And I think it is. Here's the bones of it Companies Act 2006 part 34 section 1046 2a:

 

(2) The regulations—

(a) must, in the case of a company other than a Gibraltar company, require the company to register particulars if the company opens a branch in the United Kingdom...

 

 

Here's the link to part 34:

 

 

Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)

 

 

So the fact that Capital have not registered particulars at Companies House means that they DO NOT HAVE A UK BRANCH which therefore means they cannot instruct action in courts of England and Wales

 

 

- that is the point of 'CP2' in johns thread

 

And the reason why they cannot bring this action against Mel?

 

am i right in thinking, had HFO not said to court 'hang on a minute, wrong company taken mel to court, need to change our claimant name' then CP2 wouldnt be relevant?.... is mel understanding more?? lol.

[melmumof3]

ok

 

i really really would appreciate a post which would state what i need to say tomoz. i dont want to forget anything tomorrow if we all dont want this to fall flat, not wholey for me, but for all future court cases against HFO. I mean, with this new evidence CP2, everything else seems not to matter??... but of course it does, and i suspect tomorrow, the judge may not be interested in perhaps CP2, or even my M and S letter, as i havent submitted it before. i dunno, ive never been inside a courthouse (upto the other week) let alone a court room, he/she may only be interested whats in the defence etc...am i wrong here? the judge may think i have fabricated paperwork...??

 

im sure as hell will be glad when tomoroow is finally over, thats for sure!

[Docman]

mel, I'll comment in a moment as treehugger is lurking.

 

treehugger, could you comment or I might start saying troll!

[melmumof3]

docman

ive been reading through TR's WS and Skel, and they have quoted a bit about a fixed sum account, saying prescribed terms dont apply to it... i thought a CC account is a running account?? do you think it might be good if i post up the WS...

[DonkeyB]

docman, I'll let you know if there's anyone lurking you need to worry about

Edited December 1, 2009 by DonkeyB

[DonkeyB]

docman

ive been reading through TR's WS and Skel, and they have quoted a bit about a fixed sum account, saying prescribed terms dont apply to it... i thought a CC account is a running account?? do you think it might be good if i post up the WS...

 

Yes please Mel. We'll all try to keep things simple, but there may yet be more grist for your mill.

[Docman]

treehugger is ok

 

 

OK DB, that's good enough for me.

 

mel

 

 

IMO, the weakest part of HFO's claim is that they can't actually bring the claim because the NOA is defective. In effect, you are saying to the judge that the claimant doesn't have the right to bring the action in the first place. The court rules allow them to change the name of the claimant but this introduces an element of doubt as to who the claimant should be. The case law (the Van Lynn case) requires you to be reasonably certain about the identity of the assignee and thus the true claimant. Your argument is that HFO isn't sure, so how can you be reasonably certain.

 

If the judge nevertheless overrules you, you then pass onto attacking the CCA itself. ie it is an application form, no prescribed terms etc, as set out in your defence.

 

If the judge ignores you on the CCA point and decides that there is a enforceable agreement, then you finish with the defective DN, again as set out in your defence.

 

Turning to the WS from TR's that you mention - if this is a credit card account or a loan account, S61 applies and thus the CCA must have the prescribed terms. At this late stage, I don't think it would do any harm in posting their WS so we can all comment.

 

Your greatess weakness isn't your case. Its getting yourself all uptight about it. Stay calm and speak slowly when you get in court. I know that is easy to say but hard to overcome. I still get uptight when I go into the courtroom but truly I think that the only thing you have got to worry about is getting yourself uptight!

 

Doc

[melmumof3]

hmmmm.... gosh i wish i read more you know!!.

 

whilst taking a pic of the WS, something just jumped of the page you know!!!

 

ill type the first para now, and post up the actual WS later, im cooking dinner.

i am a solicitor of supreme court and i have conduct of this matter on behalf of the Claimant..... wait for it...... HFO Services limited.!! WTFFF...?

and the bit where it sates claimant v defendant, it says HFO Capital....

 

 

Not another IT error??.....duh..

[hungrybear]

Docman I agree with post #363.

 

I really do think as well that the provisions of the companies act 2006 and them not being registered

at companies house precludes them from bringing the case in the first place - they are an overseas entity with no branch in England and Wales.

 

Personally I would tag that on above the NOA as the first port of call.

 

Mel, just remember it's a question of who is most right in the eyes of the Judge - balance of probability. Technically you only have to be 51% right to win.

[melmumof3]

Pictures by mel28089 - Photobucket

 

might be a muddle as i have put each page separate, her is link for entire album..WS and skel are in there

[hungrybear]

trudging through it Rodney... trudging through

 

The POC do my head in The claimant is HFO Services is it not? Capital is the assignee?

 

Item 3 of their skeleton. First of all it talks about a 'first default notice' which is complete CAGBOT. The it goes on to state that there is no DN from M&S available because they bought it without a copy. So they are assuming there is a DN because they bought the debt but they cannot prove it which amounts to rescission at the point of sale.

 

And most of the skeleton is waffle

[melmumof3]

trudging through it Rodney... trudging through

 

The POC do my head in The claimant is HFO Services is it not? Capital is the assignee?

 

Item 3 of their skeleton. First of all it talks about a 'first default notice' which is complete CAGBOT. The it goes on to state that there is no DN from M&S available because they bought it without a copy. So they are assuming there is a DN because they bought the debt but they cannot prove it which amounts to rescission at the point of sale.

 

And most of the skeleton is waffle

 

Claimant was HFO Service, they applied to the court to change it to HFO Capital