Jump to content

Hime

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Hime

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. There is one more very interesting piece of information I keep forgetting to put up here! During my conversation with the FOS when I first made the complaint. She said I could not take the complaint back to 2011 when they first contacted me so she said she would have to put the complaint starting in 2013 sometime. I asked her why that was and she said it was more than likely they did not have a licence to do what they do until then!? Which means the tracing techniques and evidence before that is worthless in a so-called official way even though it’s the same company!?
  2. Hello renegadeimp. To be honest I can’t actually see the press being interested really especially with the likes of this government in charge at the moment. It’s a curious situation to say the least but symptomatic of the state of this country where big business rules and can do what they like as us the little people are no longer in control of our own country!? I completely agree that this should not be allowed, whereby a company like this can make £millions of pounds on the suffering of others by exploiting loopholes as they know that there is nothing you (the little man) can actually do about it despite having the law on my side. I am a bit of a rebel and why I fought this company but sad as it is, it’s the way things are now that big business does what it wants, as with the likes of the ploinkers they know there is nothing I can really do about it, hence why he has a £50million mansion in Chelsea. He like tax avoidance are just exploiting what the government has created or at least just turning a blind eye to. As I have said I feel I have been all around the houses and I am left with two options, to take them to court, which would cost too much money or just ignore them. So here we are again and again why I am posting here so others can see that I have tried fighting these people but you can’t so all you can do and what I am going to do is just ignore them and feel happy in your mind that they are never going to get any money out of me so it’s just going to cost them more money to TRY and harass me! I included two pages of comments from this and various sites (as well as two pages of 24 OFT rules that this company had disregarded in dealing with me) as evidence to the FOS of what this company is like. I challenge anyone to read it and tell me this country is fine when a ‘big business’ like this can ‘legally’ be allowed to operate the way they do!? Without prejudice Below is just a sample of the comments I have been regularly reading on the endless forums about the limitations act and link. A CCJ does not become statue barred as such but becomes unenforceable as a court deems that six years is adequate time to apply for enforcement & unless they can prove extenuating circumstances such as fraud they would not get the courts permission to pursue. Section 24 of the Limitations Act 1980.... (1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable. (2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due. For this reason alone, cc judges would not allow enforcement. The information isn't conflicting. A CCJ never becomes SB however the right to enforce it without a courts permission does. If they don't enforce it within the six years they need the permission of a court & generally this will not be given because of Sec 24 of the LA. If the claimant has not attempted to enforce the judgement in 6 years they must make an application to the court if they wish to restart the action, this is rare as it is seen as unfair. Because they haven't taken enforcement their right to do so has expired under the Limitations Act. To pass the CCJ on to another company would take an application to court which it doesn't sound like they have done. After six years the CCJ is removed from both the Trust registry & your credit file. It is archived & cannot be retrieved without the specific case number & this is usually 'lost' when the debt is sold on as the purchaser does not receive a copy of the judgment. B) If the CJJ has NOT been followed up by the creditor, after 6 years, a new CJJ can be issued only in exceptional circumstances, but the creditor MUST: 1. Apply to the court to get a new CCJ 2. Have to show just reason why they were not able to deal with it during that Six year period. 3. AND produce to the courts a copy of the original CCJ to enforce it. Not only can the defendant rest easy knowing that bailiffs won't come knocking nor will his wages be garnished, he also has absolutely no incentive (other than perhaps a moral one?) to pay. Game over for the creditors methinks. What this does mean is that there are some nasty bottom-feeding companies who buy "old" CCJs for pennies on the pound, in the hopes of harassing enough people (who are unaware of the 6 year deal) to cough up for them. Enforceability of CCJ's over 6 years old is only ever done in very very VERY rare cases. Since yours are 10+, your debts are just doing the rounds of the backstreet DCA's who are just trying to con you. Technically yes, but in reality if they have not enforced the CCJ within 6 years, the debt will be sold on and passed about debt collection agancies who can do naff all apart from ask for the money. It is very very rare for a CCJ to be re-activated after 6yrs me thinks they are just phishing for a mug that knows no better. If they had been back to court & they got any of the ccj's re-activated under THEIR name i can assure you, they would not be sending simple threat-o-grams!! oh dear how many times have we heard link operators say ' you've got an old ccj!!' DO NOT take anything link say AS THE TRUTH. they will say conjure up photocopy create anything to get you paying. TBH I'm suspicious that a CCJ even existed. this is a typical trick by link you owe nothing!! as explained they would FIRST have to get themselves substituted as the claimant on the CCJ NO CHANCE.... they get it re-activated in their name NO CHANCE!! Nothing can be re-registered on your credit report Hi, for you and for any other person wishing to send a letter to Link (or one of it's many guises) please use the following address as it is a manned desk and they will have to physically sign for the letter Link Financial Outsourcing ltd Unit 5, Trecenydd Business Park, Caerphilly, Mid Glamorgan, CF83 2RZ oh god link and their fleecing antics on SLC loans moved you to the student loans/slc forum loads of threads here to read. don't believe a chuffin word link tell you. the loan is well statue barred and they know it sadly they make £M's out of spoofing people that they still 'owe' on them. i'd be sending them the statute barred letter. and whatever you do never ever talk to them on the phone. there are several threads here in the slc forum the same as you have a read. not ONE has ever succeeded they will fleece you BLIND they can get away with saying WHATEVER they like on the phone!! link are MASTERS at this!! Link will lie and say ANYTHING on the phone to get you to break down and give them money. What else did you expect them to do? say yea ok , damn YOU CAUGHT US OUT TRYING TO FLEECE YOU? expect a few more letters now you have communicated with them. - they know a mug is awaiting to pay them? not! ignore those too! ignore most courts are I bet well aware of link and their dodgy tactics link are VERY VERY VERY well known for trying to trick old students. 100% fleecers stay OFF that phone this is link up to their usual fleecing tactics do not respond Report them. Let link know in writing you have reported them, quoting the reference number. They will soon scuttle off. If they continue to pursue they are in breach of OFT guidelines and you should make a complaint. I would ignore them as they know they cant enforce it and are just trying to scare you into paying. If you want to send a letter, don't threaten them. TELL them. The OFT Must be informed as a matter of course. The owner of this company relies on borderline fraud, lies and threats to scare people into paying. that's link for you. the CCJ is dead and buried doesn't matter if they know the number or not. I have a feeling your real issue here is you keep entertaining letter tennis. should have been one letter the CCJ is now outside of 6yrs old you were not the claimant you have not been substituted as the claimant until or unless I receive a court date you are now being ignored I admit no debt to you or your invisible clients. bye bye PLINK it wont, ignore them they'll soon give up. phonecalls...in writing only ..drop call. letters scan and shred. If you ever get bored and think of entertaining them then stop and scan up all the letters from them. we'd like a laugh!! As ever, Link continue to circumnavigate the OFT guidelines on debt collection Many debtors complain that Link Financial “hounds” them, and last year the Office of Fair Trading officially warned the firm to stop using approaches to debtors’ next-door neighbours as part of its collections strategy. cite the harrison case. They know damn well what will happen if they keep harassing via phone. They found out the hard way in the harrison case. The SLC is well aware of the unlawful lengths their DCAs go to chase debts and as such need to be reported. Anyway, regardless of this, the SLC have a long sorry history of using disreputable companies (Known by SLC to use disreputable methods) to collect what they must know to be statute barred debt, and as far as the bigger picture goes this must be stopped.
  3. That's very interesting and sounds like my next mission, I'm going to get onto thier website right now and look into the contact details...will let you know
  4. Thanks Sabresheep. I really like the idea of sticking a nail in plinks coffin so will look into this more. I notice a while ago that the OFT was gone but didn’t really know who had replaced them and how if any good they were, thanks
  5. Hello dx Are the FCA any thing like the FO as if so I don’t hold any hopes out there?! Yep have the proof. It lists all the old numbers they rang, my family, my friends, my old addresses & even an old address from donkeys years ago!
  6. Thanks Sabresheep. I really have given up with this firm now and intend to take dx’s advise of just ignoring them. As I have said on here, I believe now it is completely pointless in any communication with them. They just circumnavigate and ignore all official rules/laws and guidelines and just harass you, that’s how they work. I am posting more now as information for others as I am happy in my mind that I am ignoring them. I actually now just dream up stupid things to say to them on the phone to give them the run around when they start ringing and their letters just make me laugh!
  7. I received a copy of all the communications plink have regarding me from the FOS. Interesting reading! Persistent beggars! To trace me, not that I’ve been in hiding in any sense (I just moved, that’s all!) and can prove this very easily but I am not going to put up here as to how as the ploinkers most probably read this I would imagine!? They sent letters to an old school friend and phoned him, how they got hold of his details I have no idea but I hadn’t spoken to him for years so I have only just found this out. They then I believe, rang everybody in the phonebook from my old area with the same surname as me (my surname is a bit unusual so not many in the phone book and mostly relatives) as I now have the phone records. I had two uncles contact me, shortly before I started receiving letters, to say that some woman, who didn’t say who she was, was looking for me. My uncle actually joked at the time that he thought it was a previous girlfriend who was now trying to chase me for the obvious reason! It was a mystery in the family until plink appeared and then I put two and two together. It lists all the letters and phone calls since the beginning and I feel quite happy now that they have gone to sooo much trouble only for me to go, erm no I don’t think I will give you any money actually thanks very much! Thanks very much again to the CAG for all the information to help with this! The latest on the elusive CCJ, which is just funny now, I think! The letter from the FOS has; it is most likely that a judgement was entered at Northampton CC bla bla, BUT the memo from link to the FOS has the issuing court as Colchester and Clacton. That’s new! I’ve now had NorthamtonCC in Jan 2002, NorthamptonCC in Dec 2001, Chelmsford CC and now Colchester and Clacton! I’m looking forward to where this alleged CCJ is going to pop up from next! But what the hells going on with the FOS then, when according to the letter from the FOS he is happy that plink MOST LIKELY have a CCJ from NorthamptonCC when the memo sent to him clearly says Colchester and Clacton! Did he even read any of it!? Obviously not! my question is this, what’s going to be next? This is only tongue in cheek so only reply for a laugh as I’m not bothered in the slightest by plink the ploinkers anymore but I’m just curious as to what’s next now, whether it’s going to be the usual phone call, a standard letter with all the usual added interest on a supposed CCJ that you can’t add interest to, a letter for just the alleged CCJ amount, a letter giving me a one time discount to settle the alleged debt (I haven’t had one of them yet), take me to court (I very much doubt that), could they sell the alleged debt on to an even lower form of pond life (if there is one), will they just give up (I very very much doubt that one) or could it be a letter saying they have found new evidence that the alleged CCJ was actually issued by the supreme jellybean Court of Mars!? Lol ploinkers! Answers below & I will let you know the winner! My money is on business as usual and I will just get a phone call.
  8. Morning all & thanks renegadeimp. I’ve slept on all the good advise here and come to the decision that dx post 26 is the answer, it’s time to ignore everyone! Not the cag though! It has cost me so much time in letter writing and I feel things have just gone round and round and I’m back to square 1. So I’m just fed up with it all now. I actually now quite welcome court action from the plinkers as at least their will be a resolution but lets face it are they really going to risk court action for a £2&half grand alleged debt when their only argument is point of action especially when my counter argument is harassment since all my communications have not actually been about disputing the debt but more about I consider their actions to be nothing but harassment? Would make for a very interesting case though!? I would be very interested if anybody in the cag actually knows of a case where point of action has succeeded or actually ever being bought before a court especially in relation to the plinkers? Sorry not quite awake yet... case in point!
  9. Sorry just noticed! Thanks renegadeimp!!
  10. Thanks dx but not to sure I like the sound of; Case in point, DCA's obtaining judgements by default on debts that are obviously SB. Especially if the debtor has been sending letters. Once the judgement is granted, the DCA normally doesnt hesitate to go for enforcement proceedings unless you force their hand otherwise into checking for a CCA. Does this mean I have to start worring again?!
  11. Renigadeimp. You are so so right but unfortunatly I found out the hard way and why I am posting on here about my experiance as it might help somebody else in the future from all the torment!
  12. Sorry, also dx. If it can still be chased then what is the point of having a law like the limitations act?
  13. Defiantly, I don’t know what I would have done without this site!! I’m no mug and would never have paid them but the advise on here has been an absolute godsend! You say in E&W it can still be chased. For starters what’s E&W? Also there has got to be a point where chasing becomes harassment? Defiantly going to ignore now dx. To be honest the only thing that ever bothered me was the voicemail messages as it costs me to retrieve them but I’ve turned off my voicemail off now! That would have been a problem a few years ago as I was starting up self-employment so building contacts but now I have my client base so don’t need to worry about voicemail as hardly anybody ever leaves a massage anyway apart from plink. The rest is easy ignored, I’m not bothered by my phone & I’ve mentioned before I do amuse myself with them when I’m in the right mood!
  14. Renegadeimp. Thanks and yep you are right! I am considering it at the moment. Funny how the adjudicator has never mentioned that I can escalate it though? Hello dx. Thanks! Yep you are 100% right! If I had known now what a complete saga it was going to be then yes no doubt about it, I would have ignored them from the beginning. The trouble was it just escalated. It started with just one letter to plink, which said ‘go away’ I am not giving you any money but that just led to more and more letters. So again yes you are totally right in that this company, once you contact them they just hassle you 10x more. I’m sure now if I had just ignored them in the first place they would have given up by now. Trouble was the phone calls were just getting so annoying that I felt I had to do something. Hello citizenB. Nobody has details of this alleged CCJ and that is my point. The problem is this, the SLC who allegedly obtained the CCJ have then sold the alleged debt to plink, who as a buyer of the alleged debt do not receive a copy as they are not the claimants and so being a legal document without their name on it they are not allowed to have it. The SLC along with the registry trust, the court where it was allegedly issued and my credit report all wipe there records clean after 7 years as they are no longer legally valid so there is or seams to be no way of actually getting any kind of official proof due to it not being any longer legally valid? As for plink having to get themselves substituted and then the alleged CCJ reissued is all fine and good, I am well aware of this BUT plink take absolutely no notice of this! As I have said in my posts, it’s all very well having these laws/rules/guidelines but if nobody enforces them and the company just ignores them then what do you do?! Other than me taking them to court which as I’ve said would just cost too much. This is exactly what plink rely on!
  15. I would be very interested of anybody’s thoughts or experience of the financial ombudsmen? I am going to fire off a return letter at some point. I now know it is completely pointless but it will make me happy and any ammunition I can get would be helpful, thanks. I received the letter about their decision and quite frankly I’m not sure if I should be insulted or take it as a joke?! They say that I say that link is chasing me for a statue barred debt and they should stop chasing me. Interesting wording as a six page letter of mine never once mentioned the words ‘chasing’ but did mention harassment about 20x! So who’s side are they on by dumbing down the words harassment to chasing as it doesn’t sound so bad then? My letter was nothing like that anyway! A CCJ cannot be statue barred, I know that! My letter, if they bothered to even read it properly was that A, the CCJ cannot be proved so how can it be in any way legal?! B, even IF there was a CCJ then it is so old that it is unenforceable and that by LAW all they should be entitled to do is to take me back to court and should not be allowed to use nothing but harassment or ‘chasing’ techniques to demand money from me!? Link said that the SLC obtained a CCJ. That’s right, link do not even own this elusive CCJ so the CCJ is a worthless piece of paper that doesn’t even exist but no this means nothing to the FO then? It is most likely that the SLC (not link) obtained a CCJ. So absolutely no proof then. Which means we are left with just taking the word of link and the FO is happy to just take them at their word? Here’s the cruncher though! It is most likely that the SLC obtained a CCJ on ** January 2002 at Northampton CC. I clearly stated in my letter that link have clearly stated in writing several times (the FO has a copy of this) that the SLC obtained a CCJ on ** December 2001 at Northampton CC. They also said in one phone conversation that the CCJ was issued at Chelmsford CC. If this was a trial in court I’m sure the judge would just laugh at this evidence as it is plainly obvious that this company is at very least lying or possibly fabricating evidence hence committing fraud but again no, the FO seams to think this is all fine and above board?! So who’s side is this independent company funded by banks and corporations really on? I wonder?!
×
×
  • Create New...