GE Money V Piesky

[Curlyben]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

No worries there then.
Need to file AoS by 23rd, so we'll leave it to the 22nd and give Link a chance to respond

As this is a joint action you will need to file twice.
We're going for defending the entirety of the claim.

[piesky]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Thanks CB, I'll keep you updated on response from Link.

Piesky

[piesky]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Hi All and especially CB.

I am in urgent need of further advice from CB as Link have now filed a witness statement and sent a copy to me that needs to be read and understood by someone other than myself. The date set for court is November

CB, I won't be around till later but if I scan and upload the statement to you personally, could you please have a read and give me your opinion?

Thanks

Piesky
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
They mention a case that took place recently that sets a precedence regarding the requesting of information in the correct format and that can be enforceable

[Curlyben]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

*cough* yeah right

[MIKE770]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

subbing

[Curlyben]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Well I've heard from Piesky on this one and he was in court this morning.
Sufficed to say WE KICKED THEIR BOTTOMS.



PS will be on later on with a FULL report, well he better be or Link aren't the only ones that'll get kicked

[Curlyben]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

As Piesky is tied up with other business I'll post his report for his court appearance and some comments.

Well, I went into court this morning against Link Financial, the DCA who had purchased the alleged debt from GE Money, and WON !!!!

Let me summarise on all that has happened and with the excellent help from Curlyben, how we have got to today’s fantastic result.

Due to financial difficulties and lack of funds in my bank account, I received a default notice from GE Money at the end of last year.
Not knowing who GE Money was, I obtained information from the LB site and followed Curlyben’s advice on obtaining a copy of the original credit agreement.
Sent off CCA to GE Money but had nothing back. Sent a reminder letter 30 days later informing them they remained in default of my request – still had nothing.
Next letter arrived from Link Financial Stating the debt had been sold to them and they now required full payment.

Again, with CB’s help I drafted a letter informing Link that my original request to GE Money remained in default. They then sent all the info they had regarding the alleged debt. This included a credit agreement with important prescribed terms missing i.e. Total amount of credit and the interest rate being charged. I also, with CB’s advice, asked them to provide proof that the alleged debt had been legally assigned. This they failed to do.
Eventually after numerous letters and correspondence, Link filed in the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre for judgement.

I sent online an Acknowledgement of service and at a later date my defence based on the lack of information provided by Link that would enable me to file a proper defence.
Link then sent in a witness statement that seemed a load of nonsense and again, with CB’s valuable help and knowledge, I sent in an N244 Application and Witness statement asking for the Judge to either strike out the claim or Demand that Link provide all the information required to enable me to defend properly. In part of their witness statement, Link had inadvertently stated themselves as being the original lenders rather than First National Bank and as part of my application to strike, I pointed this out (a copy was sent to Link) They responded 5 days before the Case was due to be heard where they informed me the statement had been re written to replace their name with that of First National Bank.
The hearing was held this morning.

A solicitor acting for Link attended, along with myself and he handed me a couple of sheets of paper explaining these would be the main issues he would be asking the Judge to consider and that no doubt I would also get the chance to speak.
I laughed out loud and said “I certainly hope so as I have plenty to say, however, if the Judge is as fair and as thorough as I expect, I believe your pre typed list may go somewhat amiss”. He just looked at me and went back and sat down.
I wasn’t wrong. In the courtroom, the first thing the Judge said after being handed the list by Link’s solicitor “ I haven’t had chance to even read your witness statement yet Mr Solicitor as it was only registered into court yesterday, let alone the list you have just handed me”.
He then asked me when I received it. I explained that the first had been received about 28th October but on filing my application and witness statement with a copy being sent to them on 29th October, they had just sent another with the revised section.
He looked up to the solicitor and said “so Link has sent this in without going through the correct protocol of resubmitting as a further statement in court”. The solicitor could only agree. The judge said “well that alone could well make me adjourn this, however, let us consider Mr Link... witness statement as it has been written in some detail and has a certain element of truth to it”
He then talked about the transfer of the debt to Link financial and whether or not notice had been served correctly. The Solicitor argued that it had and the Judge said “well, Mr PieSky... disagrees with you and has quoted a case that provides case law reference to the Law of Property Act - notice must be first sent to the debtor and this notice must have been proved to have been delivered i.e. registered or recorded delivery NOT just first Class post. Can you prove that this was done?” The solicitor obviously could not.
The Judge then said “well that is the first point that would lead me to striking this out”. The solicitor responded by asking for an adjournment to liaise with his client regarding the assignment.
I then interjected by saying that not only had I not received a notice of assignment from GE Money but also that they had never responded to my request under section 77 of the CCA . The Judge then laughed and said ”yes, and that is the second reason I have for striking this out. I am sure you are aware Mr Solicitor that the original creditor cannot assign or sell a debt whilst it remains in default”. The solicitor could only agree.

I piped up again and said that if the Judge was not minded to Strike out at that point then I would ask him to consider the lack of prescribed terms in the Credit agreement supplied by Link. He again chuckled and said “ yes Mr PieSky... and that is the third point I could consider, however, I am going to strike this on the first basis that notice to sell the alleged debt was not served on you by GE Money.
Links Solicitor could only agree this was the correct decision and did not try and argue.

The judge went on to order that all my costs be borne by the claimants.

So, to summarise the main points and also clarify Curlyben’s advice: (and many thanks by the way)

An original creditor CANNOT sell or assign a debt to a DCA unless they have:
1.Supplied a true copy of the original credit agreement requested under A CCA request
2.Informed the alleged debtor by registered post or recorded delivery (signed for) that the alleged debt is to be sold or assigned to another organisation
Any credit agreement supplied must contain all the prescribed terms as laid down in the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Please follow Curlyben’s advice on this as I have found this to be so helpful.

It has also given me further encouragement not to give in to these idiots who think they can walk rough shod over all of us.

Kind regards

Piesky

So there you all go.
Basically, as we have seen before, make a mess of the assignment and they are burgered.

The para the judge refered to is this:

If the amounts claimed to have been assigned are incorrect within the notice or (if stated on the notice of assignment) the date of assignment is incorrect, then the assignment is defective and the Claim should fail as set out in W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 16

I feel this is going to be VERY useful in a number of Cohen actions that are currently running..

[MIKE770]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Might be a good idea for anybody using the contents of Registered Delivery of documents etc Not To Mention in Any Correspondence , :beagle:as How Many DCA!s will not have done correct procedure, I.E. do not give them ammunition???

[Sapphire]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Fabulous news, I'm now wondering how many dca's are going to fall foul to this, hopefully all or most of them eh.

[Curlyben]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Might be a good idea for anybody using the contents of Registered Delivery of documents etc Not To Mention in Any Correspondence , :beagle:as How Many DCA!s will not have done correct procedure, I.E. do not give them ammunition???

As it's the Original Creditors failing in correctly assigning the debt, the DCA can do little about it at all

[Dougal16T]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Morning all,

In court versus GE in May 2011 for a refund of commission paid to broker. GE tried a strike out application on the Courts own motion, the DJ was not having that and has listed their application for a heraring - BUT this is going to be very interesting as there are SUBSTANTIAL inconsistencies in their letters relating to the amounts paid!

More to follow

As always

Dougal

ps: Claim for charges to follow in due course.

[Dougal16T]

Re: GE Money V Piesky

Good evening all,

You may not know that my claim against GE Money for repayment of commission failed recently, however I have been given leave to apply for permission to Appeal by the Circuit Judge. I have lodged my Skeleton statements at the Court and also lodged a copy with Swift.

In accordance with her Directions I am acquiring the trascripts of the hearing and will hopefully be going to Appeal in September (this year....

Exactly the same has happened with Swift Advances, and they too will be 'dealt with' later this year (September springs to mind!!)

In the meantime I too have been in touch with my local CID office.........

Keep the faith,

Best wishes to all

Dougal

Read more at: Swift Advances Plc? - Page 7 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum