GE Woodchester Car Finance loan to Link Outsourcing

[beachcomber60]

Hi Beachy...

 

Who will you be bemused by???

 

If you have not been sent a correct notice of assignment these people don't exist so you haven't received anything!!!

 

Have no contact with them whatsoever.. only deal with OC... If Link decide to litigate you will have an enormous piece of ammo as they have not served you with a correct notice of assignment and therefore have no legal right to take the alleged debt to court.

 

Spam.

 

Thanks Spam.

[beachcomber60]

Latest threat-o-gram from link informs me that the debt wont go away and they have now registered it with the CRA's where it will remain for 6 years or until I pay them the full balance.

 

They are also passing my details onto their 'asset investigation team'

please ring to avoid this.

[Spamalot]

Latest threat-o-gram from link informs me that the debt wont go away and they have now registered it with the CRA's where it will remain for 6 years or until I pay them the full balance.

 

That's a bit naughty! Data protection and all that... they shouldn't be recording or updating any info on you as they haven't proved they legally have the right to, by way of a valid Notice of Assignment

 

They are also passing my details onto their 'asset investigation team'

please ring to avoid this.And again, how very dare they pass your details to anyone... they don't legally have the right!!![/quote]

 

I feel a claim for damages coming on...

 

Spam.

[angry cat]

Always intimidation from Link Financial!

[beachcomber60]

Thanks to you both.

 

I have to admit the heart rate increases with each of their letters

[Spamalot]

Thanks to you both.

 

I have to admit the heart rate increases with each of their letters

 

Don't open them then... put them straight back in the post box 'return to sender' as Elvis would say...

 

Spam.

[beachcomber60]

To bring my thread up to date (sorry I did post this post from stink on another thread but forgot to post it here as well).

 

 

 

WELL WELL WELL,

 

After 12 months of silence from Santander (GE Woodchester) a letter arrives from Stink Outsourcing titled :-

 

Received mid June

INVESTIGATION OF ASSETS

(address)

 

 

We have recently, without success, attempted to contact you with regards to your outstanding balance with us of £****. Your refusal to deal with this matter has prompted our office to make an enquiry under the Land Registration Act 2002.

 

 

You are recorded on the Proprietorship Register at HM Land Registry as holding a benefical interest

in the property ***************. This means you may have a significant asset, one that can be used to enforce a county court judgement by way of a Final Charging Order.

 

 

Although we have not added interest to our outstanding balance, once placed with our Legal Department we will seek to impose our full legal rights.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1) The account they refer is in serious dispute with original creditor Woodchester now Santander over PPI

, later learning from PT that the agreement is seriously flawed and completely unenforceable.

 

 

2) Never had any dealings with Stink relating to this account

 

 

& 3) They sent the letter above to our former address which we moved from 3 years ago.

(only got the letter 'coz we are still on mail redivert).

 

 

Me thinks Stink are once again living up to their name.

 

Beachy

[beachcomber60]

In addition to my last post, I have now received the following from stink, I have never acknowledged this debt with Link in anyway, shape or form.

 

'Please find enclosed the documents you have requested from Link Financial Outsourcing. If you have any additional queries relating to this documentation please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 0644 499.

 

Where this request was made under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 this document fulfils our obligations.

 

I have never requested anything from link or acknowledged them in anyway.

 

Included was a copy of the 'agreement', copy of the DN, Termination Notice', a Santander 'Charge Statement' & Account Statement from Santander.

 

Apart from not requesting these documents, there are a few reasons for being really pi**ed off.

 

Charge Statement lists two missed payment fees of £30 each, however, these were 'waived' and account credited with the £60 - These werent challenged or requested to be returned, my initial thoughts was that as the agreement was 'flawed' I didnt want to run the risk of 'undue enrichment' by launching any claim re charges or continuing my ppi complaint, both GE then Santander made it perfectly clear that as they werent 'regulated' at the time the FOS could not be used and that I 'MUST' use the FLA 9which we all know is a complete waste of time.

 

What has really got my goat up is that I made a SAR to Santander & sent a postal order for the statutory £10 fee, however on checking the 'statement' sent by link that 'fee' has been taken as a payment to the debt and is listed as a 'Bankers Draft'.

 

The next entry on the statement is 'Litigation' Debit £3,***.00, Credit £3,*** Balance £3,7**

Last entry was Write-Off Credit £3,7** Balance £0,000

 

The DN, unknown at the time (only learnt about dodgy DN over the past few months) does not allow sufficient time to remedy - dated 5th November '08 a Wednesday (by UKMail) and giving until 'before' 19th November to remedy.

 

The copy of the termination notice I have never seen before, it was dated 22nd November '08 (a Saturday), it states that I had 'disregarded the notice of default and as a consequence we give you notice that we hereby terminate the hiring and the agreement forthwith.

 

You are therefore no longer with our consent in possession of our property as scheduled below, and we now formally request its return'.

 

This I do find amusing, the 'finance' wasnt for a vehicle, it was a top up loan - part to pay off existing vehicle agreement and balance as a loan (they stated at the time as it wasnt for a vehicle I 'HAD' to have ppi).

 

Beachy

[beachcomber60]

pt's 'findings' after viewing the agreement back in Dec '08 :-

 

'ok, down to the breaches of the CCA (section 60)

 

the agreement fails to state the cash price of the PPI schedule 1 para 4 SI 1983 / 1553

 

the agreement fails to state the amount of credit (PPI) this breaches schedule 1 para 6 SI1983 /1553

 

the agreement fails to correctly state the total amount payable, this is a breach of schedule 1 para 11 SI 1983 / 1553

 

the agreement fails to state the default charges as required by schedule 1 para 22 SI 1983 / 1553

 

 

moving on to schedule 6 SI 1983 . 1553 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983

 

the agreement fails to comply with schedule 6 para 1 in relation to the amount of credit for the PPI

 

 

 

now then thats a nice list, wonder if they would like to ask the court to consider these points>>>>>>>

 

Basically the agreement is improperly executed and therefore unenforceable as a result

 

GAME OVER'

[citizenB]

BC, if they sent the letter to your previous address, then that will the be address they have done the Land Registry search on surely ? In which case they are likely to get the shock of their lives if they try and get a CCJ on that

 

Have the FOS said that you have to go to the FLA ? Because they are looking at PPI complaints from quite a way back.

[citizenB]

To bring my thread up to date (sorry I did post this post from stink on another thread but forgot to post it here as well).

 

 

 

WELL WELL WELL,

 

After 12 months of silence from Santander (GE Woodchester) a letter arrives from Stink Outsourcing titled :-

 

Received mid June

INVESTIGATION OF ASSETS

(address)

 

 

We have recently, without success, attempted to contact you with regards to your outstanding balance with us of £****. Your refusal to deal with this matter has prompted our office to make an enquiry under the Land Registration Act 2002.

 

 

You are recorded on the Proprietorship Register at HM Land Registry as holding a benefical interest

in the property ***************. This means you may have a significant asset, one that can be used to enforce a county court judgement by way of a Final Charging Order.

 

 

Although we have not added interest to our outstanding balance, once placed with our Legal Department we will seek to impose our full legal rights.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1) The account they refer is in serious dispute with original creditor Woodchester now Santander over PPI

, later learning from PT that the agreement is seriously flawed and completely unenforceable.

 

 

2) Never had any dealings with Stink relating to this account

 

 

& 3) They sent the letter above to our former address which we moved from 3 years ago.

(only got the letter 'coz we are still on mail redivert).

 

 

Me thinks Stink are once again living up to their name.

 

Beachy

 

Can you just clarify, they sent the above to a previous address.. but which address did they state you had a beneficial interest in, within the letter.. the old adress or your current address ?

 

I find it quite strange that they would head their letter the way they have.. I dont think they are able to "investigate" very much outside of what is in the public domain ie the land registry

[beachcomber60]

Thanks CB,

 

Their 'Investigation of Assets' letter went to a previous address, however, their latest letter with the docs WAS correctly addressed.

 

As far as the FOS is concerned, the last time I spoke to them they said that they MAY investigate my complaint IF I can provide the policy provider, policy etc and if the insurer was regulated. GE/Santander were unwilling to provide the info & stated it was their Final Response and I MUST use the FLA.

 

Beachy

[citizenB]

Thanks CB,

 

Their 'Investigation of Assets' letter went to a previous address, however, their latest letter with the docs WAS correctly addressed.

 

As far as the FOS is concerned, the last time I spoke to them they said that they MAY investigate my complaint IF I can provide the policy provider, policy etc and if the insurer was regulated. GE/Santander were unwilling to provide the info & stated it was their Final Response and I MUST use the FLA.

 

Beachy

 

Ah right.

 

So, as long as you do 90% of the work, the FOS will investigate.. Sounds about right:rolleyes:

 

I am assuming you have sent a Subject access request, asking for the information to be included ? If you have, and they havent complied then you should make a complaint to the Infomation Commissioner. If you havent sent the SAR, then that could be worth a shot.

[beachcomber60]

CB could I ask that the thread title be changed to :-

 

'GE Woodchester to Link Outsourcing'

 

I know there's quite a fan club for Link

 

Have always been advised not to acknowledge Link, however I am very tempted to start ping pong letter writing.

 

Firstly a complaint will be made to the ICO as to why a) Santander have not fully compiled with my SAR - they only sent the cca, DN & Charge statement & b) why they used the statutory £10 fee as a payment to the account.

 

In addition to pt's findings on the flawed cca, mis sold ppi, passing the account to stinkylink while in serious dispute, I have checked the docs I have and found that -

 

GE's DN doesnt allow sufficient time to remedy, issued 5th November '08 to be paid before 19th November.

 

GE then sent a letter on the 23rd November giving me 7 days to pay, failure will result in termination & the normal threats - dca's, court, attachment to earnings etc., HOWEVER in the docs sent by Link there was a Notice of Termination (which I never received from GE/Santander) this was dated the 22nd November (the day before the seven day notice letter) so I think they have unlawfully terminated the account on top of the 'flawed' agreement.

 

Beachy

[citizenB]

Will sort the title for you:)

[helan]

Hi

I received a letter from Code Red debt collectors on Friday over our dispute with Santander, my partner got made redundant in April and has been unable to find another job so he is on jobseekers and we cannot afford to pay the monthly amounts for our finance, so we asked Santander if we could make lower payments on a temporary basis and they have said no. We then got in touch with Legal aid who have been conversing with them on our behalf and have still said no to any offer of payment, and apparently with our finance we cannot give the car up without signing a form so say they can sell it for pennies at auction and we would still be liable for any shortfall and they cannot take the car off us unless they go to court.

Now they have sent the amount we are behind by to this DCA and they wanted us to respond within 48 hrs.

Any help would be great x

[beachcomber60]

Well update time (haven't been on CAG for awhile)

 

Absolutely no response from the OC - no surprise there.

 

Letter from the dca -

 

We do not consider the account in dispute and will therefore be treated as such. The resposibility to manage the information placed with the CRA's by GE was passed at the time of purchase. Therefore we do not believe we are in breach of our responsibilities under the Act with regards to your details.

 

We maintain the information we are reporting to the CRA's is an accrute reflection of how the account has been paid and therefore we will not be removing this default. The debt is known as a "chose in action" (whatever that means ).

 

As the original lender holds the legal right to collect the debt, they also hold the right to assign their rights to DCA. Although the lender does not need your permission to do this, Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires, in order for there to be a legal assignment, that notice should be given in writing. This was sent to you **/**/****.

 

Please contact us to discuss the repayment of your outstanding balance and to prevent further recovery action.

 

So Improperly executed agreement, mis sold PPI, invalid DN (OC was told at the time but thankfully they didnt correct & reissue) DCA supplied copy of termination letter (which was never received from the OC which shows termination one day before expiration of the Notice of Default).

 

Yet they say there is no dispute, they can have the arrears minus PPI + interest & damages = they owe me

 

Beachy

[creamegg1]

Hi

 

Hi there

 

Hoping I can get some advice on here. 4 years ago I took out finance through a garage to finance my car, I have paid most of it off, was about 7,000, now only 1,000 left. I have missed the last cpl of months payments as lost my job.

 

Had letter from santander saying they were charging me etc and would default me. I have spoken to them a few times but dont get anywhere with them.

 

I phoned up today again to pay this months payment and arrange to pay the back money due, which is approx 250, and the woman on the phone was horrible! I was put through to Code red, whoever they are, who said that santander had passsed my details to them and that basically she wouldnt accept payment for this month and that I would either have to pay the whole 1,000 left or give them back the car.

 

I am gutted and flumaxxed! I need my car for work and am trying hard to come to a solution with them, but they seem stuck on taking me to court if I dont pay the full whack, which I cant do right now.

 

What happened with your problem?

[NitaB05]

Had the same problem with them this week! Got car finance, 4 years paid, 1 year to go but got behind as been on maternity leave, have been trying to set up an arrangement with them for 3 months now and keep getting fobbed off! now they have turned the debt over to code red, spoke to them this week and they were AWFUL! Got nowhere, they said we could turn the car over, yeah right!! it will be sold at Auction for next to nothing! And how are you supposed to get to work?? The woman on the phone said well if you can afford car insurance surely you could afford your car payments???? Have accumulated other debts and everyone has been great, accepting lower amounts to clear the debt, all except this company. Had no trouble with them in the past until Santander took over! By the way the letter recieved said we had to respond within 48 hours which we did and the woman said Why are you ringing if you can't pay the amount off in full!! I said because the letter told me to! You can't win!!