~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

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

Ok thanks for explaining - so are they being charged with unlicenced practicing then mate? I am sure we'll be able to find a few hundred CO threats floating around from their "offshore 'unlicenced' companies"

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

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

When the bank sold the account to a company that could neither lawfully lend money in the UK nor lawfully collect on debts in the UK, would that not have repudiated the contract by making any further activity on that account illegal?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

When the bank sold the account to a company that could neither lawfully lend money in the UK nor lawfully collect on debts in the UK, would that not have repudiated the contract by making any further activity on that account illegal?

This is what Paul answered for me above, when he said that they cannot enforce it - etc......

I am still confused cos surely without a licence to even act, then everything that has been done via that firm to date should be retrospectively backdated, surely?

If it was as simple as 'waiting till they got licenced' then we'd all 'blag it' until we got caught and then we'd retrospectively apply for CCL, wouldn't we?

I'm confused now - well I'm not but something doesn't add up cos the FSA and OFT say one thing but judges are doing another, so who is right....?

[Paul.]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

There is always a caveat in a CCA contract that the rights of the contract can be assigned to another party. I do not think that the repudiation argument could get off the ground, the reason for that is it is not conditional on the creditor giving more money to the debtor for the contract to continue, infact if one looks at s87 CCA for example it clearly envisages a situation where the creditor restricts the right to draw more credit and states this is allowed and does not need a default notice.

The Licencing regime is different,


The OFT do a excellent fact sheet on it too, and it states that a contract made with an unlicenced creditor cannot be enforced until the creditor obtains a determination from the OFT however when the creditor buys a debt without a licence he is only barred from enforcement til he obtains a licence.

The OFT deal with the criminal offences side of things

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

Thanks for info above mate - makes sense now....

The OFT deal with the criminal offences side of things

Really? I think you mean to say "The OFT ought to deal with that side of things but seem rather slack right now".....

[Paul.]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

well lets just say the OFT ARE taking action

They have made a MINDED TO REVOKE which is serious, and could effectivley close the trader if it has no CCA licence

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

This is what Paul answered for me above, when he said that they cannot enforce it - etc......

I am still confused cos surely without a licence to even act, then everything that has been done via that firm to date should be retrospectively backdated, surely?

If it was as simple as 'waiting till they got licenced' then we'd all 'blag it' until we got caught and then we'd retrospectively apply for CCL, wouldn't we?

I'm confused now - well I'm not but something doesn't add up cos the FSA and OFT say one thing but judges are doing another, so who is right....?

Your question and my question may have a similar basis, but they are not the same.

You asked if the debt would be extinguished by it being sold to a company that could not lawfully collect on it in the UK, nor could lawfully enforce it in the UK. The correct answer would be that the debt would not be extinguished but, until such time as the creditor or a further assignee complied with UK law, the debt would remain non-collectable, unenforceable and (I suspect) no interest could lawfully be charged thereon.

My question asks whether by selling the account to a company that cannot lawfully perform any part(s) of the contract in the UK, the original creditor has repudiated the contract. The debt would still exist and the date of the cause of action may have occurred before that assignment of the debt but, if the contract had been repudiated by that assignment, the date of termination could not be after that assignment regardless of how that assignee (or any subsequent assignee) might behave.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

well lets just say the OFT ARE taking action

They have made a MINDED TO REVOKE which is serious, and could effectivley close the trader if it has no CCA licence

Heard it all before mate - really they need to shut one of these firms down to really gain our trust again, maybe shut HFO down to prove a point, followed by 1st and the others that keep infringing the rules.

I hear they shut down that log-book loans who then appealed and could trade throughout the appeal? Its a joke.....

Who wants to bet that HFO will be trading in a year?

[Paul.]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

thats the law, im sure the OFT wanted to pull the plug but the law says they can trade till final determination

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

Your question and my question may have a similar basis, but they are not the same.

You asked if the debt would be extinguished by it being sold to a company that could not lawfully collect on it in the UK, nor could lawfully enforce it in the UK. The correct answer would be that the debt would not be extinguished but, until such time as the creditor or a further assignee complied with UK law, the debt would remain non-collectable, unenforceable and (I suspect) no interest could lawfully be charged thereon.

My question asks whether by selling the account to a company that cannot lawfully perform any part(s) of the contract in the UK, the original creditor has repudiated the contract. The debt would still exist and the date of the cause of action may have occurred before that assignment of the debt but, if the contract had been repudiated by that assignment, the date of termination could not be after that assignment regardless of how that assignee (or any subsequent assignee) might behave.

Thanks

[Paul.]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

Your question and my question may have a similar basis, but they are not the same.

You asked if the debt would be extinguished by it being sold to a company that could not lawfully collect on it in the UK, nor could lawfully enforce it in the UK. The correct answer would be that the debt would not be extinguished but, until such time as the creditor or a further assignee complied with UK law, the debt would remain non-collectable, unenforceable and (I suspect) no interest could lawfully be charged thereon.

My question asks whether by selling the account to a company that cannot lawfully perform any part(s) of the contract in the UK, the original creditor has repudiated the contract. The debt would still exist and the date of the cause of action may have occurred before that assignment of the debt but, if the contract had been repudiated by that assignment, the date of termination could not be after that assignment regardless of how that assignee (or any subsequent assignee) might behave.

i am unaware of any case law on this point which either answers one way or the other

I do not however see that the assignment of a debt when there is a covenant in the contract allowing for such could bring the agreement to an end.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

thats the law, im sure the OFT wanted to pull the plug but the law says they can trade till final determination

Oh I know mate, it happens in footy as well - get a straight red, you can appeal and play a couple of games before the panel review it - you gotta love the system

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

well lets just say the OFT ARE taking action

They have made a MINDED TO REVOKE which is serious, and could effectivley close the trader if it has no CCA licence

Yes - on 20 May 2011.

Their procedures, however, are so glacial as to make the Court of Chancery seem almost reckless by comparison and HFO may continue in business until the tribunal process is completed.

Alternatively, HFO might assign the debts to another company which has been set up for the purpose and which, as it seems to be quite different, has been given a bright, shiny and new CCA Licence.

Without any ability to sequester the assets of a company, the revocation of their CCA Licence is a rather pointless gesture which may be a little inconvenient for a short while but which cannot be relied upon to prevent further abuse.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

Who wants to bet that HFO will be trading in a year?

What are the odds on them still trading in 2013?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: ~HFO Capital Limited -v- Robinson

What are the odds on them still trading in 2013?

They'll be around till Hell Freezes Over