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

[angry cat]

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

 

Application / Licence Details

Licence Number:0498087Licence Status:Current

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name Company Registration Number

Santander Consumer Credit Services Limited 3927500

 

Categories:

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Credit reference agency

Debt adjusting/counselling

Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:Yes

Trading Name(s) (Current):

Asda Card

Asda Card Account

Asda Card Services

Asda Crdit Card

Asda Everyday Credit Card

Asda Financial Services

Asda Loans

Asda Master Card

Asda Personal Loans

Asda Reward Credit Card

Asda Store Card

Asda Storecard & Credit Card

Asda.com

GE Consumer Credit Services

GE Money

GECCSL

Santander Cards

 

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

igroup

igroup direct

igroup loans

igroup mortgages

igcl

igroup commercial

 

Issued Date: 17-Jan-2001 Expiry Date: 24-Jan-2011

Legal Formation:

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Adam Nicholas Mussert Director

Roger Vincent Lovering Director

 

Historic Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Brad John Cooper OFFICER

Daniel Edward Laurence Hayes OFFICER

Daniel Marsh Levine

Ewan Douglas Cameron

Ian Graham Story Director

Ian Graham Story OFFICER

Jeffrey Allan Kagan OFFICER

Jennifer Anne Owens OFFICER

John Michiel Deboer

John Stewart Macphail OFFICER

Joseph Arthur Dlutowski OFFICER

Kalpna Shah OFFICER

Keith Ainsworth OFFICER

Laurence Perry OFFICER

Mr Colin George Sanders OFFICER

Nigel Kenneth Sparrow Director

Peter Brennan OFFICER

Peter Harvey Green Director

Richard John Harvey Director

Robin Ashley Prupp Director

Simon Josuah Deane-Johns OFFICER

Stuart William Sinclair OFFICER

Susan Elizabeth Critchon OFFICER

 

Current Organisations that run the organisation:

Name Company Registration Number Position

Abbey National Nominees Limited 02516674

Wightman Sally Marion

 

Historic Organisations that run the organisation:

Name Company Registration Number Position

Rutland Nominees (No 2) Limited OFFICER

 

Nature of Business:

Investment/Financial Advisers

 

Current Address(es):

Address Type Address

Registered Office 2, Triton Square, Regents Place, LONDON, NW1 3AN, United Kingdom

 

Historic Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Correspondence c/o Kalpna Shah, Malvern House, Croxley Business Park, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

Correspondence c/o Legal Department 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Principal Place Of Business 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Principal Place Of Business Malvern House, Croxley Business Park, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

Principal Place Of Business Santander House, 100, Ludgate Hill, London, EC4 7RE

Registered Office 2, Triton Square, Regents Place, London, NW1 3AN, UK

Registered Office 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Registered Office Malvern House, Croxley Business Park, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

[angry cat]

Link Financial/Link Financial Outsourcing do not not conduct themselves as a reputable company should:

"there have been a number of disclosures about their poor collections practices..."

 

They are NOT a very good advertisement for The Santander Group and I would imagine that Santander would be somewhat embarassed about the situation, should the press get hold of these GE horror stories!

[MAGDA]

Link Financial/Link Financial Outsourcing do not not conduct themselves as a reputable company should:

"there have been a number of disclosures about their poor collections practices..."

 

They are NOT a very good advertisement for The Santander Group and I would imagine that Santander would be somewhat embarassed about the situation, should the press get hold of these GE horror stories!

 

Hi AC, It's hardly the image Santander would want to project is it, at least you wouldn't think so.

 

I think you are right about the bank account thing - will make sure I don't keep too much in there- you never know with companies like GE, do you. Better to be safe than sorry!

 

Hope you are well AC, Best wishes, Magda:)

[angry cat]

Debt management plans that keep adding interest | Money | The Observer

 

Presumably, the GEMoney spokeman was speaking on behalf of Santander?

 

A spokesman for GE Money said its loan terms and conditions include wording that allowed the lender to continue charging interest until the debt is paid off. He added: "Our current terms and conditions allow us to charge interest on accounts which have had a county court judgment levied against them, as we are legally entitled to do. However, given the economic environment, and in line with our commitment to our customers, we are in the process of reviewing this policy."

 

Are Santander reviewing the policy?

 

Feeling sure that, The Observer newspaper would be interested...!

[MAGDA]

Debt management plans that keep adding interest | Money | The Observer

 

Presumably, the GEMoney spokeman was speaking on behalf of Santander?

 

A spokesman for GE Money said its loan terms and conditions include wording that allowed the lender to continue charging interest until the debt is paid off. He added: "Our current terms and conditions allow us to charge interest on accounts which have had a county court judgment levied against them, as we are legally entitled to do. However, given the economic environment, and in line with our commitment to our customers, we are in the process of reviewing this policy."

 

Are Santander reviewing the policy?

 

Feeling sure that, The Observer newspaper would be interested...!

 

I wonder if they really do intend to review their policy, or whether that was just said in an attempt to come across as being sympathetic to those they are currently pursuing for so called unpaid debts. It wouldn't surprise me if Santander are quite happy to turn a blind eye as long as it means more money for them! Hopefully, though, things will change and not before time.

 

Magda

[angry cat]

Magda, the title of this thread is:

 

Re: Link - Debt sold back to GEMoney.

 

So, has it gone back to Banco Santander?

 

Or, is it floating around in limbo...

[MAGDA]

Magda, the title of this thread is:

 

Re: Link - Debt sold back to GEMoney.

 

So, has it gone back to Banco Santander?

 

Or, is it floating around in limbo...

 

Hi AC, not sure if it even LEGALLY went back to GE, let alone Santander:)

 

Maybe I should change the thread, to "Link - Debt sold back to someone (not quite sure who)":roll:

 

Magda

[angry cat]

Hi AC, not sure if it even LEGALLY went back to GE, let alone Santander:)

 

Maybe I should change the thread, to "Link - Debt sold back to someone (not quite sure who)":roll:

 

Magda

 

Love it!!!

 

In reality, I should think there is some confusion about who actually owns it.

 

Debt sold back to the OOZLUM Bird...

 

p.s. I know that assignments have a put-back clause written into them. However, I would imagine that there must be a time limit.

[pumpytums]

Hi Magda,

you will be pleased to know that old Sink still are hunting the elusive DN.

 

I'm currently in court with them again. Did they try the hearsay chestnut about someone seeing a piece of paper marked copy of default notice on you? They actually tried this.

 

Did you ever get costs out of them?

 

Pumpytums

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda,

you will be pleased to know that old Sink still are hunting the elusive DN.

 

I'm currently in court with them again. Did they try the hearsay chestnut about someone seeing a piece of paper marked copy of default notice on you? They actually tried this.

 

Did you ever get costs out of them?

 

Pumpytums

 

Hi Pumpytums, they are unbelievable aren't they! The four claims I was defending didn't actually get as far as an actual trial, although I was in court with them a few times when they tried to get the various claims reinstated, and succeeded on two of them. They then dropped the claims before they ever actually got to trial and discontinued saying it wasn't economical to pursue it. Their other claims were struck out.

This is after causing me no end of hassle attending hearings.

 

RE: costs - I did submit costs, and the Judge, on one particular occasion, (during a hearing Link had requested to reinstate their claim) said that he could see I had put a lot of work into preparing for the hearing (I asked for £160, which was fair) but he was going to award me £45. I was really annoyed and asked him if that was a set amount that they paid to everyone, as they did not appear to go beyond this amount. He said "No, but it's what I'm giving you."

 

On another occasion I submitted a schedule of costs to the court for two of the other claims, and again, was awarded £45 (must be the standard rate at my court!) except on this occasion the £45 was for both claims combined, so around £22.50 for each one. Also, Link did not pay up.

 

Here's hoping you have better luck where costs are concerned. I bet Link won't be able to produce the DN as they don't ever seem to have the paperwork that they should.

 

Hope it all goes well for you, best wishes,

 

Magda:)

[pumpytums]

Thanks Magda,

the great thing I actually have proof regarding the DN (or lack of it). They have also in their great wisdom decided to file a Default on my CRF under their own name and changed a credit card into a loan. Which is quite an achievement.

 

I really dislike this company with a passion. Their latest game with other Caggers is to claim debts were assigned years ago then try for s69 interest problem is the company they use didn't exist until recently so how could they assign something to it 4 years ago.

 

Maybe Mr B will get his comeuppance one day.

 

Pumpytums

[MAGDA]

The trouble with Link is that they never seem to learn - they are certainly gluttons for punishment. Here's hoping you beat them into submission.

 

Magda

[angry cat]

The trouble with Link is that they never seem to learn - they are certainly gluttons for punishment. Here's hoping you beat them into submission.

 

Magda

 

I second that, MAGDA:)

 

AC

XXX

[MAGDA]

Hi AC, nice to hear from you - hope you are well!

 

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Checked my credit file today and GE Money has placed a default on it. I think it was entered in 2010. This is the account they sold to Link and then re-purchased (allegedly) when Link Discontinued their court claim against us. The default was already on our credit file under Link's name, think it was first placed on the file around 2004, so in actual fact, should have dropped off by now. I am really annoyed as we now have another six years with this Default showing up.

 

Also, I noticed that a lof of defaults from 2004 are still on the file, shouldn't they automatically drop off at the end of the six year period? How exactly does this happen, does the outstanding balance (again alleged) if any, still show up on the credit file until such time that it is cleared, or because it has been on the account for six years, does the entry drop off in its entirety?

 

Many thanks,

 

Magda

 

PS How are you getting on Semyaza? Has GE placed a default on your credit file? I'm also getting regular arrears notices from them now....

[debbbbsy]

Checked my credit file today and GE Money has placed a default on it. I think it was entered in 2010. This is the account they sold to Link and then re-purchased (allegedly) when Link Discontinued their court claim against us. The default was already on our credit file under Link's name, think it was first placed on the file around 2004

 

If there has been a period of 6+ years since the account went into Default with the OC ( Not necessarily when the DCA put the DN on your file), when no payments have been made to this account. It is Statute Barred.

 

So, Can Santander ( because GE nolonger exist) put a DN on your credit file for an account that is Statute Barred ?

 

Debs

[DonkeyB]

GE Money cannot put a new default on your account. They have to stick with the original date, which would have been taken over by Link then passed back.

 

If this started in 2004, then there should now be no record of it.

 

Do the entries with the CRA show a start date for the account, and the default date? If they have added a 2010 default date you should be complaining loudly to the ICO and the CRA, as well as Santander, demanding its removal (and the removal of any others from 2004) and possibly seek damages for the false reporting.

[debbbbsy]

Okay, found this thread on the forum

 

SLC have registered a default notice for a statute barred debt

 

 

Well today I had a break through. As I mentioned earlier SLC have always maintained the position that they were entitled to register a default regardless of the fact the debt is statute barred. They refused to amend my credit file stating that the information was correct. Since that date (following advice on this forum) I did the following:

 

1) requested a copy of all CCAs enclosing the correct fee;

2) sent a DSAR for all data relating to these loans; and,

3) made a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the SLC policy and board minutes relating to defaults of loans.

 

I also re-opened the equifax dispute on the grounds that: a) SLC had acknowledged (in their response to my earlier Equifax online query) that the debt was statute barred at the time of default; and, b) the correct default date appeared to be in 2000 and not 2008 when they sent a demand for repayment in full of the statute barred debt.

 

Finally, I submitted a correction note to Equifax which set out the legal position and requested that Equifax place this on my file.

 

Today I received a response from SLC (via Equifax) which stated that they had taken advice and although the debt was legally due and owing in 2008 they have been advised that the default could not be registered because it was statute barred at that time. They agreed to amend and withdraw the default in their next filing.

 

I telephoned Equifax and insisted that they had an obligation as data controllers to rectify incorrect information straight away and not at the next filing date. The upshot is that they have agreed to remove the default today.

 

Needless to say I have had no direct correspondence from SLC on this even though I wrote to them twice in December and called them 4 or 5 times chasing for a resolution. I even offered on a "without prejudice" basis to pay the loan in full in return for a complete withdrawal of the default which they refused.

 

Looks like I have answered my own question.

 

Go get em Magda.

[semyaza]

Wow I thought this had all been resolved. Really sorry that this is dragging out for you.

 

I had to refresh myself. I havnt checked my credit file as I'm too scared to. I have heard nothing at all from either Santander or GE Money or Link. I am hoping the statute barred is now in effect. I know when I last checked they had added various Default notices but when I checked with Experian they said they had no record which I thought was wierd.

 

Going to take advantage of the 30day trial and £5 cashback from Quidco and see what it says about me these days. Will let you know if anyone has added a DN.

[semyaza]

I do indeed have 2 new Default notices. 1 from August 2009 from First National Bank around the same time this claim was thrown out. Was thrown out because they couldnt produce a default notice. The other is Last month for another claim that was also settled in 2009. I just want to rip the heads of these bastards right now.

[MAGDA]

GE Money cannot put a new default on your account. They have to stick with the original date, which would have been taken over by Link then passed back.

 

If this started in 2004, then there should now be no record of it.

 

Do the entries with the CRA show a start date for the account, and the default date? If they have added a 2010 default date you should be complaining loudly to the ICO and the CRA, as well as Santander, demanding its removal (and the removal of any others from 2004) and possibly seek damages for the false reporting.

 

Hi Donkey, just re-checked my equifax credit file and it actually shows that I am six payments in arrears, thought it was an actual default because it is in red. However, it will soon go to a Default, because theyare updating it each month it seems. This was actually showing on Experian as a Default from around 2004 under Link's name, but since GE (Santander) took the account back, they are treating it as though I am in arrears and haven't yet defaulted (obviously, that's soon to come). The ridiculous thing is that GE sent me a DN when they took the debt back from Link, so how, if they defaulted me (again!) around 2009ish, can I be 6 payments in arrears now? They seem to do as they please, and it causes all sorts of problems for us. Think I will have to check the Experian file again and see if I can see anything on there still.

 

Many thanks, Magda

 

Okay, found this thread on the forum

 

SLC have registered a default notice for a statute barred debt

 

 

 

 

Looks like I have answered my own question.

 

Go get em Magda.

 

Hi Debbbbsy, thanks for replying. I don't think it is statute barred yet, as I paid Link token payments up until around 1997. I'm pretty sure a default was entered for this account with experian in 2004 or beginning of 2005 though, so goodness knows what GE are playing at now. As you say, think I will have to "Go get em" and try to get this sorted.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

I do indeed have 2 new Default notices. 1 from August 2009 from First National Bank around the same time this claim was thrown out. Was thrown out because they couldnt produce a default notice. The other is Last month for another claim that was also settled in 2009. I just want to rip the heads of these bastards right now.

 

Hi Semyaza, sorry to hear you have new defaults on your account. I'm not surprised you are so annoyed, makes you furious doesn't it. It's bad enough getting the default in the first place, but when it happens so far down the line, when your credit file should start to pick up a bit, it's even more annoying.

 

What are you going to do, will you try to get them removed?

 

Magda

[semyaza]

I have emailed experian to tell them the situation. Will have to wait to see what they come back with.

 

Reading what DonkeyB said then I may take action for damages . But I am worried about contacting them in case they start proceedings again.

 

I did have a few letters last year from the other debt saying I can pay a reduced amount. But that was also thrown out. Certainly don't want to go through all that again. However it is ruining my credit file which if had been left alone I would have had no defaults shown from next year.

 

Got my £5 cashback though

[MAGDA]

I have emailed experian to tell them the situation. Will have to wait to see what they come back with.

 

Reading what DonkeyB said then I may take action for damages . But I am worried about contacting them in case they start proceedings again.

 

I did have a few letters last year from the other debt saying I can pay a reduced amount. But that was also thrown out. Certainly don't want to go through all that again. However it is ruining my credit file which if had been left alone I would have had no defaults shown from next year.

 

Got my £5 cashback though

 

I think the only way to sort it really is to contact GE, though I can understand why you are reluctant, in case it stirs it all up again. Link's claims against us both were discontinued, because they knew they wouldn't win, so you'd think that would be the end of it. Strange how I get arrears notices every so often, but you don't seem to. I think I am going to write to GE and ask what they are playing at, otherwise I will have yet another default for the next six years.

 

Nice that you got the £5, I hadn't heard of that site, had a quick look and it looks pretty good. Are you going to send the £5 to GE?

[debbbbsy]

as I paid Link token payments up until around 1997

 

The clock starts from when you made your last payment, and in doing so acknowledged the debt.

 

The issue of the DN has nothing to do with the Time Limitations. If you have not made a payment since 1997, it is Statute Barred. The best way to substantiate this is by sending a SAR ( Ensure that the £10 is for processing this, and should not be used to credit the account). If they cannot provide statements, which show a payment from you within the last 6 years. The account is 'Dead'.