Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That explains it then. MET's fantasy is that it's a pay car park.  You're only let off paying if you are a Starbucks customer which you can't be when Starbucks is closed.  'Cos otherwise lots of people would abuse the car park facilities on the far edge of the Stansted Airport area in the middle of nowhere to ... admire the bushes?  Look at the cloudy sky? The important thing is that we have around 140 cases for this site, and MET have only tried court seven times.  Even then, they had no intention of getting as far as a hearing, they were attempting to intimidate the motorists into paying, when the Caggers defended the cases MET discontinued.
    • She's an only child and he as a brother and sister. He has no will and we have done a check on this to find out if he had left one and nothing has come up. He has savings of around 28k His sister and brother are well off so 28k is nothing to them and aren't interested in his money. This just leaves my wife/his daughter. Would this still need to go to probate there is no estate e.g house or business to sell and the amount left in his bank is just small? When his wife died they just closed her bank account and moved her money across to his account and we just assumed that once my wife has handed in the death certificate and shown evidence of who she is the same would apply to her? We don't know yet the council have only just written to us today with a guide of what to do next.  
    • Did your FiL leave a Will and if so who is the Executor? Strictly speaking banks could refuse to take instructions until Probate is granted but In practice I would expect the bank to take instructions to cancel the DD if the Executor presents the death certificate and a certified copy of the Will
    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
    • Yes, I believe the Starbucks was closed at the time the car was parked there 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


MAGDA
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4505 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Yes, you would think so wouldn't you, that would be they way you would normally expect it to work.

 

I do think a DN was issued back in 2004 when the account defaulted (and possibly a TN) but I don't have them, although Link issued their proceedings based on the fact that First National (before they became GE) had issued a DN, so according to them, it did exist.

 

Magda

 

I'm just reading your thread from the beginning as it seems I've just jumped in at the end because the thread appeared near the top of the forum, so I've probably been going over some old ground :oops:.

 

However, although you don't actually have a DN and/or TN, if the account has been terminated as you would imagine would be the case for Link to have made a court claim against you (but we all know that Link don't know their a55 from their elbow :rolleyes:), then surely you can argue that GE cannot default a terminated account (as per many other threads)?

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Rob, yes, hopefully if GE try to bring this claim again that's what I'll do, not to mention the fact that they probably don't have a legal assignment - they will need to prove this was all done correctly and legally right the way back to FN Bank, which is doubtful, especially where Link is involved.

 

regards, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob, yes, hopefully if GE try to bring this claim again that's what I'll do, not to mention the fact that they probably don't have a legal assignment - they will need to prove this was all done correctly and legally right the way back to FN Bank, which is doubtful, especially where Link is involved.

 

regards, Magda

 

Hi Magda

 

I think DonkeyB made some good points further up the thread, especially about hoping/accepting the assignment to Link being lawful and absolute.

 

It would have to be absolute for Link to have any right to action in their own name. So, if while they 'owned' the debt, they cocked thinks up, then all the better for you.

 

If it was lawfully and absolutely assigned to Link, then surely it should have been terminated first.

 

If Link took court action in an attempt to enforce payment of the alleged debt in full, then it would have to be already terminated, so somewhere along the line it must have been terminated!

 

Just posting the above to hopefully give you some further reassurance to what others have already said. ;)

 

Did you ever establish whether the agreement was enforceable?

 

I'm off out for a while, so I probably won't be around to reply.

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Magda

 

I think DonkeyB made some good points further up the thread, especially about hoping/accepting the assignment to Link being lawful and absolute.

 

It would have to be absolute for Link to have any right to action in their own name. So, if while they 'owned' the debt, they cocked thinks up, then all the better for you.

 

If it was lawfully and absolutely assigned to Link, then surely it should have been terminated first.

 

If Link took court action in an attempt to enforce payment of the alleged debt in full, then it would have to be already terminated, so somewhere along the line it must have been terminated!

 

Just posting the above to hopefully give you some further reassurance to what others have already said. ;)

 

Did you ever establish whether the agreement was enforceable?

 

I'm off out for a while, so I probably won't be around to reply.

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Hi Rob, thanks for the above. Yes, the agreement was enforceable, so my defence was based on other issues. Link still didn't have much of a claim though. No surprise there.

 

regards, Magda

 

Hi Magda,

 

As you know I've just got a court claim from Link in connection with GE/First National.

 

Cant offer help as this is a new experience but I offer full support to you, lets go get 'um :)

 

Regards

 

Beachy

 

Hi Beachy, Many thanks. I hope you wipe the floor with them as well, it's no more than they deserve.

 

best regards, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

MAGDA...Glad you did well with Link our hearings on monday in nottingham, for redetermination as payplan filled 1st claim in ... what did you sya at your hearing or put in as your defence as we also have another claim from to fill in now for a 2md debt they have bought but they havent provided us wit the cca request in the given time....

Link to post
Share on other sites

we had a defulat notoce from GE and not from link can link act upon that? can they also add there own default notices and charge over £130 if the account is terminated? more than twice in the last 3 months...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Somad, I defended on the basis of the DN mainly, but also the Assignment, NoA and for one of the claims, also the cancellation rights which GE did not provide (or hadn't proved otherwise)

 

If GE defaulted you and it is in the prescribed form and allows enough time to rectify the default, then yes, Link can use that one in court, in fact they should, although sometimes if they discover the DN was defective prior to proceedings, they do sometimes issue another one, but if the account was terminated, then they shouldn't issue any 2nd DN at all because you can't default something that no longer exists. It seems your account was terminated, so is the GE DN in the prescribed form etc? If not, and they try to use it, you can base your defence on that as well as anything else you may have.

 

The thing is, once proceedings have started they can't rely on any documents they then produce, incl the DN. They shouldn't be adding all these charges on either, so you could look to claim these back.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi just wondering if anyone thinks it would be a good idea to write to GE Money pointing out that the account was allegedly defaulted and subsequently terminated in 2004, as verified in Link's Statement of Case when they took us to court, and it is this DN that therefore must be relied upon in any future court action.

 

Also to mention that they cannot enter another default on my credit file as one was already placed on the credit file back in 2004 and the same account cannot be repeatedly defaulted, although the name of the creditor may be changed.

 

what do you think? should I wait and see what happens or pre-empt them with a letter along the lines of the wording above.

 

Many thanks, magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AC, yes, think you are right. I wasn't sure whether to write to them or not, but think that might actually make the situation worse. Will wait and see what happens over the next few weeks - you never know, it may all just go quiet again (hopefully!!)

 

thanks for the 'Link' will have a look.

 

Many thanks, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just an update. Received two letter from GE today, one is a Notice of Demand stating that I have not complied with the DN and if I fail to pay the Arrears stated within 7 days the full balance of the Account will become payable. They've charged a fee of £25 for that letter. The second letter is a Notice relating to default sums with a charge of £60 for the DN mentioned.

 

It states further that after 28 days I will incur interest at over 17% annual.

 

Great news!:rolleyes: this day started off really badly and it just keeps getting worse. Off to put my head in the oven now...

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magda, another Link Financial company!:

 

Name & Registered Office:

LINK FINANCIAL OUTSOURCING LIMITED

CAMELFORD HOUSE

89 ALBERT EMBANKMENT

LONDON

UNITED KINGDOM

SE1 7TP

Company No. 07059696

 

 

 

 

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 28/10/2009

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

 

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

None Supplied

 

Accounting Reference Date: 30/11

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 31/07/2011

Last Return Made Up To:

Next Return Due: 25/11/2010

 

Previous Names:

No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks AC and Donkey. I normally just take it in my stride most of the time, but today it all got a bit on top of me. One of those days. Will be back to normal tomorrow:)

 

The date of the original DN was back in 2004 AC, this one was dated so that they allowed nearly a month for me to rectify the default, so really covering their backs from that point of view.

 

Link claimed the debt was assigned absolutely (and this was confirmed by GE when I phoned to ask for details to send a SAR) and as far as I was aware the account was terminated, assigned and then Link took us to court. They seem to think it can just be passed back to GE when they no longer want it. I haven't received any new NoA, nothing. As Donkey mentioned they shouldn't be able to Default again once it is terminated surely.

 

If GE do take me to court I will be digging into these assignments a lot deeper, and the fact that I have already been defaulted almost 6 years ago.

 

I did post on the "Default Notice re-issue" thread as well and had a lot of good advice there also, so thanks all for your kind help, as always much appreciated.

 

take care, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Will be back to normal tomorrow:)"

 

Of course, you will MAGDA you are made of sterner stuff!

 

We will have to take a very closer look at that DN.

 

In the meantime, get a good night sleep and remember;

Link gave up the ghost on this one...

 

I fall apart at times but then wake up in the morning and;

pick up my spears and arrows again.

 

Love

AC et al.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear you have been down. All you can do is laugh :D. Especially at incompetence.

 

I think I will be in the same position in January if their letters are to go by. The last letter I got from GE just said they have the right to inform me every 6 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...