no it has not,i am confused because ge money say they brought the debt back on the 3/3/11

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!! I went to the court today for my set aside hearing. link financial were able to show that I had got my facts wrong. they were able to prove that i had acknowledged the court forms.unfortunately due to my state of mind back in 2008 and at others times since,i recalled the events slighly wrong the judge stated that he was impressed by my arguments and asked who had advised me so i informed him that i've researched a lot on the internet, good old CAG! i got in about the Harrison judgment and also the fact that link had acknowledged in my DSAR that my agreement was unenforcable. but, judge stated that he had to make a decision under the set aside rules. OK, fair enough. when we arrived home i picked up an answer phone message from GE money, asking me to ring. curiousity got the better of me, i rang them up. it was the collections department asking me about my £750 arrears. which was the amount owing when GE money defaulted me and sold the debt to link financial. obviously i was a bit confused by this, stating to the gentleman on the phone i had just come back from court against link, could he explain! he then went on to state that link financial had sold the debt back to GE money on the 3/3/2011, and he said they had written to me, but to my older address, even though in the last year i had written to them 3 times regarding a DSAR. to say i was a bit staggered is an understatement!!! as i have been communicating with link via email and letters over the last week and a half. what do i do now??? any opinions would be more than welcome.

just off to court in an hour,having replied to links consent order they then sent me another one.so i emailed to clarify and link emailed back stating they were withdrawing them.Not quite sure what to make of that

Just a quick question What wording would you use to say that you do not agree to the liberty to restore, point number 2 in post 26. Would it be something like The claim to be adjourned generally and permanantly stayed? Many thanks Stoney47

Another Update Received in the post a consent form that link have asked me to consider,they state they will 1. consent to judgement being set-aside2.the claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore 3.there be no order to costs save that each party do bear their own. As i dont want to agree with 2 and 3,what do i do next? do i send back my version of a consent form or wait until the hearing and speak to the judge? any view much appreciated. stoney47

Just posting an update Set-aside hearing which had been adjourned so link could supply documents.was adjourned again because of links failure to supply documents by the due date,I also sent a SAR request to link and on the paperwork they sent me,they seem to be admitting that hat the agreement is unenforcable.The memo report shows that they have written to ge money stating "the agreement provided is not executed,please provide a copy of executed agreement or confirm if not available". then a week later it shows that they have written to ge money again stating "unable to provide executed agreement-unenforceable". I think that provides a bit more power when i attend court

thanks nicklea, will have a good read through it

any comments are much appreciated

hello nicklea this is a ccj that link financial have against me, I have a set-aside hearing in the middle of march,and i am trying to get aclear understanding of assignments as something seems a bit iffy.i have a DOA that link supplied and dated the 15th of may,yet refers to an agreement between ge money and link dated some eight months earlier,which was before i had a default or a termination of the account

G E Money are the OC,and the DCA are link financial,but on the letters from ge money they state they sold the debt to asset link,also it is aset link who are updating my CRA file.

broken arrow,many thanks ror your replys,i misread your reply in post 8,the date on the second NOA is the same as the deed of assignment,but is 8 days out from what the OC stated in a letter.they have stated this date in 3 seperate letters to me

the date the OC sold the debt was 16 days before the date on the letter,and it was also 8 days before the date on the deed of assignment

so did they have a legal right on the first NOA, as there was no date in the letter,just the date below their address

thanks for your reply nicklea i have been sent two notices,one before i got a ccj and one over 2 years later now I am trying to get a set-aside. The first only had a nomal date on the later, the second had a sentence in it stating "effective from" which was the same date as the date on the deed of assignment,which i received a few weeks later.I am just trying to figure out why.

if you have a notice of assignment ,does it specifically have to state "this notice is effective from" a date and then that date to be the same as the date on the deed of assignment,would that be then a legal NOA? hope this question make sense.

mmrj it might be worthwhile to enquire from southern water if they do some sort of Restart Scheme.i have a substantial debt to south west water and they obtained a ccj against me. Some months later they approached me about this scheme,basically if you can pay your water payments on a regular weekly basis then they will reduce the debt by an equal amount. its certainly worth a call to them to ask

so why is there two different names? i assume fnb is first national bank,my original debt was with ge money which was who fnb became as far as i know

another question, i have just checked my credit report and it has recently been updated. where it states company name it has on it "assetlink/fnb,would it be a reasonable assumption that this is a jointly owned debt. stoney47

pt2537 In post 12 you mention about a ge money agreement being found unenforcable by a judge,is it possible you could expand on that a bit elrib sorry to but in on your thread. stoney 47

thank you donkeyB,it was in the back of my mind that i had seen that information somewhere, any ideas on how you prove they are seperate companies stoney47

thank you for your help.stoney47

does that mean if you had a alleged debt with one company,that the other could chase you for it?

just a quick question does anybody know if link financial and assetlink are the same company or classed as seperate companies, stoney47

pabrmu thanks for your replies,there was no talk of costs, i am currently just trying to get all relevant papers together

I went to the court yesterday,link financials solicitor introduced herself and we went before the judge,who seemed reasonable enough and he asked me to state the reasons why my ccj should be set-aside so i started saying about not living at the property when the documents were first sent,but he cut in and send he wanted to know about my reference to links assignment,so i stated i did not believe it to be a legal asignment, he then asked if i owed link the money, i told him that i had an agreement with ge money through a double glazing company for a conservatory which i had signed the cash release form but had not been installed(another story altogether). he then said "so you spent the money on something else",i said no it went too the consevatory company,he stated that required further discussion and went back to the assignment issue. at this stage i was starting to get quite nervous,mouth was dry and my hand was starting to tremble, so had some water he asked the solicitor if she had the NOA she held up a copy of links hello letter,so i said(i hope i am right)that was not an assignment and that as stated in "the law of property act 1925" an assignment had to be under the hands of the assignor.the judge asked the solicitor if she knew about this and she answered she did not.he also asked if she had the deed of assignment,that was also a no,he then got out a big white book to look at but could not find any reference.after thinking for a couple of minutes he said he was instructing link to produce all relevant paperwork including the deed and for me to give a more detailed defence and he would see us again in three weeks. i came out of the court feeling quite chirpy and my confidence boosted