Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Apologies If these answers come a little disjointed I am going to try to answer all as best I can in one post.

So...I have not acknowledged the debt itself. I disagree with it completely. It has been more than eight years since it even crossed my mind. I have only acknowledged the service of this CCBC letter on the moneyclaim website.

I am struggling with this not authorised carry-on. I cannot politely put my thoughts down and I have re-written this sentence about ten times so far. Surely the argument holds weight? Link Financial Limited are the one who, supposedly, were sold/legally assigned this debt and would therefore be the only legal entity that can collect it - but they no longer have the ability to do that without committing an offense? I guess this is evidence that I am not in the legal profession myself if that wasn't already apparent :judge2:

So my first letter was from Link Financial Outsourcing Limited, requesting that I enter into a direct debit agreement with them because "Your debt was sold to Link Financial Limited effective 17/04/2008..."

My second letter was from Kearns stating they have "been instructed to act on behalf of Link Financial Limited." And "...the above referenced debt has been legally assigned to Link Financial Limited, with Link Financial Outsourcing Limited being appointed to administer and recover the account."

Finally I received the Claim Form from the CCBC which states as above "The agreement has been legally assigned to the Claimant by way of Deed of Assignment with an effective date 17/04/2008 and made regular upon the Defendant(s) shortly thereafter."

I understand it was either bought or legally assigned and cannot be both, correct?

Have I missed any other questions?

Also, is there anything else I should be doing and can I find a SAR template on here?

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Hi, Everyone.

So I received a response from Link Financial today regarding the CCA request. They have claimed that there was no postal order in the envelope and that I must re-send this in order for them to comply with my request.

I must admit I did not expect them to be so petty, but now if they take their response period from Monday (when they will receive my next letter) the time for them to produce the Agreement will pass by my Defence deadline, so I suppose it has worked.

I will re-send this tomorrow anyway, with another postal order. Can anyone offer any other advice in the mean time for preparing my defence?

Thank you!

[charitynjw]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

It's surprising how often these p.o.'s go awol. :flypig:

However, imho it's not worth arguing the toss; just resend the request & fee.

I doubt they'll try it on a second time.

But do keep a weather eye open, just in case it somehow gets credited to your account/debt.

There's an example defence at the top of this thread; tweak it to suit.

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Hey everyone. I hope you're all well. Little update - I received two letters this weekend.

One from Kearns Solicitors stating that they did not have any of the documents mentioned in the particulars so they have instructed Link to send them to me.

A following letter from Link stating they do not have a copy of the original agreement because they "purchased" the debt and as such do not normally keep that sort of thing on file. They have requested this from GE and mention that it could take up to 30 days.

All seems a little vague to me. Why make a point about all of these documents if nobody has or has even seen them, it seems...

Should I follow these letters up?

And should I make a point that both companies have defaulted on their legal obligations under the CPR and CCA in my defence?

[charitynjw]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Those letters both seem to be informational, & therefore not requiring a response from you.

The court timetable & the deadlines imposed by the court is paramount.
Your defence needs to be filed by 33 days from the court claim issue date. (4pm latest)
If you & the Claimant agree to a 28 day extension of this, you (the Defendant) must notify the court accordingly.

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

As a prelim question here - I am still not 100% sure what this agreement was meant to be fore. My only conclusion as to what the agreement was (and therefore what sections of the CCA I should be referrring to are) because Kearns specifically stated Section 78 in their latest corrrespondence. Link, however, have copied my acknowledgement of either "Section 77/78". Which is best for me to note on my defence?


If there are any other parts I should tweak please let me know. Looking to get this submitted a few days befor my cutoff (14th March)






Court Defence


1: I received the claim D8HC529H from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 11th February 2017.


2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.


3: This claim appears to be for a Loan agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.


4: The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.


5. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was legally assigned from Ge Capital Woodchester to Link Financial Limited on 17/04/2008. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.


6. It is denied that GE Capital Woodchester served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to Section 87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.


7: On the 17th February 2017 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Kearns Solicitors. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice, Deed of Assignment, And Notice of Assignment.


8. Kearns Solicitors has not sent any of these documents to me.


9. On the 17th February I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Link Financial Limited pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.


10. On the 25th February 2017 I sent a Second formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Link Financial Limited pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with a second postal order for the statutory £1 fee.


11. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of section 78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.


12. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore It is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.


13. I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.


14. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.


15. I have note acknowledged this debt in writing in the last six (6) years.


16. I have not paid any part of this debt in the last six (6) years.


17. Accordingly I seek the Claimant's claim to be dismissed by the court as the debt is a statute-barred under the Limitations Act 1980, Section 5.


18. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

[Arcadian]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Always refer to the debt as "the alleged debt".

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

As a prelim question here - I am still not 100% sure what this agreement was meant to be fore.

If my memory serves the original GE finance agreement was for a car, so a HP agreement.

My last payment to GE can only have been in 2008 via the IVA. I set the IVA up in 2006 and one of the main reasons was for this car which I needed for work. By 2008 the car had died on me, as well and the IP refused to help me with the payments

Can you clarify why you're not sure what the agreement is for?

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

The IVA was due to last five years which would make it 2011 if it was terminated then unless it was terminated early for any reason.

Are they really able to consider the IVAs termination as acknowledgement?

. . . . As to the term it was a five year agreement, but I cannot be 100% on this I'm afraid.

Yes.

However "consider" does not mean the court will necessarily agree with them but it's a legal argument which they may ask the court to consider.

Di

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

I'm just not 100% on what the agreement is for. I would have been nineteen in 2005 which would make sense with my internal timeline but on the basis that I have not seen a black and white document stating this is for a car, I cannot be sure.

I just don't want to have them respond with "you refer to s.78 in your letter and this is not that type of agreement."

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Apologies for the double post, everyone but is what I've put good enough? I'd like to get this submitted tomorrow at the latest.

Thank you!

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Hello, everyone.

I thought I would post an update.

I received a letter from the courts about two days after I submitted my defence online. The court letter stated that Link/Kearns would have 28 days to advise the courts to proceed or that they may attempt to settle it with me directly. It's been over two months and I've literally heard nothing.

I've logged back into moneyclaimonline a few times but that does not appear to have been updated either.

What should I do going forward? Does the claim just get stayed automatically or am I supposed to follow this up? And should I send a final letter to link/kearns politely telling them where to go?

Thank you all so much for all of your help - from the looks of things this is another success story to add to the books!

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Don't tempt fate by calling a claim becoming stayed a "success story". The Claimant can make an application to the court to lift the stay whenever they feel like it.

As you've discovered the court doesn't tell you when a claim becomes stayed.

If the Claimant had informed them of their intention to continue with the proceedings then you would have received a Directions Questionnaire from the court to complete.

If two months have gone by it seems that it may be stayed but ring the court just to check in case something sent to you has been lost in the post.

Without a crystal ball there's no knowing what the Claimant is planning but I'll hazard a guess they're scurrying around to find the necessary paperwork or reconstitute documents which they hope will be convincing.

Di

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

It appears you were right, as always, Di

I've had a rather chunky letter from Kearns this morning. There's letter dated a about month ago with their brief account of the circumstances, a Tomlin order, SOME of the documents I initially requested as per the standard letters, and an IVA report.

Their letter states that I made a payment on the 23/06/2011 and that the debt is not statute barred. There was a meeting chaired for the creditors included in the IVA on 18/03/2011. The agreement was terminated and the balance paid divided amongst them. This is the payment that Kearns refer to - I understand that any payment even on my behalf despite not having come from me for over six months would constitute an acknowledgement.

I don't suppose it goes in my favour at all that as of today it IS statute barred going by the date that they've stated?

They've even threatened how much damage a CCJ could cause me in my current job (finance related) to try and convince me to agree to this Tomlin order.

I suppose I just want some advice on where to go from here....Do I respond etc. How likely is it that they'll be able to lift the stay on the basis that the debt was officially statute barred a few weeks ago?

Thank you in advance!
Jay

[Amethyst]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

As they brought the claim before the debt became statute barred it can't go statute barred while the claim is in progress.

Is there a copy of the original agreement in the chunky letter?