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

[MAGDA]

MAGDA, you have a right to see the Deed of Assignment + the Deed of Sale.

Clearly, Link do not wish you to have sight of these docs.

 

Well, you don't need to be a brain surgeon/rocket scientist, to work that one out, do you.

 

Same old story with Link...an EEU corp!

 

AC

 

Yes, you are right AC, going to really push this one, and if it kills me, I will get to see those documents - Link think people will be easily put off, but I have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so I am determined to push this as far as I can. Just hope the judge is half way reasonable, unlike the last one I had... Magda

[MAGDA]

Link received my amended defence and cpr 31.14 request on 10th June, but no response yet. If they don't respond in the next few days, should I submit an application for an order to strike out their claim? No DN, invalid NoA, no statements of account, refusal to allow sight of DoA + they have charged section 69 interest, which I believe they are not entitled to do on a CCA regulated agreement.

 

Received the amended order from the court today:

 

Link are now required to pay the costs.

 

Also date for hearing set in October, so still a way off yet.

 

Magda

[angry cat]

If you have requested the docs under Part 18 and then again Part 31, I don't see how a judge can refuse?

 

Do NOT be bullied, Link must disclose!

 

AC

[MAGDA]

Thanks AC - I will stick to my guns, I realise as time goes on that you sometimes really do need to stand up to the judge (in a polite way of course). The request for these docs was made in both cpr 18 and cpr 31.14 requests and all are mentioned in either the POC or in Link's response to my defence - so they have confirmed that these documents did (or do) exist, so I don't see how they can really wriggle out of this one. Same with the other claim that they recently had reinstated - no documents (apart from the alleged agreement) and yet they still try to railroad it through the courts.

 

Magda

[patrickq1]

Thanks for the above Bill, thought I had this all behind me, and now it appears I could soon be back to square one again, and the thing is, they probably still won't be able to reply fully to my defence so it will probably (hopefully) just end up being struck out again. Many thanks again, Magda

 

vexhatious springs to mind magda

go for it and mae a really strong case this time make surethey have no back door even if the dont turn up,also have you checked your credit file maybe just maybe they have put a marker on it and if they dont or cant supply paperwork then and if they have put a marker on you it is definately Vexhations and Defamation imo

patrickq1

[angry cat]

MAGDA, you must stand firm on this matter.

 

Your request for disclosure was not unreasonable!

How else can you proceed/defend, until you have sight of the documenatary evidence showing proof that, Asset Link are legally entitled to pursue...

 

Be Brave, I know that you are!!!

 

AC

Edited June 19, 2009 by angry cat
error

[MAGDA]

Thanks AC, as always your support is much appreciated.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

vexhatious springs to mind magda

go for it and mae a really strong case this time make surethey have no back door even if the dont turn up,also have you checked your credit file maybe just maybe they have put a marker on it and if they dont or cant supply paperwork then and if they have put a marker on you it is definately Vexhations and Defamation imo

patrickq1

 

Thanks Patrick, I remember when you were helping with my Link problems more than a year ago, and it is still going on, despite all four claim they brought either being struck out or discontinued - two are up and running again.

 

There are entries on my credit file for some of the Link accounts, but will need to check if this specific one is there. Link really don't have a very strong case at all IMO and yet they are still confident that they can win these court cases they bring - the word arrogant springs to mind.

 

I've been very lucky and getting a lot of help on this, so hopefully I will finally get the outcome I am hoping for, fingers crossed:)

 

regards, Magda

[MAGDA]

Well no response to my request to submit the amended defence, and no response to my cpr 31.14 request, I know that they received itwell over two weeks ago now, but they have completely ignored both issues. I have checked with the court and they have now paid the hearing fee, so they obviously intend to proceed. Just wondering now what my next move should be. I don't want to turn up at the hearing without knowing what documents they have or don't have before hand, as if they don't have them they have already stated they intend to rely on hearsay (on their allocation questionnaire) and our court is pretty biased and may allow this. The other thing is, if they do produce the docs then they will do so at the 11th hour to make sure I don't have enough time to judge the merit of what they produce. So, would it be a good idea to submit some kind of request to the court either to order them to produce these docs and if they can't, for the claim to be struck out, or to ask for summary judgement given that they do not appear to have a DN, no statements (only the last couple before debt was assigned, at whichpoint a DMP was in place anyway, so the accuracy is debatable) invalid NoA addressed to my husband. So, given all of this I don't really see what case they actually have. Also, as they have not responded, I don't know either if they consent to the amended defence or not. Surely they are legally obliged to reply. Many thanks, Magda

[MAGDA]

Just wondering, Link have said they will provide the copy DNs as soon as they have them, that is over a month ago now, and orignal request was 2008. Knowing Link they won't have them, or they will produce some reconstructed document at the 11th hour, just before I'm due to attend the hearing. It would be nice to know where I stand.

 

Is it a good idea to wait until the allocation hearing in a few weeks' time and ask the judge then to order these docs to be produced, or should I really do something sooner. The only problem is that I have the other Link claim ongoing as well, and any application carries a fee of £75.

 

thanks for any help,

 

Magda

[patrickq1]

i would be looking at a situation where they really have no case to answer and hearsay will not come into this not that i think a judge will accept that as being evidence considering they have already denied you access to any information...perhapes an injunction served upon them to apear before the judge to ask if they have the documents you have been requesting for the last year or so...and to include a claim for wilful and malicious damages against your person and for defamation...,i am thinking allowed magda it is so frustrating when they act like this i think the real reason is they have nothing to produce and seem to think it is now safe just to string you along to the courtroom door then try to drop the case again...with this i would remind them that you shall now insist this is heard by the trial judge with regards to your claim for malicious prosecution and whatever else you can throw at the judge without the judge thinking you are being wilful huh

patrick

[MAGDA]

i would be looking at a situation where they really have no case to answer and hearsay will not come into this not that i think a judge will accept that as being evidence considering they have already denied you access to any information...perhapes an injunction served upon them to apear before the judge to ask if they have the documents you have been requesting for the last year or so...and to include a claim for wilful and malicious damages against your person and for defamation...,i am thinking allowed magda it is so frustrating when they act like this i think the real reason is they have nothing to produce and seem to think it is now safe just to string you along to the courtroom door then try to drop the case again...with this i would remind them that you shall now insist this is heard by the trial judge with regards to your claim for malicious prosecution and whatever else you can throw at the judge without the judge thinking you are being wilful huh

patrick

 

Hi Patrick, it is very frustrating - I know they have received all of my correspondence because I checked with Royal Mail. I think they actually will turn up at court on the day of the hearing because they think they can talk the judge around to their way of thinking. They employ some extremely dubious legal people and unpleasant really doesn't describe them adequately. I have two lots of costs outstanding now, and although it is only a small amount, Link has no intention of paying them. I don't care about the actual money (it's only a small sum) but it is the principle of it. Think maybe I will have to do as you say and get some kind of court order to force them to disclose what they have (which I doubt is very much). many thanks Patrick, magda

[patrickq1]

Preliminary injunction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MAGDA]

many thanks for the above Patrick, will have a look. Hope you are well, Magda

[citizenB]

+ they have charged section 69 interest, which I believe they are not entitled to do on a CCA regulated agreement.

 

 

 

Magda

 

Correct, they arent allowed to:D

 

Claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act, 1984 which the Claimant should surely know they are not entitled to by virtue of the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order, 1991 (SI 1991 No. 1184 (L. 12)) in particular section 2(3)(a), which clearly prohibits such an award:

 

· The general rule

 

2(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment - (a) is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

 

County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) - Statute Law Database

 

HTH

[MAGDA]

Correct, they arent allowed to:D

 

Claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act, 1984 which the Claimant should surely know they are not entitled to by virtue of the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order, 1991 (SI 1991 No. 1184 (L. 12)) in particular section 2(3)(a), which clearly prohibits such an award:

 

· The general rule

 

2(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment - (a) is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

 

County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) - Statute Law Database

 

HTH

 

Hi CB, I thought that was the case, so thanks for confirming it. Another little bit of ammunition I can use against them:D

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Still no response from Link regarding amended defence or cpr 31.14 - it is being completely ignored. Received a cheque for last lot of costs, but they have not bothered to pay the original costs - I have been advised by the court to write in and verify the situation regarding these, as the clerks who answer the phone obviously cannot provide an answer. The last hearing was very ambiguous, Link did not want to pay the costs and the judge was extremely vague in response. But, no order has been made revoking the costs, so will get that clarified.

 

On the matter of the amended defence and cpr 31.14 request, think I will have to apply to the court on an N244 and ask that they be ordered to respond or the claim will be struck out - although not sure whether summary judgement is a better option. Another option of course would be to send a cpr 31.14 chasing letter, but not sure which option would be best in this situation.

 

Any help much appreciated - don't know if you are around IGNM, but would be grateful for your opinion on this if you have the time - I know you have been busy lately.

 

Many thanks, Magda

Edited June 27, 2009 by MAGDA

[I've got no money]

I am conscious of the fact that time is moving on - you really have 2 options:-

 

1. Do an N244 now and request permission to amend and an order that they comply with your 31.14 request

OR

2. Do another letter - give them 7 days to respond to your request to amend the defence and to give you the 31.14 disclosure - you'd need to tell them that if you didn't receive both that you would apply to the court for the appropriate orders and for the costs of the application

 

Personally I'd go for option two - then as soon as the extra 7 days are up I would make an application to the court

 

As far as the unpaid costs are concerned - I'd write to them, separately,

and enclose a copy of the order and point out that the costs are still outstanding and that they are in breach of the order. Tell them that if the costs are not paid within 7days that you will enforce the costs order. Point out that if you are forced to enforce the order that additional costs will be incurred.

[MAGDA]

I am conscious of the fact that time is moving on - you really have 2 options:-

 

1. Do an N244 now and request permission to amend and an order that they comply with your 31.14 request

OR

2. Do another letter - give them 7 days to respond to your request to amend the defence and to give you the 31.14 disclosure - you'd need to tell them that if you didn't receive both that you would apply to the court for the appropriate orders and for the costs of the application

 

Personally I'd go for option two - then as soon as the extra 7 days are up I would make an application to the court

 

As far as the unpaid costs are concerned - I'd write to them, separately,

and enclose a copy of the order and point out that the costs are still outstanding and that they are in breach of the order. Tell them that if the costs are not paid within 7days that you will enforce the costs order. Point out that if you are forced to enforce the order that additional costs will be incurred.

 

Hi IGNM, many thanks for the above. Think I will go with option 2, I agree, that sounds like the best option at the moment. I will also write separately regarding the costs. I wasn't sure really what the most appropriate option would be in this situation, so thanks for your help. I realise you are busy at the moment, so I do appreciate you taking the time.

 

Regards, Magda

[MAGDA]

Do I need to take anything to the Allocation hearing? such as a witness statement as to why it should be assigned to small claims and not fast track, or any other paperwork relevant to the case?

 

thanks, Magda

[MAGDA]

I have been looking at the interest Link has been charging - the original (alleged) agreement with FNB stated an interest rate of 12.9 APR and 1.016 pm. The figures provided since Link were assigned the debt didn't appear to add up based on this. I have checked the t&cs provided by Link (from FNB) and they state: "In the event of FNB's base rate increasing or decreasing after this agreement takes effect, the rate of interest (at letter D on front of agreement) may be increased/decreased by 1/12th (the monthly equivalent) of such change."

 

I wrote to Link to ask them to confirm the rate of interest they have been charging and received the following:

 

March 2005 - 13.29%, August 2006 - 13.54% November 2006 - 13.79, the rate continues to increase in this way, with December 2007 - 14.89% and October 2008 16.84%.

 

I have tried to find out FNB's base rates at these date, but no luck, and also FNB ceased to trade and became GE Money I think around 2005ish so not sure where Link are getting these rates from, or indeed, if they are correct.

 

Would appreciate any help from anyone who can help in this sort of issue, Many thanks, Magda

[semyaza]

Just thought perhaps I should put my new thread here?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/208487-hello-ge-money-after.html

 

Magda, I know you have other issues to deal with, has GE taken any further action? Is anybody else in this situation?

[angry cat]

Hi DG, well the judge went throught the file and it turns out that Link had already applied to have the claim reinstated back in Oct last year when they submitted a letter (not a proper application). The judge who looked at their letter refused to reinstate it. I didn't know any of this and neither did their solicitor, so don't think he was very happy as it made him seem a bit stupid. The judge said as a judicial decision had been made twice by a judge at the same level as him, he couldn't really reinstate the claim without basically making a mockery of the law. He did say they could appeal, so will have to wait and see what happens. So not a bad result really, at least they didn't get their own way today anyway:D Magda

 

 

 

"The judge said as a judicial decision had been made twice by a judge at the same level as him, he couldn't really reinstate the claim without basically making a mockery of the law."

 

Very Good MAGDA, worth the fight wasn't it.

 

Love

AC

[MAGDA]

Hi AC, unfortunately, since then, Link went back to court yet again (they had the above order revoked) and the judge at this hearing then reinstated their claim. However, their claim is very flawed (re: DN, NoA, etc) so unless the judge is a complete idiot (which I'm hoping he won't be) Link shouldn't have any chance of winning this, fingers crossed. I intend to see this through 'til the end, so hopefuly the fight will be worth it eventually!! Got the hearing in October. regards:), Magda

[MAGDA]

Well, no response from Link re: submitting my amended defence, they have ignored both my letters on this point.

 

Secondly they have ignored my request (reminder) for payment of costs, outstanding for last six months. It is only for around £50 but I really want to force them to pay. The money isn't a big amount at all (hardly life changing:rolleyes:) but I wonder if it is possible still to enforce payment, or whether the amount would be considered too small? Can I do this IGNM?

 

Thirdly, still no DN or Assignment docs. They finally responded to my reminder letter (third one cpr 31.14) and gave a vague response that they are trying to get the documents and will forward at some point. I wrote back and said that they have had more than a year since proceedings began and I would require a definite date to be stated, or will obtan a court order. They wrote again today stating that "As it appears we are having some difficulty in obtaining these documents for you, may we suggest that you contact the OC direct and request the documentation from them as this may speed things up." Now why doesn't that strike me as a good idea:confused:

 

Considering that I have now been requesting these documents, first by cpr 18 and later by cpr 31.14, for well over a year, I guess my next move now is the N244??

 

Magda