GE Debenhams store card sold to CL finance

[pt2537]

Beachy's problem is more complex then just an illegible Storecard Application/Agreement. Its fundamental issue relates to GE's "Storecard Conversion".

 

And also the fact that GE failed to issue a default notice before assigning the account to CL.

 

 

I agree with the first part, thats because of the modifying agreement provisions,

 

however the bit about the default notice is im afraid horribly wrong, there is no need to serve a default notice before the sale of the debt to a third party. That is wrong, you only need to look at Morgan stanley who sold their cards to Goldfish and then barclays. Did they default all their customers? no they didnt, and then there was Egg who sold to Citi, they never defaulted either

 

dont lose sight of the fact that credit can be restricted by the lender at any time, it doesnt need a default to do this,

 

as for Free advice, well nothing is free, but there are firms out there who offer no win no fee, and in our practice, we are quite prepared to put the best counsel on a case at our expense if the case has merit. As beachy will know with his other case

[beachcomber60]

My case being almost identical to Beachy. I spent hours & hours trawling this forum, reading posts & gathering information from this fantastic forum,from brilliant people like you.Because of this, I successfully challenged HC to provide the Credit Card Agreement they referred to in the POC, & forced them to discontinue.

 

I used CPR 31.14 & informed Beachy on the 22/10/10. Had he used it then, the 7 days would be up.

 

Debs

 

Hi Debs,

 

I wouldnt want anyone falling out over this thread, TBA I only have an axe to grind with one person and he knows exactly who it is by his noticeable absence from this thread.

 

I did indeed use CPR 31:14 to Cohens on the 11th October and had a reply dated 13th October (bleeding quick turn round) enclosed was the same microfiche Storecard Application/Agreement, T&C's (questionable), CL Default Notice & Notice of Assignment.

 

Beachy

[debbbbsy]

however the bit about the default notice is im afraid horribly wrong, there is no need to serve a default notice before the sale of the debt to a third party.

 

In my case, when CL discontinued, Santander bought back the account. When I challenged Santanders right to do this,because the account had been 'Assigned Absolutely', this was there response.

 

".....As advised in our previous letter, this debt was incorrectly sold to CL Finance, due to the default notice not being issued. We are therefore required and legally within our rights to re-purchase the debt from CL Finance."

 

If Santander are correct, then this applies to Beachy's case, if the debt has been "incorrectly sold",CL have no legal entitlment to demand payment & instgate legal proceedings.

 

I agree with the first part, thats because of the modifying agreement provisions,

 

PT can you give me a bit more, there are probably about 4 other threads at the moment relating to "Storecard Conversion", not just GE, but also M&S. Where the OC is supplying the Storecard Application/Agreement, when the customer makes a CCA request for the Credit

card. The account numbers are different, the interest rate is different, and the T&C's must also be different. Also, when challenged about the difference, GE is referring to a clause on the Storecard Agreement, which the OFT has already ruled as being Unfair, possibly even Unlawful.

 

Debs

[pt2537]

jeez, the problem is that modifying agreements are tricky things, i have a good easy to read opinion from counsel on these issues.

 

I cant really expand here, as i do not want people picking up on things and going off half cocked

[DonkeyB]

As advised in our previous letter' date=' this debt was incorrectly sold to CL Finance, due to the default notice not being issued. We are therefore required and legally within our rights to re-purchase the debt from CL Finance."[/i]

 

If Santander are correct, then this applies to Beachy's case, if the debt has been "incorrectly sold",CL have no legal entitlment to demand payment & instgate legal proceedings.

 

I don’t think they are correct. They can repurchase it any time. A default was only required if the account was terminated before sale – that’s what I think they’re getting at. That’s a whole different ball game. I’m not sure they are REQUIRED to buy it back, but they can, but it’s still terminated, and probably terminated in such a way that they’ll struggle to collect.

[debbbbsy]

I don’t think they are correct.

 

I agree, I don't think they can just repurchase the account. GE terminated my account, & the 'Assigned it Absolutely' to CL. I am still challenging them.

 

But this is the problem they have, they do not expect customers to share there experiences. They have not learnt to be consistent. They can't say to me, it was sold incorrectly, & then let CL continue with a claim against somebody else in exactly the same situation.

 

Debs

[DonkeyB]

Sorry debbbsy, you may have misunderstood me! I am sure they CAN buy it back if they want. Where I think they are wrong is that they imply they are OBLIGED to buy it back. I think that’s tosh. Debts can pretty much be bought and sold at will – what matters is HOW it’s done.

Edited November 3, 2010 by DonkeyB

[beachcomber60]

After two years Cohens have finally issued an LBA over a Storecard account (CL still havent complied with my CCA request ( all they can supply is an unreadable photocopy of a microfiche & T&C's that dont relate to the application/agreement - chip & pin wasnt in use when the account was opened)

 

Interestingly is that they state that the document they will rely in court to seek judgement is the Notice of Assignment of debt.

 

Santander have informed me that the original agreement no longer exists due to the age of the account.

 

Not sure if this invalidates CL's own DN but Santander also state that £2,000 + has been levied to the account which they would take into consideration on any refund claim, would this make CL's DN amount inaccruate?

 

Also have it in writing that when CL applied to Santander for the cca they were told it no longer exists and they were also told 'how to deal with it'.

 

Beachy

[DonkeyB]

Should be fun!

[beachcomber60]

Mmmmmm interesting development

 

After Mr Cohens letter stating they are preparing court papers & my 31:16 in reply, have heard nothing from Mr Cohen.

 

HOWEVER, a letter from Lewis Recovery informing me that their 'client' CL Finance (oh come on - we all know your the same) will not accept payments by installments & payment IN FULL must now be made, failure in doing so MAY result in Solicitors being instructed to issue court proceedings.

 

BC

[beachcomber60]

Well Cohens has replied to my 31:16, included was microfiche application/agreement (now more readable - must have been playing around with it since the first one sent by CL), NoA, DoA & T&C's.

 

No copy of statements, DN or PPI policy or T&C's for PPI.

 

Included was a further letter saying to send I&E statement to Lewis Group & offer of payment instalments (already have a letter from Lewis a few days earlier demanding full payment & nothing else).

 

Regarding a DN notice, Santander stated in a letter in reply to my SAR that over £2000 was levied to the account which they would take into consideration on any refund (did try but all they would refund was £12 which was passed to CL), now as the DN contains this '£2000 + levy' would this make the DN invalid due to incorrect amount.

 

Ta

BC

[pt2537]

No the default would not be invalid, as the charges are something that the credit would be entitled to charge subject to challenge under the UTCCR

 

So, as per HHJ Brown QC in Rankine v Amex, the default wouldnt be invalidated by that

 

Looking at the more readable comment, that isnt the test, the test is "easily legible"

 

As a matter of common sense for something to be easily legible it must be capable of being read

[beachcomber60]

Blimey PT - burning the midnight oil

 

Struggling a bit on this one to find a defence ready for when their claim arrives.

[beachcomber60]

Joined Credit Expert back in October to make sure Link removed a DN due to them losing big time in court

 

surprise to find that they hadn't registered default at all but registered TWO in Mrs 'B's' name for same account

& although they lost in court the DN's are still there & they are STILL processing data regarding this account.

 

Now the 'ALERT' message (different DCA & account) Debt sold to DCA &

 

when I looked in October account type was 'Credit/Store Card & the file marked with 6's after receiving the alert the entry had changed to an '8' & Default,

type of account changed from Credit/Store Card to 'BANK', then looked at the 'ALERT' the update is Balance £0 & Status marked as 'SETTLED'

 

Cant believe its been written off, as the DCA solicitor threatening court action & is in breach of my CPR 31:16 request.

 

Think they may have sold it on

[inkslinger]

A shinning example of why legislation needs bringing in. Why isnt anyone in the government standing up to these clowns and rectifying this abuse? Boils my P**S

[count orlok]

In my experienc alert followed by settled usually means the debt has been sold on to another DCA. I don't even bother to chack my CRF any more.

[Tingy]

Yep, it will have been sold on. I'm just going through the same with Orange and am waiting for it to reincarnate under a different name. 4 years since default so two years for them to try and collect. I'm sure some of these DCA's must buy debts and think, "Oh God, not another one for Tingy - here we go again!"

 

Like you I don't think they'd write it off unless you've asked them to with supporting evidence and had it in writing from them.

[beachcomber60]

Thanks everyone, its strange that their solicitor threatened legal action, I responded with CPR 31:16 & got the same rubbish paperwork, again asked for all relevent documents & got no reply - next thing was CRA alert to say 'Settled' Balance £0.

 

CCA to the OC & got 'Due to the age of the account we no longer have a copy of your agreement & DCA has been advised. Perhaps Mr Cohen was relying on a bad copy of a microfiche then was told that there is an unresolved ppi claim which is three times the balance

[dadofholly]

Surely if they lost in court they must know that this agreement is unenforceable - therefore to sell it so someone else can try and collect is clearly a vexatious act.

 

I would complain to the OFT and the information commissioner about them.

 

Though by simply reducing the balance to zero they could just be giving up on it. And not sold it on at all and simply acting in a responsible manner.

 

Oops whats that just gone passed my window:flypig:

[beachcomber60]

Surely if they lost in court they must know that this agreement is unenforceable - therefore to sell it so someone else can try and collect is clearly a vexatious act.

 

I would complain to the OFT and the information commissioner about them.

 

Though by simply reducing the balance to zero they could just be giving up on it. And not sold it on at all and simply acting in a responsible manner.

 

Oops whats that just gone passed my window:flypig:

 

I seem to have confused things

 

Para 1 was to with Link - they lost BIG time in court, anyone with a FNB/GE Home Lending with ppi really needs to look at their agreements

 

Para 2 Was to do with CL & Cohens who threatened court action but failed to comply with me CPR 31:16, instead they seem to have updated my CRA with 'Settled' & Balance '£0'.

Interestingly, I had a close look at their NoA yesterday & it doesnt state the amount assigned & neither does the DoA Oops

[beachcomber60]

Well after chasing Cohens with a CPR 31:16 (twice) they have, yet again failed to provide the documents that was asked for in order to fuly defend the claim they are threatening court action with.

Latest from them is -

 

"We note your allegations that your Credit Agreement is a bad photocopy, however, this is the best copy that is available as you entered your agreement ** years ago and it is our contention that agreement is legible.

 

Please find enclosed the copy of the Default Notice served upon you on the * ******* 2010 pursuant to section 87 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which we will be relying on as the cause of action in this matter.

 

We now request full details why you contend that you are not liable for the monies owing to our client by ** ******* 2011. In the absence of any such response we have been instructed to issue County Court proceedings without further notice.

 

We reserve the right to exhibit this correspondence in the event of costs being awarded".

 

 

 

GE Money informed me (in writing) that the agreement no longer exists & CL had been informed of this.

 

About a month ago I had an ALERT message from Experian and on viewing it showed that this account had been marked as settled £0 by CL Finance, however, on checking the actual file all that had been changed was type of credit 'Store/Credit Card' to 'Bank'.

I have a massive PPI mis selling complaint regarding this account (with interest its three times the amount Cohens are threatening action over. GE stated in a letter that over £2,000 (not including interest) had been levied to the account which would be taken into consideration on any claim, tried but was told to go away as GE werent Regulated at the time the account was opened, FOS wont touch it.

Should I again try for the 3rd time to get the info from Cohens or just tell him what my counter claim will be.

[DonkeyB]

Time for an N244 and a court order.

[debbbbsy]

[quoteWe reserve the right to exhibit this correspondence in the event of costs being awarded".

]

 

Make sure that in your response, informing them that an Illegible copy is not enforceable. I'm sure that there is some legislation which specifically refers to the keeping & storing of documents, I think its to do with the Money Laundering Act, RBS got a huge fine for failing to keep data. Point out that should they instgate proceedings, knowing the alleged debt is disputed & failing to comply with your CPR requests, they will be liable for all court costs & you'll apply for a wasted costs order. As a litigant in person, I think its £9 per hour.

I had a similar letter from HC. Its bully tactics.

 

Debs

[beachcomber60]

Thanks Donkey B & Debbbbsy,

 

Much appreciated.

 

What I cant understand is the fact that looking around the forum Cohens usually issue claims immediately CL get assigned a debt - for some reason they keep asking me the reason why they shouldnt issue a claim?

 

Very Strange !

[debbbbsy]

What I cant understand is the fact that looking around the forum Cohens usually issue claims immediately CL get assigned a debt - for some reason they keep asking me the reason why they shouldnt issue a claim?

 

Very Strange !

 

In the past, before these forums, they always won these claims undefended. They are unsure as how to proceed with a claim that the consumer knows is unenforceable, and challenges them. Everyday people didn't share there experiences & knowledge. The internet is a wonderful thing.

You & I both know why they haven't issued a claim for this GE Credit Card.

 

Debs