Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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 - advice please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4705 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

I didn't not yet. I am worried by the potential for lack of interest in as much as the IVA is in my name but it is my wife being chased. As previously stated, I pre-emptied this scenario before the IVA process was concluded because I wanted to 'cover all bases' before signing on the dotted line. And at that time she (The IVA Supervisor) had stated then that this might happen and our only course (if it did) was to 'try' to negotiate with the creditor by explaining that a large portion of the debt would be paid through the IVA and the remainder by my wife during this process - which is exactly what I did with GE Money - before they sold the debt on. I didn't feel her advice would change now as in truth nothing has really changed except who owns the debt going forward. Am I right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

chatsworth2409

i think you are right

with regards your question in post 21,i think it would not do any harm to contact them,verifying your position and asking them to state whether they accept it or not.

how are you at letter writing? can you tell me what were your original loan repayments

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stoney47. I'm pretty good at letter writing I guess. Our original repayments were about £340 per month. As approx 47p in the £ of the original debt will be returned through the IVA payment process we offered to pay the difference (approx 53p in the £) directly in my wife's names with any reconciliation occurring at the end of the IVA process. That would include any interest due and outstanding original debt. The IVA is set to run for approx 5 years from inception which was 6 months ago. That 53p in the £ was about £196 which we had upped to £200 when paying over. Since finding out about the debt being passed onto Link we have continued to send our payments to GE Money so far.

 

Do we know for sure that Stephen Southwood Evans is the correct named person to write to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

chatsworth2409

when i phoned link to get their e-mail address, I was told that mr southwood-evans was the main man in the legal dept.

they need to appreciate the fact that you will be paying back all your debt and that you have an approved arrangement by the court.

did you received a notice of assignment,because if that has not been sent to you,then keep on with ge money

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Stoney47. I (we) have no recollection of receiving any notice of assignment from link or GE Money. Just verbal telephone conversations with Link and GE.

 

I will write to Mr Southwood-Evans. Do you know which Link address he is at?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are certain that you have not had a noa from either company,then i would suggest writing to both company,s asking them to confirm their position and sit back and wait for their reply,s

it has to have been assigned correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS of sending PM's and offering advice through them.

 

You will be better advised to post advice and questions on the open forum, so that other who have more knowledge are able to advise you, and correct bad debt advice.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Bazooka Boo, I was merely trying to avoid a lengthy post, but I see your point. Here is the letter I have prepared, I welcome comments:

 

"Dear Mr Higgins/Mr Southwood Evans

 

We are in receipt of your letter dated 4 may 2011. On receipt of that letter I contacted your offices by telephone on the 7th May 2011, and had a telephone conversation with two of your members of staff - Zia Houda and Rio (x4017); Rio was reluctant to give his surname for some reason.

 

During the conversation with both Zia and Rio, we were initially told that ‘Link Financial’ has purchased our existing credit agreement from GE Money for a loan we had taken out with them in 2006 (initially), that loan was scheduled to run for 15 years ending in 2022, but you are now chasing us for full settlement of that debt by way of an immediate payment of £10,000 by the end of June 2011 (in stages if we prefer).

 

For your records, receipt of your letter was the first time we had heard of Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd, and the phone call was the first we had heard of the GE Money debt “being sold on” I think it is called.

 

Now, whilst not (necessarily) doubting the scenario of GE Money selling on the debt, I am surprised if that is the case, as we had an agreement of scheduled payments by my wife, which was made since the approval in court of my IVA application in January 2011; and she has been honouring those payments ever since.

 

I’m sure you will understand that just because we get a letter from you, and the fact we are being plagued by phonecalls from your staff, we are loathe to respond further at this point, until we see proof that you do in fact own the GE Money Debt and therefore entitled to try to collect it in the manner shown so far. We have taken advice and have been told to respond in this way for our own safety and so that the rules of the IVA agreement now in place are adhered to; for to act otherwise would render it in breach.

 

My wife is under considerable stress over this matter and the previous issue over my life threatening illness which led to the IVA application in the first place. She is now many months into psychiatric counselling and medication for severe depression. We therefore request that all correspondance is limited to the written word only, and that she is not contacted by phone calls. I’m sure you can understand this request which we do not believe to be unreasonable in these circumstances.

 

So, before we discuss this matter further, we would apprieciate sight of unequivicable proof that you do indeed own the debt...

 

To clarify:

 

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

 

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77 will apply.

 

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

 

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

 

I enclose a postal order in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

 

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

In the meantime, we are continuing to pay and send the agreed monthly amount to GE Money.

 

 

 

sincerely yours,"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, hence the reason why advice should be given in the open forum for others to give their 2 pen 'o' worth!

 

 

Dear Sir/madam,

 

Thank you for your letter dated dd/mm/yyyy, the contents of which have been noted.

 

My agreement was taken out with GE Money in yyyy, and as I am not in arrears with our current agreed monthly payment, your letters demanding full and immediate payment are both unlawful and vexatious. Your actions have been reported.

 

It is also noted that you have been making excessive and frequent phone calls to this address, I consider these to be psychologically and physically harassing, you are instructed that ALL future contact by telephone WILL be construed as harassment and reported to the Police as such whereby I WILL take legal action against yourselves for this criminal offence.

 

I will again remind you that ALL correspondence MUST be in writing only.

 

I have enclosed the statutory fee of £1 which is ONLY to be used to provide me with the following;

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?414-CCA-request-letter.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

It may help to include this somewhere it came into force in Feb this year under amendments to the act from the European Directive

“Assignment of rights

82A.—(1) Where rights of a creditor under a regulated consumer credit agreement are

assigned to a third party, the assignee must arrange for notice of the assignment to be given

to the debtor—

(a) as soon as reasonably possible, or

(b) if, after the assignment, the arrangements for servicing the credit under the

agreement do not change as far as the debtor is concerned, on or before the first

occasion that they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

chatsworth2409

back again a bit late in the evening, this post was going to advice about posting on the open forum as per site rules.

there your post would have a wider and more knowledgeable audience,and very quickly that is what has happened

many thanks to bazooka boo and peterbard for their input

regards stoney47

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=

 

Dear Sir/madam,

 

Thank you for your letter dated dd/mm/yyyy, the contents of which have been noted.

 

My agreement was taken out with GE Money in yyyy, and as I am not in arrears with our current agreed monthly payment, your letters demanding full and immediate payment are both unlawful and vexatious. Your actions have been reported.

 

[/quote]

 

Hi BazzokaBoo, technically as we are only paying 'my wife's portion' of the monthly amount catered for in the original agreement (the rest to be covered in due course by the IVA) can we claim we are not in arrears with the payments? I think I should mention here that the more recent 'agreement' with GE Money for split payments, was not formalised in a written agreement, merely over the phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BazookaBoo,

 

Just re-read the letter from Link and in fact it doesn't demand payment there - merely for us to 'call them without delay'... 'to discuss what options are available to you to settle this debt and would urge you to make contact with us as soon as possible.' It goes on to say they are available monday - thursday 8am to 8.30pm, friday 8am to 5pm and saturday 9am to 5pm on 02920 808685.

 

Having said in their initial sentence that they wished to discuss options, there last sentence threatens that 'if you do not offer to repay this account we may review the information held on you by the credit reference agencies to ascertain how we can best ensure this debt is repaid'.

 

The letter itself is a nonsense I know, i.e. 'not demanding full and immediate payment' in writing (they save that for on the phone), so I would need to change the wording in your suggestion above would I not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

It may help to include this somewhere it came into force in Feb this year under amendments to the act from the European Directive

“Assignment of rights

82A.—(1) Where rights of a creditor under a regulated consumer credit agreement are

assigned to a third party, the assignee must arrange for notice of the assignment to be given

to the debtor—

(a) as soon as reasonably possible, or

(b) if, after the assignment, the arrangements for servicing the credit under the

agreement do not change as far as the debtor is concerned, on or before the first

occasion that they do.

 

Hi PeterBard, thank you for responding.

 

I am not very legally minded, but the wording in the last sub point (b.) suggests (paraphrasing) that 'if the arrangements for paying don't change on or before the first occasion that they do' What does that mean then? that sounds like more simply they are saying 'if they (arrangements) don't change before they do' which can't be right as this is nonsense isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is zero requirement to contact these clowns by phone, the content of their letter is to threaten and intimidate you into paying more than you can reasonably afford.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is zero requirement to contact these clowns by phone, the content of their letter is to threaten and intimidate you into paying more than you can reasonably afford.

 

Yes, I fully understand that BB, and have no intention of any further telephone contact, I merely convey their letter content in regard to the suggested response you have posted - and the fact that the intimidation happened not in the letter (per se) - but on the phone - which is probably so I can't prove it on court! I will therefor change the word 'letters' to read 'phone conversation demanding full and immediate payment is...'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...