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

[MAGDA]

Steven/BRW, I am going to draft out my amended defence, which I am quite happy about doing, but with regard to the original agreement being available in court, should I mention this in the amended defence or not, quoting the CPR practice direction? I know you said I could use sec 2 and sec 8 of the civil Evidence Act 1995, but not sure if you were referring to the other bit as well? Many thanks, Magda

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Magda!

 

I think Steven is the one to comment here, but I think the best plan is to use CPR Practice Direction 16 7.3 to make sure they DO know, ahead of Court, that you will be wanting to see the Original.

 

Probably best to get that in ASAP so they know you will be wanting the Original and why you will be wanting the Original.

 

I would not leave that until Court, or else a smooth talking bank lawyer/Barrister may try to gloss over that.

 

Bring it to the fore right from the outset, and make sure the Judge is aware why the Original Agreement is a necessity if they wish to Enforce a Written Agreement.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[MAGDA]

Ok, thanks Banker, I thought that would probably be the case, but wanted to make sure. I am going to try to draft my amended defence today and then hopefully get that off to the court, although at the moment, there isn't any date for a hearing or anything else. The only thing is, the court didn't say I could submit an amended defence (the claimant has invited me to do so!) although I did ask in my original holding defence for permission to do so. Do I need to check with the court on this now, or can I just go ahead and submit it? Thanks for the help, Magda

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Magda!

 

I regret I'm still learning on Court Procedures at the moment, so best to get a 2nd opinion from Steven or someone with direct experience.

 

I have all this to look forward to!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[MAGDA]

ok, thanks for your help anyway, I can really do with as much of that as possible at the moment! I've just realised, this isn't the biggest claim that they have responded to, it is for one of the smaller ones (still around £2,000 though, or so they say) so I just hope I don't suddenly get something in the post tomorrow for the other ones, although if I do, I guess i'll just have to do my best to beat them at their own game. Anyway, Many thanks again, Magda

[Jeff2000]

Hi Magda,

 

 

Not so long ago I queried with my local Court the ability to submit an ammended defence. The girl at the desk said it isn't usually a problem but it might be a good idea to write a covering letter explaining your reasons for the ammended defence. So, hopefully you will be OK!

 

Why not pop into, or ring your local Court to see what they say!

 

 

Best wishes, Jeff.

[MAGDA]

Yes, thanks Jeff, will give them a ring tomorrow and sound them out. Hopefully, I think it should be ok. As you say, I will forward a covering letter anyway, explaining the situation as it currently is. Think this is all due to drag on for a lot longer yet, somehow! Magda

[Jeff2000]

Yes, thanks Jeff, will give them a ring tomorrow and sound them out. Hopefully, I think it should be ok. As you say, I will forward a covering letter anyway, explaining the situation as it currently is. Think this is all due to drag on for a lot longer yet, somehow! Magda

 

 

 

 

Hi,

 

 

As long as you have a decent reason for submitting an amended defence you should be OK!

 

IMO, a good reason would be not receiving important documents that you require!

 

 

Jeff.

[MAGDA]

Hi,

 

 

As long as you have a decent reason for submitting an amended defence you should be OK!

 

IMO, a good reason would be not receiving important documents that you require!

 

 

Jeff.

 

Yes, that's right. Thanks Jeff, Magda

[pudsters14]

I have emailed OFT to make them aware of my complaint with TS and the situation specifically with Caerphilly TS. I have also asked for clarification on Caerphilly TS's comment that as the owner of the debt, Asset Link do not believe they have any obligation (legally) to repond to a CCA request and also Caerphilly TS's statement that they do not have any powers whatsoever over Link's Caerphilly Branch as the company head office is in London I have pointed out my reasoning as to why these statement are incorrect and await their reponse. You never know, might do some good.

 

Just noted what you have said about the above. When I spoke to Link they said that their London branch and Caerphilly branch act as 2 separate entities and that they don't even share correspondance or notes off the computer. Therefore Caerphilly TS should deal with your complaint about them as surely by their own admittance... the london office would know nothing about your query! Pudstx x x x

[pudsters14]

I have been listed for a directions hearning in Nov. Just to give you a quick update... I still haven't rcvd anything from them and not entirely sure about what goes on in this directions hearing but i've got a while to get prepared and i'm going to do a lot of reading ready for the day. I always read your thread Magda to see what they are up to with you because they have done a lot of similar things with both of us. Your judge sounds fair and am just hoping mine is as nice! ...................Pudst x x x x x

[MAGDA]

Just noted what you have said about the above. When I spoke to Link they said that their London branch and Caerphilly branch act as 2 separate entities and that they don't even share correspondance or notes off the computer. Therefore Caerphilly TS should deal with your complaint about them as surely by their own admittance... the london office would know nothing about your query! Pudstx x x x

 

Hi Pudsters, Yes, I don't have any dealing at all with the London Branch, everything, including the instigation of legal action, is carried out by their Caerphilly Branch, but I think this is just typical TS cop out. Link are stating that as the 'owner' of the debt they are not the creditor and do not have to comply with requests under the CCA. Do you know what kind of assignment they have in your case, Absolute, or equitable? We are presuming that it is absolute, because otherwise they should not be taking us to court. However, they state that the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor. So, either they are trying it on, or the assignment is not absolute. Hope you are getting on ok with your own case. Magda

[MAGDA]

Have now submitted my amended defence to the court. Was reading through Asset's reponse to my defence again and in particular their statement "The claimant is the assignee of the benefit of the debt, the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor." well, they have actually made this statement to the court which completely contradicts the following:

 

(Practice Directon Supplements CPR Rule 7.9)

 

9.2 In a claim relating to a regulated agreement where :

 

1. the claimant was not one of the original parties to the agreement and

2. the former creditor's rights and duties have passed to him by

 

a) Operation of law

b) assignment

 

The requirement of sec 141(5) (all parties to a regulated agreement and any surety to be parties to any proceedings) does not apply to the former creditor, unless the court otherwise orders.

 

So, by their own admission, it would seem Link are subject to the requirements of sec 141 (5) and either way, the statement they have made is false.

[ziggy04]

hi Magda, Ziggy here, i see you've been busy!.i think you are coping very well with your case, it seems that just when you think you can see a little light at the end of the tunnel , asset link come along and try to turn the lights out,i think these low lifes get away with too much within the judicial

system it the first place, they know exactly how to play the system and get away with it, however i admire your grit & determination to not let them get away with it, well done you.

i've not heard a thing about my charging order hearing since a stay was issued back in may, i think its going to drag on for some time yet, though i thought the dca would have prefered to go for the jugular,and get the final charge.anyway Magda, keep up the good work, i hope you win

best wishes ziggy04xxx

[MAGDA]

Hi Ziggy, thanks for the words of encouragement, I can do with them at the moment! Yes, these companies don't care who they trample over, as long as they get their money. I'm determined to see this through to the end because they have been so unpleasant and underhanded throughout all of this, so will just have to see what happens. Perhaps the DCA in your case have have changed their mind for some reason about the charge, funny they haven't gone ahead with it. Thanks again Ziggy and good luck with your own, Magda

[MAGDA]

Well, just rang the court again, and I am quite annoyed. the claimant has been given extra time, only about a week, but even so, I don't think they should be given any extention as they haven't applied for one. They were ordered to respond to my defence and they haven't done so. They haven't contacted either myself or the court. I had asked for the claim to be struck out on this basis, but obviously the judge thinks they should be allowed even more time. Why exactly? One of the othe claims hasn't come back with a decision yet, although that will proabably be the same, and the third claim they have defaulted on hasn't been dealt with and is tied up in the correspondence still! The clerk on the phone agreed with me that as they haven't bothered to reply it should be disregarded, but unfortunately it isn't her decision. If I hadn't responded to an order, the claimant would have requested my defence was struck out and I'm sure it would have been granted. There you go, doesn't seem entirely fair somehow:rolleyes:

[ziggy04]

hi madga, hope you are ok, i was looking through various threads last week, it seems standard practice for the banks/dca's/creditor to be given extra time or extentions to comply with requests etc and in some cases they are given weeks!, how outrageous is that ! if its jo public on the other hand , the judge would probably say no way & find in favour of the plaintiff.makes your blood boil doesn't it. the dca involved in my charging order case are renouned for not complying with requests for informatiom, i'm in no doubt that they do it hoping that you will give up & pay up and they get away with it,good on you, i so hope you win, how long has this been going on now ?

ziggyxx

[MAGDA]

Hi Ziggy, They get away with murder don't they! It's been going on now for around five months or so, so quite a while really, but at least it hasn't resulted in a court hearing yet, or any judgements, so that is something. Going to check on the progess of some of the claims later with the court, so might be some updates.

 

Good luck again with your own case.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Still pursuing Link's non-compliance with my CCA request, which is moving along very slowly.

 

Magda

Edited September 8, 2008 by MAGDA

[MAGDA]

Received news from the court that one of the claims has been struck out.

Edited September 16, 2008 by MAGDA

[MAGDA]

Re: the above post: as this particular claim has now been struck out, can I claim costs against Link for the inconvenience (in terms of time and money, i.e., postage etc) they subjected me to by bringing this claim in the first place?

[ziggy04]

Hi magda, how are things ?, have you heard any more with regards to your cases ? glad to see that one of your cases has been struck out that's good news.i hope they don't try and have it reinstated, have read a few threads where struck out claims in favour of the defendant have bee reinstated,i think the dice are heavily loaded against us, what with the dca's and creditors blantantly disregarging cpr18 rules sar & cca requests, i am going to sar barclaycard the original creditor in my case this week, but i won't be holding my breath ! for a quick reply any way hope you are ok ziggyxx

[MAGDA]

Hi Ziggy, thanks for looking in. Yes, it was good the claim was struck out, a second one is being struck out today. However, as you say, nothing is ever certain is it and it can all suddenly change again. I think if a claim is struck out because the claimant hasn't responded (and they've been given two chances to do so) then that should be it. Still, it's looking good at the moment, so I guess only time will tell. Good luck with your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s request - you never know they might surprise you:rolleyes: Hope you are ok - any luck with the house sale? thanks again Magda

Edited September 22, 2008 by MAGDA

[42man]

This is great news Magda....!! and well done for seeing it through !!! get those costs back !!

[MAGDA]

Hi 42 man, stragely enough I was just asking about costs on the main CAG thread. Can I claim back costs then, and if so, how do I go about it. Two claims have been struck out so far, one more hopefully tomorrow. That leaves only one they are going ahead with. I had six lots of paperwork to do at times (as two of the claim were joint ones) and I would love to see Link having to pay costs to me, that would make my day!! thanks Magda