HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Understand your not wanting to appear arrogant, never a good idea to treat a Judge with a lack of respect. Could words to the effect, "I believe, due to my lack of expert knowledge, this may be an attempt by Varde to deceive". The Judge will decide anyway, asking for their guidance can't make matters any worse.

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi Alsagerman,

You're right and in my first draft of this letter I pointed out that fact quite bluntly but after reading through it I was concerned that it came across as a bit cocky and felt that it may be seen by the Judge that I was treating him like an idiot by drawing his attention to it in this way. So I thought it may carry more weight if he felt he'd noticed it himself. Am still wondering about the wording of that point though. It was without a doubt a "deliberate attempt to pull the wool over the courts eyes" (those were my exact words initially) but I don't want to come over as too arrogant.
What do you think?

Cheers for your input.

Heph.

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi Hep

REALLY intesting thread this.

May be nothing but, in point 7) of your letter you detail that Varde, "supplied a copy of the original licence which does not show the lapse date". Could this be construed as a blatant attempt to deceive or mislead? May be nothing but can it do any harm to raise this additional point?

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi Folks,
This a copy of the letter I am sending to the Judge, It was CCA s29 and not Law of Property Act that is relevant on this point.

Dear sir,
I write regarding The General Form of Judgment or Order madeby District Judge xxx at xxx County Court made on 8^thJune 2012 in which it is ordered that Aktiv Kapital AS, Zug Branch be substituted as Claimant in place of Varde Investments (Ireland) Limited in the case listed above.
I object to this order on the following points.
1. Varde Investments (Ireland) LT were assigned this account on 26/05/2010. I have enclosed a copy of a letter and marked it “Exhibit A”. The date of assignment is listed on line 2 of the first paragraph.
2. At this time Vardes Consumer Credit Licence No 057759 shows that the “Current Organisation who run this organisation” to be “Deutsche International Corporate Services (Ireland) Limited”. I have enclosed a copy of their Consumer Credit Licence and marked it “Exhibit B”.
3. This Consumer Credit Licence lapsed on13/11/2010. This information is clearly visible on “Exhibit B”.
4. Varde did not renew their Consumer Credit Licence until 22nd June 2011. I enclose a copy of this licence and have marked it “Exhibit C”.
5. This new licence is numbered 0643780 and the company has changed hands or been sold as the “Current Organisation who run this organisation” are now listed as “Matsack Trust Limited”. This information is clearly visible on “Exhibit C”.
6. The Defendant has raised this point in his “Statement of Defence” and pointed out that “the rights of the original assignment cannot be passed along to the new license holder. This is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s29).”
7. Varde are aware of this breach and when challenged about it have supplied a copy of the original licence which does not show the lapse date. I have enclosed a copy of this and marked it “Exhibit D”.
8. Since Varde were in breach of Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s29) after their licence was renewed and no longer owned the rights of the original assignment it follows that they are unable to sell this account to Aktiv Kapital AS, Zug Branch.
9. Based on the above information the “Deed of Sale and Purchase of Card Receivables” between Varde Investments (Ireland) Limited and Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Zug Branch is null and void and Aktiv cannot replace Varde as the Claimant in this case.
10. The Financial Ombudsman are currently investigating this matter (ref: xxx) but I am unable to get a progress report from them at this time.

Yours sincerely
Hephaestus.

Hope that will do the trick, haven't sent it yet so there is still time for me to change it or add anything that you may think relevant.

Cheers

Heph

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

HI,
Rang the OFT, they agree that Varde did change hands during the lapse of licence but stopped short of offering any legal advice. However, since that is the case it means Varde are in breach of the Law of Property Act and should not have been able to continue with their claim let alone sell it on to Aktiv. I just rang the court to see if I could avoid another £80 fee with the N244 application and was told that as it so close to the court case I should just write to the judge airing my concerns and if they want a proper application they will let me know but chances are a letter will suffice.
Will get that in the post ASAP and hope for the best. If the judge agrees then this case should be struck out straight away.
Will keep my fingers crossed but am still expecting to have to do the court thing.
Will post any developments.

Cheers.
Heph.

[mystery1]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

There is no prescribed form for a notice of assignment but if it gives a date (it need not) it must be accurate.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post1274894

M1

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi,
After going through all my stuff I do not appear to have a letter from Aktiv titled "Notice of Assignment". I have recieved two letters from them, the first dated 4/4/12 saying they had bought the account and were requesting Experto to contact me. The second is dated May 18 2012 which again states that AK Zug have bought the interests of Varde including the outstanding balance of my account. AK Zug has appointed AK UK to recover any and all outstanding sums. Am attempting to attach these below ( or above ! ).
Regarding the Form of Notice of Assignment as included in recent bundle titled Schedule 4, I do not appear to have been sent one. The copy included in the bundle has the date removed.

I hope this is what you were asking me.

Cheers

Heph.

[mystery1]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

What is the date on your notice of assignment. The deed of assignment appears to be 26th February 2012.

M1

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi,
Have contacted the OFT for clarification of the change of ownership reflected in Vardes two credit licences. If they give me the info that I need and it looks viable I intend to challenge this new ruling and dispute the legallity of the Deed of Sale. That should throw a bit of a spanner in the works.
Will pester OFT on phone tomorrow too.
Will keep you posted as to how it goes.

Please feel free to advise me in any way any of you see fit, it all helps and is very very welcome.

Cheers.

Heph

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Here are two more.
Plenty of info there eh. Would the judge have had these forms unblanked? If not, he must have been on the Vodka...

Cheers.
Heph.

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP



Hi,
Here are some of the docs I have been sent, including the infamous "Clause 16" (only one page of it as its ********)

Am having trouble attaching this info. Am unsure if I've even managed it.

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Varde Licence new.docVarde licence.doc

Hi,
I have (hopefully) attached Vards credit license, old and new. Where on these could I point out that the company has changed hands as told to me by the OFT.
Would I be correct in saying that it relates to the section "Current Organisations that run the Organisation" as these are different on both licences.

Cheers.
Heph

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi,
Have been looking through all the stuff they sent me in order to answer your question, am going to attach docs and pics etc with as much info as I can come up with tomorrow.
As I look through it though, I am tempted to apply to have this judgment reversed due to the following reasons.

There is a statement of truth given by Aktivs account manager, in it he states

"3. By an agreement in writing dated the 29th Febuary 2012, the Claimant assigned to the applicant all their rights,title and interest in the debt owed by the Defendant to them. Notice of this transaction, pursuant to the provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925, was given to the Defendant on 18/05/12. A redacted copy of the agreement and a copy of the Notice are now produced in the bundle marked "SO1" and "SO2"."

In my statement of defense which I submitted when Varde were involved, I mentioned the Law of Property Act 1925 and the fact that Varde were in breach of it as during their credit licence lapse the company changed hands or was bought out and therefore the original debt/account could not be transferred from original Varde licence holder to the new one without breaching the said Law of Property Act 1925. They ignored this point in their reply to my defence...
Strikes me as funny as how they are trying to comply with it now. I say it is too late and Aktiv should not be able to purchase this account at all as it did not belong to Varde after their licence lapse and therefore could not be sold or assigned by them.

In another letter between Varde and Aktiv labeled " Schedule 3 - Form of Exercise Notice" Aktiv write that
"We refer to the deed of sale and purchase of card recievables dated (Black blob) 2012 between Aktiv Zug, (Big Black Blob) and Varde and the option granted to us under clause 16.1 of that deed.
We hereby give you notice that under and pursuant to clause 16.3 of the deed that we exercise the option granted by you to us in respect of the Additional debts (as defined in the Deed). This notice constitutes an Exercise Notice for the purpose of the Deed."

I looked up clause 16 in the copy of the Deed they have enclosed and guess what, it is 5 pages long and is blacked out in its entirety, I have no idea what it says. Surely this can't be right for the judge to allow this. I don't think he even looked through it!
On page 2 of the deed amongst the black lines is a reference to the second and third MBNA agreement and the fact that they are attached as Appendix 2 and 3 respectively. (First MBNA agreemant is not mentioned or is blacked out as the lines above second MBNA agreement are blacked)
It states that
"Second MBNA agreement means the agreement for the sale and purchase of card recievables between the Seller and MBNA dated 31 March 2010, a copy of which (partially redacted in the second schedule thereof in relation to the purchase price) is attached to this deed as Appendix 2."

"Partially redacted" !!! its completely blank!

The third MBNA agrement reads the same, except dated 27 July 2011.
This appendix is also completely blank.

I fail to see how the judge can allow them to submit these blank pages and blacked out pages and allow them to base their case upon it, its a complete joke.
I haven't had much joy in appealing to the courts judgment so far and wonder if I should bother. I really fancy it but haven't got another £80 to pay for an N244 form. It needs to be done within the next few days, I may submit one and ask to pay later or apply for aid. If I don't get one in I may miss my chance to raise it and be not allowed to do so in court at my hearing. Its very complicated, justice seems to be related to how much money you are prepared to shell out to satisfy the courts.

Anyway, that's my moan for tonight, any idea on whether I should raise these issues before trial? I will attach copies of stuff they sent in next few posts to give you more of an idea of what I am going on about.

Cheers.

Heph.

[mystery1]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

How does the deed of assignment compare to the notice of assignment ? (dates,parties details)

M1

[teaboy2]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Stick to the original plan with the embarressed defence. As you said they still have not complied with your cpr31.14.