A newcomer's tale and a vital question

[julian1957]

My wife got into difficulties with GE Money over 2 store cards. I took over and wasted months trying to reach an amicable agreement with them - this was before I learnt about unenforceable charges.

I won't bore you with the 10,000 words I could write about GE Money's behaviour except to say that no financial institution should be allowed to act in the way they do. I'll just give you the final straw as an example as it leads into the vital question:-

Throughout my attempts to resolve matters, I sent a payment on each account each month to ensure they could not successfully go to court and get a CCJ. In May, they instructed us to make no further payments. Instead, they said they would send us a form for us to provide them with details of our finances so that an agreement could be reached. This sounded excellent as they also said this would stop the interest. (We already had such a form from Payplan, but GE Money said they wanted it on their own one).

Despite repeated requests, they never sent the form. Last week, they told me on the phone that they were now passing it to outside Debt Collectors as we hadn't returned the form that they hadn't sent. I said "great", believing I'd be able to deal more successully with a different company and at the same time take on GE Money to recover the charges, which I'd now learnt were unenforceable. Instead, they passed the accounts to solicitors who issued summonses....

Disgraceful behaviour? Believe me, this is only one percent of it! So on to the vital question:-

We are desperate to avoid CCJ's and are thus going to pay up in full then go after GE Money over the charges. But can the very fact that we've paid up in response to summonses rather than just stroppy letters be seen as constituting an admission that the amounts claimed were actually fully owed? In other words could GE Money use the fact that we'd paid up when they issued summonses as a defence when we sue them to recover the charges?

Just in case anyone's still reading (sorry to go on so much), can anyone tell me how the solicitor's can charge for each account not only £80 for their fees (which I'll try to get back later if I can prove it should never have been passed to them) but also £110 Court Fees if this is not going to go to court? According to them we don't need to do anything else if we send them a cheque for the full amount, but they insist this must include these Court Fees, which seems ludicrous under the circumstances.

I have a third question but think I've gone on enough for now - it can wait!

Sorry to write so much but I really need to know where I stand, especially over the main point above.

[sproggi]

[quote=julian1957]
We are desperate to avoid CCJ's and are thus going to pay up in full then go after GE Money over the charges. But can the very fact that we've paid up in response to summonses rather than just stroppy letters be seen as constituting an admission that the amounts claimed were actually fully owed? In other words could GE Money use the fact that we'd paid up when they issued summonses as a defence when we sue them to recover the charges?
quote]

Can't help with your other question I am afraid, but with regards to your first question:

Just because you pay up, this is no defence for them and you are still within your rights to claim the charges back.
Also, If you receive a default through these charges (and only because of the charges) you can then apply to have this default removed.

If you check out some of the other threads in this forum, you will find that others have been in the same, or simular, situation as you and you may find it helpful to read their postings.

HTH
Sproggi

[Glenn UK]

FWIW

Im not legally trained but it seems to me if you wish to settle you can use the same tactics they do, that is make the offer without prejudice and send them the money.

Personally I used Payplan and would of thought if feasible they would be the best to deal with this matter on your behalf.

Secondly unless I absolutely had to i wouldnt settle under those condtions, is it not worth counterclaiming and issuing a claim in the coutr against them?

Be interested to see what those who know more than me have to so say.

glenn

[julian1957]

Thanks for the encouraging replies!

Re Payplan, although they've been helpful, our overall debts are not enough for them to intervene themselves. As I said, they sent us the forms to work out our budget and come to an arrangement with GE but that wasn't good enough for their "Financial Solutions" people, who wanted their own forms then failed to send them.

We're settling now because we simply don't have the info to counterclaim now. When I first found out about charges being unenforceable, GE said that none of the info I had about this was applicable to them as these weren't Bank Charges for bounced cheques, exceeding an overdraft etc and the contracts my wife had signed meant that the charges were perfectly legal because of the way they were worded. I requested copies of the contracts AS SIGNED but so far have failed to obtain anything from them other than the most recent revision of the standard terms and conditions.

Of course, I now know this was just more GE Money bull but we're just getting this out of the way so we can go after them without owing them anything that could lead to a CCJ. As I understand it, they could get this if ANY of the amount they claim was genuinely owed and I've no idea what the true picture is yet.

Also, they and their so-called Debt Collectors, Viking (who are actually their own accounts department under another name, as Viking's own reports and accounts admit) have had my wife in a real state with their harrassment methods, many of which are without a doubt illegal under the Administration of Justice Act. Proving it is difficult though, especially as we were rather naive at first and were trying to resolve matters amicably. This, however, is a reason for getting them off our backs.

sproggi, you've kind of lead on to what would have been my other question by mentioning the possibility of the default being removed. My point though was going to go further than that - if it turns out that the whole amount WAS charges (currently unknown) and the default was thus invalid, surely no summonses could be legitimately issued (as a legitimate default is needed first). So therefore, the Court and Solicitors Fees must also be met by GE Money!!?? Well, I'll cross that bridge when I finally get some figures from GE Money....

Finally, although I'm newly registered and posting for the first time, I had checked out the forums pretty well over the last few weeks as my son was already registered - he's taking on the Nationwide. The problem is that there's now so much going on that it's easy to miss the "key" post!

Anyway, thanks again, any more comments/info welcomed and I'll keep the forum informed!

PS Personal opinion - if a default notice is "over" by one penny, it should be regarded as both invalid and defamatory. Financial institutions never give us an inch so why should they get one back?