Link Financial -ford credit return of goods order - lost

[olympic1805]

Hi AC,

The acknowledgement of service was handed into the courts on Tuesday, 27th April, giving me 28 days to file my defence ?

[angry cat]

:

 

"What is the Claim process?

The Claimant issues a Claim through the Claim Production Centre (CPC) - further details regarding the CPC can be found on the Bulk Centre web site. When the Claim form is sent, the Defendant has 14 days to respond to the Claim from the date of service (5 days after the date of issue) before judgment by default may be entered. This information can be found at the top of your Claim form.

If you send an Acknowledgment of Service, you then have 28 days after the date of service to send your Defence or Part Admission. If you agree to the full amount then complete the N9A form and send this directly to the Claimant. Submitting an admission response may result in Judgment being entered against you.

All of the above information can be found in your Claim pack.

 

How long do I have to file a response to my claim?

Counting from the date of issue -

 

Acknowledgement of Service:

14 Days + 5 Days (service) = 19 Days. (An Acknowledgement of Service gives 14 days extra from the date of service to file a defence).

 

Defence, without filing an Acknowledgement of Service:

14 days + 5 Days (service) = 19 Days.

 

Defence, after filing Acknowledgement of Service:

14 + 14 + 5 = 33 Days in total."

[olympic1805]

Thanks AC

[angry cat]

I believe that it would be of benefit to you if your thread is moved over to the; Legal Issues Forum.

 

Do you agree?

[olympic1805]

I believe that it would be of benefit to you if your thread is moved over to the; Legal Issues Forum.

 

Do you agree?

 

Hi, what ever you think ?? Do I have to do anything ? or does it get moved ?

thanks

[angry cat]

Hi, what ever you think ?? Do I have to do anything ? or does it get moved ?

thanks

 

I have asked the Moderator's to move your thread over to the Legal Issues Forum!

 

AC

X

[olympic1805]

I have asked the Moderator's to move your thread over to the Legal Issues Forum!

 

AC

X

 

thanks AC, keep in touch

[ukaviator]

Thread moved as requested. .

[pt2537]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/241827-legal-action-how-start.html

 

 

this may assist

[Jasper1965]

"Further to your letter dated 1/2/10, and my subsequent telephone conversation with your employee

named 'Rasheed'.

I am disappointed that you were unwilling to accept my offer of £2000, plus scheduled re payments, as I felt this was a fair and very reasonable offer.

I would also like to point out that I feel the haste in which you have started litigation against me,underlines my suspicions that you had no intention of ever coming to an arrangement with me for the repayment of monies claimed outstanding,as on the 'Particulars of Claim' I received, plainly indicate that your intention was to go for BOTH the money and the car.

I feel a request for your formal complaint procedure is now in order, as this behaviour is a breach of the CSA Code of Practice (f) unless instructed otherwise, accept all reasonable offers by debtors to pay by installments, provided acceptable evidence of non-ability to pay is given."

Breach of a code of practice to which an organisation subscribes is likely to constitute an offence under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2006, thus it is likely that any complaint will eventually be progressed to both the OFT and the CSA.

I also require the following from you with reference once again to the CSA code of practice:

1) Confirmation that 'Rasheed' is either not a pseudonym or a pseudonym which this telephone agent uses (when dealing with peoples sensitive financial information) which enables you to positively identify the true identity of the person who refuted any attempt by myself to resolve this matter in a timely and responsible manner and without taking up valuable Court resources.

 

Having subsequently learned that companies such as yourselves speculate on debts and alleged debts by purchasing them for just a few pence in the pound and then attempting to reclaim the entire balance claimed owing despite this already having been written down to tax by the original creditor, I am all the more incensed by the abjectly intolerant and unreasonable behaviour of your agent 'Rasheed' since the £2000 cash down payment would in itself have realised your company an instant profit of approx 200% on this account.

 

Is this worded letter okay to send to Link ?

 

 

I've just added a couple of extra sentences as Link will probably look to use something like this as an admittance by yourself that you owe the amount claimed. If that's the case we might as well make it as embarrassing as possible for Link then.

[olympic1805]

Hi Jasper1965,

I posted the letter on friday (recorded) but can include your last bit and send on , acting as if I had not included page 2 ?? Do you think ??

[emandcole]

I wouldn't worry too much, admitting a debt does not allow the claimant off the hook. We all know there is a debt and to dispute it will do you no favours, the amount being wrong aside.

 

If the judge adopts a 'you had it you pay for it' approach there are many good arguments you can use to remind him/her of their duty to follow the legal requirements instead of their own 'moral compass'.

 

The claimant needs to have done everything correctly, admittal or not makes no difference to which side of the law the claimant has stepped.

[olympic1805]

Hi all,

Just received response from LR, will type it here as probably quicker for me, it says :

"I am writing in connection with the aboe account and your letter dated 30/4/10.

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to you confirmin that your account has been assigned to Link Financial.

I am sorry but I am unable to proide you with a copy of the actual Deed of Assignment as this is a confidential document.

I would be grateful f all future correspondence could be with Link Financial Plc using the details on the enclosed letter."

Is this for real ?? surely that "confidential Document" has something to do with me ??

 

Excellent. The fact that you've paid nearly the amount of the vehicle will seriously undermine Sink's claim to just have it off you. Think we all agree such a claim is outrageous.

 

I'm sure I've read somewhere in the past that litigation effectively carried out for the purposes of claiming the interest (effectively what is happening here) can be attacked but can't recall the reasons or the argument used. If I remember it I'll add it up for you.

 

Keep us posted anyway and let's see how they respond to the request for the Deed of Assignment. If it were me I would be very tempted (if they don't provide it) to pay an application fee to have the court assess the evidence of the claimant. Initial application is about £45.

 

Can't recalll the name for it but you make the application for the court to order the claimant to provide the evidence they rely on, if the court agrees you'll pay the final amount of £30 and the court will set a date. You'll attend, along with the claimant and the judge will examine 'their hand' if you like.

 

Great way of taking control of the situation and if the judge looks at what they produce and rejects it, it instantly puts them on the back foot and gives you valuable insight into their chances. Great use of funds I think and well worth it to see their faces if what they have is useless. I did this and it made a huge difference as they'd been evasive despite SAR and CPR requests. They subsequently opted to discontinue.

 

In the meantime if they don't play ball send them a CPR 31.15 letter demanding right to inspect the documents they have including the DOA. If they ignore that as well definitely consider the application hearing as well as consider a request for strike out as they're frustrating attempts to provide a full defence.

 

Hi Emandcole,

As you can see in my last post LR are unwilling to give me a copy of the DOA, if Link do the same, (heres hoping !) then shall we go down the route you suggested, and pay the court to assess the evidence ? Also should I send LR a CPR 31.15 letter, or wait to see if LINK produce the DOA ?

[emandcole]

Very interesting. Of course I'd read 'can't' as 'won't' and I think a proper data entry request would be in order.

 

I see no reason why the release of a copy of this document to you is in any way sensitive or in breach of anything a data controller would need to look out for...other than the fact it would reveal the figures and would expose the potentiality of them not actually having one.

 

So...keep this letter safe. Pursue the same with Sink and see what they've got. Starting to get interesting now eh?

[olympic1805]

I'd say !! cant wait to see what Link come up with ??

[emandcole]

Was thinking about this and the only reason I can think of as to why they 'can't' send it (other than the possibility of it not existing) is that LR may well have shifted a load of accounts to Sink in one go and the Deed would include names and details of third parties unrelated to your old account.

 

Clearly, without express permission of all of those other people as a very minimum LR would not be able to release a copy to you for data protection reasons.

 

This is a possible opportunity for you then as Sink would also be bound by the same limitations and I believe would not even have the right to show the Deed in court as the judge is not privy to the data details of third parties either. This is not a criminal matter where the law would allow this to be seen in the interests of ensuring justice is served.

 

I could be wrong on the above but if LR and Sink have not produced a seperate deed that has just your details on they may find if they're forced to provide it for a court that their hands are tied. Let's see what Sink come up with.

[angry cat]

The majority of distressed debt is sold to a debt buyer on a CD Rom, which would show hundreds of other names (indviduals).

 

At the end of the day, Link will have to provide proof that the debt was legally assigned to them: Equitable Assignment.

The Deed of Assignment will provide this evidence...

[emandcole]

Thanks AC, as the debt has been sold but litigation commenced in their sole name they should provide evidence of an absolute assignment rather than equitable I believe. Have I missed something

[Jasper1965]

You've missed nothing, that is 'absolutely' correct.

 

Can Olympic1805 give us the date of the 'assignment' please or at least the date of the letter (from Landrover) notifying them of this assignment?

 

I've an idea for an argument/request for a bit later on (AQ stage) as to why Link should have to provide a copy of the deed (reducted if neccesary), notwithstanding the rather obvious point that the 'assignment' is mentioned in the PoC's and a further slightly more complex argument as to why they should provide a copy of the deed with purchase price included again for a bit later.

 

I don't think the inevitable plea that the deed is sensitive business information should be given mileage, it's their action they are the claimant and the burden of proof is upon them. It appears that in the topsy turvy world of debt purchase that an individuals sensitive information is a commodity to treat with little or no respect and yet their sordid deal brokering must remain sacrosanct.

[olympic1805]

Hi Jasper1965,

Received letter from LR dated 28/1/10 stating "Account has been assigned to FCE Bank plc who have subsequently re-assigned Link Financial Ltd to recover any outstanding debt due"

 

Then received letter from LINK dated 1/2/10 (post 85) informing of sale of debt.

Is this any use ?

 

I am still awiting LINKs response to my letter dated 30/4/10 for copy of DOA !!

 

Hi just looked back and it was post 83 (letter for assignment of link) however not showing on post, shall i post it again ?

[emandcole]

"Account has been assigned to FCE Bank plc who have subsequently re-assigned Link Financial Ltd to recover any outstanding debt due"

 

Glad you've raised this again as I had a thought about this earlier, perhaps Jasper can have a think about it too?

 

This assignment path - from LR (who you had the formal agreement with) to FCE Bank Plc. Shouldn't there be a document of some sort, perhaps another deed even, to cover the transfer from LR to FCE?

 

Can't see how LR could get away with doing this for a whole host of reasons (tax etc) without there being a formal process or recognition of what amounts to property/asset transfer.

 

The fact that LR have confirmed that an assignment has taken place between them and FCE is evidence enough that this has taken place.

 

Currently we're pushing for the assignment between FCE and Sink but perhaps we should also be looking to ensure this assignment business has been correctly observed from the very off?

 

What do you guys think

[olympic1805]

Hi Emandcole,

Today received response from Link, but not the DOA, a copy of the HPA, this is what the letter says:

"Please find enclosed the documents you have requested from Link, 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"

So no copy of the Deed of Assignment from Link or Landrover, where do we go from here, would you presume it does not exist, or like you said a shared one ?

The have also sent their "complaints from " shall I complete this do you think, or is it wasting time ?

 

What do we do now ?

[vint1954]

Muppets.

 

Assignments are not covered by the CCA 1974. It's the LPA 1925

[Jasper1965]

 

The fact that LR have confirmed that an assignment has taken place between them and FCE is evidence enough that this has taken place.

 

Currently we're pushing for the assignment between FCE and Sink but perhaps we should also be looking to ensure this assignment business has been correctly observed from the very off?

 

What do you guys think

 

I think you are right on the money here E&C, for Link to be able to commence litigating alone then they must have title to the account, and the only way they can have lawful title to the account is via a valid assignment under LOP.

 

Since LR assigned the account to FCE and FCE then assigned the account to Link there would have to be in existence TWO absolute assignments, absolute because as sole claimant, Link are purporting to hold title. If either assignment 1 OR assignment 2 were equitable then Link are NOT entitled to commence proceedings in their own right and must do so as co-claimant with the true titleholder.

 

So as I see it the path is:

LR--> assignment1 ---> FCE (fortunately Olympic has proof of this assignment)

FCE--> assignment2 ---> Link.

 

Now the interesting and possibly useful part:

 

Firstly in Olympics latest post it is apparent that Link have failed in their duty under CPR to provide proof of the assignment, which assignment? Either one tbh, and that's interesting because it was only very recently that the account was 'lawfully' assigned to Link (allegedly ) so one wonders why they might already have a problem simply providing the documentation you asked for?

 

Then it gets a little confusing, LR assert that you must deal with Link, but if everything is above board how would LR really know this since they didn't deal with Link but dealt with and sold the a/c to FCE (allegedly:rolleyes:).

 

Again interestingly Link seem a little reticent about providing much in the way of details about 'the assignment' (this must be assignment 2) a simple little thing like the actual date of the assignment isn't much to ask for but appears to be a problem for them.

 

Let's pretend for the time being that assignment 2 is an absolute assignment, wholly valid under Sec 136 LOP 1925: This get's Link halfway home on the question of title, pretty good for them but we are playing 'let's pretend'.

 

Now let's look at assignment 1, absolute or equitable?

 

LR assigned the account to FCE but were the criteria for an absolute assignment met?

 

136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

Now unless Olympic received a notice of assignment (assignment1) from either LR or FCE then this assignment can only be equitable ie title has not passed.

Nemo Dat Quod Nom habet then applies so any assignment (assignment 2) from FCE to Link can ONLY be equitable.

 

So if Olympic had not received notice of assignment 1 prior to litigation being commenced, it is for Olympic to contest the right of Link to even commence proceedings in their own right them not holding title to the account at the time.

[olympic1805]

Hi,

No other Assignment letter has ever been received, as Landrover Financial states on their letterhead "Trading Style of FCE Bak plc" does this not mean the LR and FCE are one the same company ??

Does this then make a difference ??