Link claimform - First National GEHL double glazing loan **WON - WRITTEN OFF BY GE**

[pt2537]

Hi

 

Purely as an inquiry because bassically i dont know. If a soicitor prepares an injunction against someone, who has to pay the solicitors costs. Is it he person who the action is being taken against or the person who the injunction is defending.

 

Peter

The basic indemnity principle means that the loser pays the winners costs.

 

If the Court grants the injunction, then the Claimants costs should be borne by the Defendant as if the Defendant had not conducted themselves in such a manner the action would not have been needed in the first place.

[DonkeyB]

But that was my exact point Peter, it was out if time. I was not referring to default notices, ie. letters, but to the registering of a default with the CRAs. They have registered a new default. This implies the original default was wrongly recorded and therefore the OP's financial status has been impugned. They can't just claim that as the original DN was faulty, then the default recorded with the CRAs was just a mistake. This isn't about faulty DNs but the recording of defaults with the CRAs.

[caro]

Actually, your information there is quite wrong Caro

 

This matter has been to the Court, a judgment handed down which releases the Debtor from his obligations as a clear declaration was given under the Courts powers in s142 CCA 1974.

 

With respect, i think we should clarify that the OFT fact sheet clearly refers to s77-79 breaches and not the irredeemable unenforceability which occurs for more serious breaches of the 1974 Act.

 

In this case, the Creditor CANNOT sue Beachy as its already been to court, to do so would in effect be a insult to the court and an attempt to challenge a competent court through the back door, it would be an abuse of process.

 

Likewise, demanding payment where there is a judgment setting out that the debt is unenforceable by breach of s61(1)(a) leaves the creditor in hot water, this is not a s78 breach here but more serious.

 

Any default registered now is defamatory and incorrect,

 

this is a matter for the Court to resolve, ive already had counsels opinion on the matter

 

Well perhaps when the matter is concluded Beachy might be willing to let the rest of us in on the outcome, especially if it will be of assistance to others, which is the purpose of this site. If you and he are already seeking counsels opinion then I suspect that help will not be required from us less informed people who are not privy to the full story.

 

Beachy, if you need any help from caggers I'm sure we'd all be pleased to help if we can, and of course you and Mrs B have our support. If you'd like to let us have fuller details, assuming of course it doesn't jeopardise any future litigatation, then I'm sure we'd all be interested to see how things are going, especially if it will be of help to others who find themselves in a similar position to you but don't have access to legal representation.

 

It'll be interesting to hear how this goes in due course.

[caro]

But that was my exact point Peter, it was out if time. I was not referring to default notices, ie. letters, but to the registering of a default with the CRAs. They have registered a new default. This implies the original default was wrongly recorded and therefore the OP's financial status has been impugned. They can't just claim that as the original DN was faulty, then the default recorded with the CRAs was just a mistake. This isn't about faulty DNs but the recording of defaults with the CRAs.

 

Presumably the new DN will be based on more up to date information. Things have moved on from last time and just because there was an issue last time a DN was issued, doesn't necessarily mean there is this time.

 

This is the whole crux of winning on DN or CCA issues in court. The debt still exists, and this is what many people forget who think they can just challenge a contract or document to get rid of their debts.

 

I do not want to see protracted discussions on this thread. I suspect that Beachy's legal rep will not want info made public, so let's just wait and see what the judge has to say if Beachy wants to share at a later date.

[pt2537]

But they cannot, just slap a default on your credit file willy nilly

 

People rely on McGuffick as the authority that they can, but you need to read what Flaux J said, he stressed that his judgment that his judgment dealt only with enforcement under breaches of s78(1)

 

Lord Hoffman in the House of Lords case of Dimond v Lovell said that

 

Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.

 

The court in this case declared the rights of the parties, and held the agreement to be unenforceable, the Defendants do not have to pay any further sums, the Claimants claim fails.

 

So i dont see how you can sell the debt back to the OC and then circumvent the Judgment of a competent court, the correct route for this company would be appeal out of time to reverse the order of the court yet it has not taken that route and instead harrasses the client threatening legal action it cannot take and demanding monies the sums of which are NOT oweing!!!! cut the cake any way you want, what is claimed IS NOT owed

[caro]

Thank you for the information PT. As I've said, we'll look forward to hearing what action Beachy decides on, offering help and support if required, and hearing of a successful outcome in due course if he wishes to provide info that can be used by others without access to legal representation.

[DonkeyB]

Caro, my point is about the recording of a default with the CRAs, not about default notices. The two things are unrelated and separate actions.

[caro]

Sorry DB. My mistake. Thanks for clarifying although reading back you had made it clear anyway.

 

Hopefully we'll learn the outcome of this in due course.

[DonkeyB]

Thanks Caro. It's a big problem on CAG - confusing default notices with the recording of a default with the CRAs. The latter can only be done once (normally, where the default is not rectified as it was not here), and obviously has the potential to cause grief. In this case I believe it is being used as a debt collection weapon and is vexatious, hence my contentions. And yes, it would be good to place these actions in the context if the whole case.

[caro]

Might be worth a new thread on the issue DB if there isn't one already.

[DonkeyB]

I would if I could get to the bottom of when a default should be recorded with the CRAs! So much conflicting information around, from the OFT, the ICO and within lender’s contracts/T&Cs regarding the date of ‘cause of action’.

 

Luckily that’s not the issue here...

[beachcomber60]

Things have gone very quiet, nothing to report & no news from Auntie yet

 

However I have received a letter from my MP & I quote

'I am very shocked to learn of your treatment from GE, especially after a very clear decision of the court, I am writing to GE myself for an explanation & I am also passing your letter to the Minister responsible for this sector to intervene'.

 

BC

[DonkeyB]

Blimey, an MP with a brain...

[car2403]

Must be independant

[beachcomber60]

Well after letters flying at GE from all directions (& Auntie Beeb making enquires) GE conceded defeat & said it was all a mistake & that all letters and DN's were automatically generated.

 

They have confirmed the account is closed with no monies due & that all data is to be removed from the CRA's. Also sending 'a gesture of goodwill cheque' for the distress caused by their actions.

 

Although Experian has had my complaint for over a month, I contacted them yesterday & told them that the data showing on our files is inaccrute & must be removed forthwith. Got a reply this morning stating that FN/GE have informed them that the data must remain for the time being (even though we have been informed in writing that all data is to be removed).

 

Because they have conceded defeat it doesnt look like the beeb will run our story now - disappointing.

[cymruambyth]

Great news after all that has gone on. Well done to you and everyone who has helped and supported you.

[DonkeyB]

Although Experian has had my complaint for over a month, I contacted them yesterday & told them that the data showing on our files is inaccrute & must be removed forthwith. Got a reply this morning stating that FN/GE have informed them that the data must remain for the time being (even though we have been informed in writing that all data is to be removed).

 

I would say this is cause for further complaint – did they reply in writing? Was that dated before or after the reply from GE?

 

They are still trashing your credit files! Hope the cheque was a sizeable one.

[beachcomber60]

I would say this is cause for further complaint – did they reply in writing? Was that dated before or after the reply from GE?

 

They are still trashing your credit files! Hope the cheque was a sizeable one.

 

(£200 )

 

GE letter dated 17th May - they also copied it to our MP, Experian email is todays date.

 

Have already fired 'remove it or else' reply to Experian.

[DonkeyB]

I would fire it to GE as well. With a big bit in red, stating ‘copied to MP, BBC, OFT’ et al.

[beachcomber60]

AND FINALLY

 

*** WON ***

 

Nine months after the trial and a nightmare journey since then, I can finally say WE'VE WON

After Link passed the account back to GE and all the arguements/fresh default notices, involvment of TS, our MP, BBC & Uncle Tom Cobbly 'n all - GE have FINALLY CLOSED the account and removed all adverse data from the CRA's.

(They claimed it was all a mistake & that all the threats, Default Notices & incorrect data sharing was all system automated which someone should have picked up & stopped - RUBBARB)

 

Anyway its all over - Site Team please mark this one WON & move to Legal Successes

 

Beachy

[42man]

Great news Beachy....well done for persisting !!! title duly changed...

[DonkeyB]

(They claimed it was all a mistake & that all the threats, Default Notices & incorrect data sharing was all system automated which someone should have picked up & stopped - RUBBARB)

 

This has all the hallmarks of Ferguson v British Gas – issue a claim!

[the_shadow]

Phew - its been a long haul...

 

 

BUT WELL DONE!!!

 

:whoo: :whoo: