Link Claimform - old GE Money Debt - **STRUCK OUT** reinstated **WON AGAIN + COSTS**

[ziggy04]

Hi Magda, thanks for your comments & support on my thread, as the devious HFO services have purchased your debt, you may want to read a few threads about them on C A G, , Broken Arrow has just lost his case against them due to their antics & an unsympathic judge, poor thing & theres another one by Rosie123 who won her case & many others documenting their dodgy practices , i don't know how to do links i'm afraid but you could search under hfo services, they certainly make interesting reading, i'm sure you'll do ok ,as you have done so well against asset link, will keep in touch take care ziggy

[MAGDA]

Many thanks Ziggy, will have a good read of those threads, i'm sure it won't be too long before HFO start causing problems if your experience is anything to go by. Thanks for all your support, will let you know how I get on with Link (hoping another one will be struck out tomorrow - fingers crossed) and will keep an eye on your thread, Magda

[MAGDA]

Hi again, I now have one claim officially struck out, two others are now set to be struck out, just waiting for the court to draw up the order and send it out - but Link has missed the deadline anyway!!! The final claim is proceeding (Link has paid the hearing fee, so they seem set of pursuing this one for some reason - strange why, out of the four, they are only going ahead with one??) Anyway, the query I have relates to the claim for which I now have a hearing set - The 'agreement' shows that I had PPI on the loan, which at the time we were told we would need to have, or it was unlikely they would grant the loan, although it is supposed to be optional. Also it ran, I believe, for five years and the loan was for ten. I have repeatedly asked for details on the PPI directly from Link and also through the court. The court ordered Link to provide a complete response to my defence, but they did not mention PPI when responding at all. I do not know who the PPI Insurance was with (I don't have any policy and not sure if I ever did) and the only details I have relate to the amount of the loan and the amount of PPI charged. I thought I cancelled the PPI at one point, but the original loan amount had not (and did not) change and still includes the PPI, the total amount on which I am being charged interest. I was wondering if I should write to Link prior to the hearing and explain that I believe this is a mis-sold PPI and that I have asked for details on several occasions, but not received anything, and therefore this would mean that the amount they are claiming in court (if the court decide the debt is enforceable - currently I am claiming that it is not) is inaccurate (the account also has unlawful charges - not a great amount, but still significant with interest they have been charging). So do you think I should query the PPI officially, or wait until I am at court and bring the subject up again at that point??? I did mention again in my amended defence that I had requested full details of the PPI, but had not received this. Thanks, Magda

Edited September 24, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[pudsters14]

Well done Magda...

 

I have had a whole other set of vultures to deal with recently i.e. my employers... lots going on so haven't really had time to get myself on here... have also been really ill and still am so am trying to recover at the mo... will keep you updated...

 

My directions hearing is november so will keep you informed as and when anything happens....

 

Well done again for getting one struck out... heres to the other three going the same way too!!!!!

 

Pudst

x x x x

[MAGDA]

Well, I had some bad news recently. Two of my claims remain as before "struck out" but a third claim, which had been struck out by the court has been reinstated. Asset Link claimed not to have received any of the orders (yes, right!!!) and they submitted an application asking for the court's clemency in the matter and requesting that the claim be reinstated. It makes me furious really that they had two chances in which to respond to my defence and didn't bother, although it was over a period of a couple of months or more, and then suddenly, they claim not to have received the paperwork. The judge has reinstated the claim (as I knew he would) and doesn't consider it necessary to have a hearing beforehand to allow us to discuss this. So two claims up and running again now.......

 

Magda

[ziggy04]

hi Magda, i'm gutted for you, that's dreadful, i have read on here through other threads , that dca's go back to court to have cases reinstated, depiite them being strck out. they have been obstructive & down right devious, of course we know that they have, depite many requests for information & plenty to time to repond to these requests failed to do so leaving the defendant at a clear disadvantage making it difficult to present a defence, i wonder if courts automatically reinstate cases as a matter of routine, or just rubber stamp the request ,without even glancing through the case histiory, i expect Link are hoping that you will give up & not persue it further. personally i think many judges are unsympathetic to defendants, & presume that if the dca's say you owe the money then pay up, including all the extortionate charges levied on the account.

In my own case with the charging order, the iterim charge is granted without a hearing the first you know of it is when a letter lands on the doormat, how unfair is that ! especially as it was an unsecured debt.

what annoys me that dca's & such like are poorly regulated , totally disregard the law, ignore court procedures etc; the trouble is they get away with it because they can. don't know how they sleep at night.

So what happens now do you know ? have you got to wait for a new court date ? maybe some knowledgeable people will be along to give you some advice , ziiggy

[MAGDA]

Hi Ziggy, nice to hear from you. Yes, I was really annoyed that they can just claim not to have received any of the orders and then get the claim reinstated. It's all so easy for them. What is the point of ordering them to comply by a certain date if they can blatantly ignore it and still proceed with the claim anyway. Oh well, At least they don't seem to be pursuing the other two claims, so I guess that is something. I too think the courts are very biased, they don't seem to realise, or just don't care perhaps, what these companies are really like and the sheer misery they subject people to. The judge has given them until mid October to respond to my defence (which they've now done anyway) and then I guess a date for a hearing will be set. Just have to see what happens on the day then, thanks again and hope you are doing ok, Magda

[tiokim]

subscribing

[MAGDA]

Hi, I'd appreciate some advice with regard to two ex GE money a/c's. The debts were purchased by Asset Link, who recently issued court claims for both. The claims proceeded (along with two other claims) to the AQ stage and beyond, but the claimant then failed to respond to a court order for information and the claims were struck out (at my request). In the meantime, Link did respond to my defence on one of the claims, but it was too late, as the claim had already been struck out, and they haven't applied to the court so far to have the claim reinstated. They stated in their response that statements for the account(s) were no longer available as the OC had not retained them, so all they were able to provide was the last statement and the figures they have since acquiring the debt. The above is just some background so that I can explain the situation now.

 

I am making regular payments anyway on the above mentioned accounts, but as there apparently aren't any statments, I now have a problem. I am sure, knowing GE Money/Link, that there were considerable unlawful charges applied to both these accounts. However, if, as they say, there aren't any statements available, I have absolutely no way of knowing how much in total these charges are. I do not want to continue paying off a debt for say £1500 in full, when in actual fact I probably only owe a percentage of this. Any ideas on what I should do in this situation? I don't know why Link did not proceed with these claims, for some reason they seemed to decide not to go ahead. They are still going ahead with two other claims though, one was struck out, but reinstated as they claimed not to have received the court orders!

 

The other matter relates to wasted costs. Can I claim back costs against the claimant as the claims were struck out due to their non compliance with court orders? If so, can I follow the same procedure used by someone claiming back cost when they have initiated the claim, i.e., someone claiming back unlawful charges?

 

Third and final query relates to court costs, etc. On checking the figures that Link did provide for the more recent transactions, they have claimed court fees and also made an adjustment (they aren't using a solicitor) for in excess of £100 (think without checking the adjustment is for around £130). Can they do this, there isn't any explanation as to what the adjustment relates to, but it was made on the same date as the court costs were added?

 

Many thanks for any help. Magda

[42man]

Hi Magda....have you sent a SAR to GE ??

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda....have you sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to GE ??

 

I did send a SAR for one of the accounts when the court case was first initiated, then the cpr 18 letter. In response to the SAR, Link provided a couple of copy letters, transcripts of half a dozen or so phone conversations and not much else, apart from a copy of the CCA. When they received my defence from the court, they eventually wrote and said that they were getting the statements etc from the OC, but didn't ever hear from them again. So, the £10 I paid for the SAR was in fact a complete waste of money as they provided very little in response. They claim in their response to my defence (after being ordered by the court) that GE no longer has the statements, apart from the final one. The claim is no longer proceeding as it has been struck out, but I still want to know what exactly (if anything) I owe, as a lot of the debt will be unlawful charges. Guess I could now try sending a SAR to GE Money, although when I've spoken to them on the phone, they claim to have passed everything on to Link, and said that the SAR will just be returned along with my cheque. Magda

[MAGDA]

Can I use cpr 32.18 in order to get them to admit whether or not a DN was issued, and proof of this, if they say that it was?

[MAGDA]

Steven, could you give me some help regarding a PPI. One of the accounts for which a claim has been issued has a PPI. We were told at the time that if we didn't agree to this, the loan would most certainly be declined. What we didn't realise is that we would be paying interest on the amount for the full 10 years, and the insurance actually only provided cover for 5 at most. I seem to remember telephoning FNB shortly after the loan was agreed, I think it was around 11 months or so after the loan started, to cancel the PPI, as we didn't want it in the first place. I did not receive any refund and the premium remained in the actual loan balance. From what I can gather, looking at the figures, FNB made a slight reduction to the amount of interest being charged and repayments reduced from £33 per month to £31 or thereabouts. The account fell into difficulty someway down the line and the outstanding balance is of course higher than it would have been without the PPI and associated interest charges. This is a bit confusing, and just wondering if I can claim anything back on this now. Many thanks, magda

[MAGDA]

Well, I don't know which charm school the people at my local court went to, but they are the most unpleasant, unhelpful bunch of people you could have the misfortune to encounter. If you dare to ring to query something, or to get an update, they are extremely rude and basically, this is because they don't think the defendant should be contacting the court at all. How on earth are you supposed to find anything out if you don't. I rang Northampton a couple of times in the early stages and they were quite helpful, a total contrast to my own court. I recently applied for two claims to be struck out on perfectly valid grounds. The court has refused to consider my application, which was submitted in letter form (although previously, this was perfectly acceptable to them) and will only consider it if the proper application is submitted at £75 a time, which I cannot afford at the moment, especially as the court might refuse my request anyway. I have complained about the rudeness of the staff members I have been dealing with, and I think they are now being awkward as a result. LIP have enough to deal with without this sort of behaviour by court staff. when I complained, the excuse was that they are under a lot of pressure as they have a high work load. Well, that really isn't an excuse at all - I have worked in high pressure jobs and I didn't feel the need to be rude to people. The courts are there to serve us all (in theory) and we should, if necessary, be able to query something without the need for rudeness on the part of court staff.

[angry cat]

by MAGDA:

 

Steven, could you give me some help regarding a PPI. One of the accounts for which a claim has been issued has a PPI. We were told at the time that if we didn't agree to this, the loan would most certainly be declined".

 

Sounds like you were mis-sold PPI on one of the accounts;

 

When did you discover the possibility of this, recently?

 

AC

[MAGDA]

Hi AC, yes it was after the court claim had been issued. At the time of commencing proceedings, Asset Link had not provided a copy of any credit agreement (or anything else) and the account was in dispute, but they still went ahead. On receiving my defence, they suddenly produced a copy of an agreement (nine months late) and this is when I noticed the PPI - I have been trying to get some information regarding this, but Asset Link have said it is basically not their concern! typical Asset Link response isn't it? Anyway, I'm trying to get as much ammunition as I can at the moment to fire at Asset and this is one thing that I think will be useful. I see you are still fighting the good cause on your thread, well done! Magda

[steven4064]

AC

 

I don't think the fact that they told you the loan would be declined if you dond't take out the PPI initself is enough to proved mis-selling. Normally, that is when they sell you a poliucy you cannot claim on (eg if you are unemployed, self empoyed or a pensioner). I may be wrong - it is not really my area of expertise.

 

MAGDA

 

Technically AL are right (unhelpful but correct) in that they jsut collect the debts. What the money was for is not their concern. You need to take it up with the OC

[MAGDA]

AC

 

I don't think the fact that they told you the loan would be declined if you dond't take out the PPI initself is enough to proved mis-selling. Normally, that is when they sell you a poliucy you cannot claim on (eg if you are unemployed, self empoyed or a pensioner). I may be wrong - it is not really my area of expertise.

 

MAGDA

 

Technically AL are right (unhelpful but correct) in that they jsut collect the debts. What the money was for is not their concern. You need to take it up with the OC

 

Hi Steven, thanks for your reply, I may also be wrong, but I believe if you are told that a loan may be refused unless you take out the PPI, this is a case for a mis-sold PPI, especially as the insurance only covered the payments for the first five years, but interest was charged for the full ten. The PPI is included in the amount being claimed by Asset Link in court, so I think it should be of concern to them (although being Asset Link they are as unhelpful as they possibly can be) because they are claiming this amount + the interest charged in addition to the others sums included. Many thanks, Magda

[gamekeeper01]

Hi Magda, I have been following your link with great interest. You are quite correct in that you have been mis sold PPI. You cannot sell it as a condition of loan. Some companys did this as a matter of course as they received very high rates of commission. And yes, the maximum it would cover you would be for five years. It was wrongly sold and therefore I would endeavour to get your premiums back plus interest.

I don't know when you took out your loan but you maybe timed out for putting in a complaint 5 years is usually the maximum (but I'm prepared to be corrected).

Good luck with your case.

These people are little devils!!!!

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda, I have been following your link with great interest. You are quite correct in that you have been mis sold PPI. You cannot sell it as a condition of loan. Some companys did this as a matter of course as they received very high rates of commission. And yes, the maximum it would cover you would be for five years. It was wrongly sold and therefore I would endeavour to get your premiums back plus interest.

I don't know when you took out your loan but you maybe timed out for putting in a complaint 5 years is usually the maximum (but I'm prepared to be corrected).

Good luck with your case.

These people are little devils!!!!

 

Thanks for your reply gamekeeper - I actually took out the loan in 1998 so it may be too late now to do anything about the PPI, but I guess it is still worth a try. The court cases are still a little way off, so I still have time to delve into things a bit more hopefully. Many thanks, Magda

[angry cat]

MAGDA, the reason that I asked;

 

"When did you discover the possibility of this, recently?"

was because of the statute of limitation.

 

You stated that your loan and PPI was taken out in 1998, which of course, is over six years ago. However, as it is only recently that, you have discovered the PPI could have been mis-sold to you, I do not consider that you claim re: PPI would be statute barred.

 

by MAGDA:

 

On receiving my defence, they suddenly produced a copy of an agreement (nine months late) and this is when I noticed the PPI - I have been trying to get some information regarding this, but Asset Link have said it is basically not their concern! typical Asset Link response isn't it?"

 

Well, AL would say that, wouldn't they!

 

At the end of the day, AL are chasing you for an oustanding balance which includes a large proportion of monies that relate to mis-sold PPI. Therefore, the the value of the alleged debt in incorrect.

AL may well try and pass the buck back to the OC, but they are chasing you for ALL the money.

As gamekeeper quite rightly states;

You cannot sell PPI a condition of a loan!

 

The above also brings up the same old question;

What sort of Assignment do AL claim to hold;

An absolute assignment?

 

They cannot have their cake and eat it!

 

AC

[MAGDA]

Hi AC, thanks for replying. I agree, I think as AL are claiming the full balance (inclusive of the PPI) then they should be responsible for providing the information that I need. They claim to have absolute assignment as you say, but we only have their word for that, without actually seeing the Deed. If it is absolute, then they should accept responsibility for providing the documents requested, but of course, AL are only too keen to issue court proceedings, but no so keen to prove the debt they are seeking to recover is valid. Think I will write to them again on this matter and see what sort of response I get! Many thanks, magda

Edited November 9, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[angry cat]

Hi AC, thanks for replying. I agree, I think as AL are claiming the full balance (inclusive of the PPI) then they should be responsible for providing the information that I need. They claim to have absolute assignment as you say, but we only have their word for that, without actually seeing the Deed. If it is absolute, then they should accept responsibility for providing the documents requested, but of course, AL are only too keen to issue court proceedings, but no so keen to prove the debt they are seeking to recover is valid. Think I will write to them again on this matter and see what sort of response I get! Many thanks, magda

 

 

MAGDA, Link are responsible for providing you with all information; CPR 4.6.

 

You state that, Link claim to have 'Absolute Assignment', if that is the case, ask them for documentary evidence.

As previously stated, this particular issue keeps cropping up with Link and no, they cannot have their cake and eat it!

If Link are so keen to issue court proceedings, then of course and only in my opinion, you would have a valid counter claim;

that claim would probably have to be a cross claim against both Link and the OC, due to the fact that Link are hiding in the long grass.

 

If it was me, I would be making SAR's to Link and the OC requesting copies of the Deed of Sale,

Deed/Notice of Assignment, whether they be in paper form or on a CD Rom. Of course, neither will wish to supply these, but at the end of the day and under CPR 4.6 etc, they will have to!

 

 

Re: Link SAR, make sure that you mark your payment "SAR Fee Only" and make a copy of the PO.

 

AC

[tinkerbell20]

Hi Steven, thanks for your reply, I may also be wrong, but I believe if you are told that a loan may be refused unless you take out the PPI, this is a case for a mis-sold PPI, especially as the insurance only covered the payments for the first five years, but interest was charged for the full ten. The PPI is included in the amount being claimed by Asset Link in court, so I think it should be of concern to them (although being Asset Link they are as unhelpful as they possibly can be) because they are claiming this amount + the interest charged in addition to the others sums included. Many thanks, Magda

 

 

Yes it is missold if you were led to believe that you wouldn't get the loan without taking out the PPI

[MAGDA]

MAGDA, Link are responsible for providing you with all information; CPR 4.6.

 

You state that, Link claim to have 'Absolute Assignment', if that is the case, ask them for documentary evidence.

As previously stated, this particular issue keeps cropping up with Link and no, they cannot have their cake and eat it!

If Link are so keen to issue court proceedings, then of course and only in my opinion, you would have a valid counter claim;

that claim would probably have to be a cross claim against both Link and the OC, due to the fact that Link are hiding in the long grass.

 

If it was me, I would be making S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s to Link and the OC requesting copies of the Deed of Sale,

Deed/Notice of Assignment, whether they be in paper form or on a CD Rom. Of course, neither will wish to supply these, but at the end of the day and under CPR 4.6 etc, they will have to!

 

 

Re: Link SAR, make sure that you mark your payment "SAR Fee Only" and make a copy of the PO.

 

AC

 

Many thanks AC, this is really helpful. I will send a SAR re: the PPI - I think I will send it to the OC, as I sent a SAR to Link for one of the other accounts subject to court proceedings and they cashed the £10 and gave me practically nothing in return, just a couple of copy letter and another copy of the purported agreement, that was it, no default, statement of account, nothing - so it was basically a waste of money.

I have just sent cpr 31.14 requests off to Link to force disclosure of documents they have so far failed to produce, including the Deed of assignment, which as you say, I'm sure they won't wish to provide. The CPR letter was kindly adapted to suit my case (as the proceedings are quite far ahead) by Surfaceagent, so hopefully this might do the trick, but will still send the SAR anyway to see what I can find out regarding the PPI. It will be interesting as well to find out if Link's assignment is absolute as they claim! Many thanks, Magda

 

 

 

Yes it is missold if you were led to believe that you wouldn't get the loan without taking out the PPI

 

Thanks Tinkerbell, that's what I thought - going to send a SAR now and see what turns up. Magda