Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

I thought as much.

There is a copy of the original agreement. They have sent that along with a default notice from GE. No sign of a deed or notice of assignment which they referred to in their original claim.

Jay

[Amethyst]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Okay good. Is it all compliant and includes all the relevant terms ? ( Scan it in if you can )

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

I'll do my best to get it in shot with my camera or something.

Funnily I only just noticed that the bottom of the agreement states "Page 1 of 4" "Page 2 of 4" but there is no page 3 or 4 in here?

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

This is the best I could do for now :S

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

It appears you were right, as always, Di

I'm afraid the writing was on the wall with your IVA dates.

Did you send Harrington Brooks a SAR as I suggested in post #11 (16th February) so you can check the dates for accuracy?

Di

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Sadly I didn't.

These other documents (IVA report) look like they've come from Harrington Brooks anyway.

EDIT:
I'm at the point where I'm just considering the Tomlin order over having to go to court and fight a losing battle. Does that sound like a viable option or is that stupid?

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Sadly I didn't.

These other documents (IVA report) look like they've come from Harrington Brooks anyway.

"Looks like" is not the same thing as copies of the originals which you have seen with your very own eyes when studying your SAR including the Transaction Log.

It's a pity you didn't request the SAR. I suggested it for a reason.

Di

[Amethyst]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

What are the terms of the Tomlin ?

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

It's fifty pounds a month for 128 months and then a final repayment at slightly less.

I'm at a point where I would barely notice that coming out every month and I would probably use savings somewhere down the line to clear it.

My only raised eyebrow comes from the statement that their total figure is "(inclusive of interest)" which appears to be at the value of £100.

[Amethyst]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

and what happens with the claim ? stays on hold in court ( so no CCJ ) to be taken to judgment if you fail on any payments?

Is £50 a month affordable ? It will really depend on how much you don't want a CCJ whether you want to risk continuing defending the claim. 128 months is a long time and if you missed a payment at any point they could apply for the CCJ to enforce the terms of the consent order or look at other enforcement methods.

That final figure will want correcting before any signing is undertaken.

There is the issue of the agreement not being complete ( where is clause 8.1 ? for example) and not having the NOA - the default notice looks to be okay.

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Yeah its got the CCBC listed at the top and states that all court actions stayed under the agreement of the order and any default on the dates specified will result in them reapplying for the CCJ.

What's clause 8.1?

I think I just want some reassurance that agreeing to pay on their terms isn't a ridiculous notion. If I lived a little more frugally and saved I could probably have this completely paid in under two years. Although I'm assuming I have the right to clear the balance early?

And do you mean to say that they would be adding interest onto that figure? The Tomlin order states that the stated amount would be full and final satisfaction of the claimant's claim.

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

I can't give advice on what terms need to be in a Tomlin Order or a Consent Order but I would say that it 'takes two' to agree the terms.

My firm tends to ask for the claim to be dismissed as one of the terms (or in the very least Discontinued) but as I say I'm not in a position to contribute advice formally on a forum without seeing the paperwork.

What's your view on the Claimant's intention to seek an adjournment of the hearing? Do you see any reason why that may help or hinder your overall situation?

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

Even though link financial may not be authorised there are ways around it such as entering into an agreement with an authorised firm (presumably Link Outsourcing) and Link Outsourcing will carry out all the regulated activities work on behalf of Link Financial. As for Link Financial being listed on the claim form, provided there was a legal assignment done correctly, they are the legal creditor and can have their name listed on the claim.

I can't agree with that statement

Di

[Jjay879]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

My mind is working like this:

I either have the option of cutting my losses, paying an affordable amount each month and at least having the peace of mind that its only a matter of time.

Or I can sweat more, delve further into a legal system I'm already not fond of, continue laying awake at night in fear, and fight a battle of loopholes and clauses only to be left at the behest of a judge that may decide he doesn't like me as soon as I walk in and still end up with CCJ at the end of it.

[Diana M]

Re: Jjay89 v Link Financial Limited

If I lived a little more frugally and saved I could probably have this completely paid in under two years. Although I'm assuming I have the right to clear the balance early?

Yes you do.

Di