Link claimform - old GE Money debt **CLAIM STRUCK OUT**

[diamondgirl]

Hi

Sent off the above letter to the plonkers amended as needed, just made it to the PO in time. Sent it Special Delivery so they should get it before 1pm tomorrow.

Holding back sending AQ back as advised above. Have got until Sunday I can get someone to take it to the court for me on Monday if I have to.

DG:)

Just read pt2357 post re AQ is this the sort of thing I should be looking at doing with mine?

Edited March 24, 2009 by diamondgirl
read AQ post

[foolishgirl]

Just read pt2357 post re AQ is this the sort of thing I should be looking at doing with mine?

 

Can you post the link to this DG? (Copy & paste the title bar from the top of your web page) pt's posts are always excellent so it may be very useful for you.

 

Don't worry about the time - the form shouldn't take long to complete & I or someone else will help you with the draft directions. I'm busy right now, I'll have another look at your thread later.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Just read pt2357 post re AQ is this the sort of thing I should be looking at doing with mine?

 

Not sure which one you mean but if it was from PT2537 then I'd definitely say yes.

 

I'm assuming he has used the two sections of the AQ available to the defendant to introduce some form of extra defence/contention.

 

The part about extra time to resolve the case can be used to your advantage as can part G.

 

We need to know exactly what you wrote when you first submitted your defence.

 

And can you just clarify whether were paying this account through some sort of CCCS plan right up until Link 'bought' it? Did the OC sell the account because you weren't paying at all or was it because you weren't paying 'enough'?

 

It is too late to deny owing at least some of the claim but IMO not too late to make Link prove they are entitled to a) the claim b) enforcement of the claim in a Court both of which will prove extremely difficult if not impossible for Link.

[Toulose LeDebt]

PS.

 

Any chance you could put a date to each of these actions? Particularly interested in the timescales as it might be argued Link haven't followed the Pre-action protocols either.

 

1st letter said sale of your debt is possibly imminent

Sent upto date expenditure/statement as told to do by CCCS bearing in mind that I never received a letter to say they had actually bought the debt from GE Money nor anything from GE Money (for at least 6 months even though they kept accepting the payments)

2nd letter arrives sorry to hear you are having problems ring us

Try to talk to someone what a waste of time. Asked them for bank details to make payments to them.

3rd Statement arrives from Link showing 2 debit balances

4th letter arrives we are not accepting the CCCS plan you we are proceeding to court action within the next 10 days with no further correspondance with you.

5th Court papers arrive

6th letter arrives after receiving my copy of the defence this letter states.....

 

 

PPS have you ever spoken to them on the 'phone?

[diamondgirl]

Can you post the link to this DG? (Copy & paste the title bar from the top of your web page) pt's posts are always excellent so it may be very useful for you.

 

Don't worry about the time - the form shouldn't take long to complete & I or someone else will help you with the draft directions. I'm busy right now, I'll have another look at your thread later.

 

This is the link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html

 

Re your post 101 will get this info when I get home tonight and post it.

[Toulose LeDebt]

This is the link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html

 

Re your post 101 will get this info when I get home tonight and post it.

 

That's the one! Exactly the approach you need to take, told you PT2537 knew his onions.

 

Thankfully in your original defence you did raise issue about who exactly has title to this debt and playing this correctly you might even be able to use your part admittance in your favour too, Judges do generally like honest people.

 

Depending on what your original defence stated we'll customise PT's template pop a bit into Sec. 'A' and possibly Sec. 'B' just to make it all the more damning for Link, you should wrap the AQ up by tomorrow.

[foolishgirl]

 

Depending on what your original defence stated

 

Do you have an exact copy of your defence statement DG? (That's the Acknowledgment of Service form you returned to court)

 

If so, can you post it up? If you haven't, contact the court & you may be able to go & get a copy from them or they may fax it to you if you ask very nicely.

[diamondgirl]

Hi FG

I have already asked the courts for a copy but not had anything from them.

I basically put I agreed the amount of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx which I admitted as of xxxxxxxxx My agreement was with GE Money which payments have been made to and by CCCS. I enclose copy of I&E . I have received 3 letters from Link Financial. I have never been able to speak to any there. I have been unable to obtain a reference number to enable payments to be made. Link accessed an ex-directory telephone number. All other creditors have accepted the DMP as set out by CCCS. I can only pay the amount set out by CCCS.

Basically rubbish now I know a lot more than I did then.

Hope this has helped.

DG:)

[foolishgirl]

Thanks DG

 

So did you leave the box marked 'Defence' blank?

 

The info. may help when responding to the AQ.

[diamondgirl]

Hi FG

In box defence I put the above. Guess I shouldn't have done it:(

 

Just received call on mobile from Link obviously didn't answer it must be in connection with my letter (thanks to you) yesterday. Wonder how many times the plonkers have tried ringing home

Edited March 25, 2009 by diamondgirl
phone call

[diamondgirl]

PS.

 

1st letter said sale of your debt is possibly imminent

Sent upto date expenditure/statement as told to do by CCCS bearing in mind that I never received a letter to say they had actually bought the debt from GE Money nor anything from GE Money (for at least 6 months even though they kept accepting the payments)

2nd letter arrives sorry to hear you are having problems ring us

Try to talk to someone what a waste of time. Asked them for bank details to make payments to them.

3rd Statement arrives from Link showing 2 debit balances

4th letter arrives we are not accepting the CCCS plan you we are proceeding to court action within the next 10 days with no further correspondance with you.

5th Court papers arrive

6th letter arrives after receiving my copy of the defence this letter states.....

 

 

PPS have you ever spoken to them on the 'phone?

Answers 1st letter dated 28.11.08

I&E 12.08

2nd Letter date 12.01.09

3rd Statement dated 09.01.09

4th Letter dated 27.01.09

5th Court Papers arrive 11.02.09

6th Letter dated 26.02.09

Spoken to them 1st asked for account details they gave me details but not reference number

Rang again asked for reference number as advised by CCCS not give it me

Rang again they said ever considered consolidating your debts - no was my reply, left me on hold - I hung up.

Rang again spoke to some idiot asked again for reference number he told me we are taking you to court and going to put a charging order on your property you've already been advised of that.

Hope that answers your questions.

See next post

[Toulose LeDebt]

The OFT is monitoring the use of 'charging orders' as a method of enforcing judgment debts, where the debts originally arose under regulated consumer credit agreements. This is due, in particular, to a significant rise in the numbers of charging orders being applied for and granted over the past few years.

In 2005, 49,213 orders were granted, rising to 67,087 in 2006 and 97,027 in 2007. Many of these charging orders will relate to judgment debts not connected to credit agreements and the OFT's interest in this matter is limited to those charging orders that are applied for and granted as a result of regulated consumer credit agreements.

What is a charging order?

A charging order is one of a number of enforcement methods available to creditors to ensure that judgment debts are satisfied. A charging order can only be applied for where a court judgment has already determined that a debtor owes money to the creditor, and payment under that judgment is not forthcoming. The original debt may have arisen under a consumer credit agreement. However, as noted above, charging orders can also be used to enforce the payment of monies after a judgment in other types of action.

Once a charging order is obtained a 'charge' can be placed on the asset specified in the order. This will usually be the debtor's property. When the debtor decides to sell the property the amount due is repaid out of the proceeds. Charging orders do not require debtors to sell their property. However, the creditor can make a further application to the court requesting that an order should be granted to enable the property to be sold sooner to repay the debt. This is called an 'order for sale'. It appears that this currently happens in a very small proportion of cases.

Request for information

The OFT is continuing to monitor the use of charging orders in the consumer credit sector and the appropriateness of use in certain circumstances and has written to a number of creditors seeking further information to feed into this review.

In addition, the OFT continues to welcome views and information on the manner in which charging orders are used in debt enforcement where the original debt arose under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If you have information that would inform our work in this area, please write to:

Charging orders

Room 2N

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London EC4Y 8JX.

Email: [email protected]

Fax: 020 7211 8465

Submissions should reach us by 30 March 2009.

The OFT will provide an update on our work in this area by the end of July 2009.

[diamondgirl]

Sorry left my camera at work have to type this out.

Today received from plonkers copy of the AQ dated 19th March (Anyway they sent it to wrong court its been changed as the one allocated was further away ha ha)

A. Settlement

1. Rules require you to try to settle claim before hearing do you want to attempt to settle at this stage - Yes

2. If yes do you want a one month stay - Yes

3. Would you like the court to arrange a mediation appointment - No

B - Heard at a particular court - No

C. Pre-action Protocals - have you done so - Yes

D. Case management info

What amount of the claim is in dispute - £xxx

Applications

Have you made any application in this claim - No

 

Witnesses

The claimant intends to rely ujpon its witness statements (and herebyh puts parties on notice of its intention to reply upon said heresay evidence.)

Experts

Do you wish to use expert evidence - No

Have you already copied and experts reports to the other party - None yet obtained

Do you consider case suitable for single joint expert in any field - No

Do you want your expert to give evidence orally at trial or final hearing - No

Track - Small Claims

If you indicated a track give brief reasons:

The claim is defended on the basis of the defendant not accepting proceedings to be necessary in view of monthly payments being offered prior to the claim being raised - (Liars never asked me.)

E. Trial or Final Hearing

How long do you esitate the trail or hearing will take - 1hour

F. Proposed Directors

Have you attached list of the directions youthing appropriate - No

G - Costs left blank

H. Fee - Have you attached the fee for filing this AQ - Yes

Other Info. Have you attached docs - Yes

Have these been sent to other party - Yes

Set out any other info you consider help the judge manage the claim:

"The claim is raised to enforce the financial terms and conditions of a regulated credit agreement between GE Capital Bank Ltd and xxxxxxxxxxx

the befit of which has been legally assigned to the claimant.

The claim is defended on the basis of the defendant making a reduced offer of payment to the claimant (liar) prior to proceedings being raised. The defendant does not accept the the claim is necessary and disputes the costs (dead right)

The claimant believes the defence to be invalid because the offer made by the defendant was insufficient to adequately service the outstanding balance. The claimant is under no obligation to accept reduced payments. The defendant provided acceptance of the terms and conditions of the original contract at inception by signing the agreement.

Sorry about that load of rubbish

Enclosed copy of the 2001 agreement:smile:

[diamondgirl]

Sorry went out of order 6th letter arrives stating:

Acknowledge part admission filed contact of which have been noted.

Whilst we appreciate that you have previously made an offer of repayment this was rejected on basis the amount offered was insufficient to adequately service the account balance. We do not accept that you have a valid defence of the claim and it is our intention to proceed to judgement in this matter.

In an effort to save court time and to prevent the claim being listed for a hearing we attach a letter of your consideration By signing and returning this to us you will be admitting the debt in full and consenting to judgement being entered against you. Once judgement has been obtained we will make an application to secure the debt by of a charging order on your property this will enable us to monitor the account for monthly payments at a rate of which is affordable to you.

In the event you wish to continue to defend this matter we have requested it be transferred to your local court.

Attached :

It has been brought to my attention by the claimant that I am indeed indebted to the claimant for the monies claimed.

I would therefore wish to admit the claim in full and consent ot the claimant being granted leave to request judgement against me for those monies claimed and the fixed costs incurred to date.

Any papers filed in defence of the claim I would request be withdrawn.

 

SORRY FOR SUCH LONG DRAWN OUT DRIVEL:o

[diamondgirl]

TLD

I have just emailed OFT re charging orders, thanks for the info DG:D

[Toulose LeDebt]

TLD

I have just emailed OFT re charging orders, thanks for the info DG:D

 

Excellent!!

 

You will be emailing them again tomorrow

 

Well done for getting all that info up the hard way.

 

What we're aiming at here is making Link a victim of their own greed. They could have accepted a DMP through CCCS but chose to pursue for a charging order via the CCJ. The plan is now to leave Link with an unenforceable claim which they will have to discontinue or lose and an OFT investigation with hopefully the same end result as 1st Crud experienced or worse.

 

I'll get on with writing it up now we've got pretty well everything then I'll post it up here and let the site team and the other good brains on this site pick at it.

 

2 hours tops!!

[diamondgirl]

Hi TLD

This is brilliant of you guys I do intend to send a donation as soon as I get some cash together. I'll do without something to send you guys something. Who knows I may win the lottery with my last £1 than you could all put a figure in together but don't hold your breath please.

 

By the way I forgot what about the payments I've kept making to GE Money after they so called bought the debt. Surely they should take that off the amount owed?

Edited March 25, 2009 by diamondgirl

[Toulose LeDebt]

Okay DG here we go. TBH it's a bit much to put into an aq and get a judge to swallow but since you have partially admitted the claim I don't think it will do you any harm to bring some of these matters up at this stage. They might get fed up with you using the aq as a defence but IMO it's well worth the chance. You are doing damage to Links case against you, they have to read it to disallow it.

 

See what people think though before you put pen to printer......

 

 

In the ************* County Court

Claim number **********

 

 

 

 

 

 

Between

 

************* - Claimant

 

and

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxx - Defendant

 

 

 

 

 

Draft Order for Directions

 

The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order file and serve the following:

 

* Copies of the Credit Agreement dated 20/09/2006 and any documents referred to within it which complies with the consumer Credit Act 1974 and all subsequent regulations, which the claimant seeks to rely upon

* Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended,

* Document, contract or deed of assignment

* A reducted copy of any debt sale agreement proving a financial transaction has occured and the date upon which the financial transaction occured or in the event this cannot be produced other than directly to the Court, a sworn statement to the effect that GE Capital have been paid in full for the purchase of this debt by the claimant and thus have no further fiduciary interest in the account in the event of enforcement by the claimant.

* Notice of assignment, with proof of service of the same compliant with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

* Copies of any statement or other document relied upon such statements to include transcripts taken from the claimants telephone recording system of the entirety of any telephone call between the parties from which the claimant intends to use selective passages as hearsay witness evidence.

 

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve the following

 

* An amended defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the claimant

Pretty well as was with PT2537 but try and sneak in the transcript request here. Not really the right time to ask but these things have a habit of being erased 'accidentally' so bring it to the attention of the Court that the witness statement doesn't have to be hearsay, it could be verbatim.

 

 

Right now in I write the following.

 

Please refer to enclosure marked I- Other Information.

 

 

Enc I- Other Information.

 

XXXXXXXXXX -v- XXXXXXX

Claim No: xxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

N150 Allocation Questionnaire

 

 

 

Section I- other information

 

If the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order.

 

The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously;

 

Without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and have been unable to serve a proper defence. I admit that a debt is owed by myself to a Creditor but dispute that the Claimant is lawfully entitled to assume status as this Creditor or enter into litigation in their own right to seek enforcement on this account.

I believe the claimant is at most the assignee of an equitable assignment or more likely simply a party to a debt sale agreement and thus has no title or right to bring this claim against me in their own name. I further suspect that the speed with which this case has been brought to Court is indicative that the claimant is party to a champertous arrangement with GE Capital. The success of the claimant in producing the requested documentation will easily enable the Court to establish the right to title of the claimant on this account.

The defendant has made several uncontested payments to the original creditor [GE Capital] during the period the claimant alleges to have title to the account, it appears two parties are trying to claim the same debt in which instance the defendant would ask that the parties laying claim to this debt be called upon to interplead in accordance with Sec 136 of The Law of Property Act 1925.

The claimant also appears to be confused over which credit agreement they seek enforcement upon. The claimant states in their particulars of claim that the credit card agreement was entered into on 20/09/2006 yet the claimant has supplied the defendant with a credit agreement relating to a store card dated **/**/2001.

Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as no right to title shall have been proven by the claimant and despite the defendant being willing to enter partial admission that a debt exists, any failure to prove that title to this account rests with the claimant or failure to prove that the debt is explicitly attributable to the agreement dated 20/09/2006 rather than any other credit account the claimant has ever held with GE Capital for example the account opened in 2001 is likely to seriously inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case expeditiously.

 

The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment

 

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give

notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

The court of appeal in the case of Camdex International v. Bank of Zambia (No. 1) [1998] Q.B. 22 recognised that debts are a type of property and like other types of property can be assigned, as sanctioned by parliament see law of property 1925. Legal rights which are incidents of that property maybe exercised by the new owner and no question of champery arises.However, the Court of Appeal pointed out that what was contrary to public policy was an agreement:

 

"...which has maintenance or champerty as its object; such a consequence will not be avoided by dressing up a transaction which has that character and intent as an assignment of a debt". (per Hobhouse LJ at 39).

 

 

 

 

Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the small claims track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer

 

Part A N150 enter the following:

 

Please see attachment marked A1

 

 

A1

 

I consider it inappropriate to make any further attempts at settlement at this stage because I have found the claimant to be deliberately obstructive to any such attempts.

Believing the claimant to be acting as agent for GE Capital, I have written to the claimant with a repayment proposal from a debt management plan taking my other creditors into consideration and drafted with help from the CCCS. The claimant has rebuked this offer which represented the maximum sustainable amount I could offer my creditors.

Believing the claimant to be acting as agent for GE Capital I have on several occasions telephoned the claimant asking for details to make payments and been rebuked.

The claimant has stated during telephone conversations that ultimately they are seeking a charging order against my property and they are not interested in any alternative offer I might make to resolve the matter.

The claimant has made it patently clear in their letter dated 26/02/2009 (enclosure A2) that they have no intention of accepting any other route other than enforcement through a Court Judgement and ultimately the securing of an unsecured debt incurred under CCA 1974 via a charging order, a practice which the OFT are currently going to great lengths to investigate.

 

No harm in telling the truth to a Court is there?

 

 

Part C N150 enter the following:

 

Please see attachment marked C1

 

 

C1

 

The defendant has been unable to comply with the pre-action protocols because the claimant has been expedient yet anachronistic in the issuing of documentation, communications and proceedings in this matter and further the claimant has frustrated any attempt made by myself to follow the protocols.

 

Ultimately the refusal of the claimant to follow the pre-action protocols in particular the requisites set out in section 4.2 that: "The procedure should not be regarded as a prelude to inevitable litigation" and Sec. 4.2(d) are best illustrated in the letter dated 26/02/2009 received from the claimant (enclosure A2). This letter makes it quite clear that the claimant was after litigation no matter what proposal or admission I made, the claimant simply sought a full admission and for me to waive my rights to a hearing in order that a default judgment be entered against myself.

 

I have tried very hard to communicate with the claimant in this matter but have been frustrated at each attempt since the claimant has made it clear that they have no intention of settling for anything other than a judgment against myself in the hopes they can by forcing an unsustainable level of repayment upon myself through a judgment and in the future apply for a charging order against my property.

The claimant and/or the original creditor has escalated proceedings against the defendant by placing the defendant in a default situation on the account, the amount of this default being in the sum of one penny, this despite the defendant attempting to make payment.(Enclosure C2)

 

One identifiable result of the claimant failing to comply with pre action protocols has been that the defendant entered a defence in this case involving a partial admission of a debt owed under a consumer credit agreement. Subsequent documentation supplied by the claimant on the 17th March 2009 clearly refers not to a credit agreement drawn up on the 20/09/2006 as mentioned in the particulars of claim but a different agreement for a different type of account the defendant had with GE Capital, such agreement being drawn up on **/**/2001. Even at this late stage and with the benefit of the extra documentation supplied by the claimant such documentation not being available to the defendant at the time of submission of the defence, the defendant is embarrassed to admit that she is still unsure which account the claimant is seeking enforcement upon.

 

Had the pre action protocols been followed by the claimant, the defendant is of the belief that such a seemingly routine matter might have been resolved prior to presentation to the Court and that this would in the first instance quite possiblyhave led to a different defence being entered and in the second instance the special instructions requested as an attachment to this aq would have been unneccesary and much time saved thereby.

 

I ask that whatever the outcome of the hearing might be that the Court looks upon the letter dated 26/02/2009 as sufficient proof that the claimant had at no time any intention other than to litigate against me in this matter and duly takes this into account when making any costs order.

 

Again the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.......

 

Now as I say above let the experts have a look before completing your form. This is what I would write in your situation but I'm (obviously) not legally trained. I think it's asking a lot of a Judge to accept all of this but after all the aq is to determine the complexity of the hearing so you never know.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

By the way I forgot what about the payments I've kept making to GE Money after they so called bought the debt. Surely they should take that off the amount owed?

 

I think they might be more valuable where they are for now.

 

You are after all trying to get a Judge to believe that Link do not have title to this account.

[Just edited it into the above].

Edited March 25, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[foolishgirl]

I particularly like C1, TLD!

 

Have you noticed they've asked for small claims when it's over £5000?

 

Why would they do that d'you think? Are they hoping to sneak it past a dozy DJ?

 

BTW, well done DG on typing all that lot out.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Cheers FG still think it's a bit much but hard to argue that it's not all relevant (ish)

 

The C1 ensures that in the very least it's unlikely that any costs order would be made in favour of Link and as you quite rightly point out due to the size of the claim let alone the complexities involved it's more likely to be allocated to fast track. It's important I think to at least bring this straight into the open so that the Court and Link are well aware that by forcing the issue the claimant has probably blown any chances of a costs order being made in their favour. That in itself could be a big hit for them but the Pre-action protocols exist for a reason and the consequences of not following them can be very expensive though not normally reason in itself for the case to be thrown out.

 

PAP 2.3

 

If, in the opinion of the court, non-compliance has led to the commencement of proceedings which might otherwise not have needed to be commenced, or has led to costs being incurred in the proceedings that might otherwise not have been incurred, the orders the court may make include:

(1) an order that the party at fault pay the costs of the proceedings, or part of those costs, of the other party or parties;

 

(2) an order that the party at fault pay those costs on an indemnity basis;

 

(3) if the party at fault is a claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of damages or some specified sum is subsequently made, an order depriving that party of interest on such sum and in respect of such period as may be specified, and/or awarding interest at a lower rate than that at which interest would otherwise have been awarded;

 

(4) if the party at fault is a defendant and an order for the payment of damages or some specified sum is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order awarding interest on such sum and in respect of such period as may be specified at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate (cf. CPR rule 36.21(2), than the rate at which interest would otherwise have been awarded.

 

 

So Link should become aware quite early on that win lose or draw there's a good chance they'll be footing the bill and they might be deprived of interest claimed. Could add up to a pretty penny with the claim going fast track.

 

 

 

 

I'd be keen to hear what you think about the rest of it FG or anyone else. DG doesn't have loads of time left to complete this but I wouldn't want to miss anything out particularly. Should she go with this much at this stage? What's the worst that can happen, they're not exactly going to refuse the aq are they?

 

Notwithstanding a non-compliant default notice I feel it's important the court know early on that the sum engineered to be in default is claimed as one penny, bet the OFT will be interested in that too. (Especially as it's a 'late payment fee'. A late payment fee of 1p come on now they don't exist do they?)

 

And yes I agree with you FG looks like they are hoping to slip it past a dozy judge just hope DG doesn't live in Devon.

 

These morons at Link have the privilege of me as a client. Although they do not know it yet they are attempting to enforce an debt which does not belong to me. I am how you say in eengleesh 'giving them enough rope to be hanging themselves with'.:grin::grin:

[Toulose LeDebt]

deleted.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[foolishgirl]

 

I'd be keen to hear what you think about the rest of it FG or anyone else. DG doesn't have loads of time left to complete this but I wouldn't want to miss anything out particularly. Should she go with this much at this stage? What's the worst that can happen, they're not exactly going to refuse the aq are they?

 

Think you've done a great job here TLD, sorry couldn't have had more input, problems of my own to sort this week

Notwithstanding a non-compliant default notice I feel it's important the court know early on that the sum engineered to be in default is claimed as one penny, bet the OFT will be interested in that too. (Especially as it's a 'late payment fee'. A late payment fee of 1p come on now they don't exist do they?)

 

Love this one, don't you

 

Don't think they can refuse to accept all that on AQ, only thing they might get touchy over IMO is that the defence wasn't properly completed on the AOC. However as this is a LIP, she should be given leeway; however do you think it should be emphasised in C1?

 

Note to DG for filling in AQ form: Before you answer all the Qs, just post up a note of the answers you intend putting down for checking. All the stuff that TLD has drafted has to be typed up on separate sheets (where it won't fit in the boxes - & it won't!) & referred to in the boxes on the AQ

[diamondgirl]

Thanks all

I'm just about to print everything off and will have a good read of it, type the necessary out. When I come to complete the AQ will post up what I think are the right answers before I put anything to paper as knowing me I'll cock it up. I couldn't do any of this without your help to which I am ever greatful.

DG:)

[Toulose LeDebt]

Don't think they can refuse to accept all that on AQ, only thing they might get touchy over IMO is that the defence wasn't properly completed on the AOC. However as this is a LIP, she should be given leeway; however do you think it should be emphasised in C1?

 

Good idea I've inserted the following into C1

 

One identifiable result of the claimant failing to comply with pre action protocols has been that the defendant entered a defence in this case involving a partial admission of a debt owed under a consumer credit agreement. Subsequent documentation supplied by the claimant on the 17th March 2009 clearly refers not to the credit agreement drawn up on the 20/09/2006 as mentioned in the particulars of claim but a different agreement for a different type of account the defendant had with GE Capital, such agreement being drawn up on **/**/2001. Even at this late stage and with the benefit of the extra documentation supplied by the claimant such documentation not being available to the defendant at the time of submission of the defence, the defendant is embarrassed to admit that she is still unsure which account the claimant is seeking enforcement upon.

Had the pre action protocols been followed by the claimant, the defendant is of the belief that such a seemingly routine matter might have been resolved prior to presentation to the Court and that this would in the first instance quite possiblyhave led to a different defence being entered and in the second instance the special instructions requested as an attachment to this aq would have been unneccesary and much time saved thereby.

Note to DG for filling in AQ form: Before you answer all the Qs, just post up a note of the answers you intend putting down for checking. All the stuff that TLD has drafted has to be typed up on separate sheets (where it won't fit in the boxes - & it won't!) & referred to in the boxes on the AQ

 

Good advice also check, double check and triple check the dates and don't forget to enclose copies of documents referred to in the aq eg letter dated 26/02/09, the default 'notice' showing amount in default of 1p etc. Do one copy for yourself, one for the Court and one for Link. Fill in the partI other parties tick and put 'posted **/**/**** in the when did they receive them box. And send the full bundle to Link.

 

Don't forget to include a brief cover letter which also puts them on notice that this case has been passed to the OFT special investigation unit dealing with the placement of charging orders on consumer credit debts. There are other issues to bring up with the OFT in this matter but save some bad news for Link for a rainy day.

 

Also in your cover letter make it quite clear to Link that since they are looking to enter hearsay evidence against you derived from telephone calls that you are now wholly unprepared to talk with them on the phone and any communication must be in writing.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt