Link charging interest on GE Capital debt subject to a CCJ

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I still say no interest but this must go before a judge.

[bengateway]

I still say no interest but this must go before a judge.

 

Completely agree Brigg,

 

But surely the below quote is absolute GOLD DUST as its come from a top position spokes person from within the legal team of the originator of the term in 1st National Banks Cosumer Contract.

In essence it means that the term only means contractual interest will be added up to the amount that you would have paid if the contract had not gone into default.

And they are saying thats the worst case scenario.

Link Financial are taking these contracts and by the use of peoples ignorance (and I mean that in the nicest way) they are fleecing them by adding far more interest than the OC ever intended.

Now that action HAS to be breaking some kind of legislation.

They even secure these inflated interest figures with charging orders on peoples property, and those examples can be seen here on CAG.

Disgusting.

 

To remind us!!

 

Chard

 

We calculate what the customer would have paid had the contract run its full course and he made regular payments on time. We’d ask the customer to discharge no more than that amount of money. I think everybody would believe that somebody who takes on a debt should actually pay what they owe.

 

Curwen

 

What Nicola Chard was saying, was that even though the interest appeared to be relentlessly rolling upwards, no-one would ever have to shell out any more than if they’d kept repaying the loan as normal. In other words First National would cap the debts. In Dave’s case that would mean he wouldn’t have to pay any more than £3,500, the amount he would have repaid if he hadn’t got into difficulties. But First National had never made this clear to him and why had they sent him a statement for more than double that amount. Chard Again without knowing the circumstances I can’t comment on that but it shouldn’t be growing, it would be capped and the circumstances and the information you’ve got I can only assume has been either incorrectly given or improperly given. Curwen I can show you the statement for this customer that we’re talking about if you like. Curwen We stopped the interview once again and showed Nicola Chard more papers. Now you and I might think that the balance at the bottom of the statement is the total of what we owe. Bizarrely it seemed the balance on Dave McNevin’s statement was not what he owed. But how had all this confusion arisen? The company claims that nowadays it automatically caps the interest people have to pay. If this is true, then why isn’t the real size of the debt shown on the statement sent out to customers like the McNevins.

 

And if there is any doubt to who Nicola Chard is just follow this link, http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/nicola-chard/4/779/b77

Edited January 13, 2013 by bengateway

[bengateway]

Ok I am going to summarise some key facts, which may prove useful, along with all the other information that has been provided within this thread.

Its on going I am sure.

But a big thankyou to all, especially site team members for there time input (and where I am concerned) patience, in putting this together.

 

The term within the contract which leads to controversy;

 

"Interest on the amount which becomes payable shall be charged in accordance with condition 4 at the rate stated in paragraph (d) overleaf subject to variation until payment after as well as before any judgement. Such obligation to be independent of and not to merge with the Judgement."

 

The term itself has been deemed fair, in as far as the case "Director General Office of Fair Trading vs First National Bank (GE money)

 

HOWEVER

 

The presiding Lords made the following comments and observations regarding the above term.

 

The Law lords judged that legally the wording used in contracts was not unfair.

 

But all of them were worried about the effects of the clause.

 

Here’s what four of them had to say.

 

Law lords

 

"I think the consequences of this term must come as a nasty shock to many borrowers. I think they have a legitimate grievance."

 

"I share the general view that this is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs."

 

"I have no hesitation in accepting the proposition that this situation is unacceptable."

 

"The real source of the problem revealed by this case remains to be tackled."

 

And also, how the above term was meant to be implemented, with reference to the creditor who drew the terms of the contract up in the first place i.e. First National Bank.

 

Nicola Chard First National Banks Legal Director and also on The Excecutive Board says,

 

We calculate what the customer would have paid had the contract run its full course and he made regular payments on time. We’d ask the customer to discharge no more than that amount of money. I think everybody would believe that somebody who takes on a debt should actually pay what they owe.

 

What Nicola Chard was saying, was that even though the interest appeared to be relentlessly rolling upwards, no-one would ever have to shell out any more than if they’d kept repaying the loan as normal. In other words First National would cap the debts. In Dave’s case that would mean he wouldn’t have to pay any more than £3,500, the amount he would have repaid if he hadn’t got into difficulties. But First National had never made this clear to him and why had they sent him a statement for more than double that amount.

 

Nicola Chard

 

Again without knowing the circumstances I can’t comment on that but it shouldn’t be growing, it would be capped and the circumstances and the information you’ve got I can only assume has been either incorrectly given or improperly given.

 

Curwen (Interviewer)

 

I can show you the statement for this customer that we’re talking about if you like. We stopped the interview once again and showed Nicola Chard more papers. Now you and I might think that the balance at the bottom of the statement is the total of what we owe.

 

Bizarrely it seemed the balance on Dave McNevin’s statement was not what he owed.

 

But how had all this confusion arisen?

 

The company claims that nowadays it automatically caps the interest people have to pay. If this is true, then why isn’t the real size of the debt shown on the statement sent out to customers.

 

Chard

 

The difficulty we have there is our systems actually keep the account and roll the interest on so the statement that’s actually produced, there’s some IT technology issues here

which we’re waiting for some fixes for, so the statement will say one thing and we actually print another which is a lower

amount.

 

 

And remember, all this relates to the original creditor, let alone a third party interloper (DCA)

 

Stretch it will be interesting to see what they come back with, but with all this information.

Link have got a lot of questions to answer.

Edited January 14, 2013 by bengateway

[stretch3336]

Just got to wait now for the CCA request from Link, and a copy of the POC from the courts.

Lets see what Link come back with.

[stretch3336]

Just one question for people's interpretation

 

Been looking at CPR rules in particular, contents of the POC, PART 16

 

 

27. CPR rule 16.4(1)(b) and (2) require the claimant to state in the particulars of

claim (or counterclaim) that he is seeking interest and to state whether he is

claiming it under

• a contract

• an enactment and if so which or

• some other basis and if so which

If the claim is for a specified amount of money, the claimant must state:

• the percentage rate at which interest is claimed

• the date from which it is claimed

• the date to which it is calculated, not later than the date of issue of the

claim form

• total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation

 

 

Would the word at the start CONTRACT bear relation to contractual Interest, so should be in the POC.

 

Or this just relate to Statutory Interest

Edited January 15, 2013 by stretch3336
ADD

[bengateway]

Just one question for people's interpretation

 

Been looking at CPR rules in particular, contents of the POC, PART 16

 

 

27. CPR rule 16.4(1)(b) and (2) require the claimant to state in the particulars of

claim (or counterclaim) that he is seeking interest and to state whether he is

claiming it under

• a contract

• an enactment and if so which or

• some other basis and if so which

If the claim is for a specified amount of money, the claimant must state:

• the percentage rate at which interest is claimed

• the date from which it is claimed

• the date to which it is calculated, not later than the date of issue of the

claim form

• total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation

 

 

Would the word at the start CONTRACT bear relation to contractual Interest, so should be in the POC.

 

Or this just relate to Statutory Interest

 

From reading that stretch.

 

It looks like they are talking about pre judgement interest when refering to ( the date to which it is calculated, not later than the date of issue of the claim form.)

So my understanding would be that none of the above is talking about post judgement contractual interest.

Just interest being claimed up to the judgement.

Edited January 15, 2013 by bengateway

[bengateway]

Just got to wait now for the CCA request from Link, and a copy of the POC from the courts.

Lets see what Link come back with.

 

Any updates ??

[stretch3336]

Any updates ??

 

Spoke to the court, unfortunately they destroy paperwork after two years so I cannot get a copy of the POC.

 

Regarding Link they have come back to me with the CCA request, and have sent me a copy with the T&C'S, in it there is a paragraph that says that:

 

The interest will be payable before any court judgment and after any judgment as well. This obligation is an independent one and will not merge with, that is become part of any such judgment. (they have highlighted this).

 

They have also sent me a copy of there Judgement, where in the notes to the defendant it states:

 

If judgment is for £5000 or more or is in respect of a debt that attracts contractual or statutory interest for late payment, the claimant may be entitled to further interest. ( they highlighted : the parts - (If judgment) and ( in respect of a debt that attracts contractual)

 

Looking at my judgement this paragraph is not there, all it says on mine is the paragraph where it says about:

 

Interest ( contractual or statutory can only be applied if the debt is over £5000).

 

The one thing that annoys me when they send me a statement, it is all lumped together, merged, and then they highlight the part about ,will not merge with the judgment.

 

If I just settled what I owe on the judgment, what are the chances of them taking me to court again to recover the interest, remembering that what they are asking for is way above what I would have paid under the original agreement, if all payment were paid in full and on time.

[caro]

You only have to pay the amount awarded by a court. They cannot add interest without the authority of the court. When you've paid back the amount the court has said, stop paying and write to them with a copy of the judgment and tell them to sling their hook. A court order takes precedence over their T&Cs!!!

 

As long as you've got all the paperwork to prove that you've paid what they were awarded in court they wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of getting more.

[bengateway]

Spoke to the court, unfortunately they destroy paperwork after two years so I cannot get a copy of the POC.

 

Regarding Link they have come back to me with the CCA request, and have sent me a copy with the T&C'S, in it there is a paragraph that says that:

 

The interest will be payable before any court judgment and after any judgment as well. This obligation is an independent one and will not merge with, that is become part of any such judgment. (they have highlighted this).

 

They have also sent me a copy of there Judgement, where in the notes to the defendant it states:

 

If judgment is for £5000 or more or is in respect of a debt that attracts contractual or statutory interest for late payment, the claimant may be entitled to further interest. ( they highlighted : the parts - (If judgment) and ( in respect of a debt that attracts contractual)

 

Looking at my judgement this paragraph is not there, all it says on mine is the paragraph where it says about:

 

Interest ( contractual or statutory can only be applied if the debt is over £5000).

 

The one thing that annoys me when they send me a statement, it is all lumped together, merged, and then they highlight the part about ,will not merge with the judgment.

 

If I just settled what I owe on the judgment, what are the chances of them taking me to court again to recover the interest, remembering that what they are asking for is way above what I would have paid under the original agreement, if all payment were paid in full and on time.

 

So there is no record of the POC.

How would they confirm that the interest after judgement clause was even mentioned by the original claiment ??

It certainly wasnt awarded in the judgement, you already know that Stretch.

They have highlighted certain sections in an attempt to claim what they are clearly not entitled to.

Its all about that interest after judgement clause, written into the original cca. And the OFT vs 1st National Bank Case.

They are clearly attempting to pull a fast one. And no doubt have got away with it in the past with people being bullied into inflated settlements, including unjustified interest.

Remember what Nicola Chard said when she spoke on behalf of 1st National. The interest clause was to enable the original creditor to claim interest to the amount of the agreement had it not been defaulted nothing more.

So it is capped at that point NOT relentlessly rolling on. And thats THERE version of events.

The courts would simply dis allow the interest anyway.

Link need to stop fleecing people like this, its very wrong.

They have no legal claim for interest. Needs reporting.

[stretch3336]

No record of the POC on my side, I am sure Link have got a copy, any views on why there judgment have different notes on the bottom than mine

[bengateway]

No record of the POC on my side, I am sure Link have got a copy, any views on why there judgment have different notes on the bottom than mine

 

How sure is sure regarding the POC and linkhaving that info ??

I wouldnt gaurantee they have much paperwork at all.

Consider a subject access request, and see exactly what info they have.

The amount owed to them under the ccj is not disputed. But this so called interest IS. I would tell them that, and looking back on all the posts relating to this thread you have plenty of ammo as to why.

With regards to notes being different on your judgement with regards to the copy they sent you. Put simply if your holding an original copy of the judgement, then clearly links should be exactly the same. If not. Then what they have sent you is not a true copy.

Edited February 24, 2013 by bengateway

[stretch3336]

So my original agreement was £78 over 85 months total- £6630.

My judgement was £3,019.60 ( plus £85 costs) total-£3,104.60.

which by reckoning (not that good with figures) is that I must have paid off £3610.40

 

So the full agreement required me to pay £6630 , I have paid round about £3610.40 plus payments under the judgement of £1,162.23 total-£4772.63.

So £6630 (ORIGINAL TOTAL UNDER THE AGREEMENT) minus £4772.63 = £1857.37 plus £85 costs total £1942.37

 

My Balance left under the jugement (my figures) is £1983

 

So both figures are about the same (give or take a few pound)

 

Link say my balance at the moment is £3175.00.

 

So Link are using a clause in the contract for profit when according to the transcipt in Bengatway,s post explains that First National (Ge Capital) only put in their contracts to ensure that got the full amount if the contract had run it's full course.

 

Is this not abuse of the consumer by Link, when the consumer has fell into financial problems.

 

If I have got this completely wrong please someone let me know, also sorry about all the figures.

 

Have now got sight of the original agreement, how would the contractual interest be worked out, in other words the total amount I need to pay under the original contract.

 

Not that I am going to pay it without a fight, but would like somebody with good maths to have a look at the figures.

 

On the agreement £5000 loan x 60 payments (MONTHLY PAYMENT £113.97)

Rate of interest per month 1.090%

APR 13.9%

[stretch3336]

Just looked at the above post, for some reason on the quote above I have put £78 as the monthly payment over 85 months, now I have seen the original agreement, I now know that the monthly payment was £113.97 over 60 months.

[dx100uk]

scan it up please

 

dx

[bengateway]

Have now got sight of the original agreement, how would the contractual interest be worked out, in other words the total amount I need to pay under the original contract.

 

Not that I am going to pay it without a fight, but would like somebody with good maths to have a look at the figures.

 

On the agreement £5000 loan x 60 payments (MONTHLY PAYMENT £113.97)

Rate of interest per month 1.090%

APR 13.9%

 

So the original loan was for £5000 your payments of £113.97 x 60 add up to £6838.20.

 

Therefore the interest on the £5000 was £1838.20

 

£6838.20 is what you would have paid in total had your agreement not been defaulted.

 

Now what the documentary with 1st National Bank showed was that !st National used the interest after judgement term

to ensure they could attempt to claim the full £6838.20. should you default.

 

What 1st National are saying is that the term within the contract was to be used for this purpose,

and NOT to allow interest to continue mounting up relentlessly.

 

In other words in your case, the interest would be capped once the original repayment amount under the contract had been reached.

 

What you have to watch out for is that Link may attempt to use deceptive methods and attempt to claim more than the original contract,

and the WAY the term was supposed to be used.

 

Once Link are aware of this, they should cap the interest in the same way as the original creditor.

 

Otherwise an unfair relaitionship would exist between you, and they would be in breach of the contracts terms.

 

And despite all this.

If they attempted court action for the interest (which would need to be put to the courts in a seperate claim)

Its highly probable that a district judge would dis allow such a claim once the Judgement debt has been paid.

 

The original contract terms have, after all, been superceded by a court judgement.

 

The fact remains, the ONLY amount you owe, is the JUDGEMENT DEBT.

 

Link can play with the figures all they want but its the JUDGEMENT DEBT thats owed nothing more.

 

Once paid as said, they would have to go back to court and ask the courts if they can claim that interest under the agreement.

They probably know they dont stand a chance in hell of getting it.

 

But they're a debt collecting agency, and all there intersted in is profit, NOT what there legally entitled to.

 

As said you have plenty of amunition within this thread to hit them with.

[bengateway]

Provide useful information, and help to satisfy certain requests.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/inside_money/2138655.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/inside_money/transcripts/credit1.txt

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2002/jul/20/creditanddebt.jobsandmoney