Jump to content

MAGDA

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    2,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MAGDA

  1. Hi dx, well, the loan did fall into difficulty around 2004ish, but by that point we had paid a lot of the money back considering all the interest we were paying - that was the trouble, most of our payment was for the interest and only a very small amount actually paid off the debt. Even so, it certainly wasn't over £2,000 which Link claim it is. I worked out, we had paid back around £3,450 in payments by the time it fell into arrears. also, as mentioned before, there is also the PPI issue as well to look into. I will get some of the documents posted up and you can see what you think, thanks, Magda
  2. Not sure if the account was terminated, presume it was though. Thanks for the link, will have a look.
  3. Well, all that the t&cs say is: FNB may assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of this agreement and any amounts owed to FNB hereunderto any person without the consent of the customer. It doesn't mention interest at all, apart from stating somewhere else that it may be varied, depending on FNB's base lending rate.
  4. Hi ims, thanks for dropping in! I have a list of transactions which Link were forced to send me when I involved Trading standards a few years back. This shows all of the payments I made and the dates and also the interest added. Magda
  5. Ok, thanks CB - that does make sense though - so I could claim PPI up until 2004 and then just calculate the interest itself up to a more recent date, which would be a lot fairer.
  6. Thans CB, will have a look at those Links a bit later - I've got a nasty feeling that Link are going to start harassing us for this loan because they realise the clock is ticking and in another year and a half or so it will be statute barred. So, should I calculate the ppi refund up until the current date? Hope you are well CB. Magda
  7. Hi, I've had problems on and off with Link for a number of years. Recently they have started to emerge from the woodwork and are pursuing an account that we haven't made payments on for five years, come this October. It's an ex First National account (home improvements) and I have been giving the paperwork I have the once over to see where we stand. I have noticed that there is PPI added on to the loan which we didn't really have any use for, because I believe it was only valid for five years, whereas the loan was due to run for 10 years., which we didn't know at the time. Also, we were told at the point of sale (in our home) that we would be unlikely to be offered theloan if we didn't have the PPI. We also weren't made aware of how much the PPI would end up costing us with all of the interest added on over the 10 year period, that wasn't mentioned. I am trying to work out the PPI, but it's a bit confusing because of our situation regarding the loan. The loan started towards the end of 1997 and fell into arrears around the beginning of 2004, so we did actually maintain the repayments religiously for around six and a half years or so. The query I have though is that when the account was sold to Link, although we were only making token payments, they were charging interest on the full outstanding balance, which of course meant that we were paying interest on the PPI portion of the balance as well, so not sure how I go about doing the sums for this, i.e., do I reclaim PPI up until 2004, or should I be using a more recent date. The APR was 24.2% and the actual loan was for £2109, to which a single premium PPI was added @ £258.00. The stupid thing is that we had paid a lot of money back to First National over a number of years, but the amount Link is now stating is almost equal to the original loan amount, so in effect we have paid nothing. We obviously now realise what a terrible deal this was anyway, which was pretty typical of the FN loans around that time - imagine it probably isn't much better now! Many thanks for any help. Magda
  8. Does anyone from the HFO Fan club have any ideas on the above - would appreciate any help anyone can provide. many thanks, Magda
  9. Thanks for that coledog, that's a huge help. If HFO cayman's licence lapsed in 2010, does it automatically follow that they were trading as a company right up to that point, or could the company have ceased trading, but the licence had been due to run for a while longer anyway, and just ran its natural course. I've been wondering when exactly Cayman ceased to function as a company in the true sense, i.e., they obviously had to be incorporated as a company in the Cayman Islands, and wonder when this ceased to be the case. I know they sold accounts to HFO Dublin in 2008, but the 'sale agreement' only allows for the sale of their existing portfolio of debts and any pending accounts - it doesn't say future accounts, which is the wording used on the sale agreement between Cayman and HFO Services. That agreement states that they assign their existing debt portfolio and any future debts - the use of the word pending on the 2008 agreement seems odd and quite limiting. Many thanks, Magda
  10. Hi, without going into too much detail, does anyone know the official company registration details of HFO Capital Cayman Islands and do they still exist as a company? I found an official registry site for the cayman islands which allows searches for all companies registered in the Cayman Islands, but there is a charge of $36. I have the details for HFO Capital Dublin and HFO services etc, but would be interesting to see Cayman's details as well. Many thanks, Magda
  11. Hi Gez, many thanks - just going to have a look! Magda
  12. Hi SFU, I need to be a bit vague for various reasons, but basically, I have seen sale agreements between a certain company and another company within their Group (an intra-company agreement I suppose it would be called). The first company (Company A - an offshore co.) allegedly purchased certain accounts from the OC. This sale was entered into some considerable time before my own account would have been sold. However, the sale agreement between the OC and company A would no doubt have allowed for the sale of any future accounts also that they might want to wash their hands of somewhere down the line. The query I have though concerns the later sale of the accounts held by Company A to a second company within their Group (Company B - also offshore, but within the EU). This sale allowed for the sale (though it isn't clear as to which law this sale was subject to) of the accounts currently in Company A's possession and any pending accounts. To me, pending would mean that the accounts were already in the process of being transfered to Company A at the time of the intra-company agreement between co. A and B and just subject to finalisation. I can't see that it would include an account that had an assignment dated some eight months after the intra-company agreement was entered into. It was company A who entered into the sale agreement with the OC and not company B - it seems to me that the intra company agreement just allowed for those accounts (and those pending) currently in Company A's control to be assigned to Company B, and would not have included accounts which the OC later went on to sell having decided they weren't worth hanging on to any longer. If the intra company agreement took place in say, February 2007 and my account was then sold (assigned) in August/Sept 2007, until this point still very much in the hands of the OC, who were allegedly still receiving payments directly to them- could this be considered to be a 'pending' account? The point is that my account is supposedly owned by Company B, but the sale agreement between Company A and the OC still existed (and in fact was the only agreement allowing for the sale of the original accounts). Unless company A stipulated that any future accounts that came into their ownership would also be included in any intra-company sale, then surely the accounts later assigned would automatically be owned by Company A, who at some point ceased to exist following numerous name changes and on reaching a point where the claimant in any legal proceedings was company B! It would be interesting to know what the legal defintion of pending in this particular scenario would be - all very confusing, which is exactly their intention - makes it much easier to cover your tracks that way. Many thanks for your reply earlier and would appreciate any further comments. regards, Magda
  13. Hi, thought I would try to 'revive' this thread, as I have a question regarding assignments. If a sale agreement is entered into between one party and another it sometimes has a provision that allows for 'future' accounts to be included in the sale as well, so if MBNA were assigning accounts to Cabot for example, they might sell all of the accounts that are delinquent at that time, but also include any accounts which might become delinquent at some future point. That is quite clear and nothing very confusing there, but what if the wording states, instead of future accounts, that any 'pending' accounts are included in that sale agreement. To my understanding, pending would imply that this would only include accounts that are already in the process of being wound up and sold, so where a sale is pending. I would not think this would include accounts which were still firmly with the OC. What would the legal definition of the word pending (accounts) be as opposed to future (accounts)? Does anyone have any ideas on this. many thanks, Magda
  14. I know this is a fairly old thread, but just wondering about something. When HFO Cayman sold their accounts to HFO Dublin, the wording stated this included any pending accounts - surely pending is not the same as future accounts - the word pending would imply that the accounts mentioned were already in the process of being purchased, but still to be finalised... whereas future would imply any accounts purchased at a later date, maybe a year or longer down the line. I just wonder, then, if the sale agreement between Cayman and Dublin (Jan 2008) actually only sold the accounts already in Cayman's portfolio, or soon to be, rather than accounts which hadn't yet been purchased from the OC at all and unknown to HFO at that time. Any thoughts on this?
  15. Hi, this is still ongoing. Still waiting for the ICO to investigate complaints I made against LLOYDS and also GE Money, have now been told they will probably get round to dealing with my complaint in the New Year as they are only just dealing with complaints from August and have a vast backlog. Meanwhile, complained again to the credit ref agencies, who so far have done absolutely nothing. I have requested a notice of correction on the credit file, but at the moment they are in the process of 'investigating' although there doesn't seem to be any indication that this is the case. Anyway, had a further letter from GE Money. They now say that a default was registered against my account in June 2004 with the CRAs. the default was due to remain on my file for six years. Due to the level of arrears the debt was sold to Link Financial. Link Financial was unable to take the matter any further (that's one way of putting it!) and in 2009 transferred the account back to GE. Ge further state that since they re-purchased the account, there have been entries on my credit file showing the account as status 6. They say that although a default was registered on my account it did not mean that the agreement had ended. "As you are aware, the debt was purchased after the default had been registered." GE say that when the debt was bought back by them in 2009 it remained outstanding and the loan agreement was still in place. After the default expired, they say, in June 2010, information regarding the account was therefore still being sent to the CRAs. The status of 6 has been reported because they have not received any payments from me and the debt has not been settled. They consider the current reporting to be within their rights and an accurate picture of my account conduct. They are now reviewing matters regarding the outstanding balance and their collections people will be in touch (can't wait ). So that's that for now - would really appreciate any opinions on what GE has said if Shadow or any others are around to help. How are you getting on Beachy, did you get your own problem with GE sorted in the end. The ICO told me that the CRAs should remove incorrect info if you have provided evidence to back this up, however, the CRA disagree and say that they will only remove something if the creditor tells them to! I told the ICO that in actual fact this doesn't happen, the CRA's will not remove incorrec info at the say so of the consumer. The ICO's answer to this, and their huge backlog is that I can always take the creditor to court. Can't win can you. many thanks, Magda
  16. Hi, does anyone know how compliant M&S default notices were back in 2004(ish). I have seen some of their default notices from around 2009 or so and they give 14 days from the date of the notice (which clearly breaches legislation) but not sure what sort of wording they used before. I think the wording has now been changed again, I suppose because M&S realised their mistake. Any exmaples of M&S DN's from around this period or info on this would be greatly appreciated! Magda
  17. Hi Cupcake, my mother is in the same situation, I think you now have to make payments to Barclaycard for the amount of the court order. Barclays can't make you pay any extra without going back to the court for a variation of some kind. I imagine because they now own all of the egg accounts, including those with court orders attached, that they can recover on those in the same was as Egg. At least this is how I understand it, but would be interested in any other opinions on this as would be useful to know because of my mum's sitation also. Magda
  18. Hi ITS, You need to mention everything in your defence that you intend to rely on. I had a court case with Cabot last year (which we won). The claim was for an old MBNA credit card, so similar to your own case. I have attached a link to my thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?213781-Cabot-Court-Claim-issued/page2&highlight=magda see post #40 Also, if the t&cs they have provided are illegible, which I think you mentioned, then they are still in default of your s78 request (as they have only provided an application form and illegible terms and conditions) and I don't think you have received any statement of account either, have you? So I would also mention this in your defence. They cannot enforce the debt whilst in default of s78, though if this is later remedied, then they can. "Sections 78 and 180 of the Act and the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 require that any copy of an agreement required to be provided under the provisions of the Act must be easily legible as required by Regulation 2 Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations 1983." Then you can also refer to the "Irredeemable breaches" i.e., legislation referring to the prescribed terms etc. Link cannot just produce the DN at the actual trial, both sides must be on an equal footing, and this would obviously put you at an unfair advantage. Do you know how to set the defence out, i.e., the heading and so on? let me know if I can be of any further help, Magda
  19. Just rang the ICO and was told that althought my complaints against Lloyds and GE Money have been allocated to their complaints resolution team to deal with, they are only just picking up on complaints from July - looks like I am in for a long wait and yet, these companies can add incorrect info on our credit files in an instant. I was told by the person I spoke to from the ICO that I can always take the company to court if I want... yes, would save them from having to do their job I suppose.
  20. Link seem to be coming out of the wood work again, don't they. This is yet another company that has caused a lot of misery to a lot of people over the years. That was especially low telling your daughter you'd go to prison, glad you put them in their place. Going to get my SARs off to GE now, despite what Link say. Hopefully, it will mean that with all the unlawful charges (of which there are many) I will be chasing them for money and Link can take a running jump. Magda
  21. Yes, she was really aggressive but at the same time kept calling me by my first name, which was annoying anyway, as if we were best friends and was adamant that I had no right to contact the OC - don't think she will have been very happy when I hung up on her though.....ah shame.
  22. Hi all, long time since I've posted on here, hope everyone is doing ok. I have been getting calls from Link again recently regarding a couple of accounts that we still make payments on (the other four were subject to Litigation and Link lost - so no payments on those any longer:-D Just had Link on the phone again today, they are saying now that I need to increase the payments I am making and I explained that I will not discuss the account over the telephone, but I am in the process of sending a SAR to GE Money and it is more likely the case that they actually owe me money, not the other way around and I do not acknowledge any debt etc. However, today, the person I spoke to claimed that I am not entitled to receive information direct from GE (she was actually quite annoyed that this might happen) and said that any information must be forwarded to them. I explained that this wasn't the case and I am perfectly entitled to submit a SAR to the OC and they then have a legal obligation to provide the information I have requested. She said she knew the law like the back of her hand etc and I then asked if she was a lawyer, to which she replied she wasn't. She then started to say something else and I decided at that point to terminate the call, not wanting to listen to any more of Link's drivel. It seems Link don't like the idea of any of us being able to get info from the OC before they have had a chance to vet it, wonder why that is.... Magda
  23. Hi Debt Star, the account was defaulted, but I don't have any proof, this was with Lloyds TSB around 2003/2004ish. I know that around that time they did routinely issue DNs on defaulted accounts, which as I say, I'm pretty sure they did in my case. I then entered into an arrangement where I was paying token payments each month (still am). Lloyds, though, suddenly deciced to 'clear' the arrears on my account (in 2009) and to again ask for the contractual payment. They didn't formally write to me, just started showing on my statements that I had missed a payment of say, £180, then another and so on. Their reasoning behind this, was that they were giving me a fresh start and they have done exactly the same thing to other people as well in the same situation, I have discovered. This meant that they started reporting on the credit file that I was one payment in arrears and so on, and placed a default in 2010, around seven years after the event actually happened. They issued a DN (the second one, I believe) in 2009 just before doing all of this. I have a thread on this and I know, from what others have said, Shadow, for example, that if you enter into a payment arrangement and they intend to default you at some point, then they should do so earlier rather than later, i.e., within six months or so, not leave it until years down the line. Also, just from what I understand, if you do enter into a payment arrangement and you are making reduced payments, then you are obviously building up arrears pretty quickly and again, should be defaulted at that point, regardless of whether you are agreeing reduced amounts to try to clear the debt. Be interested in yours and any other opinions on this, Lnk to my thread, as the topic is similar: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?306705-Inaccurate-info-on-credit-file&highlight=magda Magda I'm trying to get my two remaining defaults (incl Lloyds) removed, but no specific experience of the scenario you mention, sure others will though. It's a nightmare trying to get this kind of thing sorted out and I do know that the credit ref agencies won't remove anything or re-date anything unless the creditor tells them to.
  24. Hi, don't know if anyone is still looking in on this thread. Just wanted to ask, as I am in a similar situation, although I now have a default on my credit file seven years after the account actually defaulted. In the interim, I have also been on an AP. Isn't the point of all this, though, that we shouldn't be in a worse position that we would have been if we'd refused to pay anything and just allowed the creditor to place a default at the outset. Further, if the AP is ongoing, then surely you are going to be building up arrears (if you are just making token payments) and a default should be registered on the credit file within the first six months, because by that point, you haven't managed to recommence your contractual repayments and clearly aren't going to. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense because you are actually being penalised for trying to do the right thing and that is exactly what the ICO says shouldn't happen. Be interested in any comments. Magda
×
×
  • Create New...