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

[MAGDA]

Hi Debbbbsy, sorry that should have said I made token payments up until 2007 (i've got another account that's 1997, and that date is on my mind at the moment) so won't be six years until 2013 unfortunately.

 

Thanks, Magda

 

One other thing I was wondering, if you fall into arrears with an account and a DN is issued (or at least that would usually be the case) can the company then place an actual default on your account for the first time, say, 4 years down the line? So, although you have been in arrears with the account, and perhaps it has even been sold to a third party, is it considered ok for a default to suddenly appear on your credit file some way down the line, during a period between the original DN being issued and the debt becoming statute barred? I have had experience of this happening and it doesn't seem to be very fair or very logical at all, for a default to suddenly appear out of the blue, at a time when you are probably getting a bit straighter financially and it isn't a true reflection of your financial status at all. If this is acceptable, then it would mean that a default, in theory could be placed (for the first time) on your account five years after you actually defaulted on the account.....

 

Many thanks,

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Hi Semyaza, hope you are ok. Did Experian place a notice of correction on your credit file? I have just emailed them, because I've checked my credit file again and the First national one is actually showing as 6 payments late, not actually as a Default, which I initially thought. They are obviously building up to that.... Also got another Default showing from Redcats which was added in 2008, even though it defaulted in 2004 and was on my credit file around that time. Apart from these two, my credit file is in really tip top shape... the first time in six years because all the other accounts have dropped off, so this is particularly annoying, to say the least. Did you contact FN to query the defaults with them? Just wondering how you got on with it all.

 

regards, Magda

[beachcomber60]

Hi Magda,

 

Seem to to in the same boat.

 

Default issued '08/'09 ish, sold to Link.

 

Taken to court by Link '10 they LOST & had costs awarded AGAINST them Court rendered agreement to be Irredeemably unenforceable - all data removed from CRA's.

 

Six months later get a letter from GE stating account reassigned back to them from Link, included was arrears letter followed by another arrears letter followed by one day later by *NEW* default notices.

 

Check with the the CRA' & GE/FN have started data sharing again with an immediate showing of6 missed payments (from Judgement date).

 

Solicitors say its wrong, ICO says its wrong, TS standards say its wrong & our MP says its wrong - will the B*ggers remove it NO, they may issue court proceedings or pass it to a 'debt purchaser'. (chasing full amount as per Links court claim).

 

More to follow as the media are now involved (DonkeyB - contact with Auntie last week - due out this week or next).

 

Beachy

[DonkeyB]

Auntie at last – excellent. Keep us posted.

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda,

 

Seem to to in the same boat.

 

Default issued '08/'09 ish, sold to Link.

 

Taken to court by Link '10 they LOST & had costs awarded AGAINST them Court rendered agreement to be Irredeemably unenforceable - all data removed from CRA's.

 

Six months later get a letter from GE stating account reassigned back to them from Link, included was arrears letter followed by another arrears letter followed by one day later by *NEW* default notices.

 

Check with the the CRA' & GE/FN have started data sharing again with an immediate showing of6 missed payments (from Judgement date).

 

Solicitors say its wrong, ICO says its wrong, TS standards say its wrong & our MP says its wrong - will the B*ggers remove it NO, they may issue court proceedings or pass it to a 'debt purchaser'. (chasing full amount as per Links court claim).

 

More to follow as the media are now involved (DonkeyB - contact with Auntie last week - due out this week or next).

 

Beachy

 

Hi Beachy, it's disgusting that they think they can get away with messing up our credit files like this. My story is practically identical to yours - taken to court, Link lost, sold the debt back to GE/FN. The DN should have dropped off my file earlier this year at the latest, but as in your case, now showing that I am six payments in arrears. I also received a new DN etc. Could it get any more ridiculous for them to threaten issuing new court proceedings, a judge has already declared it unenforceable in your case, and in my case, Link discontinued because they knew they wouldn't win. I didn't mind so much when the defaults originally went on my file, because at least I knew that they would drop off in six years and we'd just have to weather the storm, but to get defaults on your file six years or more down the line really isn't on.

 

That's great news about Auntie, let's hope it will do some good, let me know what happens.

 

All the best, Magda

[pumpytums]

Hi,

I'm in a similar situation. My account was sold to Link before a DN was ever served/issued they went to court and discontinued due to "economic viability".

 

Apparently the OC repurchased the account (I have no NOA), the OC has now reissued proceedings in their own name.

 

They have put 2 Defaults on my CRF for this account, contrary to their written word that one was removed.

 

My thread is http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?236115-Pumpytums-goes-to-Northampton-Help-Please!/page8

 

I believe CPR38.7 apply's

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part38.htm

 

I'm currently awaiting documents like the NOA, and proof of service etc. I have filed a defence based on fact that the claim is an abuse of process.

 

If they manage to provide a NOA, I will be asking the courts permission for a counter-claim.

 

Within the next week I will be filing a N244 for a Strike out.

 

 

Pumpytums

[MAGDA]

Hi Pumpytums, I believe they need to apply to the court if they want to bring proceedings again for the same claim, not sure if that still applies if the claimant has changed, although I would think it does. I wonder why they are re-issuing proceedings against you? Myself, Semyaza, Beachy and probably quite a few others are in the same position, but so far they seem to be sending arrears notices and so on but that's about it. Probably working their way around to us.... If I were you, I would request a copy of the Deed of Assignment, if it has been sold to Link and then sold back again to the OC, there must be paperwork to prove this and it all needs to add up, so that might be worth looking into.

 

These companies make me sick, they will originally have written the debt off as a bad debt, sold it on, and now, want to try to go one step further by taking your to court again. It also infuriates me that they can randomly place Defaults on credit files even though it isn't an accurate picture of that person's financial situation, because the default, for example, might actually have happened seven years before. There is something very wrong with it all.

 

Will have a look at your thread when I get a chance. Good luck with defending the claim.

 

Magda

[pumpytums]

Thanks Magda,

I think what's happened is they got the Lewis crowd involved they issued proceedings as a matter of course from what I have read. The OC obviously never told them about the previous case, they were actually shocked when I phoned up and told them. They are saying CPR 38.7 doesn't apply but if it not it's a perfect way for anyone to take the same individual to court for the same thing to infinity.

 

I have asked for the deed in my CPR31.14 their time is up this week, if they can prove they have sent a NOA which I very much doubt unless it did get lost in the post they are going to have a counter claim on their mat for a few grand. I'm also going to file it through my local court not on-line so I can put a proper POC in place. Lets see how they like it. I'm only going for costs incurred and disbursements, easy to prove you see. If I win I can always go after damages at a latter date.

 

Thanks

 

Pumpytums

[MAGDA]

Good luck with it all, i'm sure you won't have any problem sending GE packing as you seem to have it all under control!

 

regards,

 

Magda

[DonkeyB]

Beachy, has Auntie been nice to you?

[42man]

I think you should also make the OFT aware of this....

[beachcomber60]

Beachy, has Auntie been nice to you?

 

Good news & bad news really -

 

Good News:-

Following letters from our solicitors & my 'strongly worded' letter to GE's CEO combined with a letter from our MP & Auntie 'B' making contact with them - GE have finally conceded DEFEAT & are in the 'process' of closing the account & removing ALL data from the CRA's. They claim it was all a mistake & it should have been written off when it was 'reassigned' back from Link, the letters demanding payment & the DN's were all 'automatically' sent out (B*llocks - it still takes human input!).

 

Bad news :-

Auntie 'B' updated with development, had a congratulations reply but unsure now whether the story will still go ahead (pity if it didnt as this finance company deserves as much bad press as possible.

 

Will fully update my own thread as soon as confirmation as been received that TOTAL closure has happened (and their cheque has been received & cleared in our bank )

 

* I can honestly say that TS were a total waste of time!

 

Keep up the pressure everyone.

 

Beachy

[MAGDA]

That's really good news - will have to see if I can get them to back down over mine now, be interesting to see what they come back with. Not surprised about TS, I've tried them in the past and found them to be pretty useless as well.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Well, I contacted Experian for starters to inform them that the entry from GE is incorrect. Had an email back stating that they would contact the creditor and query it with them. I had a further email today informing me that they have contacted First National now and FN have informed Experian that the entry is correct and they wish it to remain on my credit file. I'm really annoyed about this, to put it mildly, as they have further stated that they cannot remove an entry unless the creditor says so. I am now going to write direct to FN and then take this matter up with the ICO etc if necessary. Basically, the creditor can put whatever they want on your credit file it seems without any verification that it is correct, which has to be a very flawed system - which of course, we already are fully aware of.

 

On to round two......

[DonkeyB]

Unbelievable. Letter before action? I feel at least £2k damages coming on...

[pumpytums]

Out of interest how do you gauge the damages due to a incorrect entry on your CRF?

 

I had a debt bought by a debt buyer who put a big D on my CRF. The OC then bought it back and confirmed the D was removed, I contacted them twice about it (the OC) has confirmed on both occasions it has gone. It's still there, to add insult to injury the OC has now put a big D for the same account on my CRF. It's now been on my CRF for 2 years. I have other D's.

 

I'm now due shortly in court with the OC, so a counter-claim is very likely to show them the error of their ways.

 

Thanks

 

Pumpytums

[MAGDA]

Yes, at least £2,000 sounds about right! Not sure Pumpytums what the going rate for these types of claims would be, suppose it would depend on the amount of damage it has caused in any one case. Hopefully, someone can give you a bit more help.

 

Good luck with the counterclaim.

 

Magda

[pumpytums]

Thanks Magda

 

Pumpytums

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

YOU can only have ONE default for each debt and for a counter claim to succeed you will need strict proof of any

detriment to your credit rating that was not deserved.

The CRA will claim unfortunately rightly that the information is provided to them by the OC or the DCA.

I personally doubt that any thing like £2000.00 would be awarded.

[MAGDA]

YOU can only have ONE default for each debt and for a counter claim to succeed you will need strict proof of any

detriment to your credit rating that was not deserved.

The CRA will claim unfortunately rightly that the information is provided to them by the OC or the DCA.

I personally doubt that any thing like £2000.00 would be awarded.

 

Hi Brigadier, that's right, the CRAs will tell you they are given the info by the creditor and they can't do anything about it, unless the creditor says so. That's the trouble, everything the creditor says is taken as gospel, but if we dispute it, the creditor is still right, until such time that they say otherwise.

 

I'm personally not interested in claiming any compensation, I just want these entries off my credit file, but in Pumpytums case, I can see why she wants to, especially as she is in court with them anyway. £2,000 sounds like a lot, but these adverse entries on our files can really cause huge problems, if for example you want to renegotiate your mortgage or something, it can end up costing you a lot of money. Unfortunately, as you say, £2,000 or more probably wouldn't be awarded, especially going by some of the judges I've come across.

 

I know, as you mentioned, you can only have one default for each debt, and they can't place a second default for the same account. What happens though if you default on an account, say seven years earlier and a default notice is issued, but nothing shows up on your credit file (at least as faras I remember). You then agree to make token payments, which you maintain on an ongoing basis. At some point down the line, though, the creditor writes to say that they have cleared all of the arrears on the account to give you a fresh start (hmm likely story) and they start demanding the contractual payment again, even though they haven't written to inform you of this beforehand. At this point, adverse information suddenly appears on the credit file stating that you are 2 payments in arrears, then five, and so on until it results, seven years after you actually defaulted on the account in a default. This information states that the account defaulted in 2010 (not 2004, which in actual fact it did) and you now have a default on your account for the next six years. I can't see how this can be acceptable because for one thing it is misleading (not to mention totally inaccurate) and for another, if all the creditors did this, your file would never be clear of defaults.

 

What do you think (anyone)

 

Magda

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As far as I am aware the debt remains the same debt and therefore no further default should be made.

I do know from experience that judges will ask on counter claims of this nature for strict proof of damage caused and

will no accept what might happen, possibly all ppt could get is ''a gesture of goodwill'' from either the CRA or the creditor'and from experience again £200-£500 is the ball park figure. 5 cases dealt with.

[MAGDA]

As far as I am aware the debt remains the same debt and therefore no further default should be made..

 

Does this still apply if, although the account defaulted, as in a default notice would have been issued, no actual default was placed on the person's credit file? So, basically, the creditor has suddenly taken it in to their head to do just that seven years or so down the line? It would be the first time the info had been placed on the credit file, but not accurate in the sense that it implies the person recently defaulted on the account, when in fact that isn't the case?

 

thanks, Magda

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That has prove a grey area, and would depend on the status of the debt, also the recommendation that defaults should be place as soon as possible and preferably no later than 6 months.

I don' know off hand if the situation has been tried in law but I would suggest that placing a default after 7 years even if the debtor is in a long term payment plan would at least

unfair and would be open to challenge.

The other scenario that comes to my mind that a default may have been place on one CRA file and not on the others and I do know that a case failed to stop the creditor updating the files after more than 6 years.

[pumpytums]

Too be honest I was actually going for about £500.

 

Their is actual case law for damage to credit I think it relates back to a bankruptcy and there was a more recent one too. The point was though that it was difficult to prove the actual damage. How do you prove something when something doesn't happen lets say I went after a mobile phone and get turned down. I don't record it do I. The point that I would make is that the Claimant confirmed in writing that any information was removed. It wasn't therefore they are responsible there are a few scenarios.

 

1. The OC requested removal the DCA didn't bother but confirmed that it was duly removed.

2. The OC requested removal the DCA didn't bother the OC never asked for confirmation.

3. The OC never bothered to ask for it's removal.

 

Remember I asked for it's removal on multiple occasions so you would think they would have checked they obviously didn't therefore it rests at their feet.

 

Also by the OC confirming that it was removed doesn't that indicate it was incorrect?

 

Pumpytums

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Unfortunately it is not always that the default is wrong that remove the OC's are more likely to especially when

the debtor has shown good faith and maintained an arranged payment plan.

The way round this in your case would be to make a formal complaint to both the CRA and OC,

and as formal complaint they have to answer it on getting the final response it is unsatisfactory you send a letter

before action stating unless they remedy the situation to your satisfaction you will seek redress through the courts for £xxx plus costs.

this I have done with DCA's and they have made goodwill payment rather than wanting court action