LINK Financial? Check this out...

[angry cat]

Sorry, maybe it's me?

 

So lets get this straight.

 

Link issued county court proceedings against you via Northampton Bulk Centre.

 

Did you defend, counter claim or accept the claim?

 

AC

[AA99]

Sorry, maybe it's me?

 

So lets get this straight.

 

Link issued county court proceedings against you via Northampton Bulk Centre.

 

Did you defend, counter claim or accept the claim?

 

AC

 

 

Gray accepted and sent the forms back to Link as instructed on the form, only because a payment plan was wanted!!!!!!!!!

[angry cat]

Okay!

 

Sorry for sounding confused.

I misconstrued what had happened in Gray's case;

thought it was the same as emandcole's.

 

Gray as previously advised, must get the judgement put aside.

 

AC

[angry cat]

For your information Gray1509:

 

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 12 How To Set Aside A Judgment In The County Court

 

AC

[angry cat]

Right this is form EX160 for fee remission fill it in and enclose with the N244

 

There are notes with it to explain

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/EX160_web_0709.pdf

 

PF

 

Plus the fee remission form.

 

AC

[DonkeyB]

I think a new issue needs to be examined here, one which I really am not sure about, that relates to what you should do with your response to a claim.

 

In some of the instances here, there is a scenario - irrespective of what Link asks defendants to do in their letters - where the defendant returns the claim forms to Link, in anticipation of agreeing a payment plan. [Mad, but fair enough if that's what they want to do.]

 

When a defendant returns the admission form to the claimant as an admission (as instructed on the N1), is the claimant obliged to inform the court and cease proceedings?

 

If, for example, a defendant does not send the response recorded delivery, is it not likely that the claimant will deny ever receiving the forms? Then wait for a judgment by default, which brings much more power, such as the opportunity to go for a charging order?

 

Something here smells very bad (maybe it's the great smell of Lynx*), but to discuss it properly, I'd love to know more about the legal side of where and how you should return your claim form when you are making an admission.

 

Any experts out there?

 

* sorry, I'll get my coat

[angry cat]

I can see where you are coming from DB!

 

Court procedure is unfamiliar territory for most folk...

 

However, I do find it very strange that Link Financial could have lost the members admission form?

Yet, another clerical error?

 

Who was the firm of solicitors that Link were using?

[DonkeyB]

I can see where you are coming from DB!

 

Court procedure is unfamiliar territory for most folk...

 

However, I do find it very strange that Link Financial could have lost the members admission form?

Yet, another clerical error?

 

Who was the firm of solicitors that Link were using?

 

They do appear to have lost more than one admission form... blooming clerical errors! I think there must be a specialist recruitment agency providing all these numpty clerks for DCAs - "we guarantee they'll f*ck it up in your favour" - can't see any of my clients buying a strapline like that tho.

[angry cat]

DB, are you not aware of the new excuses:

Clerical error;

Administrative error;

We didn't really mean it...

 

And Yes, "We" do not buy it!

 

AC

[emandcole]

Ok, haven't been able to wait any longer for Link to send any documents through. So, I called in to the bulk centre today to hand in my embarrassed defence and to request the court orders the release of the documentation they are relying upon. It cost £40 to request a notice that the court orders the claimant to supply this info! Thing that is really annoying is...

 

I'm counterclaiming for an unknown sum of money as Link have provided no statements of account despite CPR requests and SAR. Also, there is no right to cancel sent as it was not signed on their premises as well as Section 85 default back in 2002 when the credit token was reissued. Also, the application I signed is not dated by me meaning that the claimant cannot show that they executed the agreement and sent copies within the prescribed time period. Same goes for the sending of cancellation rights.

 

If they cannot show that it was executed and cannot even prove this was sent by recorded post, then they never had the right to apply interest, charges or the right to pass it to a third party. Thing is if you do not know how much you are claiming for you don't know how much you have to pay when you submit the counterclaim.

 

Here's the rub. If you overpay the court and claim for an unlimited amount (which'll cost you around £1300!) but only go on to claim an amount covered by the payment of a lesser court charge the judge will say you were reckless with the cost and chances are you'll be unable to apply for all of it back as costs. In contrast, if you pay a certain amount but the true amount you are counter claiming (when the claimant finally provides some documents and statements etc) turns out to be more than you've paid to reclaim for you lose out too!

 

I pointed this out to the court lady and she agreed, but then quickly pointed out she is unable to put any words in my mouth as to how sensible all of this is. So, if you ever want to claim a load of money from someone submit the claim, refuse any requests for info so the defendant can't calculate any counter claims and you'll force them into submitting a counter claim that is either woefully short or so damn exagerated the court won't award costs. What a great system eh?

 

Now I have to wait an unknown number of weeks to find out if the court agrees that my request for the claimant to actually substantiate their claim with paperwork/evidence is reasonable.

 

What a ridiculous process, if a clamaint cannot/will not produce evidence to support a claim they should never be allowed to start a claim. Bit like me romping into a police station to announce there's been an alien invasion and them instigating a full national military response before actually asking "Where is this alien invasion starting then?" Doh!

[AA99]

Shame, emandcole, my sympathies are with you right now with this frustrating business called law:mad: Someone far more knowledgeable will be along just now to reasurre us though:cool:

[angry cat]

emandcole, you will be able to make a Draft Order for Directions, when you receive your allocation questionairre (AQ)

 

This is the Draft Order For Directions:

 

"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: (send to the Defendant and to the Court):

• Copies of the Credit Agreement 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

• A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, repayments and payments and both the original credit limit and any repayments made to the alleged account.

• The original terms & conditions in force at the inception of the alleged account.

• True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement/ termination notice that the claimant or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold

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

• A true copy of the Deed of assignment and bill of sale and the country in which the transaction took place.

• Notice of assignment persuant to Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act(1925), with proof of service of the same compliant with s196 (4) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

• Signed documentation in regard to securitisation and the name/address of the receivable company and the signature of the company secretary of the notery body.

 

• A copy of the claimants Consumer Credit Licence describing the activites that the claimant is allowed to perform under the said Licence.

 

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

 

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

 

An amended defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the Claimant."

 

***the Draft Order for Directions is applicable to both the N149 & N150***

 

XXXXXXXXXX -v- XXXXXXXX

Claim No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

N149 / 150 ***Allocation Questionairre

 

Section G/H *** - 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 am unable to serve a proper dfeence. Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case harder for the court to deal with as without production of the requested documentation will inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case.

 

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 judgement

 

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 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 exeption regarding 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

It is respectfully requested this case beallocated 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.

 

Therefore it stands to reason that this document must be disclosed before the case can progress any further.

 

***Edit to suit.

 

On the AQ form in either Box G or H depending on the type you are sent, write the following:

 

Please find enclosed the following attached to this allocation questionairre;

 

1) Section G/H** - other information

2) Draft order for directions

 

This allocation questionairre and its attachments were sent to the claimant on ***/**/2009."

 

Send a copy of the AQ to the claimant: Link Fiancial Limited.

 

AC

[emandcole]

Thanks so much for that AC, consumer hero!

[emandcole]

First letter in from Caerphilly County Borough Council so full marks to them.

 

Dear Mr. ******,

Re: Link Financial

 

With reference to your letter dated the 23rd September 2009, please be advised that the details of your complaint have today been submitted to Lambeth Trading Standards. As they are the Home Authority for Link Financial it is appropriate that they consider this matter.

 

As you reside in Northampton the details have also been submitted to Northampton Trading Standards for their consideration.

 

The general telephone numbers for each authority are as follows:

 

Lambeth - 02079 26 1000

Northampton - 01604 70 7900

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Christine Pike.

 

Fair Trading Officer for Head of Public Protection.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, we're off to a good start. Waiting for Ministry of Justice and all MP's to get in touch still but they've been put to shame a little by Caerphilly who seem pretty hot.

[DonkeyB]

It's a start. Unfortunately Lambeth council seem quite chummy with the folk at Link, so I still expect a load of waffle and an admin error. Let's hope Northampton make something of it.

[emandcole]

Bet you're right but given the implications of following such advice and the fact I'm trying to obtain evidence of this being a regular practice I won't let this go easily and will at least make sure a promise is obtained from Link that such 'errors' will not happen again. Disarms them at the very least.

 

I'll also wait to hear from the Ministry of Justice and ensure that they issue a warning to Link about their behaviour regardless of errors if that's the way Link choose to go. All laying the foundations for Link to sink themselves in the near future

[AA99]

[angry cat]

Keep going emandcole!

[emandcole]

Email from Lambeth Trading Standards -

 

Dear Mr

Your recent comlaint against Link Financial Ltd has been forwarded to us from Caerphilly Trading Standards. I also note it updates your previous complaint (Our ref: *****) - and again forwarded by Caerphilly TS.

If Link contact your parents again, I would be greatful to be informed.

Please be advised that your complaints have been passed to the OFT, but I am unable to discuss our dealings with them.

Best wishes

John Bradbury

Principal Trading Standards Officer

London Borough of Lambeth

Housing, Regeneration and Environment

2 Herne Hill Road

London SE24 0AU

Tel. 020 7926 6157

Fax. 020 7926 6150

email: [email protected]

website: www.lambeth.gov.uk

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

 

So, hopefully the Office of Fair Trading will find Links latest tactics to be just a little unfair! These DCA's must be giving the authorities such a headache, surprised the whole industry isn't shut down. We can live in hope! More to come I'm sure...

[angry cat]

Mr. John Bradbury;

whatever happened to Robert Gardner?

 

V. Good emandcole!

 

Let us hope that TS and the OFT do the job that they are paid to do...

 

AC

[DonkeyB]

Progress! Well done mate.

[blackambermay]

Forget about Northampton Trading Standards. They are the most woefully inadequate people I have ever come across. The chap that takes these cases on talks the talk but when it comes to actually acting the best he can do is ask the company concerned "please if you wouldnt mind" Barclays steam roller him everytime and his manager is as equally pathetic.

[diamondgirl]

Don't hold your breathe for the MoJ reply it's like waiting for Christmas with them.

 

DG

[emandcole]

Don't you worry, if I feel any of the responses I get are lame I'll kick off, stamp my feet and hold my breath until they do what they're paid to do! There are plenty of people right now who'd like to be working so those that do have a job need to be seen to be doing it. As for the Ministry of Justice is this another government department with a great name who can't/won't do anything?

 

Let's give them the opportunity as the implications of a defendant following misdirection is dire. It is a matter of public interest if a company is employing these tactics and the judiciary need to know. I won't be happy if they fob me off without good reason, I'll make sure someone deals with it properly. Trust me, I have all the patience and all the endurance necessary and won't let this rest without a hell of a fight . I'll keep you posted...

[AA99]

Don't you worry, if I feel any of the responses I get are lame I'll kick off, stamp my feet and hold my breath until they do what they're paid to do! There are plenty of people right now who'd like to be working so those that do have a job need to be seen to be doing it. As for the Ministry of Justice is this another government department with a great name who can't/won't do anything?

 

Let's give them the opportunity as the implications of a defendant following misdirection is dire. It is a matter of public interest if a company is employing these tactics and the judiciary need to know. I won't be happy if they fob me off without good reason, I'll make sure someone deals with it properly. Trust me, I have all the patience and all the endurance necessary and won't let this rest without a hell of a fight . I'll keep you posted...

 

We're all with you all the way:D Do you know anything about HL Legal who Link have passed my a/c on to? I can't seem to find out anything about them:confused: