Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Link Financial 24.09% Interest!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4638 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I really hope someone can help me, as I feel like this company is trying to bury me :(

 

I've just lost a court case against Link, with a CCJ against me for about £12000. On delivering his verdict the Judge asked the Claimant's solicitor whether they wished to charge any further interest, to which they replied 'No'.....

 

Got home today, and lo and behold they intend to charge me 24.09% per annum variable. How can they do this? Is it legal? There's no way I can pay £12000 all at once.... Would the court papers show that they didn't ask for interest when asked?

 

Please help somebody as I feel really down about this whole thing...

 

Cheers,

Skinnycat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Cerberusalert,

 

The judgement includes no mention of any interest to be added, but does not include any repayment terms either. Should that have been something discussed at court at the time of the hearing, as I thought repayment terms would be agreed afterwards?

 

Many thanks,

 

Skinnycat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this, is there a legal limit to the rate of interest that a DCA can charge?

 

I recall there being an 8.5% acceptable rate that courts tended to be happy with, am I mistaken?

 

Thanks,

Skinnycat

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you cannot afford the £12000 in payment then adding any! interest is futile.wait to see what the payment plan is ,if you cannot afford it ,go back to court and tell them what you can afford.

then tell the judge that adding interest is just adding to the debt.

good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this a 'forthwith' judgement? Did you defend the claim? Do you own a property?

 

Knowing Link they will have gone for a forthwith judgment and, if you don't own a property, they may generously agree to accept repayment in instalments at a ridiculous interest rate not sanctioned by the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Link own the debt? who was the original creditor? when was the debt from? what kind of debt was it? as in credit card? loan etc? Did Link produce any agreements in court?

Did you defend the action and so on?

I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention cerberusalert about the interest I'm of the same opinion as yourself regarding this issue but I had a discussion with Biggjb about this on thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280831-Need-advice-re-Merit-Finance and he reckons that You don't have to ask the judge for Stat interest it on debts over £5k. you can just apply it as that is legal.

 

In reply I quoted the following:

 

Hope this is useful for you skinnycat.

 

for eg http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co .uk/...unty_court.php

 

re interest:

 

 

 

 

'If a creditor has taken the debt to the county court, they may be able to add extra interest once a charging order is made. Interest cannot be added if:

the debt is for an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. This includes most ordinary credit agreements, including bank overdrafts.

or

the debt is less than £5,000 in total, even if it is not covered by the Consumer Credit Act.

If the debt is more than £5,000 and not covered by the Consumer Credit Act, then interest is set by the court and runs at a standard rate.'

Also:

 

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991

See for eg 2(3)

(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment—

(a) is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the

Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

 

 

Civil Proc. Rule 70, 6 states that 'The County Courts (interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 specifies when interest may be claimed on county court judgment debts.)'

 

the 91 order states for eg

 

2.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgmentdebt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remainsunsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which therelevant judgment was given.

(2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgmentdebt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at alater date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date.

(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevantjudgment—

(a)is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreementregulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974..............

 

 

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResu...=1&SortAlpha=0

 

The general rule

2. — (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgment debt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remains unsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which the relevant judgment was given.

(2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgment debt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at a later date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date.

(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment—

(a)is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 F2 ;

 

 

 

So a creditor can try for CONTRACTUAL but not STATUTORY interest.

 

 

Statutory interest does not accrue on an CCA regulated agreement that has been the subject of a CCJ. However, if there's a clause in the CCA agreement allowing for post contractual interest this can be added.

 

If the terms of the CCJ do not allow for contractual interest then the creditor would have to sue again for interest once the original CCJ amount has been paid.

 

 

Any debt regulated under the Consumer Credit Act cannot have statutory interest added on after judgment. However, if in the original application the creditor asked for contractual interest then this can happen.

 

worth a listen.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyo...8_10_mon.shtml

 

AND I WOULD IMAGINE MOST LOANS AND CREDIT CARD DEBTS ARE COVERED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone,

 

Thanks so much for your input, but must admit that I'm still a little baffled by it all. :oops:

 

I defended the action by Link on a number of points (defective Default Notice, invalid assignment etc) but the judge felt that neither of these points was sufficient to turn the case in my favour.

 

The debt was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, so that leads to me to think that Link cannot charge statutory interest on the amount owing. Given that the judgement also does not state that interest can be applied, I would think that rules out any contractual interest, unless Link sue me once the debt has been paid off? Am I right in thinking that?

 

Link have now stated that they will be asking for a charging order on my property. Will the court notify me if this takes place so that I can defend against it? Given that I have a mortgage and secured loan, and that the property is registered to both me and my wife (who isn't included in the Link action) I would hope it wouldn't be granted. I have offered to make payment towards the outstanding amount, with no response from Link, so am baffled as to what they are hoping to achieve. They couldn't sell my property from under me, could they?

 

Skinnycat

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would of thought that the only way a charging order would be granted is if you miss a payment on your ccj? To get round that simply set up a standing order to hit their account

before the due date each month (allowing for bank mishaps etc)

 

Having said that, if you think there is an error in law with the original judgment you have the grounds to appeal the CCJ and by what you have posted there may be something there

for you to go back to them. The problem is Link, they are in my opinion a bunch of crooks who go for these judgements on very thin documentation and hope that they can

persuade a judge in their favour. If I were you I would post some more here and then seek professional advice re your grounds for appeal.

I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I received an order from the court on Friday stating that an interim charging order had been granted against my property, with a hearing scheduled for February. I'm not sure if I've missed something here; after the judgement I expected the court to ask me about my circumstances (that was what I was told by Link's counsel) and agree a payment plan, but I haven't even had that opportunity!

 

Maybe I've been naive in all of this and thought that this whole process would protect me, but I feel like this whole thing has been railroaded through without even the court giving me an opportunity to comment.

 

I want to grab the bull by the horns with this but where do I start?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you make an offer to pay anything when the original ccj was awarded against you etc?

 

I guess it tells you on the interim order that you have a limited amount of time to respond to it? 7 days etc?

 

It may be that this post needs moving to the legal section, I'll post it up for a member of the site team to have a look at.

 

I am no expert but it seems Link have again used the system and a debtors naivety to again gain a charge...Link rarely seem to

have the correct paperwork such as credit agreements but instead rely on the system to get things put into place.

 

Go here, there is room for manouvere and to possibly get the order removed etc....

 

http://www.yesdebtfree.co.uk/articles/how-to-stop-a-charging-order/

I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Hi AllJust a quick one about Link and interest charges. I had a debt with GE Capital Woodchester (incurred due to being self-employed and becoming seriously ill) which apparently was sold to Link. I had several debts which were being paid under a DMP run by Payplan. Two parts of the original debt to GE remain. I have paid the rest off. Link financial are continually refusing Paypal's offers in regard to these debts and they are charging interest. My query is this: When I incurred the original debt GE Capital repossessed the property the loan was used to buy. They auctioned this property and took the proceeds off the original amount. This original amount included the interest I would have paid in the 3 year life of the finance. So effectively what they did was take the original finance amount, added the interest that I would have paid and used that as the amount I owed. Now, if Link are charging contractual interest, what are they charging it on and is this legal? surely I have (or am) fulfilling my contractual interest obligation by paying off the debt which has had the interest payments front-loaded? Are they charging interest on interest?I'm not sure I've explained this very well but I hope you get the gist!Hulsim1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...