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

[42man]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/126664-court-hearing-25th-feb-15.html

[MAGDA]

Thanks 42 man, will have a look Magda

[MAGDA]

Reading the above thread, wasn't it the case that the claimant discontinued. Does that make any difference, in my case the claim was struck out as the claimant hadn't responded to my defence. They are now claiming that they missed the deadline (2nd time around - as the judge gave them two separate opportunities to respond) by a couple of days and in view of this now want it reinstated (6months down the line) Thank, Magda

 

ps one other thing, just so that I have my facts straight. The claimant has confirmed that the original creditor has not kept the statements relating to the account, they only have one of the latter statements and their own figures since taking over the debt, and I don't think this is enough to actually prove the debt. For example, there would have been significant unlawful charges (GE cap debt originally at £25 a pop) but I have no way of working out what is owed still, if anything, as no statements. Also this claimant has a habit of stating figures that are totally wrong and the next month stating another figure which is completely different again. Magda

Edited March 17, 2009 by MAGDA

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Magda

I'm sure I read somewhere that while costs remain unpaid the claimant cannot take any further action

 

Its a in a CPR direction. Basically, a claimant cannot issue a new claim until the costs are paid from the previous action. Sorry, I can't remember the rule at the moment. I was in a similar position.

I think it would have been up to you to pursue your costs through the court, if the claimant had failed to cough up.

 

The claimant did not want a hearing

 

Do they ever?

 

 

Reading the above thread, wasn't it the case that the claimant discontinued. Does that make any difference

 

Yes, a claimant will have a hard time justifying resurrecting a previously discontinued claim, to a court. But, if their previous case has been struck out, and they have a half-believable excuse, I'd bet a different judge would give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

The claimant has confirmed that the original creditor has not kept the statements relating to the account

 

I don't think this is enough to actually prove the debt

 

 

Neither do I. How could they prove how the "debt" accumulated?

By the way, I trust you did a SAR, and they failed to send all statements to that request too?

 

Also this claimant has a habit of stating figures that are totally wrong and the next month stating another figure which is completely different again

 

Yes, they are probably trying to sound you out, to see if there's a figure you'd like to settle on!

 

 

Bill

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda

 

 

Its a in a CPR direction. Basically, a claimant cannot issue a new claim until the costs are paid from the previous action. Sorry, I can't remember the rule at the moment. I was in a similar position.

I think it would have been up to you to pursue your costs through the court, if the claimant had failed to cough up.

 

Right..... so I guess in my case, it isn't a new claim, it would be a continuaton of the old one (if it's reinstated) so the rule wouldn't apply?? What happened in your own case by the way?

 

 

Do they ever?

 

 

Yes, a claimant will have a hard time justifying resurrecting a previously discontinued claim, to a court. But, if their previous case has been struck out, and they have a half-believable excuse, I'd bet a different judge would give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Yes, that's the problem, I would bet money on it that the judge will let them reinstate even though they have left it six months, so their excuse, that they missed the deadline (twice) just doesn't ring true.

 

 

 

Neither do I. How could they prove how the "debt" accumulated?

By the way, I trust you did a SAR, and they failed to send all statements to that request too?

 

Yes, I did a SAR when they first started the court claim and they provided hardly anything in response, just a few details of some phone calls and a copy letter or two. They have also stated in their response to my defence that the OC doesn't have the statments. So on that basis, if GE Money were charging me £25 a month min in charges for a number of years, the claimant probably owes me money!! If I end up counter claiming they won't be able to prove my figures are correct, any more than they can prove that their own are, as they don't have statements.

 

Yes, they are probably trying to sound you out, to see if there's a figure you'd like to settle on!

 

Yes, you are probably right, wouldn't surprise me, or perhaps they are just stupid.

 

 

Bill

 

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

Edited March 18, 2009 by MAGDA

[creditcardmug]

subbing with interest

[Bill Shidding]

Right..... so I guess in my case, it isn't a new claim,

 

Afraid not.

 

it would be a continuaton of the old one (if it's reinstated) so the rule wouldn't apply

 

Correct, but you should point out the DJ that its taken them 6 months to get their finger out / why no docs at that time? / so how come they have them now? etc.

 

What happened in your own case by the way?

They paid my costs, and then re-issued. The DJ would only go so far, he wouldn't give me judgment (closure and with protection with res judicata).

 

I would bet money on it that the judge will let them reinstate

Dont leave it to chance, it depends on how good your argument is to stop them. If you use your "kung fu" you may see the application off.

 

Im sure you know that if docs are not disclosed in a SAR, they need a damn good reason / excuse to disclose *NEW* docs at a later date. Complain to the Information Commissioner if they have found any *new* docs since your SAR, and the docs are dated before your request.

 

Definition of *NEW*. Please check that the ink is dry.

 

From my own experience a DJ will consider your receipt of money (your costs) as full compensation for your loss of time. I would consider mentioning to the DJ at the hearing (if any) to re-instate, that you have yet to be compensated and that the claimant has been witholding your compensation (costs) despite a court order. If the claimant gets his wish to dispense with the hearing, make sure you put that into your objection.

 

 

Its a in a CPR direction. Basically, a claimant cannot issue a new claim until the costs are paid from the previous action

 

Just got to clarify this. A claimant can issue a new claim without paying the costs from the previous action. BUT all you need to do is make an application to the court, and the new claim will be automatically stayed until the claimant pays up. Sorry for the confusion, it was past my bedtime.

 

 

Bill

[MAGDA]

Many thanks for all of the above Bill, that really is very helpful. There is definitely going to be a hearing, so I will do my best to convince the judge that the claim should not be reinstated. If they had genuinely missed the deadline (albeit twice) then why did they wait six months and why didn't they object when the claim was first struck out. Very strange..... although nothing surprises me where this company are concerned. Many thanks again, will let you know how it goes, Magda

[MAGDA]

Hi, thought I would start a new thread on this. I was issued with a court claim by Link back in 2008 and successfully defended it - Link discontinued the claim. They stated at the time that GE Money wished to buy the debt back from them. Didn't hear anything further on this and more or less forgot about it. However, yesterday, G E Money suddenly made contact regarding this account by sending a Notice of Arrears and Statement of Account showing a 'reverse write-off'.

 

I asked for some advice regarding this on the main Credit Agreement thread and apparently when a debt is sold, the contract sometimes contains a clause that enables the assignee to return the debt to the assignor if things don't work out and recoup their losses. So, possibly, this is the case with the debts that Link has purchased.

 

It seems unfair that you defend the claim with all the associated hassle for months on end and if you win the claim they simply 'sell' it back to the OC, and it potentially all starts again.

 

The things I was wondering is: In their response to my defence, Link claim (and therefore GE Money gave them this info) that a DN was issued back in 2004 or so, but they are unable to prove this. In that case, now that G E Money has the debt back, i'm just a bit worried they may try to default again. Only one DN should ever be issued, otherwise we would never get our Credit Files back to normal for one thing, and as they claim to already have issued a DN, surely it will be very wrong if they suddenly Default me again. My credit file will be clear of all the defaults next year, so don't want any new ones now.

 

if anyone has any advice or experience of this, be great to hear fromyou, Magda

[BeauBrummie]

Hi Magda,

 

Did it actually go to court or did Link discontinue before any hearing.

 

Did you get notice of assignment from GE and "hello letter" from Link.

 

If sold were the rights sold "absolute" either way GE to Link and Link to GE

 

Beau

[diamondgirl]

Great for someone to beat Link at their own game:)DG

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda,

 

Did it actually go to court or did Link discontinue before any hearing.

 

Did you get notice of assignment from GE and "hello letter" from Link.

 

If sold were the rights sold "absolute" either way GE to Link and Link to GE

 

Beau

 

Hi Beau, A date was set for a hearing, but they discontinued beforehand and the only reason they gave was that the OC, GE Money, wanted to buy it back, which of course, wasn't the real reason at all. Link were assigned the debt absolutely, and they were/are the legal owner of it. I'm not sure if Link now need to reassign the debt or not, because apparently, when a debt is legally assigned, there is sometimes what I guess is basically a get out clause, which allows the new owner of the debt to pass it back to the OC if things don't work out. So you can go thorough all the effort of defending their claim, only to find the debt ends back where it first started.

 

Great for someone to beat Link at their own game:)DG

 

Yes, it is always good to see anyone getting the better of this lot, they are a despicable company to deal with, and even if you are making payments, which until fairly recently, I was,they still seem to want to go for a charge. Serves them right if they don't get their own way. You've got your own problems with them at the moment haven't you? Magda

[heliosfa]

have you had an NoA for the Link to GE assignment? From reading the LoP act, as the owner has changed (again), another NoA would be needed...

 

Thanks,

H

[diamondgirl]

Yes, it is always good to see anyone getting the better of this lot, they are a despicable company to deal with, and even if you are making payments, which until fairly recently, I was,they still seem to want to go for a charge. Serves them right if they don't get their own way. You've got your own problems with them at the moment haven't you? Magda

 

I sure have but I hope that I get my way and see the plonkers get their just desserts. Best is I'm still making payments to GE Money and they are not returning them and I don't think they are passing them on to Link. That must be some sort of fraud - well I hope it is cause I'm so made about it all that I'd certainly go after GE Money - I'm definately up for a fights DG:D

[MAGDA]

have you had an NoA for the Link to GE assignment? From reading the LoP act, as the owner has changed (again), another NoA would be needed...

 

Thanks,

H

 

Yes, that's what I thought, but not received anything official at all, which doesn't seem right, thanks Magda

 

Yes, it is always good to see anyone getting the better of this lot, they are a despicable company to deal with, and even if you are making payments, which until fairly recently, I was,they still seem to want to go for a charge. Serves them right if they don't get their own way. You've got your own problems with them at the moment haven't you? Magda

 

I sure have but I hope that I get my way and see the plonkers get their just desserts. Best is I'm still making payments to GE Money and they are not returning them and I don't think they are passing them on to Link. That must be some sort of fraud - well I hope it is cause I'm so made about it all that I'd certainly go after GE Money - I'm definately up for a fights DG:D

 

Good for you DG. I'm sure I read somewhere that if the debt is assigned and you aren't told about it, so you continue making payments to the OC, then the Assignee (Link) risks the assignment being invalid. Might be the case with you if GE has still been taking payments from you. Magda

[diamondgirl]

Lets hope so Magda. DG

[The_Grumlin]

Had a look at the copy of the Deed of assignmrnt and assignation that I have from the Court. No get out clause in there.

[MAGDA]

That's interesting then Grumlin - was yours an ex First National debt as well? I think Link must have to reassign it legally or else they are still the owner. GE Money think it is enough to contact me out of the blue with a Notice of Arrears and not even an explanation. I just hope they don't think it's ok to Default me again, as they claim to already have done that back in 2004. thanks, Magda

[The_Grumlin]

Yes, the one I am current fighting is a First National one.

 

A couple of thing strike me regarding a send back ;

 

1. The agreement is actual an equitable one - no right of action ?

2. No assignment took place at all?

3.

[The_Grumlin]

3. tax dodge or fraud (stamp duty and debt write off)?

[semyaza]

I have subbed this. I have just had a letter from Link saying they are discontinuing and it is going back to GE Money (previously First National)

[MAGDA]

Yes, the one I am current fighting is a First National one.

 

A couple of thing strike me regarding a send back ;

 

1. The agreement is actual an equitable one - no right of action ?

2. No assignment took place at all?

3.

 

According to Link it was an absolute assignment, although you never know with them do you. Don't know if you saw this 'Link' (on the main agreement thread) Credit, debts and related services: Debts and related services: Sale and assignment of a debt

 

It seems from this that it is possilbe for them to have sold the debt back to GE if the debt was sold, rights and all, but you say there isn't anything referring to that in the Deed, so that is strange. It seems that if it is an equitable assignment then it is a different matter.

 

The thing is, I defended against Link on various issues and will obviously defend again if necessary, so what is the point of all of this? Just seems as if they are desperate for someone to get some money, whoever it might be. Magda

[MAGDA]

I have subbed this. I have just had a letter from Link saying they are discontinuing and it is going back to GE Money (previously First National)

 

It took around five months after Link discontinued before GE Money contacted me, so you probably won't hear anything for quite a while yet, hopefully. Magda

[The_Grumlin]

Magda, I looked at HMRC link it looks like that relates to debts sold on an equitable basis where VAT is applicable. I think debts sold on a absolute basis are subject to stamp duty (as they are property).

 

The telling line in that link is about legal rights, legal rights stay with the assignor, not the assignee (thus a equitable assignment).

[MAGDA]

Magda, I looked at HMRC link it looks like that relates to debts sold on an equitable basis where VAT is applicable. I think debts sold on a absolute basis are subject to stamp duty (as they are property).

 

The telling line in that link is about legal rights, legal rights stay with the assignor, not the assignee (thus a equitable assignment).

 

Hi Grumlin, many thanks. The link also mentions: "Unless there is a chargeback agreement for unsupported balances, the purchaser does not return uncollected debts to the original creditor – the purchaser will write off the debts and take the loss"

 

So, as well as the issue relating to the fact that Link claim their assignment was absolute, there is also this, because you mentioned that there wasn't anything in the Deed that mentioned a "chargeback agreement". I really don't know what they think they are doing and don't understand why they haven't just written the debt off, which would make sense. Thanks for your help, Magda