Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to create a topic of your own please this one is for advising SSwales. click create in the top red banner   dx  
    • There is a caveat. Within the first 6 months the assumption of a fault at time of selling means that it is for the seller to disprove.   This can be through showing, possibly as in the case of engine 'blowing up' in this thread, that due attention by the purchaser has been  paid to such things as the oil and water levels, all other adjustments have been maintained, any due servicing has been carried out, etc.   We have not been given details of make, model,  age, mileage on purchase, miles covered by OP and servicing history. It is for these reasons that I find the above post questionable.   There is actually no doubt that if you buy a vehicle and the engine blows up within three months then it is not of satisfactory quality. Because it has happened within three months and the six-month rule applies and that means that she is entitled to have a repair and if the repair fails then a refund or a replacement at her option
    • Thank you, I will have a think about where we go from here & if I do decide to progress with a claim with an initial letter, if I can pass it through you to check, I would be very grateful.  Thank you so much again for your assistance to date
    • Yes she told me she had a large company install cctv they didn’t install what they said and she took them to court and won , she then had another person fit them and there was a problem with her tv signal threatened him so he just took them out and gave her her money back . I didn’t know this until after I had installed them and she said the tv was playing up last time she had them fitted 🤦🏼‍♂️ ... this is why I’m so sure it’s nothing to do with what I installed she was happy I told her the problem was with her old analogue aerial and I would go in the loft and switch it to the digital one she declined , told her I would install the cctv on her laptop , mobile phone or connect to tv via router she declined all soloutions . There was no problem with the cctv working through her tv no break lines or pixels , just her tv signal  ive been back and forth trying to sort it out 
    • Quick question for my education (and I hope the OP's).   When sending copies of notices and evidence etc to a defendant, should it be sent recorded delivery or is first class with proof of postage sufficient (or even better)?   Can't recorded delivery be refused by the recipient?  And if it is refused, can a defendant legitimately argue that it was never received?   Sorry - don't want to drag this thread off topic but it seems sort of relevant.
  • Our picks

    • My personal experiences of Future Comms 
       
      Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!
      • 0 replies
    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
eoghan

received unknown Link Financial tomlin for GE Money loan

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2926 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi, I have attached a cca I filled in back in 2008,

I came apon hard times and my 'debt' has been passed onto Link Financial who have written to ask me if I'd like to accept a Tomlin Order.

From reading the threads, this seems like a bad idea.

 

Before I progress can someone have a look over my CCA and let me know if they can find fault with it,

 

I suspect thay may have added the fee before calculating the interest, but not sure if calculating it correctly.

 

All help of course greatly appreciated.

 

Best Regards,

Eoghan

ge_money_link_financial1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the subject of legal action ????!!!

 

Please report Link to the Office Of Fair Trading,....they seem to think they can ask you to sign a Tomlin Order which is completely against the OFT's guidelines on debt collection -

d. unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language,

 

I would also say this is also against CPUTR2008 which clearly states...

 

(b)it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—

(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and

(ii)the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,

and it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances.

 

Link are a member of the Credit Services Association which has it's own code of conduct.....in it's code it clearly states -

" Comply with Debt Collection Guidance as Published by the Office of Fair Trading" - their actions are a clear breach of their so called associations code.


PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@42man. Thanks for your response. How do you think I should play this. When you say give the link to the office of fair trading do you mean this post here at CAG or do you mean something else.

Should I write a formal complaint to the fos as well citing the legislation above?

 

Cheers.

Eoghan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are the terms and conditions on the document ? is there a reference to them anywhere?

 

I'll get them posted tomorrow.

 

Here's the T's and C's

 

Anyone reckon they've added the charge before calculating the interest as per the 1st post?

 

Cheers,

Eoghan

ge_money_link_financial_tcsandcs.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about this but as there is no reference to the terms and conditions on the agreement it may not be enforceable. I am sure that someone more knowledgable will be along soon to either confirm this or shoot me down in flames


Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oft have got back to me and say they won't look at individual cases, so they're no longer interested. Should I write to the financial ombudsman?

 

Can someone have a look at the attached PDF in post 1 to see if the cca is ok?

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone that help me find out if this is an enforceable CCA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eoghan

I found it difficult to read your PDF as it is very faint, but from what I can see it seems to be enforcable. I think what 42man refers to is that Link should not be asking you to comply with a tomlin order as tomlins should only be used when legal action is underway. (Has a court claim been brought against you?) Link are breaking oft guidelines about debt collection and it is to this that 42man refers, not about the enforcability of the agreement. Also, in what they are suggesting, they are operating unfairly and may be breaking CPUTR2008 statute. Are you paying anything to Link at the moment? What is your hopeful outcome here? Have you suggested a payment plan yourself to Link (in writing)?

Remember, don't talk to Link on the telephone under any circumstances. Keep everything to writing only.


< < < < If I can help I will and if I have helped please tip my scales. :|

Please keep this site alive by downloading the great new CAG toolbar - keeps all your subscribed threads in one easy to use place. http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/cag_plugin.php Use the search facility regularly and CAG generates much needed money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Eoghan

I found it difficult to read your PDF as it is very faint, but from what I can see it seems to be enforcable. I think what 42man refers to is that Link should not be asking you to comply with a tomlin order as tomlins should only be used when legal action is underway. (Has a court claim been brought against you?) Link are breaking oft guidelines about debt collection and it is to this that 42man refers, not about the enforcability of the agreement. Also, in what they are suggesting, they are operating unfairly and may be breaking CPUTR2008 statute. Are you paying anything to Link at the moment? What is your hopeful outcome here? Have you suggested a payment plan yourself to Link (in writing)?

Remember, don't talk to Link on the telephone under any circumstances. Keep everything to writing only.

 

Link picked the debt up from GE Money after I wrote asking for confirmation of the debt using a templated letter from the Freeman site - the debt was then sold to Link who did send me a copy of the deed of assignment and the copy of the CCA I uploaded. I have made no offer to pay Link anything, nor will I do so while they are unable to substantiate that the debt is actually mine.

 

I suppose the best outcome would be I don't have to pay anything out to Link. They bought the debt and cleared it - it shows on my credit file GE Money Satisfied, then a new entry for Link for which I have no CCA... I don't get his at all - that's like me paying of your debts without your permission and then asking you for the money without any proof of who I am and why I paid the debt off - it's nuts.

Ultimately if I have to pay then I'll pay - I just want to know if it's enforceable before I go down the legal route.

 

As stated in an earlier post - OFT have written back - they don't look at individual cases... So here's an Financial Institution in clear breach of the OFT guidelines and they don't care. Madness.

 

The question is where do I go from here - FOS complaint or bite the bullet?

 

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate Link but did win against them in court, did you receive a Default Notice from G E Money?

 

HH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate Link but did win against them in court, did you receive a Default Notice from G E Money?

 

HH

 

 

I don't recall a Default Notice - would have thought so though. What tactic did you use to win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't bother with FOS. You could write to Credit Services Association, but I'd be tempted to simply sit on it for now and await further action.

 

I'm not quite sure what you want to achieve as everything so far seems to be above board and legit. A debt can legally be sold on and they have sent you the assignment to show the new owners. They shouldn't have sent you a tomlin order, but now that they have, its done and if oft aren't interested then not much you can do, though you might try trading standards?

 

I would suspect the best you could hope for would be some kind of deal to pay off the full debt at maybe 40% eventually? Otherwise, as sure as eggs is eggs they will take you to court unless you are paying something and have some kind of plan in place. Also, if you are paying nothing, the judge will not look as kindly on you as if you do try and keep up some kind of payment.

Of course, this is all my own opinion and is not expert advice at all.


< < < < If I can help I will and if I have helped please tip my scales. :|

Please keep this site alive by downloading the great new CAG toolbar - keeps all your subscribed threads in one easy to use place. http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/cag_plugin.php Use the search facility regularly and CAG generates much needed money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have an update on this one.

Received an allocation questionnaire from the court, case to be heard on the 18 th April.

 

I wrote to the return address on the Tomlin Order outlining a defence, I had no contract with Link, trying to use a statute route to defend. Link then then failed to respond within the time frame and a stay was put n the case. Link then applied to av the stay lifted as they were sorry and inadvertantly let the date slip by without filing. So the court has lifted the stay and now we go o court. Thing is, the Tomlin Order was sent to me before any legal action was started...

 

Anyone see a way of defending this action...

 

OK, here's the response to the questionnaire, this will be added under section G, further information... Comments please!

 

For and on the record:

The defendant has at all times acted with honour by offering conditional agreement to pay the alleged debt, thus removing any controversy in this matter.

The claimant has systematically blocked and dodged the open and proper procedures in relation to this case.

He who brings the liability must also bring the remedy, therefore under CPR 18 all paperwork in relation to the case to be submitted to the defendant. Nothing relevant was forthcoming therefore deliberately disadvantaging the defendant, for example the claimant references a Notice of Assignment issued to them, but still provide no evidence of the actual deed of assignment.

I would argue that this is a very important piece of evidence that the claimant should have provided when so requested under CPR18.

It is not the defendants position to prove their innocence in this matter when clearly the burden of proof rests squarely with the claimant, therefore it is the Claimants responsibility in this matter to prove the debt exists between the defendant and the claimant and at no time have they done this even when requested via proper channels eg the Notices sent to the Claimant requesting proof of the debt and CPR18.

Also, for and on the record without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation the defendant is unable to assess if the defendant is indeed liable to the claimant, nor is the defendant able to assess if the alleged agreement has been properly executed, contains the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 consumer credit act 1974.

 

 

For example:

• Use of unfair terms and conditions in the underwriting of agreements.

• Annual Percentage Rate (APR) being unclear or wrong.

• Important information missing from the agreement.

• Use of misleading and / or incorrect information or figures.

At no time has any contract between the Claimant and the Defendant been shown to exist.

If indeed the Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a 3rd Party; the original liability between the Defendant and the 3rd Party has been discharged as demonstrated by the Defendants Credit Record which clearly shows the debt as dissolved, therefore ensuring there is no further liability on the defendant’s part.

 

Furthermore, at no time has the Defendant given the claimant permission to process her data pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998. Furthermore, if the Claimant has indeed purchased the alleged debt, how much did they actually pay for it, when did they pay for it and by what means was the payment made and recorded, as surely it would be improper for a company to purchase an alleged debt for say £100 and then claim that the person they paid on behalf of still owed them the original £200. This is tantamount to a fraud. Can the claimant prove they bought the alleged debt and if so for how much?

Furthermore, the debt collection practices of the Claimant have been aggressive and vexatious. The claimant sent a pre-filled out Tomlin Order to the Defendant which is completely against the OFT's guidelines on debt collection -

d. unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language,

 

I would further argue this is debt collection practice is against CPUTR2008 which clearly states...

 

(b)it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—

(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and

(ii)the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational,

and it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances.

 

The Claimant is a member of the Credit Services Association which has it's own code of conduct.....in it's code it clearly states -

"Comply with Debt Collection Guidance as Published by the Office of Fair Trading" – quite clearly demonstrating their actions are a clear breach of their so called association’s code.

 

Furthermore, the Claimant has been sending correspondence that states the amount owed is varied – that is, in one document dated 29th Sep 2010 the amount owed is £2879.66 and in another document dated 7th Feb 2011 the amount owed is £3173.69. It is therefore unreasonable to expect the Defendant to know exactly how much she is allegedly liable for.

 

Finally, the Claimant has failed to follow proper Court Procedure Rules by filing documentation under CPR31 and 18 and filing paperwork within the agreed timelines set down by the court.

 

It is my belief that the claimant has no prospect of success in this matter and asks the court to file for the defendant upon which we will serve a counter claim against the Claimant for three times the presented liability plus costs for researching this matter, court appearance, and undue distress caused to the defendant during the last few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Was wondering if anyone can help with the following response I got from the court?

 

1. Does he admit the agreement with British Gas dated 02 April 2008?

2. Does he admit service of the default notice?

3. Does he admit the arrangement of the debt to the claimant?

4. If not in respect of 1-3, why not?

5. If the documents were admitted the defendant must set out concisely the nature of his defence to the claim.

 

This information and any accompanying documents should be delivered to the court on or before 4pm on 11 May 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened at the hearing on 18th April. Did you attend, I presume it was a CMC?

 

Having looked at your agreement I don't think it can be challenged except for the fact that the T&Cs are missing so may be you could point this out

 

Did you receive the DN - if not say "I do not recall receiving a DN and put the Claimant to strict proof that a DN was ever sent. Link will s##t one when they realise one has not been sent and will try their best to pretend one has. I would only say this if you are certain that no DN was sent to you.

 

Sorry have you had an arrangement with GE Money/Link - where did this question come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi hammyhound thanks for the reply, glad to know someone's out there...

 

A default notice was received from GE Money before it was sold to Link, but I have never got one from Link... The first I knew Link were involved a letter stating that I owed them x amount of £s and then the Tomlin Order came shortly after when I ignored their letters, let's face it, some company out of the blue claiming I owed them money, oh yeah sure here ya go even though I've never heard of ya ever!

 

I never had an arrangement to pay Link, there is no contract between Link and myself, never has been, no special arrangement to pay GE Money was ever put in place either...

 

Got my dates mixed up, the 18 th was for filing the AQ not a hearing...

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

Apologies for the very late notice on this one.

 

The court received my response from post a above and asked Link to provide proof of Assignment, Letters basically everything they are relying on for the court hearing.

 

My response needs to be filed tomorrow!!!!

 

I've got so many of these cases I just lost track of this one.

 

They sent me a copy of the orignal credit agreement which is in the 1st post above, they also sent me copies of the default notices that were sent by GE Money (NONE were ever sent by Link), and a copy ofthe Assignment of Debt with a letter dated 25th August notifying me that this had occured and that I now owed Link the money (don't ever remember getting this one in particular)

 

So now I need to file my defence in response to those documents by 4pm tomorrow... Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...