GE Money

[seawall]

Thanks Zoot. I was reading the 'Harsh Letter...' thread re. Kensington and had rather rapidly come to this conclusion, but I appreciate the heads up.

 

Grapes, PM sent to you regarding this.

[sammyjammy]

Eversheds tried a Case Management Conference and a move to multi track against me with IGroup, I wrote a letter to the court who dismissed the idea and set a date for small claims of 2nd March so I'm just bideing my time and getting my court bundle ready. Eversheds are in the intimidation game, believe me I've had dealings with them before when they registered a CCJ against my debt despite me making regular payments, keep with it guys, we will be successful in the end, there is no doubt about it.

 

Sam

[seawall]

Nearly made a fool of myself by not paying attention to the AQ when it arrived - had a few other things on my mind. Thanks for all the advice received. AQ has to be returned by 29th Jan, so I'll be sorting out a suitable defence now.

 

Sammy, what was the tone of letter did you wrte to the court to get the CMC thrown out? Just a thought in case mine goes the same way. I hadn't had any dealings with eversheds up to this point, just GE's in-house mob, Bernard Elliston, Sandler

[sammyjammy]

Hi, if you click on the link it will take you to Dollys thread, I've posted the letter on their. Good luck.

 

Sam

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/28546-dolly-redstone-mortgages-erc-3.html

[Guest peed orf]

Hi guys,

Anyone know/remember the solicitors that do the GE Money mortgages?

[seawall]

Thanks for that Sammyjammy. I am not at the stage where I might need a similar letter yet, but its handy to be able to refer to it.

 

Peed 'orf, GE Money's in house solicitors are Bernard Elliston and Sandler, but I cannot remember off hand whether they dealt with setting up the mortgage. They are soon on the case if you get into difficulties though!

[Guest peed orf]

Thanks, name doesn't ring any bells.

[:Boy:]

My claim with GE Money is through Eversheds in Cardiff.

[dogwash]

My claim against GE is also Eversheds, Cardiff - Gareth Vowles.

[seawall]

I have to return my AQ and defend the counterclaim that GE have issued by 29th January. Any thoughts on this, following the recent developments on another thread are appreciated. I appreciate that Zoot has her hands rather full at the moment, so what do the others persueing GE Money think?

 

A standard defence is posted on the forum, and I would think that keeping the claim in the small claims track is an imperative.

[dogwash]

Have a look at priestley's thread with notes he took to case management conference - some very relevants points there I think. It definitely is imperrative that you keep it in small claims track. Sorry although my hearing against GE is 19 Feb Eversheds didn't draft Defence it was done by Bernard Sandler & Co (before Eversheds took over) - not very good Defence and no counterclaim but you certainly need to defend counterclaim. Best of luck.

[FairlyNiceChap]

Seawall - regardless of the recent hiccup (thats how I see it)

 

Office of Fair Trading Test for Excessive Redemption Charges

 

Gives us

 

"A term in a mortgage agreement which requires the borrower to pay more for breaching the contract terms than actual costs and losses caused to the lender by the breach (or a genuine pre-estimate of that) is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty and to be unenforceable both at common law and (in a consumer mortgage) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. A redemption charge may be regarded as a penalty even if it is expressd as the price for exercising a right rather than a consequence of breaking the agreement."

 

Now that is from the OFT and it isn't chopped liver

 

So I think this alone is enough to show there is a case to answer

 

All the usual denials (I know nothing about law etc) - but Good luck with GeMoney - I am about to have to enforce data protectiona ct on them and have two ERCS to get stuck into

 

best FNC

[zootscoot]

 

 

 

SET-OFF IF RELEVANT TERMS ARE FOUND TO BE INVALID

35, Alternatively, if the relevant terms of the Agreement that give rise to the right of the Defendant-to levy the Charges or Early .Repayment Charge are invalid, whether by means of the common law penalty clauses jurisdiction, or under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 19,99, or otherwise,; then:-

35.1 the Defendant Is entitled to Recover its costs under the terms and: conditions of

• the Agreement;.

The Claimant submits clause 35(1) of the counter claim is inadequaetly pleaded. The Defendant fails to disclose whether the costs claimed relate to legal costs in defending the claim or costs to the Defendant arising inconsequence of the breach of contract. The Claimant reserves the right to defend this clause should the defendant choose to ammend the ambiguity therein.

35.2 further or alternatively, the Defendant is! entitled under section 15 of the; Supply of Goods and. Services Act 1982 to a reasonable charge for services provided to the Claimant.

 

The Claimant denies para 35.2 of the counter claim. S.15 of the Supplyof Goods and Services Act 1982 only applies where the consideration for the services is not specified in the contract. The charges applied to the Claimant's account were clearly stated in the mortgage terms and conditions.

36.; Further or alternatively, if, contrary to the Defendant's primary case set: but in the Defence, the Claimant was in breach of contract 'Whether by^ causing the Trigger Events or by early redemption:, and if .which' is denied, the sums claimed by the; Claimant; were in fact not payable by reason of the Claimant's breath of contract and the; Claimant is entitled to repayment of: the same:- :. : . • .'

36.1 : the Claimant was in breach of contract and has admitted1 the same; • • i ;

36.2 the Defendant' has thereby suffered loss and : damage in 'respect' off :such breach(es). Particulars of loss and damage will be. provided,

The Claimant accepts para 36.1 & 36.2 of the counter claim and puts the Defendant to strict proof of such costs.

37. The Defendant' puts the "Claimant on notice that :the costs: or losses: actually incurred or the reasonable charge payable may exceed the value of the Claimant's claim, although they are not expected to exceed £5,000.00 in total.

The claimant submits that following the authority of Cellulose Acetate Silk co Ltd v Widnes Foundry Ltd[1933] A.C. 20, the Defendant is unable to claim damages which exceed the amount provided in contractual provision in the event that such a provision is found to be a liquidated damages clause.

 

 

COUNTERCLAIM IF RELEVANT TERMS ARE FOUND TO BE INVALID

38. Paragraphs 35 to 37 of this Defence and Counterclaim are repeated, and the sum to which the Defendant is entitled under this paragraph is further claimed

The Claimant denies and admits para 38 to the extent that he denied and admitted paras 35 -37 above.

39. Further, the Defendant is entitled to claim and does claim interest pursuant to Section 69: of the County Courts Act 1934 on the sum found due to the Defendant at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit.

The Claimant admits the court has the jurisdiction to award interest in the event that the Defendant is able to plead and prove loss caused by the Claimant's breach of contract.

 

: . And the Defendant counterclaims ,

. (1) damages for breach of contract limited to £5,000;

Denied to the extent that it exceeds the loss provided for in the contractual provisions as per above.

• (2) interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1969,

Amitted to the extent that the Defendant pleads and proves such loss.

[seawall]

Thanks all three of you for the replies. Zoot, thanks particularly for that, I have a feeling that you are very busy at the moment, but

 

'

Last edited by zootscoot : Yesterday at 01:30.

 

you need to get some sleep as well!

[seawall]

AQ and defence to counterclaim posted into court today. Deadline tomorrow. Now I'll have to wait and see what Evershed's/GE Money have come up with.

[zootscoot]

Good luck!

[Grapes]

Thanks for PMs

Got a copy of my AQ from Eversheds today, nothing on it at all. Other than happy for it to be Small Claims. Seems strange.

[seawall]

I too got a copy of the AQ from Eversheds with a request for a copy of mine. Didnt keep a copy, just sent the form to the court, who will presumably send one on to them.

 

As with Grapes, they are happy for it to be in the Small Claims Track. Will be calling one witness, and thats it.

[Grapes]

Ummm seems too quiet doesnt it

I sent them a copy of my AQ, reply to their defence, defence of their counterclaim and a draft order. If nothing else will give them something to do!

I loved the part which said we charged 6 months as everybody else does, ummm genuine pre-estimate, I think not ....

Also pointed out we paid the brokers and their own fees and rate 1.5% above base, wheres the loss!

[maybelline]

Hello Grapes, watching with interest, I am about to file my N1, is there anything I need to make sure is right, eg are they GE Home Lending or something else?? they have returned some of the charges but still more than half unpaid so am going on to file a claim which they have said they will defend. I am claiming penalty charges not erc as am still with them (hope to move it soon)

[seawall]

Hi Maybelline. I'm sure that you have to claim against GE Money Home Lending Ltd (I did) who will then promptly deny that you ever had a contract with them, as your mortgage was probably with GE Mortgages Ltd ( or I Group ). However, they will then defend themselves regardless. There are all sorts of penalty charges levied btw, which I am sure you have been made aware of.

[maybelline]

thanks, seawall, I have gone through a court claim still unfinished with halifax, I have some rather creative charges from GE, who were still I Group when I started with them, I have a thread of my own that I need to rename as is firstly about buildings insurance, paying theirs and my own?!

[seawall]

Had a quick look through my statement. I did post this before, but I think it's worth posting again. the penalty charges that I identified were:

 

4004 Additional interest (variable, charged on the penalties applied)

4111 Returned payment charge £20

4246 Direct debit recall charge £20

4444 Income on early settlement (the ERC - now comes with a health warning :o )

8037 Administration fee £40

[maybelline]

I havent noticed any interest on the penalties but it must be there somewhere, trouble is I am not a mathematical person at all and am struggling , have managed to do the spreadsheets as it works it out but reading others info on the statements is a nightmare. I had a reply from GE who say that all their charges are fair and went on about how it cost them to do this and to do that and litigation which I have not claimed!?

[jaxads]

Good luck -- I'll watch this post with interest!!! GE Money are charging a friend £40 a month "admin charges" for any months that the account is in arrears. Are they allowed to do this?? Or can these charges be claimed back too. Loan was taken out at the beginning of last year.