zhanzhibar vs Link financial ***WON***

[someone_else]

Both those deeds appear to be a mess.

 

First they say First National Bank plc changed to First National Home Finance Limited in 2003 (why they have included that not sure as your loan was in 2005?)

 

At the same time the accounts under First National Home Finance Limited were transfered to First National Consumer Finance.

 

Next in 2005 they say First National Consumer Finance was renamed to GE Money Consumer Lending Limited.

 

Then in 2007 First National Consumer Finance or GE Capital Global Consumer Finance Limited assign your account to Link.

 

-

 

So from the documents they have sent to the court they are claiming GE Money Consumer Lending Limited own the account but Link claim they bought it from First National Consumer Finance (or GE Capital Global Consumer Finance Limited) neither of who owned the account at that time.

 

Not sure what the legalites are of putting the wrong name on the deed (Link have done the same thing in our case put an old company name on the assignment)

[zhanzhibar]

Both those deeds appear to be a mess.

 

First they say First National Bank plc changed to First National Home Finance Limited in 2003 (why they have included that not sure as your loan was in 2005?)

 

At the same time the accounts under First National Home Finance Limited were transfered to First National Consumer Finance.

 

Next in 2005 they say First National Consumer Finance was renamed to GE Money Consumer Lending Limited.

 

Not sure what the legalites are of putting the wrong name on the deed (Link have done the same thing in our case put an old company name on the assignment)

 

Unfortunately apparently makes no diffreent whether whethey tehy call GE or 1st Finanace in the deed coz under Com Act 2006 Chapter 5 section 81

 

81.Change of name: effect

(1) A change of a company’s name has effect from the date on which the new certificate of incorporation is issued.

(2) The change does not affect any rights or obligations of the company or render defective any legal proceedings by or against it.

(3) Any legal proceedings that might have been continued or commenced against it by its former name may be continued or commenced against it by its new name.

 

 

So from the documents they have sent to the court they are claiming GE Money Consumer Lending Limited own the account but Link claim they bought it from First National Consumer Finance (or GE Capital Global Consumer Finance Limited) neither of who owned the account at that time.

That is one of the points i raised.

[zhanzhibar]

deleted

Edited July 2, 2009 by zhanzhibar

[zhanzhibar]

Hi all,

 

2 hours in court but result...case dismissed ...... I win .... i win.... i win:D:D:D:D

 

Thank you to everyone who has contributed here.

 

The judge wants to start with the agreement they submitted SRT-1(which I did say is not the one they were assigned to) but since he wants to start with that so we proceed with SRT1.

 

So after all the points I got prepared with everybody's help here,even though it took 2 hours in hearing with a 5 min recess, we didn't even get to go as far as the DoA & NoA .... I got them at non-compliance of section 63(2) of the original agreement. They basically shot themselves with para 8 and para 30 of their WS being conflicting.

 

Thank you... thank you...Thank you for all your help.

 

Definitely cannot do this without you guys & gals.

 

I now need my lunch & a huge drink & put my feet up in this hot waether ....:D:D

[ScarletPimpernel]

Huzzah!

[the_shadow]

congrats Zhan

 

S.

[someone_else]

Well Done, I take it it was the blank template the judge didn't like?

[zhanzhibar]

Well Done, I take it it was the blank template the judge didn't like?

 

Well, he didn't exactly said that but he did raise the question why SRT1(signed agreement) is different than SRT-8 if AL said they sent the executed with cancellation notice on the 21/04/04. The agent said that they the cancellation notice was sent together with SRT1 as stated in para 8 but in a separate page. I then point out to the judge para 30 of their WS specifically stated that the cancellation rights was on the reverse in place of the DD mandate upon the original creditors copy so how can they be in a separate page as claimed by the agent?

 

The agent said then there is a letter sent when the executed agreement sent to me on the 21/04/05. The judge ask where is the letter & the agent said that I should have it. I just can't help but smile with the remaark made by the agent. That's why the judge told us to have 5 min recess so that the agent can ring the claimant to fax the letter.

 

When we came back fr recess, the agent said that they do have a letter but need to go through undertaking (i don't know what that means).

 

So then the judge said that perhaps he should adjourned the case. I said then that the Claimant has ample time since April from when i submit my amended defense to bring out the letter since my amended defense strictly asked them to proof that they have complied to s62,s63 & s64 of the CCA1974.

 

i think he take that into acc & AL behaviour of not submitting on time & cost to the court due to AL incompetence should he were to adjourn the case which led him to dismiss it.

 

Question is now:

 

Is there a different between case dismissed & case strike out?

Can they try to take me to court again on the same debt like Magda?

[humbleman]

Zhan

 

you deserve the result, well done

[The_Grumlin]

Well done. The best result, Link are their own worst enemy. They produce such poor documents, some very iffy documents, and sometimes no documents at all.

 

Then you get all the wisdom of the Ladybird book of consumer law for dummies (special dca edition) which takes all legislation and twists and rewrites it so dca's have all the rights and you as debtor have none.

 

The worst part of all is the time it takes the courts system to finally show these muppets up. I hope you got costs?

 

As to the above Zan you have no worries as you have a judgemnt of a dismissal in your favor, they can't try the same claim again.

[MAGDA]

Well done, I bet Link are not very happy tonight:D

 

Magda

[zhanzhibar]

Thank you all.

I hope you got costs?

 

Nope. Judge didn't say anything. Can I claim for costs?

 

The other thing I want to ask is what happened to our credit file in a situation like this? Can we not ask that the default relating to a court dismisssed case be removed?

 

Another point I for got to mention is the judge did say that he would not discussed the charges issue as it is a matter dealt at HIgh Court at the mo. I am not sure whether this is relevant or not to him not mentioning about claimng "costs" to me

[the_shadow]

Thank you all.

 

The other thing I want to ask is what happened to our credit file in a situation like this? Can we not ask that the default relating to a court dismisssed case be removed?

 

I think you would have needed to mention it there and then, I suspect he would have told you that its an issue you will have to raise seperatly, you could be cheeky and send a letter asking them to remove the default and negative information I suppose.

 

Another point I for got to mention is the judge did say that he would not discussed the charges issue as it is a matter dealt at HIgh Court at the mo. I am not sure whether this is relevant or not to him not mentioning about claimng "costs" to me

 

Hmm as this was for a loan originally as I understand it the issue of the high court test case for Bank account charges shouldnt rear its head I would have thought?

 

S.

[semyaza]

Well done. Brilliant result. Bet you couldn't stop smiling

[steven4064]

IN principle, having won your case, you could use that to take them to court undre s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984 for removal of incorrect negative markers on your credit file. Write a prelim letter requesting removal, then go to LBA.... hopefully, they won't want their fingers burnt again so they will give up before you go any further.

 

Anyway, well done - a great result. I will change your thread title (if VBuletin lets me, that is, I have had some problems recently)

[MAGDA]

Hi Zhan, I am in a similar situation to you now, went to court today and judge has placed it on the fast track. (Link's claim is for around the same amount as yours was by the way) I still haven't got any DN from them, but they turned up with a copy of the Deed (part of it anyway - this obviously isn't the whole document, as they wanted the judge to go through and make deletions with them, which he declined to do and said I could just have the basic document for now) which is exactly the same as the one you posted on here, except no figures are mentioned at all, which I notice on yours they are. Was yours assigned to small claims? Magda

[zhanzhibar]

Hi Magda, My apology for not replying earlier. To answer your question, yes mine was assigned to small claims with both parties consent.

 

In the AQ I asked for it to go to small claims but they want to go to fast track in their AQ. Due to the different requests, we had to go to Case Management conference. On the day, before we went in, Link's rep informed me that Link's accept my request for the case to go to small claims & I accept & he then informed the judge when we went in the chamber.

[MAGDA]

Strange how they were so different with you, with me it was the opposite, small claims on their AQ and then suddenly wanted fast track on the day without warning. Hoping to get a solicitor to act for me (Conditional fee) so fingers crossed. Thanks for replying Zhan and congratulations again on your result, Magda

[zhanzhibar]

Hi Magda

 

That is quite strange:confused:. Didn't they give a reason at all why they suddenly wants to change? Didn't the judge ask whether you consent to this? If it is any help at all, give me your e-maill address and I will let you know my case ref number & you can argue the inconsistencies.

 

Also having said that, w/out the DN, they are stuffed anyway so if you are brave enough and you think you can counter argue every points they raised in their WS for the trial (I know for a fact you can but the proviso is that you get a FAIR JUDGE!) then let them take you to fast track & on the day, shred them to pieces.

 

I have a bone to pick with Asset Link. My case might already be dismissed but I haven't finished with them. I was a bit annoyed that I was not given any costs back by the judge so I am going to get them in a different way. Its not about money but the way they harassed me & threatened me just really gets to me. I might use Steven suggestion by looking into Data Protection Act but I am going to wait till my Amex case is cleared.

 

Let me know if there is anything I can do to help & I wll be soo glad to help you nail this b****.

[MAGDA]

Hi Magda

 

That is quite strange:confused:. Didn't they give a reason at all why they suddenly wants to change? Didn't the judge ask whether you consent to this? If it is any help at all, give me your e-maill address and I will let you know my case ref number & you can argue the inconsistencies.

 

Also having said that, w/out the DN, they are stuffed anyway so if you are brave enough and you think you can counter argue every points they raised in their WS for the trial (I know for a fact you can but the proviso is that you get a FAIR JUDGE!) then let them take you to fast track & on the day, shred them to pieces.

 

I have a bone to pick with Asset Link. My case might already be dismissed but I haven't finished with them. I was a bit annoyed that I was not given any costs back by the judge so I am going to get them in a different way. Its not about money but the way they harassed me & threatened me just really gets to me. I might use Steven suggestion by looking into Data Protection Act but I am going to wait till my Amex case is cleared.

 

Let me know if there is anything I can do to help & I wll be soo glad to help you nail this b****.

 

Thanks Zhan, it's nice to know your help is there is I need it, much appreciated. I am actually thinking of getting the hearing transferred to another court, the judges at my local court are just really biased. The judge actually said at the Allocation Hearing that we were just trying to get out of paying, how impartial is that:rolleyes: I'm not surprised you are annoyed about the costs - theydon't realise how much work goes into defending these claims and not to mention the stresss and upset it causes. The judge at our court awarded me £46 on another claim (Link again) even though he admitted he could see I had put huge amounts of work in - so how does that work out.

 

Hope you manage to get as much out of Link as you can further down the line - they deserve it, they really are the lowest of the low. I would love to beat them in court and if I do get legal representation they could be liable to pay a lot of costs:D

 

Many thanks again Zhan, Magda

[24233513afw]

In the a very similar position with link - need more time to read thread and digest.

 

WIll post comments and situation soon.

AFW

[MAGDA]

In the a very similar position with link - need more time to read thread and digest.

 

WIll post comments and situation soon.

AFW

 

If you post a link to your thread when you have it all sorted, I'm sure you will get plenty of help from the "We hate Link" fanclub.

 

regards, Magda

[diamondgirl]

I'm one of it's friends, not, so count me in

DG

[jdes26]

if you have WON against LINK ! WELL DONE they are bloody donuts