LINK Financial? Check this out...

[angry cat]

Since emandcole has not had disclosure of the assignmment documentation, he/she is unable to admit or deny and puts the Claimant to proof of the following matters:-

 

(a) That there was a valid assignment.

 

(b) That Sink Financial became "creditor" in repect of the credit agreement within the meaning of s189(1) of the Act.

 

© That Sink Financial was entitled to serve emandcole with a default notice and a termination notice in respect of the debt (something the Sink Financial could not do if not the "creditor").

 

A default notice is required by s87(1) before a credit agreement can be terminated or enforced. That section and the Enforcement Regulations require that the default notice be served by the "creditor". If Sink Financial was not the creditor at the time then the default notice is invalid.

[pumpytums]

My word,

this is almost exactly the same as mine. I have a "Hearing" very soon and I'm at a loss at the moment. I have filed a embarrassed defence as they still haven't supplied the documents requested. No response to my AQ draft directions either. In my case do you think it would be prudent to just take information as to why I want the required documentation.

 

ie

 

1. Complete copy of CCA+ all document referenced.

2. Proof that their was a valid assignment and s189(1) was adhered to.

3. Breakdowns of all figures from inception. for charges and PPI + other Sink charges.

4. A copy of the DN that Sink rely upon in their POC.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Sounds familiar! Consider doing what I did and pay for an application hearing perhaps? This forces their hand and if they've got the same issues with yours as they did with mine it'll throw them off kilter very quickly.

 

Hey, if they've messed yours up too you could then counterclaim as well, Sink would love that I bet

Edited April 16, 2010 by emandcole

[pumpytums]

Sounds familiar! Consider doing what I did and pay for an application hearing perhaps? This forces their hand and if they've got the same issues with yours as they did with mine it'll throw them off kilter very quickly.

 

Hey, if they've messed yours up to you could then counterclaim as well, Sink would love that I bet

 

My thinking exactly,

I have stated in my defence that they failed to supply the documents requested under the CPR's. I have used the standard embarrassed defence that states they are trying to frustrate the proceedings by not allowing me to file a defence or counterclaim. I will of course bring up the fact that I need access to all of my statements so I can file a counterclaim.

 

They have done themselves no favours by adding a sneaky Litigation charge into the mix. I have a statement that doesn't show it even though its dated the same day as charge;). The random statements they have produced show late payments and PPI payments right upto the end. Sadly for them the last statement the OC supplied has an amount that ties in with the OC entry on the CRF. Oddly their default amount is again more than this, what a surprise! So I would love to know the alleged date of any DN they decide to cook up (allegedly).

 

Pumpytums

[angry cat]

emandcole, Sinking Link are still at the same old game:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/256585-link-financial-yikes.html

 

post number 16!!!

 

AC

[emandcole]

emandcole, Sinking Link are still at the same old game:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/256585-link-financial-yikes.html

 

post number 16!!!

 

AC

 

I'll have a gander

[means2anend]

subbing!!!

[JonCris]

Strange how they don't actually say how you're abusing the court process. A claim can always give rise to a counterclaim - it's on the bloomin' N1 Claim Form they issue! Only a court can decide whether a counterclaim is an abuse of the court process, just as only the court can decide the outcome of their claim.

 

Abuse of process is a serious allegation, punishable as contempt, and such an allegation should be substantiated. I think a judge will see right through it. Maybe you should ask for clarification of their allegation? Let them dig a bigger hole!

 

Ever thought of being a shovel salesman?

 

Under the CPR any accusation WITHOUT supporting evidence judgment will be found against the accuser

[angry cat]

Under the CPR any accusation WITHOUT supporting evidence judgment will be found against the accuser

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2447021.html

 

Store one's: 'file of papers'...

[Shelbs!]

Couldnt sleep so thought I would have a read through your thread.

 

Oh my god, they really are the lowest of the low aren't they. At least from using this site, I am forewarned of their tactics.

[pumpytums]

Hi emandcole,

my favourite bit of their defence is :-

 

20. The Defendant by way of Counterclaim would aver that the Counterclaim is merely a fanciful attempt to generate funds. There is no basis or grounding for the Counterclaim to succeed.

Hang on a moment isn't this what good old sink did in the first place by issuing a claim, adding 8% interest and litigation charges. Numpties.

Just reread their defence what a load of twaddle, so they say you shouldn't be claiming from them yet they now own/administer the account. That they had no hand in any termination etc yet they issued a claim. Pathetic.

One point that would be worth mentioning, in by issuing a default against your name they have not only injured your credit they have now damaged your employment. As a qualified individual certain avenues have now been closed eg military, banking and even directorships.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Great isn't it?! They almost act as if I've offended them in some way...the thought that they could be in trouble now. I mean, how dare me?!

 

It'll give you and others a heads up on the sort of defence they'll offer up...a not very good one. Still, the court will have my response to their defence about now as will Sink themselves as I sent them a copy.

 

Particularly looking forward to them having to prove how my claim is an abuse of process or risk a contempt of court ruling!

 

See, litigation can be fun

[WelshMam2009]

Great isn't it?! They almost act as if I've offended them in some way...the thought that they could be in trouble now. I mean, how dare me?!

 

Yep, they certainly get rather uperty when defendants fight back...as you rightly say Emandcole...HOW DARE WE?!!!!

[flaminscoty]

Hi angry moggy,

we have more than enough proof here to hang LF out to dangle in the wind by the short and cur-lies but as citizens of the UK where do we go and who will listen to a cry from the masses??

Flaminscoty...

[flaminscoty]

odc i made a complaint to the OFT when links shadow fell upon me and nothing happened does any one out there now how to wake up this sleeping giant an under the counter secret hand shake, a word in your ears sir, or a size ten kick up the jacksie?

flaminscoty..

Edited May 18, 2010 by flaminscoty

[uptoeyeballs]

Brilliant! They don't like it up um emandcole!

 

Subbing. Expecting trouble with the Sunk.

[flaminscoty]

Hi All on this thread from Flaminscoty,

as you know if you have been following my thread Flaminscoty and link....

NOW HERE THIS I PHONED HALIFAX TODAY LINK FINANCIAL HAVE GOT CHARGING ORDER ON MY HOUSE NOW WITH POST JUDGMENT INTEREST AT 20% as of YESTERDAY the final hearing for enforcement is listed for June at Colchester COUNTY COURT!

So link are now JUDGE, JURY and EXECUTIONER WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE AND WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION THE WHOLE WORKS.

as THIS OBVIOUSLY CANT BE LEGAL I have now reported LF to the FOS on Monday I will be reporting them to my local trading standards office and my local MP

Any one out there who would like to join me the more people I can get the more likely we are to succeed.

To the Site team can you start up a thread for me "The end OF LINK FINANCIAL."

Flaminscoty.......do not mean to hi jack this thread just want to warn you all of what LF are capable of......

[flaminscoty]

Hi angry cat does this mean that Link getting an interim order by default is against CPR if the defendant has not been able to submit a defense.

Flaminscoty.

[angry cat]

Make a complaint to your local Trading Standards.

Also, complain to both Lambeth and Caerphilly Trading Standards.

 

Always a good idea to get your MP involved; make an appointment and;

write to the MP's for Lambeth & Caerphilly...throw ALL of your toys out of the proverbial cot!

[flaminscoty]

Hi Angry,

It is always a pleasure to hear your comments and I value them greatly!Time is my enemy in this situation.

I like your style we seem to be of the same opinion.

I went to my local branch Halifax the manager was almost struck dumb. He really started to panic when I said if this is true then by implication the Halifax are as guilty as LF and that I will be looking for compensation!

He sent a copy of final hearing as listed June.

I am waiting for a call back from HBoS.(mortgage dept)

It has now come to light that I have been paying for payment protection that was canceled 2006 at £21 per month. So that is grand plus they owe me in the fighting fund!

Flamingscoty

 

Fe Fi Fo Fum I have the sent of a welsh stinking bum!!"

 

Flaminscoty going to be a busy chap com Monday!(LINK FINANCIAL CARDIFF!) I always looked upon my Welsh Celtic brothers with affection now all can say is thank God for the Bristol Chanel shame it doesn't go all the way to the top!!

 

Sorry all I am not very PC as YOU can see made a mess of this quotation lark!

Edited May 22, 2010 by flaminscoty

[angry cat]

by: flaminscoty:

 

"It has now come to light that I have been paying for payment protection that was canceled 2006 at £21 per month."

 

What???

 

And not forgetting the accrued interest on those PPI premiums. at the contractual rate!

[emandcole]

Ok, hot off the press...well, the quill has dried out at least.

 

General Form of Judgment or Order has arrived. Appears that the court are trying to understand how Sink are responsible for the previous failures of the original creditor, GE/Santander.

 

In fact it looks as if the judge has asked me a question directly. I'll copy it out below.

 

It is ordered that:-

 

1. The claimant by way of counterclaim (me) shall by xxxx, explain what is the legal basis of the claim against the defendant by way of counterclaim. Is it asserted that the payments were made to, and actions complained of done by, GE Capital Bank Ltd? If so, what is the basis on which it is said that the defendant by way of counterclaim is liable for those sums/actions?

 

2. Any party affected by this order may apply to have it set aside etc etc.

 

So, it appears that the judge is questionning the culpability of Sink as they were not the original creditor. This is something Sink have been attempting to distance themselves from since my counterclaim went in.

 

I will rely on the following as originally detailed for the court in my response to their defence of my counterclaim.

 

The claimant would rely on the OFT publication entitled Guidance on sections 77/78/79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which states in point 2.4 that:

The definition of these terms is to be found in section 189(1) of the Act. It clearly includes the creditor or owner who enters into the agreement and also anyone to whom the rights and duties under that agreement have passed by operation of law. In the OFT’s view, where there has been a novation (that is, the debtor or hirer has agreed that a new party will be substituted as creditor or owner for all purposes under the agreement) the new party is the creditor or the owner.

It is further the OFT’s view that, giving the definition of the terms a purposive construction and one which is most likely to assist the consumer, the 'creditor' or 'owner' includes an assignee of only the rights under the contract. Thus, the OFT considers that the 'creditor' in sections 77 and 78 and the 'owner' in section 79 includes a person who has merely bought the debts under the agreement.

If the defendant contends that it purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, the defendant is reminded that s.189 of the Act is perfectly clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

Further, Sink were entirely happy to add their name to my credit file. This only increases the evidence against them that no checks were ever made before they defaced them. Clearly then, Sink is the creditor and as such are wholly liable. They chose to buy this account, no-one forced them to!

 

The above should show the judge that Sink are entirely liable for the actions of any previous owner/creditor as they decided to buy the debt and all rights and duties as well .

 

Welcome any comments or insight as ever. As long as the judge agrees (don't see how they cannot) then this will progress nicely. Just think, if we can get one over on Sink just think how many more people can follow the same path I'm on and actively start to litigate against them instead?

 

We all know Sink rarely get the full documentation needed so action like this could hugely dent their profit margins .

[AA99]

subbing;)

[flaminscoty]

hello the forum,

(flaminscoty),

any cagers out there can help with a speedy answer to this question, on studying a crap copy of my cca Have found that there are wrongly entered info in personal details section it looks like when on the phone to set up CCA the naughty man in GE MONEY tale sales has entered the wrong info probably as he works on a commission bases does this make the CA defective?

(a) married status...says devorced..? never been married!

(b) dependants....."0"....I have a six year old Son!

© employment history present employer 20 year...I have only been with my employer less than 3!

 

IT looks like chapy in GE has being trying to enter the wrong information to get a better credit score!!! equals one more commission sale!

Can I challenge this with LF as they are pushing ahead with a charging order and adding post judgment interest at 20.5%.

with a dodgy CCA.

Can anyone help...... my solicitor is not doing enough on my case I am doing his job for him...

Flaminscoty...

I have made a complaint to my local mp and his PA has called me today to say he is starting an ivestigation....wish me luck peeps..

I am also starting a complaint with OFT but the say they will not investigate on member of the public as a private individual case well only get going if I was the CAB or some other large organization!!

Flaminscoty.

Edited May 26, 2010 by flaminscoty

[means2anend]

The info that is missing are not prescribed terms....however does your copy have the name address and postal address of both debtor and creditor as Per HJJ WAksman in Carey v HSBC and Copis Documents and Cancellation Notices Regs 1983

 

m2ae