Link Claimform - old GE Money Debt - **STRUCK OUT** reinstated **WON AGAIN + COSTS**

[MAGDA]

Hey, well done Magda!

 

Congratulations!

 

you can scrape the sh1t off your shoe, leave the smell behind, and continue with other pressing stuff!

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Hi Rob,

 

couldn't have put it better myself:D Many thanks for the help you gave me on this thread.

 

 

 

Congratulations Magda:)

 

Many thanks, be nice to sting them with a nice costs order now:)

 

Magda

[underdog13]

 

Many thanks, be nice to sting them with a nice costs order now:)

 

Magda

 

Absolutely:D

[MAGDA]

Going to get my costs in next week - if I manage to get anything, will make a donation to the site - it really is such a huge help to so many people. The four claims issued against us by Link would definitely have resulted in four CCJ's if I hadn't had the knowledge gleaned from the forums. As it is, Link lost on all four counts and wasted a lot of money in the process.

 

Good luck to anyone else currently doing battle with Link.

 

Magda

[angry cat]

Xxx

 

Ac

[MAGDA]

Had a letter from GE and on the reverse it is a Default Notice, think GE are hoping to serve a valid DN now, following discontinuance by Link of the court proceedings, and will try to take this to court again. This is the post I just made on Semyaza's thread:

 

Just looked at the letter from GE Money again Semyaza, and hadn't noticed before (got so many letters/court papers coming in thick and fast at the moment) and there is a Default Notice on the reverse served under s87 of the Act, all very official, requiring settlement of the arrears by3rd December. Really covering themselves this time, nearly a month to remedy the breach!

 

the strange thing is, it states the Nature of breach: Each of £xxx due each month for 41 months from 20th March 2009 to 3rd November 2009 inclusive. How can that be 41 months? totalling £over thousand pounds.

 

Think they have made a mistake and meant to state it was from 2004 to 2009, although Link supposedly ownded it during this period anyway, very, very strange. Think they are going to start looking to go back to court again, got a feeling that is what they are up to.

 

They actually state intended action is: to demand full repayment of all your indebtedness udner the agreement to commence court proceedings against you for recovery in default of payment. It actually uses the word "is"

 

Now according to Link, GE MONEY defaulted me in 2004 or so, so how can they suddenly default me again now, what about the original Default Notice?

Seems this may be one of those cases where Link discontinued and now GE money are going to reissue proceedings following service of a valid? Default Notice.

 

Oh dear, I can do without any more court claims at the moment.

 

Magda

[semyaza]

Bah this was what I was afraid of!!

[MAGDA]

Yes, I know, makes you wonder what the point of it all is. You go to court, you win because they are forced to discontinue, then they so called sell it back to the OC, and they then start all over again... crazy...

[angry cat]

Good Grief Magda, don't say they have resurected the claim, again!?

[MAGDA]

Hi AC, well out of the four claims they issued, one was struck out, another was struck out, then reinstated, then discontinued, the third was struck out, reinstated, then struck out again and this one was discontinued by Link and they then wrote and said GE wanted to buy it back:confused: No DN and no cancellation details available (this was signed after face to face discussions in our home) and who knows what sort of Assignment had actually taken place, and so basically Link knew they didn't have a leg to stand on. Now, GE are suddenly rearing their ugly heads again and have issued me with a DN stating that the action they will take (not might) if I fail to rememdy the Default is to issue court proceedings. So looks as though they are intending to start the whole process over again. It just doesn't seem right does it. Semyaza is in the same situation, so don't know if she will get a DN as well, she says they have just placed a default on her credit file (which they shouldn't be doing). I will be really annoyed if they've put a default on my file again, because they are all due to drop off early next year.

 

Guess I will just have to wait and see what GE's next move is... can't wait...

 

 

Magda

[DonkeyB]

Magda, I think we're getting into 'vexatious litigant' territory here.

 

If they have defaulted you previously (though incorrectly) then terminated the agreement (by assigning it away), then they have unlawfully rescinded the agreement. I can't see what they're hoping to gain by this course of action - it appears very foolish and inflammatory.

[MAGDA]

Hi Donkey, yes, it does, I agree. And of course, I will raise all of the issues again that I raised last time (althought this time I guess they think they will have a valid DN), so as you say, don't know what they hope to gain from this.

 

Magda

[semyaza]

Hey I'm He! LOL Just cause that film has a nice young lady in it next year

 

Anyway. I have looked through the witness statements from link to find some things but am now a bit confused. I thought in order for Link to take us to court , GE/FirstNational have to terminate the agreement with you? So I looked but couldnt find anything that said my agreement was terminated. However the debt must have been assigned.

 

But because the debt was not assigned properly link had no leg to stand on. Does this mean effectively that GE still own the debt and it just goes back to as if a DN was not issued in the first place?

 

My fallback with this will be lack of a cancellation agreement which one Judge last time said it was a valid defense.

[MAGDA]

Hi Semyaza,yes, that will be one of my arguments as well - lack of cancellation details. I am thinking of writing to GE and trying to nip all this in the bud before it goes any further. As far as I know, the Assignment to Link was supposedly absolute and therefore Link did own the debt, whether or not the Assignment was valid (i'm sure we could have picked some holes in it) I don't know, because never got as far as actually seeing it. I've seen their other assignments though and they are generic documents which I don't think would stand up in court, a bit like Cabots.

 

So, if Link legally owned the debt (which they claimed to) then sold it back to GE, then shouldn't we have received a notice of Assignment in that case, and there will need to be a trail of paperwork to prove all of this as well.

 

It's so annoying when you think something is behind you and it suddenly pops up again, mind you, Link are very good at that, their favourite party trick is getting claims reinstated and then discontinuing at the last minute.

 

Magda

[DonkeyB]

I think the issues may be more subtle. Although the assignment from GE to Link may have been flawed, let's suppose it was legal. Their problem was that they failed to issue a notice of assignment to you. They had, by their own admission, terminated. They can issue as many new DNs as they like - they mean nothing. It's probably in your interests now that the assignment between GE and Link was absolute.

 

Was the letter to you a notice of assignment from Link back to GE? And aren't GE now rebranded as Santander? All very confusing!

[MAGDA]

Hi Donkey, yes, you can say that again - it certainly is confusing. The letter from Link wasn't a NoA, it was just a letter stating that they were discontinuing their court claim because GE Money now wanted to re-purchase the debt. At that point, this hadn't actually happened as far as I know, Link still owned it. So haven't had any new NoA stating that GE now own the debt under a new assignment. It just seems to have been handed back to GE because Link no longer wanted it. Be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of weeks. Already dealing with two court claims so I hope I don't get another one.... Checked my credit file by the way, and the default is showing as registered in 2004.

 

Magda

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

just wondering, under cpr 38.7 a claimant who discontinues and then attempts to bring the same claim again would need the permission of the court to do so, so would need to submit an application. What happens if the claimant changes from say Link to GE Money, but the account on which they are basing their proceedings is the same, so essentially the same claim, would cpr 38.7 still apply?

 

Magda

[semyaza]

but wouldnt this be a different claimant? I would think the terminating of an agreement would be the best route, somehow?!? To bring action agreement must be terminated, etc?!

[robcag]

just wondering, under cpr 38.7 a claimant who discontinues and then attempts to bring the same claim again would need the permission of the court to do so, so would need to submit an application. What happens if the claimant changes from say Link to GE Money, but the account on which they are basing their proceedings is the same, so essentially the same claim, would cpr 38.7 still apply?

 

Magda

 

Hi Magda

 

As I often say, I'm no expert, but my view would be that it would be treated as the same claim.

 

In my fairly recent experience, the new owner/assignee (after having satisfactorily had ownership of the alleged debt transferred to them by way of a lawful NoA/DoA), would then have to make an application to the court to be substituted as claimant in place of the original claimant, before they could then take any further action on the debt.

 

Essentially I see it that the claim is the same claim, the claimant is the new substituted claimant, and nothing new is introduced, just that the name only of the claimant has changed. I'm not sure if I've explained that very clearly though! (Somebody else will probably make a better job of it!)

 

Cheers

Rob

[MAGDA]

but wouldnt this be a different claimant? I would think the terminating of an agreement would be the best route, somehow?!? To bring action agreement must be terminated, etc?!

 

Hi Semyaza, not sure if it was officially terminated or not at the time. GE are now acting as if it is a 'live' account. So very confusing.

 

Hi Magda

 

As I often say, I'm no expert, but my view would be that it would be treated as the same claim.

 

In my fairly recent experience, the new owner/assignee (after having satisfactorily had ownership of the alleged debt transferred to them by way of a lawful NoA/DoA), would then have to make an application to the court to be substituted as claimant in place of the original claimant, before they could then take any further action on the debt.

 

Essentially I see it that the claim is the same claim, the claimant is the new substituted claimant, and nothing new is introduced, just that the name only of the claimant has changed. I'm not sure if I've explained that very clearly though! (Somebody else will probably make a better job of it!)

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Hi Rob, yes, that does make sense thanks. As you say, the claim is still the same but the name of the claimant will have changed, that's all. The only other thing is that GE Money who seem to now have this account back again (although Link claimed to own it under absolute assignment not so long ago) have issued a second DN, so I can only assume the first DN (which by the way Link never managed to produce) was either defective or non-existent. They have said if I don't rectify the default by xxxxxx Dec, they are going to issue court proceedings. It actually states that on the DN. Great when I have already been through all of this with Link.

 

thanks again, Magda

[robcag]

 

........... The only other thing is that GE Money who seem to now have this account back again (although Link claimed to own it under absolute assignment not so long ago) have issued a second DN, so I can only assume the first DN (which by the way Link never managed to produce) was either defective or non-existent. They have said if I don't rectify the default by xxxxxx Dec, they are going to issue court proceedings. It actually states that on the DN. Great when I have already been through all of this with Link.

 

thanks again, Magda

 

Hi Magda

 

Sorry if you've already answered this, but do you actually have the original DN (i.e. from before Link allegedly took over) ?

 

Cheers

Rob

 

PS I know you've said you assume it was defective or non existent, which probably answers my question

Edited November 22, 2009 by robcag
Added PS, then spelling

[angry cat]

Just an observation but have noticed, just how aggressive Link appear to be in relation to FN/GE alleged assignments...it would appeart that, GE are bunging them!?

 

Also, I have said it once but will say again, one word: securitization.

 

Link Financial et al and;

Asset Link and associates, have BIG buckets of dodgy assignments (portfolio) that, they are desperately trying to collect on!!!

 

Doesn't take a rocket scientist's brain; to calculate.

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda

 

Sorry if you've already answered this, but do you actually have the original DN (i.e. from before Link allegedly took over) ?

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Hi, no, I don't have it at all. When Link issued their claim,I sent a cpr 18 asking for the DN, NoA, etc, all they ever managed to produce was the agreement and a brief statement of account. I managed to get their claim struck out at one point and they then had it reinstated and it was all set to go to a hearing with the date set and everything. I then sent a cpr 31.14 request again asking for the DN (and cancellation details as it was a cancellable agreement) and they suddnely discontinued out of the blue and said that GE Moneywanted to buy the debt back again. Been nice and quiet for a while, but GE now seem to be actively pursuing it again and have as mentioned now issued a DN.

 

I wasn't officially notified that the debt has been re-assigned, no NoA to this effect, nothing, so that can't be right either.

 

Magda

[robcag]

Hi, no, I don't have it at all. When Link issued their claim,I sent a cpr 18 asking for the DN, NoA, etc, all they ever managed to produce was the agreement and a brief statement of account. I managed to get their claim struck out at one point and they then had it reinstated and it was all set to go to a hearing with the date set and everything. I then sent a cpr 31.14 request again asking for the DN (and cancellation details as it was a cancellable agreement) and they suddnely discontinued out of the blue and said that GE Moneywanted to buy the debt back again. Been nice and quiet for a while, but GE now seem to be actively pursuing it again and have as mentioned now issued a DN.

 

I wasn't officially notified that the debt has been re-assigned, no NoA to this effect, nothing, so that can't be right either. I totally agree, surely Link would have to issue their own NoA/DoA transferring the debt back to GE.

 

Magda

 

As you never received the original DN, then I guess you also didn't receive a Termination Notice. But surely if Link took you to court over this, then wouldn't it be arguable that the account had been terminated in order for that to possible?

 

Cheers

Rob

[MAGDA]

Just an observation but have noticed, just how aggressive Link appear to be in relation to FN/GE alleged assignments...it would appeart that, GE are bunging them!?

 

Also, I have said it once but will say again, one word: securitization.

 

Link Financial et al and;

Asset Link and associates, have BIG buckets of dodgy assignments (portfolio) that, they are desperately trying to collect on!!!

 

Doesn't take a rocket scientist's brain; to calculate.

 

Hi AC, I think you are right. On the other claim link had against us I started looking very closely into the Assignment and to force Link to produce the Assignment document in its entirety, not just the little portion they had chosen to show us. They had gone all out to get the claim placed on the fast track and then suddenly didn't do either their disclosure properly or their WS, so their claim was struck out. I therefore think their Assignments are decidedly dodgy to say the least. And how can they so called own an account and then just pass it back to the OC without it seems the need for any paperwork.

 

Magda.

[MAGDA]

As you never received the original DN, then I guess you also didn't receive a Termination Notice. But surely if Link took you to court over this, then wouldn't it be arguable that the account had been terminated in order for that to possible?

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Yes, you would think so wouldn't you, that would be they way you would normally expect it to work.

 

I do think a DN was issued back in 2004 when the account defaulted (and possibly a TN) but I don't have them, although Link issued their proceedings based on the fact that First National (before they became GE) had issued a DN, so according to them, it did exist.

 

Magda