HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

[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,
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

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,
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.

[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

[alsagerman]

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 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.

[alsagerman]

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.

[QCKate]

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

What a superb letter Heph. Content must be on your side and the tone looks just right to me - sticking to the facts.

Everything crossed for you!!!!!!!!

QCK

[Hephaestus]

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

Hi Folks,
Have sent my letter. Will wait and see if it has desired effect. Left it as I originally posted it as thought it better to ask nothing and just state facts.
Will post what happens.

Cheers.

Heph.

[Hephaestus]

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

Hi Folks,
Just received a letter from the court regarding my objection to Aktiv replacing Varde as the Claimant. They want me in court on Monday!
"The District Judge has considered the matter and ordered that the above hearing will take place by way of attendance at court and not by way of a telephone conference hearing. Failure to attend may result in an order being made in your absence."
My case against Varde is due at the end of next week so this is another new hearing. Have rang and confirmed this with the court. When I first read the letter I was expecting the usual brush off so I didn't notice the new date, and even then I just thought it was all going to be dealt with at the hearing already scheduled. Luckily my wife noticed it otherwise I would have missed it and turned up several days too late!
If this hearing goes in my favour it will be the death knell for Vardes case. I have no other info to supply to the court except what they have already had in my letter from the other day. Will just turn up and hope the Judge is in a good mood and my facts are correct.
Talk about short notice tho!

Will post any developments.

Cheers.

Heph.

[QCKate]

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

Hi Folks,
Just received a letter from the court regarding my objection to Aktiv replacing Varde as the Claimant. They want me in court on Monday!
"The District Judge has considered the matter and ordered that the above hearing will take place by way of attendance at court and not by way of a telephone conference hearing. Failure to attend may result in an order being made in your absence."
My case against Varde is due at the end of next week so this is another new hearing. Have rang and confirmed this with the court. When I first read the letter I was expecting the usual brush off so I didn't notice the new date, and even then I just thought it was all going to be dealt with at the hearing already scheduled. Luckily my wife noticed it otherwise I would have missed it and turned up several days too late!
If this hearing goes in my favour it will be the death knell for Vardes case. I have no other info to supply to the court except what they have already had in my letter from the other day. Will just turn up and hope the Judge is in a good mood and my facts are correct.
Talk about short notice tho!

Will post any developments.

Cheers.

Heph.

I wouldnt be surprised if they don't turn up Heph.

QCK

[Hephaestus]

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

Hi Folks,
Have been checking the OFT CCA section 29, does anyone know where it states 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).”
I cannot find those words in the Act and am going to be hard pressed in court if I can't quote the source accurately.

Cheers

Heph.

[Hephaestus]

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

Hi Folks,
Have been digging deep trying to find where I got the aforementioned snippet from the CCA and came across this little beauty whilst sidetracked
It is pinched from a post on the Consumer Action Group

Application of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Re

Application of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Application of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
may impede collection efforts and could cause early redemption of your notes and/or a loss on your
notes.
The primary statute dealing with consumer credit in the United Kingdom is the Consumer Credit
Act 1974 – which we will refer to in this base prospectus as the ‘‘Consumer Credit Act’’. The Office
of Fair Trading (the ‘‘OFT’’) is responsible for the issue of licences under, and the superintendence of,
the CCA, related consumer credit regulations and other consumer protection legislation. The OFT
may review businesses and operations, provide guidelines to follow and take action when necessary.
Currently, a credit agreement is regulated by the CCA where (a) the borrower is or includes an
individual, (b) the amount of ‘‘credit’’ as defined in the CCA does not exceed the financial limit,
which is £25,000 for credit agreements made on or after 1 May 1998 and lower amounts for credit
agreements made before that date and (c) the credit agreement is not an exempt agreement under the
CCA. A vast majority of the credit card transactions which occur on a designated account have or
will have a credit limit of an amount up to £25,000. Accordingly, the Consumer Credit Act applies
to the transactions occurring on the designated accounts and, in whole or in part, to the credit card
agreements. This may have consequences for your investment in the notes because of the possible
unenforceability of, or possible liabilities for misrepresentation or breach of contract in relation to, an
underlying credit card agreement.
(a) Enforcement of improperly executed or modified credit card agreements
Any credit card agreement that is wholly or partly regulated by the CCA or treated as such has
to comply with requirements under the CCA as to licensing of lenders and brokers, documentation
and procedures of credit card agreements and (in so far as applicable) pare-contract disclosure. If it
does not comply with those requirements, then to the extent that the credit card agreement is
regulated by the CCA or treated as such, it is unenforceable against the borrower (a) without an
order of the OFT, if the lender or any broker does not hold the required licence at the relevant time,
(b) totally, if the form to be signed by the borrower is not signed by the borrower personally or omits
or mis-states a ‘‘prescribed term’’ or (c) without a court order in other cases and, in exercising its
discretion whether to made the order, the court would take into account any prejudice suffered by

the borrower and any culpability of the lender. If a credit card agreement related to a designated
account has not been executed or modified in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer
Credit Act and is completely unenforceable as a result, the principal receivables arising thereon will
be treated as ineligible receivables. See ‘‘The Receivables – Representations’’.
With respect to those credit card agreements which may not comply with the Consumer Credit
Act, such that a court order could not be obtained, the originators estimate that, on any pool
selection date or additional selection date, this will represent less than 1 per cent. of the aggregate
principal amount of receivables in the designated accounts. The originators do not anticipate any
material increase in the percentage of these receivables in the securitised portfolio. In respect of
those designated accounts that do not comply with the Consumer Credit Act, it will still be possible
to collect amounts owing by cardholders and seek arrears from cardholders who are falling behind
with their payments. It is unlikely that the originators will have an obligation to pay or to account to
a cardholder for any payments received by an originator because of this non-compliance with the
Consumer Credit Act. Any such receivables will be treated by the receivables trustee as ineligible

receivables. See ‘‘Representations’’.


The text in red is highlighted by me. Varde were unable to produce a signed credit agreement with regard to the account they are taking me to court for and if I'm not mistaken that would make their case totally unenforceable. They have sold this account to Aktiv and I have a copy of the "Deed of Card Recievables", again though, if I am correct the receivables mentioned are deemed ineligible receivables according to the above.

Am I on the right lines here? Am well out of my depth at the moment but this is the only other time I have ever seen the word "receivables" except for in the deed of sale between Varde and Aktiv.

Cheers.

Will try to stay and track but it's so very easy to get carried away with all.

Heph.

[alsagerman]

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

Evening Hep.

Can't answer your question as to whether you're on the right lines, but that little lot is going to give someone a headache. Lets hope it's AK

Good luck on Monday and try not to strangle anyone in court, they really frown on that sort of thing.