GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

    On the 4th January 2012 before DDJ Bradly HFO brought a claim against an elderly gentleman. The letters which i had sight of could only be described as disgusting and in my opinion have no place in the recovery of a consumer debt.

    Things like " you have paid so will have no defence to this claim" appeared in letters along with "when we get judgment we will get a charging order" ( i must point out that this is a summary of the words and not the precise wording)

    However, we took three points before the judge and he found in our favour on 2 out of 3, and with respect to the judge the third point he is plain wrong on.

    We won on s78 breaches, we won on the creditors failure to adhere to the Contractual requirements to terminate the agreement which is effectively the argument that was run in brandon v amex.

    I pause to point out that we had Bradley Say in our corner.
    Bradley is from Gough Sq where the same barristers as from Brandon reside

    Anyway,

    I will post the judgment to this thread shortly when i have had my coffee. But contrary to belief on some other forums, s78 can STILL win you the day!!
    Tags: 1st, 2012, account, acquires, action, bank, banks, breach of contract, capital, cca, ccl, claim, companies, con, consumer, contract, court, creditor, creditors, criminal, date, dca, dca's, debt, debts, default, default notice, elderly, enforcement, experto, firms, hfo capital, illegal, job, law, legal, letter, licence, loans, mbna, money, named, no cca, offshore, oft, rac, rules, threats, unenforceable
  • #2
    Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

    Paul,

    It is quiet amazing how the Debt Collection Industry know the outcome of any court case before it has been heard lol one wonders if they have a crystal ball.

    Well Done.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

      That's brilliant news Paul!!
      Very well done, and the more the fact that s78 is still viable gets driven home, the better. Sod the doom and gloom merchants elsewhere!
      Look forward to reading the full judgement.

      Shep x
      Last edited by Undercover Elsa; 7 January 2012, 10:57.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

        Since this judgment is before an open court, it is a matter of public record, therefore, here it is


        Another victory for the little guy
        Attached Files

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

          Originally posted by Paul. View Post
          Since this judgment is before an open court, it is a matter of public record, therefore, here it is


          Another victory for the little guy
          Congratulations to you Paul

          I hope you weren't referring to the counsel from Gough Square when you said "victory for the little guy"

          It's encouraging to see that the judiciary have got the message that s.78 and bad DNs matter finally.
          Last edited by PlanB; 7 January 2012, 12:19. Reason: typo

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

            Great news Paul, hopefully the banks and dca's will overlook the verdict since it was not in their favour and carry on making the same mistakes to allow you many more victories like this
            When you have nothing you have nothing to lose

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

              Originally posted by Paul. View Post
              Since this judgment is before an open court, it is a matter of public record, therefore, here it is
              Was the judge sozzled?

              The reason I ask is that, whilst the defendant is named as Dennis Robertson at the top of page one, his name throughout appears to be Mr Robinson.

              Did he change his name in a coffee break?
              Last edited by CleverClogs (RIP); 7 January 2012, 20:59. Reason: corrected statement of DDJ's clanger

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                Was the judge sozzled?

                The reason I ask is that, whilst the defendant is named as Dennis Robinson at the top of page one, his name throughout appears to be Mr Robertson.

                Did he change his name in a coffee break?
                Trust you to find such a minor detail

                Wanna job as chief CCA checker
                I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

                If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                  The dates given are consistently wrong, with 2001 often appearing where the context suggests 2011 would be more appropriate. In paragraph 21, the word "proscribed" (meaning 'forbidden') appears where the context surely suggests that "prescribed" (meaning 'specified' or 'required') would be more appropriate.

                  As regards the demands for payment made by HFO Cayman, that company ceased to have a valid Consumer Credit Licence when it lapsed in 2008; it is therefore difficult to understand how it might lawfully have made such demands.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                    Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
                    Trust you to find such a minor detail
                    It was hardly minor - it was glaringly obvious.

                    Wanna job as chief CCA checker
                    I was wondering if I should offer my services to DDJ Bradly as his new profo reeder.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                      Congrats & Excellent piece of News Paul
                      I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                      If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                        Originally posted by Paul. View Post
                        On the 4th January 2012 before DDJ Bradly HFO brought a claim against an elderly gentleman. The letters which i had sight of could only be described as disgusting and in my opinion have no place in the recovery of a consumer debt.

                        Things like " you have paid so will have no defence to this claim" appeared in letters along with "when we get judgment we will get a charging order" ( i must point out that this is a summary of the words and not the precise wording)
                        Whether or not that paraphrase was accurate, did those comments appear in a letter from the oafish claimant or from their oafish lawyer?

                        However, we took three points before the judge and he found in our favour on 2 out of 3, and with respect to the judge the third point he is plain wrong on.
                        It is excellent news about the victory but, being merely a County Court case, it carries little or no legal weight as a precedent.

                        I believe that DDJ Bradly may also have been mistaken about the date the contract was terminated as, by assigning the alleged debt to a Cayman Islands company that did not (and still does not) hold a current Consumer Credit Act licence, the contract was effectively terminated by the original creditor.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                          Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                          Whether or not that paraphrase was accurate, did those comments appear in a letter from the oafish claimant or from their oafish lawyer?


                          It is excellent news about the victory but, being merely a County Court case, it carries little or no legal weight as a precedent.

                          I believe that DDJ Bradly may also have been mistaken about the date the contract was terminated as, by assigning the alleged debt to a Cayman Islands company that did not (and still does not) hold a current Consumer Credit Act licence, the contract was effectively terminated by the original creditor.
                          no no the contract was worded in such a way that the only way to terminate it was by notice in writing as to the fact that the contract had been terminated

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                            Originally posted by Paul. View Post
                            no no the contract was worded in such a way that the only way to terminate it was by notice in writing as to the fact that the contract had been terminated
                            but surely if they sold it to an unlicenced DCA then it's in essence wiping the slate?
                            I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

                            If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

                              Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
                              but surely if they sold it to an unlicenced DCA then it's in essence wiping the slate?
                              no the DCA merely cannot enforce the debt til he acquires the necessary licence.

                              Of course if there is an argument over the assignment, and then the assignment is found to be one of equity only, then the creditor will have a problem because of the clean hands principle. Lest not forget that unlicenced trading is a criminal offence

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X