Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Update ~

HFC have not produced a revised W/S and confirm that they will rely on the (third party)one produced for the (dismissed) S/J application.
They state that the envelope we disclosed, did not contain the D/N !!!!!!! :faint:

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

What do they think it held then ?

When you did your SAR and got system notes (did you?) there should have been a list of correspondance (customer contact log) were there other letters etc sent at the same time which they could pretend were contained in the envelope which actually held the DN ?

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

What do they think it held then ? Well your guess is as good as mine Ame!

When you did your SAR and got system notes (did you?) there should have been a list of correspondance (customer contact log) were there other letters etc sent at the same time which they could pretend were contained in the envelope which actually held the DN ?

Didn't do SAR, system notes were provided at disclosure and no, there is no other communication listed.

The gist of the matter is that they now have conceded that the envelope disclosed to them was indeed sent 2nd class hence their allegation that it didn't contain the D/N !

Will look forward to seeing the envelope that did contain the D/N then as per the comments of the DJ at SJ hearing!!!

Perhaps this will be the first CCA case to require a forensics expert or more easily, a quick call to Royal Mail's legal department who will quite happily confirm the information contained in the orange barcodes on said envelope - thanks 'pt' for that info. :tinysmile_grin_t:

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Hi all,

Just re-surrecting this thread as I'm in need of a bit of reassurance.

Quick re-cap ~

Have been taken to court on back of faulty D/N and creditor confirms they have no original agreement. They applied for SJ reliant on blank application form and a seperate sheet of t&c's that they allege were on back of application form. The application form has no prescribed terms and makes no reference to the t&c's being overleaf or indeed anywhere.

Creditor attempted to use Carey to 'overcome' the lack of agreement and cited the Brandon case with regards to the D/N.

SJ was dismissed but case is stayed pending the result of Brandon's application to appeal.

Now, I have read with interest 'pt's' win at the CoA this week and also his comments regarding another High Court case which he is obviously a little bit pleased with!!

Whilst I think I understand how these recent results are good for the consumer, I really am getting a bit jittery as Brandon's application is due to be heard next week and if that fails, I assume Restons will re-start the fight.

Apologies for waffling, I suppose what I'm basically asking is do we still have a good case?

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Fluffy off the back of PT's case reported yesterday you need to concentrate efforts on proving that those T&Cs were not on the back of your original agreement.

The DN issues is being discussed heavily on another thread and obviously Brandon will have a big bearing on your case, so I'd look much more at the recon agreement terms and find evidence that they were not the ones from your agreement right now.

Sorry if that sounds a little obvious.

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

[quote=Amethyst;
Sorry if that sounds a little obvious.[/quote]


Don't apologise Ame, you've just confirmed my own thoughts.

There are no obvious tell-tale signs such as different interest rates (at least not to the untrained eye).

Whilst fold marks can clearly be seen on the copy of the Application Form (A4 folded into 3 sections), no such fold marks can be seen on the t&c's document which to me indicates that this is not a photocopy of the reverse of the actual Application, but has been produced from a digitally archived image.

The Application form provided to us is blank save for address details completed in another hand and quite clearly this is just a photocopy of 'a.n.other's' application completed around the same time, as they have not done a brilliant job tip-exing out their details! Nothing so obvious as a name still showing sadly! But they are only using this re-con as persuasion that this is the type of document that would have been signed.

However, just a simple thought, if they are able to photocopy the front of the Application form, why can't/won't they photocopy the reverse???????????
I know what I think the answer is!

So, two wishes please ~

1. That 'pt's' recent High Court case he has eluded to, has positive bearing on faulty d/n's or Mr Brandon at least gets his application approved.
2. That someone somewhere has an original copy of a GM Card Agreement from 1994 or thereabouts.

:tinysmile_hmm_t2:


(Of course it would be even nicer if HFC just conceded the whole darn thing!!)

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Okay, firstly the back can be a recon, it doesnt have to be the exact one on the reverse of the agreement in terms of format (foldmarks etc) - it just has to have the correct information and terms on that were on the original. So ignore foldmarks etc.

They don't send a photocopy of the exact reverse as they dont have it, ie they only stored the front of the forms in microfiche etc, as the backs were generic for each type of app, hence the recons.

So look at content rather than form.


Do you have copies of statements from inception ?

GM card agreement 1994 - I suspect there were a number of different ones - but have a look on google images as that does throw up a lot of other peoples agreements.

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Thanks Ame, understand what you are saying. x

No copies of statements from inception. They have provided what they say is a copy of one dated Oct'94 where the interest rate does match that in the t&c's. But this is not the first (possibly the second) as there is a cfwd balance on it.
They quote a monthly rate of 1.53%, an APR of 19.9% - no other rate given for cash advances, they just state they will charge a handling fee.
I've tried to equate the rate to the amount of interest actually charged and I just can't get it to work out!!

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Feel free to put the figures up and see if someone else can sort them out. Second statement matching comes down on the side of them being the correct terms unfortunately....do we have the terms and agreement up on here?

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

I am not able to scan, sorry. The best I can do is direct you to this thread OTR. The application and t&c's displayed there are identicle to those we have.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ead.php?124572

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Feel free to put the figures up and see if someone else can sort them out.

Well if someone is really that bored here are the figures!

Opening balance 1024.50
Repaid 56.53 -
Purchases 54.40
Interest (1.53%) 20.02

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

And whats the interest rate on the t&c's (for purchases).

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

They quote a monthly rate of 1.53%, an APR of 19.9% - no other rate given for cash advances, they just state they will charge a handling fee.!

See above. x

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Thanks for your input Ame, though I don't want you to spend too much time on it!

I've let things be since the SJ application was dismissed in July but have just got a bee in my bonnet this week as the Brandon case is not far away.
Worse case scenario is he loses his application and the stay on our case is lifted , then I think we'll pass everything over to a professional.
I know I've successfully argued my points once, but not in love with the idea of doing it again!

Thanks again for your time.

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Sounds sensible.