Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds


You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds



BankFodder BankFodder


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About damo1312

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi all thanks to everyone for the comments.. I try VERY sorry that thread has appeared to have come to a halt.. there is a conclusion, and I shall hopefully post it up in the next few weeks. I have not been able to post on the site for several months, partly because of my perennially poor Internet connection.. But mostly because the entirety of my energy has had to be directed in helping a very close friend of mine fight a Miscarriage of Justice. Unfortunately I'm not at liberty to say any more in that regard (due to a combination of issues of legalities and, more importantly, confidence) but rest assured that as things conclude (which they should soon hopefully) I'll come back to this (and other) threads. I'll also try and reply personally to the comments where I can.. Thanks for bearing with me....
  2. You'll be glad to know that I eventually regained diaphragm control, and picked myself up off of the floor (which I had been rolling on in fits of hysterics)... Somewhat unusually, I replied.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Defeated, I write with reference to your correspondence and my revised claims (as enclosed). I am somewhat disappointed (but nonetheless not in the least surprised) by your continuing attempts to circumvent your contractural and legal obligations; as such, I have taken further advice, and have both amended my existing claim accordingly, and am adding a further (new) dimension to this Claim (covering further unlawful actions bought to my attention since our previous correspondence). In the interest of fair play, therefore, this new claim begins the process afresh, and supersedes my previous claim, which is hereby rescinded to allow for this new claim. In Response to your Letter dated **/02/07: You refer to OFT Guidelines, implying that actions taken prior to them have no relevance. As you are well aware, the OFT Guidelines were issued to clarify the OFTs threshold for intervention concerning Laws that already existed; they do not give Creditors rights to ignore breaches that occurred prior to aforesaid Guidelines, as you appear to be implying; Despite your continued attempts to circumvent your responsibilities, you chose to purchase a debt without obtaining all relevant and pertinent information (and I reiterate, not merely the financial and commercial ones that you have past referred to); whilst this failure on your part has led to a situation that is no doubt regrettable for you, it is not my concern. As you are well aware, Section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) not only defines you as the Creditor (as the assignee) but obliges you to fulfil all of the obligations assigned therein; you may choose to pursue GE Money to recover any amounts claimed by me, as is your prerogative, but again that is regrettably (for you) not my concern; You refer to your actions as ‘concessions’; this definition implies that there is an element of leeway inherent in your favour, when I have made it perfectly clear why I maintain that such is not the case (and am perfectly willing to act through the Regulators and/or Courts accordingly); You refer to yourselves as ‘a professional firm of debt collectors’ and state that ‘you are fully aware of the relevant Acts and legislation governing the same’; given this assertion on your part, it is doubly concerning that you choose to see fit to attempt to ignore those Statutes that you do not consider pertinent to your own one-sided (and grossly incomplete) goals. I do not appreciate your references to ‘professionalism’ and ‘aware(ness) of the relevant Acts’ in such a manner that such comments appear to be a veiled implication that you are entitled to attempt to intimidate and/or dissuade me from asserting my rights. You are not above the law, and nor will you be permitted to attempt to use inflated references to your company’s stature in such a way that you appear to be attempting to make yourself such. My references to any Act of Statute or regulation is at least as much to make it clear that I am aware of said Statutes or regulations, as it is reminding you of them. As stated in my previous correspondence, the situation concerning the Postcard sent by Link on ** October 2006 has been reported to my local Trading Standards (Hampshire) under Reference **-**-****** / ***********. Reasoning Behind Enclosed Revised Claim Concerning Revised Penalty Charges Claim I have been informed that I have, in fact, been over-lenient upon you with regards to my pursuing you for monies owed thus far (especially in view of the revelations that I have received since my initial Claim against you, and your continued attempts to subvert my rights by not fulfilling your obligations in full). This has resulted in the following: As you have remained obstructionist in our approach, I have re-investigated my understanding of Mutuality and Reciprocality, and have been informed that as such, I am entitled to claim Interest from you up until the Date of Settlement, as opposed to the date when Interest ceased to be added by GE Money (i.e. ** January 2006) (as I had done in my original Claim); this is based upon the fact that had the situation been reversed, this is how GE Money would have applied Interest (and, I reiterate, you are obliged to fulfil their responsibilities as the assigned Creditor); I am therefore claiming Interest upon the portions deducted from the charges until the Date you informed me of their removal (i.e. ** 2007), and the Interest upon the remaining £12 is calculated as of today’s date (i.e. ** February 2007); You have not made it clear how you have calculated Interest deducted, nor to which dates you are referring as the dates past which you will ‘forgo’ Interest (as per your letter of ** January 2007); additionally, your figures do not tally with mine. I will therefore use my own figures, and deduct these from the original amount owing you would be claiming (i.e. £***.** as of today’s date, had I not made my original claim) together with the amount of the charges (without interest) you have stated that you have refunded (which I assume to be £**, see Spreadsheet), plus the remainder of the charges and Interest, to arrive at a figure before any PPI claim. In summary, from £***.** I am deducting: The portions of charges you have already deducted (total: £**.**) My interest figure against that amount until **/01/07 (total: £**.**) The £12 remaining of each charge (total: £***.**) The interest upon this remaining £*** until **/02/07 (total: £***.**) Totalling: £***.** (i.e. more than they were claiming) This figure is higher than the £***.** that you would have claimed as the current amount owing (had I not made my original claim to you); my expectations are therefore outlined in the enclosed Revised Preliminary Request for a Removal/Refund of Charges. I have also included within this Preliminary Request my expectation of the return of Mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance, which also includes my reasons for doing so. Please be aware that I now therefore (based upon my new understanding of the legal situation) consider the entire amount that you claim to be owing to be in dispute, and I therefore no longer recognise any debt to your company; I will also remind you of your obligations as such, pursuant to the OFTs Debt Collection Guidance July 2003 (updated December 2006), with particular reference to Section 2.8(k). I may (or may not) also choose to utilise the Financial Ombudsman in addition to (most probably prior to) any Court Action, should I consider it to be appropriate. Again, this would be at my discretion and would of course remain my prerogative. Given your apparent desire to not completely fulfil your obligations thus far, I am fully prepared to take you to Court concerning these issues should it prove necessary; I am, however, hoping that such does not prove to be the case. Yours Faithfully damo1312 (or you can just keep referring to me as 'Sir'... ;-))
  3. well, starting with the following, their replies start to get stroppy and, well, a tad desperate. Of course, by this point, I am beginning to actually look forward to the post, as I find their highly entertaining little replies more than a little amusing.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear damo1312 We write in response to your recent correspondence relating to the above (read: will you PLEASE just GO AWAY). The contents of your correspondence are duly noted and in reponse we would state that our offices have not debited any charges to your account and any charges debited by the previous creditor were done so prior to the new guidelines of the Office of Fair Trading (nice try, wrists were slapped by the OFT because of the dodginess of the practice, and you all knew it... just at the time, us poor debtors didn't until one of us exposed your little tricks) and in any event not of our responsibility (so, are you saying that you don't want your 'Assignment rights' now that you know that I know that obligations come as part of the package?), we feel that we have already made a large 'concession' in to the balance of your 'debt owing' (good for you. I don't) and are unwilling to make any further 'concessions' (tough ;-)). You will appreciate (will I now) that we have purchased this debt from the original creditor (you poor, misguided fools...) and made a concession upon the same that we were not obliged to do (wrong, I think you'll find that you were) the full balance claimed being the the balance of that debt sold to us, should you wish to seek further recompense you should contact that organisation that levied the charges (not so, the obligations are now all yours...). (The next paragraph is particularly priceless. Please make sure you are seated in such a way that you do not injure yourself laughing.. ;-)) With due respect, there is no necessity for you to quote legislation and debt collecting principle to these offices (funny, you seem to need enlightening from where I'm standing) we are a professional firm (ROFL) of debt collectors and are fully aware of the relevant Acts and legislation governing the same (but we ignore them, for it amuses us) in the event that you feel we have breached the same and wish to report any of our conduct to the relevant bodies that is entirely your prerogative (so nice of you to tell me that. I didn't know... ;-)). Yours Faithfully Small Exasperated Troll ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dear oh dear. Methinks that they are 'getting a bit of a cob on' as the kids would say... ;-)
  4. So, did I just let it go? Take an educated guess.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Clueless I write with reference to the above correspondence from you; as you had not replied by the date I had requested, ** January 2007 (i.e. 14 working days after you received my letter of ** December 2006), you will already be in receipt of my Letter Before Action (dated ** January 2007), which was sent prior to my receipt of your communication, as above. Firstly, your reference to removing any details of any telephone number that you may have/acquire, and only making communication via letter (pursuant to my instruction under the Communications Act (2003)) is duly noted. Also, I am pleased that my offer of £1 a month has been accepted (and accept your wish to review after 5 months have elapsed), and await the forwarding of a Reference Number, Account Number and Sort Code (as previously requested) in order to facilitate this. These points notwithstanding, however, your offer of reducing the Amount you are claiming to £***.** (my assumption is that you have arrived at this figure by reducing the amount you were claiming as of ** November 2006, i.e. £***.**, by £***.** (i.e., by a little under two-thirds)) will only be accepted as partial settlement of my Claim; I shall expect to be notified that the remainder (i.e. £**.**, being the amount I am claiming, £***.**, minus the amount you are offering, £***.**) will be deducted from the amount that you claim is owing within the 14 calendar days stipulated (i.e., no later than ** January, as Royal Mail have confirmed that my LBA was received on ** January) if my pending Court Claim is to be guaranteed to be rescinded. My reasoning behind this (and other points, with reference to your letter of ** January) in full: You state that my correspondence of ** October 2006 (of which I included a further copy with my letter of ** December 2006) had been overlooked; whilst I am prepared to overlook that original mislaying of my letter as an oversight, having been given a further copy of said letter on ** October, you still have not provided an explanation as to why such a duplicitous tactic was used (as the postcard makes no inference as to its purpose, or the expected outcome of any telephone call, nor does it state under what authority ‘Helen’ operates; I will reiterate that this postcard is thus indeed both duplicitous and intmidatory); I refer you to the ‘Notes’ section of The OFT’s Press Release 156/06, dated 6th November 2006: “2. All consumer credit debt collectors operating in the UK must hold a Consumer Credit Licence and adhere to the guidelines set out by the OFT Debt Collection Guidance 2003. The OFT consider it to be unfair business practice to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner including asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate telephone numbers.” I would also refer you to Sections 2.1 and 2.2c of the OFT’s Debt Collection Guidance July 2003 (updated December 2006): “2 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES Communication 2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner. 2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the contact is” (please also be aware that I am fully apprised as to the possible consequences for you should this, or any other similar breach, be reported to the OFT). You state that “...(my) interpretation of that intimated to you in our correspondence of ** December 2006…. is in no way a threat”; I am somewhat at a loss as to what you are referring to in this instance. I did not state that this particular letter was ‘a threat’ in and of itself; I was reminding you of your obligations as concerns all correspondence that you send, and reminding you of your legal responsibilities concerning your dealing with this Account (and not merely those that you consider pertinent from your own financial/commercial standpoint, and ignoring all others, as you appear to have been attempting to do thus far); As concerns your Statement referring to the provision of a signature of the Original Creditor; whether or not the actual signature is actually shown to me in any theoretical future Court Action is immaterial and indeed unnecessary. I shall merely make enquiries to ensure that such actually exists, and confirmation of such by the appropriate channels will more than suffice in this regard; You are well aware of the grounds for my referring to any Claim made by you as ‘spurious’ (and the wording is used deliberately in this instance). You assert that you have been assigned the debt, and I am prepared to accept that this is indeed the case. At no point has the existence of some amount of debt been denied (although I have rightfully refused to accept your rights to it until such point as I had been convinced satisfactorily of aforesaid rights).This being so, I must remind you that you are thereby obliged to accept the responsibilities of the debt, and not merely the rights thereof, that you consider pertinent. You are well aware of GE Money ignoring substantial amounts of correspondence sent by me to them over a period of a year or so, and have failed in your obligations by either not obtaining such relevant correspondence (or else have chosen to ignore it, knowing full well that any such correspondence would be directly relevant). I must therefore assume and reiterate that you would appear to be attempting to further undermine a situation (that by virtue of your obligations to ensure that your information is full and complete, as you were obliged to obtain, you should be well aware) you are intentionally attempting to ignore references to my vulnerability, leaving out relevant information, and therefore attempting to subvert your responsibilities pursuant to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act. I have confirmed my understanding in this regard both with Trading Standards and members of the Legal Profession, who have unanimously confirmed this interpretation, and reaffirm that a Judge would take a very dim view of you attempting to pursue a case based on false or (as is the case in this instance) criminally incomplete information; You are well aware that you are obliged (both by the Office of Fair Trading and by law) to act sympathetically when an individual enters a Consumer Credit Act agreement such as this in good faith, but is forced to deviate should their finances alter through no fault of their own. Should you fail to do so (and seek to ignore this fact to gain financial advantage, especially when you are aware that I am vulnerable) then you will obviously be held responsible under the Law, and I reserve the right to prosecute any such actions without further reference to you should such practices (namely acting on false and incomplete information) continue; in particular, I would draw your attention to the following aspects of the aforementioned OFT guidelines (and again underline the repercussions for you of failure to adhere to them, should I see fit to report you to them): “Physical/psychological harassment 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: d. not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties f. pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments, or to increase payments when they are unable to do so” As concerns the deduction of Unenforceable Penalty Charges, I did indeed make it clear in the eighth paragraph of the ‘Demand for Repayment of Unenforceable Penalty Charges’ (included with my letter of ** December 2006) that my preference was that I expected the amount claimed to be deducted from that which you claim to be the Amount owing, rather than for such to be (rather counterproductively) forwarded to me (and as such reduce the amount owing to the correct figure); You appear to be using a tactic similar to that utilised by such companies as Capital One (Europe) Plc. (whom I have not had direct contact with in this regard myself) who nevertheless misinterpret the recent OFT Guidelines by assuming that £12 is a reasonable amount to charge. I refer you to the exact wording of the following OFT Statements involved: “OFT's action on credit card default charges 5 April 2006 We have decided that, as a provisional step, it is appropriate to give priority to addressing default charges which exceed a simple monetary threshold of £12, in line with our duty to use our resources to tackle contract terms that have the potential to cause the most serious harm to consumers. We are not suggesting that default fees should be set at £12, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.” This was reiterated in the ‘Notes’ section of The OFT’s Press Release 130/06, dated 7th November 2006, as follows: “4. The OFT is not proposing that credit card default charges should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that such a charge is fair just because it is below the threshold.” At no point thus far has any organisation been successful in Court in defending these charges at any level (not merely at this £12 threshold for OFT intervention). Indeed, the Defences provided have always been at an insufficient level (to such an extent that, as recently as this month, Judge Tooms (sitting at Lincoln County Court) issued orders addressed to defendants (in this instance, banks, but with equivalent consequences for all manner of Penalty Charges) threatening to strike out their defences, on the basis that they are acting abusively, because they have been sued many times, and had failed in any single case to go the distance, and to defend the matter in court. You are attempting to withhold the Interest that I am claiming. As the original charges applied remain unenforceable, then so does the Interest charged unlawfully upon them. It is my right, under Mutuality and Reciprocality, to claim that this Interest be deducted from the amount that you claim was owed, and as such I am doing so. Both the original charges and the Interest applied to them count as Unjust Enrichment (as no proof is ever provided as to their composition) and may indeed, as such, be fraudulent. As such, I reiterate that any Court Action on my part will only be guaranteed to be rescinded when the entire amount I am claiming (£***.**) is deducted from the Amount that you claim is owing. You claim that my reference to a near identical case is ‘…in no way pertinent to this matter or any Court Action…’ when such is clearly not the case (as your methods are very similar, and the appropriate Defence near identical); I would finally like to draw your attention to the following, (should you be considering any form of spurious Court Action prior to the resolution of this matter, or indeed at any point after the commencement of payments, whilst such payments are being made, and/or without due deference to my circumstances, of which I will reiterate you are, or should be, well aware if you have fulfilled your legal obligations in this regard) again taken from the aforementioned 2003/06 OFT Guidelines: “Deceptive and/or unfair methods 2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.” I await your response to these matters, and remind you that my Deadline for the amendment of the amount owing to that which I assert (and will defend) is correct (i.e. £**.**, after the deduction of Unenforceable Penalty Charges and Associated Interest, amounting to £***.**, is deducted) expires on ** January 2007. Yours Faithfully damo1312 ---------------------------------------------------------------- So there... yah boo suxx etc... ;-)
  5. so, deciding that their offer (i.e. to take about half of the charges and Interest off) wasn't good enough when the fourteen days had passed (based upon the fact that their antics had made me think.. 'all or nothing'..).. off went my LBA. The letter in the previous thread (which had obviously crossed in the post) turned up a day later... last minute stalling on their part, perchance.. ? ;-) Anyhoo, assuming (correctly) that the letters had crossed, they responded the best part of a fortnight later: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear damo1312 We write in relation to the above (my LBA). Further to receipt of your correspondence of ** January 2007, which we can only presume has crossed in the mail with our own (it did, but don't think that'll help you), for the sake of convenience we enclose a copy of our correspondence of ** January 2007 (the letter in the last thread). We trust that you will observe that our offices have in no way acted unfairly or unlawfully (of course you havn't; and by the way, Castro is a Capitalist...) as you allege (make that insist), however in the event you wish to pursue this as stated via the relevant bodies that is your prerogative (well thanks for telling me that, nice to know that I have your permission), however naturally we will defend our position vigorously given we do not feel that we have acted in any way as you allege. For ease of reference the account details you require by which you may set up a standing order for repayment of those monies 'owed' are as below. (Various Bank Details) Yours Faithfully (I really do believe that this was signed by an infant, as it looked liked a badly done tracing) Small Troll
  6. Hi winny thanks, it's honestly not a problem, just glad if it helps anyone.. especially with swines like this, the more humiliation that they have to suffer, the better.. if I've learnt anything with these Servers of Alcoholic Drinks (think about it.. ;-)) it's that if you keep pushing, they head back under their rock eventually...
  7. Hi spurious np, I try... it makes up for my computer-related gaps! Hopefuly it'll be of some use to somebody. Btw, you may have gathered that your Forum name is one of my favourite DCA-clobbering words... lol ;-)
  8. Hi Stans.. lol, yes I'm like a case of the verbal flu. I think I'll go to bed now before I start hallucinating... ;-)
  9. A MONTH later (how's about that for a nice prompt reply... ) I receive the following... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear damo1312 We (they are huddling together for safety's sake ;-)) write in reply to your correspondence of ** December 2006, the contents of which are noted (my guess is that they pulled someone in off of the street who could translate it for them ). We would firstly wish to apologise in respect of your correspondence of 88 October 2006 (the Postcard Letter) not being dealt with, it would appear that this has been overlooked (funny, that's a novel way of spelling 'ignored'). Our offices will ensure that no further (which would imply that they had before, which they hadn't) telephone contact is made with you and will contact you solely in writing. With regards to your interpretation of that intimated to you in our correspondence of ** December 2006, we might not comment other than to say that, the content of that document is in no way a threat (I never said it was, LEARN TO READ... ;-)). the Letter is an informative document (lol) setting out the process that will be taken (I really, really would like to see you try), if the necessity arises. However this is not our preferred route (but you take every opportunity to infer that it is) and we would rather settle this matter amicably (read: their way..). With regards to your claim that we are obliged by law to provide the signature of the original creditor confirming our legal entitlement to act in relation to the above noted debt, we would refer you to section 136 Law of property Act 1925, and/or take independent legal advice on it (admittedly, I'm not entirely sure on this small, particular point to be honest; it turned out to be largely irrelevant anyway). You make reference to our acting unlawfully and illegally by threatening spurious County Court Action allegedly without fulfilling our legal responsibilities (yup indeedy, you finally appear to be getting it.. ). We would refer you to the above and to that Notice of Assignment served upon you in accordance with section 136 Law of Property Act 1925. Solely service of Notice of Assignment is required to make an assignment effective in law and that has taken place (and oh yes, of course, I forgot that this is a license for you to ignore everything else. Silly Me. Funny how they ignore all the bits they don't like..either that, or they truly are Masters of Misreading and Self-delusion). That you have had a repayment arrangement in place with the previous creditor does not estop them from making a business decision to sell that debt (no, little things called the Law and OFT Regulations do make it very clear that they have to do it a certain way, and boy, did they NOT do it that way..) and in any event you will appreciate that you have defaulted upon the credit agreement and subsequently the balance is due forthwith (again, funny how they ignore all relevant procedures and flout the DCG in the manner in which they do this.. but of course, they, er, 'omit' to mention that..). Any concessionary arrangement that may or may not have been entered in to would be entirely without prejudice (as is my not reporting you to the OFT for regulatory breaches...). Further, said concessionary arrangement and in the event that you deviated (as you state in your correspondence you have) (nice twisting of the facts there, after GE Money indulged in one of their 'ignoring correspondence' tricks, officialy called the 'La-la-la-we're-not-listening' School of Debt Collection..;-); methinks that, in fact, ignoring my communication was a breach of Sections 2.2(b), 2.6(f), 2.8(g), yada yada of the ole DCG.. is a further default upon that concessionary arrangement that may then be reneged (well why not, you and GE Money renege upon everything else.. ;-)). In the event that Court proceedings do arise (I'll be the one initiating them), if so orderd a copy of the Deed of Assignment would be filed at Court, however would be done so under C.P.R 32.13 in view of its confidential and economically sensitive nature with a request that the document is not open to inspection (countered by me with one requesting that it is). You make representations as to any Court Claim that we may take to be "spurious" taken to mean false or illegitimate (get a dictionary out, did we?). You have defaulted upon a Credit Agreement, a legally binding document that you signed to the effects that you had read, understood and wished to be bound by (and yes, I know, I know, you honestly believe that this is a nice, one-sided affair, and that you're bound by nowt; sorry, we all no better now...). In the event that our offices raise County Court proceedings based upon your breach of that contract we fail to see how it could be found spurious (in that case, may I suggest that you re-read my letter, and take the blinkers off this time..). Your comments regarding alleged unenforceable penalty charges are noted and we would state that firstly, you have not made payment of these charges debited to your account that you might claim return of them (no, but you would try and make me repay them as they are included in your nice, fake 'Balance owing' figure... and besides, I asked them to 'reduce the amount owing' by taking them off. Clutching at straws, anyone?) or indeed counterclaim for in the event of Court Proceedings (of course you might seek set off of those charges against the amount claimed) (well, d'uh). However we would confirm that, inline with the recent guidelines and with no admission of liability given that our offices have not debited any charges to your account (what's this, trying to back away from obligations of the Account that you are so adamant has been assigned to you in full? Surely not...), we would be wiling to limit those charges to your account to the amount of £12.00 per charge (nul points, not good enough. Try reading the actual OFT wording). Your comments with regards to a different Court case are noted, but are in no way pertinent to this matter or any Court action in respect of the above noted agreement that may arise in the future (au contraire, mon 'amis', it was entirely pertinent. It was the other GE Money Account, with identical circumstances, and as such couldn't have been more 'pertinent'). Your financial statement (you know, that thing only a Court can insist upon) and offer of monthly repayment have now been considered and our offices are willing to accept your offer of payment for a period of five month after such time it will be subject to review (oh so kind of you. Shame it isn't up to you as to how much I pay, and you have no power to alter the amount if I can't, that'll be Section 2.6(f) of the DCG; so 'review' all you like, you can't insist upon a revised figure...), the first monthly instalment being due on or before the last day of January 2007. Finally our offices confirm that we are willing to, as a gesture of goodwill (oh dear, where's that dictionary? Your spelling problem has reappeared; that isn't how you spell 'obligation'), limit the balance outstanding, which will be amended upon your confirmation of satisfaction (guess what, I wasn't satisfied) those charges debited to your account to £12.00 and forgo that interest charged upon those charges. The balance would therefore stand at ***.** (about £250 less). We trust that this is of assistance (er, no) and await your response in due course. In the interim the account will be held for a period of twenty-one (21) days. Yours Faithfully (Bugsy Malone again) Quivering Wreck Bureau of Monkeys and Typewriters
  10. Shortly before Christmas (which only added to my ire) I sent out the following (not so much a shot across their bows, as a full-body broadside... lovely individuals... ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NB * This Communication assumes that Asset Link Capital and Link Financial are in some manner interlinked, or indeed one and the same (as your Registered Office Address is identical) and that the use of two separate companies in your correspondence is an attempt to further intimidate and / or otherwise confuse and / or dissuade me from enforcing my legal rights. As such, should you not be one and the same, I insist that this communication is also shared with Link Financial * Dear Condemned, I write with reference to the above correspondence, and your threat to take spurious Legal Action, which is both frivolous and intimidatory (as, contrary to your assertions to the contrary, it is your company who is not only being obstructive, but is currently acting both unlawfully and illegally). Please note that (despite the fact that you have failed to provide the Signature of the Original Creditor confirming your Legal Entitlement to act in relation to this GE Money debt, as obliged by law; I shall insist upon the provision of this in any Court Action), in order for me to both state the following (and claim against you), I hereby state that I am recognising your claim against this Account under duress (and will inform the Court of such during any Court Action, whether or not it is undertaken by myself, or you). Not only have GE Money passed the Account on to Link Financial without due reason (as a Repayment Arrangement was in place, and GE Money have been informed whenever I have been forced to deviate from this, as recently as ** September 2006; additionally, their prior conduct has meant that they have been operating under the threat of legal action by myself), Asset Link Capital / Link Financial have chosen to not only act in a manner that eschews bad faith, but is also (and I reiterate) both unlawful and illegal, by threatening spurious County Court action without fully fulfilling your legal responsibilities. Please be aware that due to the frivolous nature of any Claim (and for the reasons that follow) I would strongly suggest that no attempt to make a Claim is made on the part of Asset Link Capital / Link Financial; any Claim (and, effective immediately, the Account Balance stated) is in dispute; should any spurious claim go ahead, I will of course file an Acknowledgment of Service, and would intend to file a vigorous defence should any such claim go ahead; I also vigorously defend the right to Counterclaim for the return of unenforceable penalty charges and associated interest which have been levied against the Account (due to the fact that the bulk of any Claim would be constituted of aforesaid unenforceable penalty charges and associated Interest, and I would insist on full disclosure of how these charges were calculated, during any Defence) should such a refund of unenforceable penalty charges and associated penalty charges prove unforthcoming (as per the attached letter and spreadsheet). Please also bear in mind that another company which very recently acted in a similar unlawful manner to yourselves (CL Finance of Woodhead Road, Batley, represented by Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors, Cleckheaton) as concerns my other GE Money Account, also attempted to file a spurious claim using very similar grounds to those used by you, and (for the reasons that follow, amongst others) were subsequently forced to both withdraw their claim, and correct the Amount owing, following a robust defence upon my part (please be aware that, although I will not divulge its contents to you at present, a broadly similar defence will be levelled against Asset Link Capital / Link Financial should you attempt to act in a very similar manner). Additionally, I note that you have stated that you are allowing fourteen days prior to making a spurious referral to a Court; your letter is dated ** December, and yet it appears that you have chosen to withhold sending it in such a manner that it has not arrived with me until today. Again, should you attempt to take any spurious Court Action, this intimidatory action will be bought to the attention of the Court. Finally (before I list my points as below) Link Financial have also chosen to ignore the previous correspondence sent by me on ** October 2006 ,as enclosed (by virtue of the fact that you have chosen not to explain why you have used duplicitous and intimidatory means of contact). I shall expect an explanation to be immediately forthcoming, and reserve the right to take legal action should it not be. My points in detail (these are not necessarily exclusive): Asset Link Capital / Link Financial ( ‘you’, 'they', 'their' or 'them' in that which follows, unless I state explicitly to the contrary) have made no attempt (that you have proved to me) that you have in any way obtained full and complete copies of my correspondence with GE Money regarding their activities and their effect during a protracted period of bereavement (nor attempted to corroborate the facts in any other manner), and are continuing to make unjustified claims that I have not put forward means of payment based upon ability to pay (nor have you attempted to ascertain my financial situation by way of, for example, fully verifiable Financial Statements); This failure to satisfy proper legal procedure may in fact very likely result in my taking legal action under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act (1970); (by virtue of your leaving out information, or presenting such information in such a manner that a false or misleading impression is given by you; both are currently the case in their / your correspondence to me, as you have not provided proof that you are in receipt of all of my correspondence to GE Money since my initial contact with them, fully explaining the situation and my appropriate offer of payment). Please also be aware, that I will press for the heaviest possible sanction in relation to this, criminal, offence, should I take Legal Action. In addition, I am likely to report this matter to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), who (should it prove that you are in fact acting without due recourse to all appropriate information) are subsequently able to act in a manner resulting in the removal of your license, for which I shall press strongly; I will regard any attempt to make contact (other than by appropriately worded letter, which makes reference to all facts of the situation, not simply those that you consider pertinent) as criminal harassment, and I shall extend this claim against such harassment to legal action under the Malicious Communications Act (1988) (the aforementioned Act of Statute states that it is an offence to harass debtors with a view to obtaining payment, including the issue of letters, which convey a threat or false information with intent to cause stress or anxiety) and / or also the Protection from Harassment Act (1997); please also note that no telephone contact will be made with you (as it will leave me without records for any legal action I may take) and you are hereby barred from obtaining and / or using any telephone number that you may have registered for me, effective immediately, as stipulated under Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003); If GE Money continue to devolve this situation entirely to Asset Link Capital / Link Financial, and do not take the necessary attempt to remain fully involved, then this again could have ramifications for a license (in this instance, their own). They remain entirely responsible for the conduct of any third party agency that they choose to appoint (in this case, Asset Link Capital / Link Financial), and will legally be held to account (as well as being reported to the OFT with a view to the removal of their licenses) should they attempt to renege on said responsibility in any way; I shall therefore expect you (in order to fully comply with their obligations under the aforementioned Act of Statute) to obtain all correspondence written to the various GE Money offices, and do not attempt to harass me further until you have fully perused their contents; For reasons that have been made abundantly clear on several occasions to GE Money (and are thus backed up by empirical financial evidence, as enclosed, despite GE Money’s clear failure in not asking for this previously) the maximum that can be paid at present to cover the undisputed section of the Account is £* by the end of each calendar month, and will remain so until I dictate (and prove) otherwise (with the first payment being due by ** January 2007). I notice that you have required me to pay money directly to yourselves (as opposed to GE Money) and yet have failed to provide the means for my doing so. I shall therefore require: An Account / Reference Number Bank Account Number Sort Code in order for me to do so via Standing Order. I am within my rights to insist upon payment in this format (as it costs both of us nothing), and will not be making payments by any other means (as I am not near any facilities allowing me to do so); should you refuse to accept this method (despite the fact that I am aware that you can) then I shall take action against you for refusing to accept legitimate payments (presumably as a prelude to an attempted escalation of the situation by yourselves). Should my financial circumstances deteriorate further, I shall expect Asset Link Capital / Link Financial (upon receipt of communication from me stating as such) to take such circumstances into account as concerns their actions AT ALL TIMES as they are legally obliged to do; I must unfortunately reiterate however that, if they nevertheless continue to act as they are (by virtue of ignoring the effects of a horrific bereavement and its ramifications, and subsequent Clinical Depression) GE Money and Asset Link Capital / Link Financial have, by attempting to pressurise and / or otherwise exploit me whilst being aware that I am vulnerable (or otherwise choosing to ignore information that would show this) again leave themselves (either severally, individually or bilaterally, depending upon who is at fault) liable to both OFT and legal action, both of which will be vigorously pursued. Any and all actions will also, of course, be aggressively publicised though any legal broadcast medium that I see fit to utilise. I eagerly await your reply. Yours Faithfully damo1312 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- once I'd drawn breath , I also included a slightly amended Prelim with this letter, mentioning Compounded, Contractural Interest added (which I always go for now, since my prior Claims with NatWest and CL Finance were successful with it).
  11. Being such happy, smiley and downright reasonable chappies, they didn't appreciate a mere (alleged) debtor mortal questioning them. In order to attempt to put me in my place (impudent upstart who dares to think that mere regulations and laws will protect him..lol) they sent the following about two weeks later: (they had since morphed from Link Financial to Asset Link Capital, which appears to be their Venom-esque alter ego..;-)) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear damo1312 We write in response to your recent correspondence relating to the above, (what's this, could it actually be punctuation? ;-)) the contents of which have been duly noted, solely notice of assignment is required to be served upon the debtor (yourself) for an assignment to become effective in law. The Notice of Assignment confirmed to you the name of the original creditor, new owner of the debt, amount of the debt assigned and date of sale. As previously stated the Deed of Assignment will not be disclosed to you. We feel that we have provided you with sufficient evidence, together with notice of assignmentof the benefit of the debt (well tough, 'cos I don't). We verily believe that you are being obstructive (oh, how ironic) with regards to the matter (do I detect a slight toys-out-of-pram brewing here?). In the event that you continue to dispute that our offices have taken legal assignment of the benefit (don't forget the obligations, I know that you're trying to) of the debt perhaps you would wish to contact the original creditor who will confirm the same (not my place.. in fact, GE Money broke their Regulatory obligations by not telling me that they'd given it to Link in the first place...). We would invite your proposals for settlement within fourteen days (not gonna happen) failing which the matter will be referred to Court for arbitration (oh, PLEASE do try... ;-)), this correspondence should be considered a formal letter before action. Yours Pseudo-scarily (Childlike scrawl) Small Troll Ignorance of Regulations Department ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ooh, now they've done it (red rag n'all), I am SOO pi**ed now... off come the gloves... :grin:
  12. Now, what with me being bloody-minded (not to mention a little argumentative) I decide not to take these schmucks at their word as concerns the Deed. Besides, I know that other creditors don't have such issues with sending out Deeds of Assignment, as this one did in this old post of mine without querying it (funnily enough, another DCA who had poached my other GE Money Account on exactly the same day as this one... ;-)): http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/34654-help-ge-money-ccj.html#post271126 (that turned out JUST fine, btw..) So off goes the following (stabbing in the dark a bit in places, but who knows if you don't try): ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Miss Blah I write with reference to the above items of correspondence; the latter of the two items fulfilled your commitment under Sections 77(1) and 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and removed your Company from the Default status it had entered (by virtue of exceeding the statutory period allowed for the provision of these documents) on ** October 2006. Unfortunately however, you still have not proved your ownership of the above Account (nor any rights to act with reference to it) as you have refused to provide a Deed of Assignment confirming those rights. Despite your assertion to the contrary, the provision of such a document by other organisations proves that such provision is in no way detrimental to you commercially (as you can blank out any ‘commercially sensitive’ information other than that given in the bullet points below, which must be shown for the Deed to be valid). Whilst it is indeed perfectly acceptable for you to blank out certain sections of any copy sent to me, that you may consider to be commercially sensitive (such as the heavily discounted price that the debt would have been sold to you at should it transpire that you actually have purchased the Account from GE Money), proof of your ownership of the Account has not been made under the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 / Law of Property Act 1925 without the provision of a copy of a Deed of Assignment showing (at least) the following: Name of Original Creditor New Owner Amount of Original Debt Date of Sale Signature of Original Creditor and New Owner As such, until such a document is provided, I do not recognise your claim to this debt, and will only recognise that of GE Money, as no conclusive proof has been provided to me that anyone other than them legally owns the debt. Discussions concerning repayment will also, therefore, only be entered into once I have been provided with a copy of a Deed of Assignment showing at least the information stipulated as above.
  13. Literally the day after my Postcard Shouty Letter, I receive the CCA agreement, but with the following... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- We write further to your letter of ** October. As requested, please find enclosed a copy of the signed credit agreement together with a copy of the notice of assignment. We are unable to forward you the actual deed of assignment as this contains privilege information. A statement of account has been requested and will follow shortly under separate cover. Yours Faithfully Little Miss Blah ----------------------------------------------------------------------- As before, gotta love that grammar... ;-) The numbskulls also sent me a copy of the 'Sale of Your Debt' letter in place of the Deed. About as useful as sunloungers in the Arctic. A few days later the Statement turns up... and they have added my CCA fee to the Account..
  14. Hi Rory.. yes, they really are Shower of Ships, aren't they... Chances are, that they obtained a receipt of yours whilst traipsing through a bin.. then took a random two digits from the number plate of a passing car.. timed that by the age of their gran (and popped down the pub, and added that to their darts score).. Then nicked your details off of the Electoral Roll.. and randomly generated a figure of £3.7k that way.. ;-) It's funny you should mention about them being (ahem) professional... I bring that up in what'll be a later post, but I'll spoil it if I go into too much detail now... lol
  15. Still hearing Sweet Football Association several weeks later, I decide that (whilst I'm waiting) I was going to pull them up on their dodgy postcard.. so I sent them the following: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sir / Madam, I write with reference to the enclosed copy of the Postcard sent by your organisation. The postcard, by virtue of not clearly stating what it concerns (with only a very small, and easily overlooked, mention of Link Financial on the front) is both duplicitous and intimidatory. No mention is made of the card’s purpose, and as such it can only be seen as an attempt to gain a telephone number, and / or to attempt to trick me into engaging in unrecorded (and unverifiable) conversation re the above Account (which you allege has been assigned to you, although I am still to receive a True, Signed Copy of the Deed of Assignment verifying this, or a True, Signed copy of the Original Credit Agreement with GE Money; I will not recognise your alleged ownership of this debt until you legally verify it by producing these Documents). Even should you produce these Documents, no communication will be entered into with yourselves at any juncture that is not written (in order to leave verifiable evidence of such communication). You will not be telephoned at any point regarding this matter, and are hereby barred from utilising any telephone number of mine that you should obtain under the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949). In addition (as you are well aware if you have in fact been assigned the above debt) then you will have obtained all paperwork from GE Money regarding this Account, and as such will be aware that you are jointly liable for prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act (1988) should you attempt to use this intimidatory means of duplicitous communication at any point in the future (as per my letter to GE Money dated **/**/**). I look forward to hearing from you urgently with regard to this matter. Yours Faithfully damo1312 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hear absolutely burger all from this at first... quel surprise...
  • Create New...