HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

[clueless24]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

Congratulation and well done to everyone involved. WHOO HOO!!!

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

Important Notes:
I'm pleased to announce that the following victory was a result of our forum, our preferred solicitor and the forum user that came to us with the problem in the first place, who for the purposes of discretion shall remain anonymous here unless they decide to confirm who they are. This resulted in not only some new case law surrounding unenforceability but also details how to royally screw the DCA's with costs.

This judgement may be informative or persuasive but, as it was a County Court case, it does not set a precedent.

Nevertheless, well done!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

Quite but it does set new ground and stand up for the ue rules. No appeal either

[PlanB]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

This judgement may be informative or persuasive but, as it was a County Court case, it does not set a precedent.

Nevertheless, well done!

Spoilsport

[Paul.]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

Important Notes:
I'm pleased to announce that the following victory was a result of our forum, our preferred solicitor and the forum user that came to us with the problem in the first place, who for the purposes of discretion shall remain anonymous here unless they decide to confirm who they are. This resulted in not only some new case law surrounding unenforceability but also details how to royally screw the DCA's with costs.

Ok, so first things first.

We are lucky in that Paul (preferred solicitor) and the defendant in the case have agreed that we, allaboutFORUMS, can have exclusive access to the judgment thus you'll find our watermark all over it. Please though, feel free to post it on other forums and let other forums know about this huge victory and then maybe they'll realise exactly why blanking our name out is futile if they ever want to get hold of the latest cases that are won via our preferred solicitor as all transcripts will be watermarked with our name.

Paul, Roland & all involved in this case - well done.

Ok so the case. This was a £7k Barclaycard debt that was sold to HFO who decided to start action so they are the claimant. They basically sent a copy of the agreement with recon terms.

At court the judge found that indeed, the whole thing was unenforceable based on a couple of things;

1. The witness statement provided by the defendant and
2. The fact that Barclays did not even have relevant terms etc from that time anyway

So, bottom line here was the judge ruled this unenforceable as a result of the lender failing to provide terms at the time of signature - it was proven via the witness statement that the defendant applied for the card by cutting out a part of a magazine and confirmed no terms (prescribed terms) were within this - as confirmed by the copy agreement held.

They lost. The judge ruled in our favour and that was another consumer victory.

Now, that covers the first couple of pages but what's funny here is the costs. That goes on for some 14 pages (approx) and the bottom line of this is had HFO not bullied the defendant into a corner, they'd be £7k better off and not (wait for it) - £50k worse off

The moral of this story is don't try and bully the wee man as the wee man always packs a bigger punch. Suckers!

What was a £7k debt owed to them now sits at £50k owed BY them.

Well done to all involved - happy reading!

They actually had the terms and conditions, the problem was that those terms were sent to the Defendant AFTER the agreement had been signed. This is why it was U/E

There were no terms with the application full stop

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

Can they pay the defendant's costs by credit card?

[Wishfull]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

50k not bad for a day's work

hope i never get to court i cant afford paul

[Paul.]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

hope i never get to court i cant afford paul

lol, the other side pays the legal bill if we win, and this case was under no win no fee too, so in real terms it didnt cost roland a penny although it was his bill

[SXGuy]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

So sending the terms after the agreement is signed makes it UE? just noticed on my mothers m and s credit card application, there are no terms on it, it says a bit about them may search credit reference agencies, and then finally it says, you have a short period in which to cancel, these details and more will be sent to you in the post by your creditor!!

And indeed, after the CCA request, the terms are on a seperate 2 sided peice of paper.

So this confirms it was sent after the agreement was signed, if sent at all!

[Paul.]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

So sending the terms after the agreement is signed makes it UE? just noticed on my mothers m and s credit card application, there are no terms on it, it says a bit about them may search credit reference agencies, and then finally it says, you have a short period in which to cancel, these details and more will be sent to you in the post by your creditor!!

And indeed, after the CCA request, the terms are on a seperate 2 sided peice of paper.

So this confirms it was sent after the agreement was signed, if sent at all!

no no you are misinterpreting the facts

in this case, there was a signed application form and in evidence the Claimant produced a set of terms and conditions too. It was the terms that sank them, the terms said "you" the person named on the card carrier and also made references to cancellation rights, stating you have the right to cancel the agreement if you do you must return all money and you only have 5 days to cancel etc.....

Now it was nonsense for it to give 5 days, from when the application form was signed cos it took 7 days for processing thus the clause made no sense if the terms were with the application

however Rolands evidence confirmed that there were no terms with the card application and the terms and conditions clearly showed that they were provided with the card, hence references to "CARD CARRIER"

So it needs positive evidence from the card owner to say what he or she signed, and hard evidence to support that

[PlanB]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

So sending the terms after the agreement is signed makes it UE? just noticed on my mothers m and s credit card application, there are no terms on it, it says a bit about them may search credit reference agencies, and then finally it says, you have a short period in which to cancel, these details and more will be sent to you in the post by your creditor!!

And indeed, after the CCA request, the terms are on a seperate 2 sided peice of paper.

So this confirms it was sent after the agreement was signed, if sent at all!

SXGuy. Was your mother's M & S card originally a storecard because if so that CCA may not be relevant and she may have another different legal argument to work with

M & S "upgraded" all their storecards to credit cards in 2003 if that date helps you to check this out for her.

[Paul.]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

SXGuy. Was your mother's M & S card originally a storecard because if so that CCA may not be relevant and she may have another different legal argument to work with

M & S "upgraded" all their storecards to credit cards in 2003 if that date helps you to check this out for her.

it seems she signed the credit card agreement PlanB

[SXGuy]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

SXGuy. Was your mother's M & S card originally a storecard because if so that CCA may not be relevant and she may have another different legal argument to work with

M & S "upgraded" all their storecards to credit cards in 2003 if that date helps you to check this out for her.

Slightly more complicated, yes it was changed from a store card to credit card, but there are some other factors to consider which make me doubt whether you could use the same argument.

She signed a new application for the credit card, its dated 1 month after the shit hit the fan regarding upgrades, back in october 2003.

She had no o/s balance on her store card, so no balance carried over.

It appears they asked her to sign a new application then canceled the store card after.

But the bit im unsure of, is CCA states the agreement must be 1 document including the signed application and prescribed terms.

It does not.

2 sets of terms from what i can tell, both with different charge amounts, none showing credit limit, one marked card carrier, which they are all clearly seperate peices of paper, nothing to suggest they were present during the signing of the application.

[PlanB]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

Damn Worth a try.

[Paul.]

Re: HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller

Damn Worth a try.

always worth a shot