Link Financial have done a mass mailing of Default Notices re: assigned accounts.

[melmumof3]

having probs with these too for an mbna account i was paying, but mbna said it wasnt enough so sold onto the above wallies. ive cca'd them, they have sent an application form, which is only the bottom of it. can clearly see its been torn from 'something'. theyve sent the bit which has signature, and states 'bound by the CC act'. they have today left a message on landline, rang my husband's work twice, the secretary told hubby 'link financial' on the phone for him. so they can now google and see its a debt collection agency chasing him. ive sent them a letter yesterday, stating theyve not sent the cca etc. my husband to them this on phone, which he just got rude tone and told them to ring him at home. ive not long been in from work, when they have just rang again wanting to speak with hubby..... 4 times in one day!! now this is harrassment isnt it???

would anyone kindly let me know whats the best way forward now please. thanks in advance mel

[citizenB]

and the fee is only £1.00

 

I think there are 2 different accounts, wouldnt the fee be applicable for each one ?

[Alphageek]

ive not long been in from work, when they have just rang again wanting to speak with hubby..... 4 times in one day!! now this is harrassment isnt it???

would anyone kindly let me know whats the best way forward now please. thanks in advance mel

 

Have a look here Mel.

 

The Consumer Forums - Harassment

[chucho]

Please Please HELP ME !!!!

 

This is about Link Financial Ltd., who started phoning my husband about 4 months ago looking for me (I was at work and he told them to phone back after 5 but they never did). Then in February 2009 I received a letter from them stating that I had been served a notice and that I had failed to reply to a letter they had previously sent me (which I never received). The letter stated that I was to contact a Mrs S Chambers to discuss paying back a balance of £915.48 owed to HBOS. My husband came across your wonderful forum and we gave Link Financial 14 days to show us proof that we did owe this money. They never wrote back and when I tried to contact Mrs S Chambers, I was dealt with by a very rude coloured gentleman?, who would not allow me to speak with Mrs Chambers and demanded information such as my date of birth, name, address etc, which they obviously already had and then promptly hung up the phone on me when I insisted I talk with Mrs Chambers. We have since had one phone call, and no further mail correspondence. But to put the icing on the cake now they have lodged a default notice on my credit report with Experian. I have now had to pay back my overdraft of £300 to Lloyds in full and they refuse to give me another overdraft until this default notice is removed from my credit report. I have asked Experian to contact Link on my behalf to remove the notice but Link refused. Where do I go from here? I have never had an HBOS account. On my credit report it states that the debt is for a credit card - I have never had a credit card and the start date and default date on my report are one and the same - 2004 - when I was living abroad! Please can you advise my next course of action as this is unforgivable and ruining my financial reputation. I NEED TO HAVE THIS DEFAULT REMOVED FROM MY REPORT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Thanks for reading.......Please help.

[MAGDA]

Please Please HELP ME !!!!

 

This is about Link Financial Ltd., who started phoning my husband about 4 months ago looking for me (I was at work and he told them to phone back after 5 but they never did). Then in February 2009 I received a letter from them stating that I had been served a notice and that I had failed to reply to a letter they had previously sent me (which I never received). The letter stated that I was to contact a Mrs S Chambers to discuss paying back a balance of £915.48 owed to HBOS. My husband came across your wonderful forum and we gave Link Financial 14 days to show us proof that we did owe this money. They never wrote back and when I tried to contact Mrs S Chambers, I was dealt with by a very rude coloured gentleman?, who would not allow me to speak with Mrs Chambers and demanded information such as my date of birth, name, address etc, which they obviously already had and then promptly hung up the phone on me when I insisted I talk with Mrs Chambers. We have since had one phone call, and no further mail correspondence. But to put the icing on the cake now they have lodged a default notice on my credit report with Experian. I have now had to pay back my overdraft of £300 to Lloyds in full and they refuse to give me another overdraft until this default notice is removed from my credit report. I have asked Experian to contact Link on my behalf to remove the notice but Link refused. Where do I go from here? I have never had an HBOS account. On my credit report it states that the debt is for a credit card - I have never had a credit card and the start date and default date on my report are one and the same - 2004 - when I was living abroad! Please can you advise my next course of action as this is unforgivable and ruining my financial reputation. I NEED TO HAVE THIS DEFAULT REMOVED FROM MY REPORT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Thanks for reading.......Please help.

 

The best thing you can probably do at the moment is to send a SAR to Link and they should then provide all of the information they have relating to this alleged account. Hopefully that will provide you with the proof you need to challenge Link/HBOS, as you have no recollection of this account. Magda

[angry cat]

Phone Consumer Direct, the consumer arm of the OFT...Make that Call!

Also, make formal complaints to the Office of Fair Trading and the Information Commissioners Office.

 

DO NOT speak to Link on the Telephone, only communicate with them in writing and demand documentary evidence that the alleged debt is related to you

 

Make a formal a complaint to Experian that, Experian and Link Financial are processing erroneous data about you;

request that said data must be removed immediately.

 

About time Link Financial ceased from their 'Unfair Business Practice!

 

OUTRAGEOUS.

 

AC

[angry cat]

I note, that Link's consumer credit licence is still open and awaiting renewal;

it has been awaiting renewal for almost a year now!

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details :: Licence History :: Event Details

 

 

Event Details

Licence Details:

Licence/Application Number Licence Status Applicant/Holder Name

0446835 Current Link Financial Limited

 

Event Details:

Event Number Event Type Date of Receipt Closed Date Status

29 Renewal 01-May-2008 Open

 

Licence Event Details:

Role Name Action

LICENSEE Link Financial Limited Pending

Officer Bernard Albert Ernest Saunders Pending

Officer Paul David Burdell Pending

Officer Petteri BARMAN Pending

Officer Philippe Marcel Etienne Paillart Pending

Officer Selina LEE Burdell Pending

Officer Stephan Karl Edward Ludwig Pending

 

Address Type Address Action

Correspondence Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP Pending

Principal Place Of Business Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP Pending

Registered Office Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP Pending

 

Trading Names:

Name Action

Instantsilver Pending

Thesis Servicing Pending

 

Categories:

Category Action

Consumer credit Retained

Consumer hire Pending

Credit brokerage Retained

Credit reference agency Retained

Debt adjusting/counselling Removed

Debt administration Pending

Debt collecting Retained

Provision of debt-adjusting on a commercial basis Pending

Provision of debt-counselling on a commercial basis Pending

[chucho]

Thankyou all for your replies , can you advise me what a Subject Access Request is please?

[angry cat]

Thankyou all for your replies , can you advise me what a Subject Access Request is please?

 

 

A Subject Access Request is a request for information under The Data Protection Act 1998.

[chucho]

Thankyou, I have just written to Link and Experian and await their replies eagerly.

[angry cat]

How to access information - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

 

AC

[tierisch]

Well they are at it again - been ringing relatives to find me and hiding who they are from. They are so dumb as a quick google tracks their number to Link financial. So off goes another complaint letter to them and to OFT

[MAGDA]

Well they are at it again - been ringing relatives to find me and hiding who they are from. They are so dumb as a quick google tracks their number to Link financial. So off goes another complaint letter to them and to OFT

 

Hope the OFT will finally do something about it - it's about time they did.

 

Magda

[angry cat]

Well they are at it again - been ringing relatives to find me and hiding who they are from. They are so dumb as a quick google tracks their number to Link financial. So off goes another complaint letter to them and to OFT

 

Report them, DO IT!

 

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Contact us

 

We are all sick and tired of Link's covert tactics...also report them to Robert Gardner of Lambeth Trading Standards.

 

AC

[heathrow]

HI Chucho

If they are claiming a debt that you have neve rowed to a credit card company when you have never had a credit card why don't you try sueing them. It might be worth talking to one of these 'no win, no fee' solicitors and see if they are as good as they say.

 

Good luck

Heathrow

[heathrow]

Hi All

 

This is a letter that I sent by post (twice) and e-mailed (twice) to Jack Straw as well as to his constituency office and latterly to the Ministry of Justice. It appears that his constituency office hasn't even bothered to open the e-mail as I requested a response when read. Now, I thought MPs and Government ministers were required to at least acknowledge correspondence within so many days ... and if anyone knows the answer to this one please post it.

But, the long and short of it is that despite sending this coorrespondence that affects countless hundreds of people there has been a total lack of response which proves that MPs are not the slightest bit interested in we normal mortals because they are too busy lining their own pockets from out taxes.

Since sending this to Straw I have now sent it to my constituency MP who is a Conservative with a note suggesting that he follows it up and makes a name for himself by exposing a Government Minister and his department for failing to respond in any way, shape or form.

It's lengthy but the letter follows:

 

20 January 2009 (and sent again in April)

Letter e-mailed & posted

 

Rt Hon Mr Jack Straw

The House of Commons

Westminster

London

SW1A 0AA

 

 

Dear Mr Straw

 

 

Public concern over the practices of debt collection

 

You will be aware of the well documented items that have appeared in the press where banks, credit card companies, councils, solicitors and debt collecting agencies operating on their behalf are tirelessly harassing citizens that have got into debt. The cases that make the press are just the tip of the iceberg in a situation that has reached critical proportions.

 

Many of these companies are blatantly breaking the law and the public has little recourse to defend themselves against these unscrupulous businesses and their agents that are making the lives of thousands of good citizens unbearable.

 

I will ask you to take the time to view the web site set up by the Consumer Action Group (www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry). This is an independent site that reflects the way people’s lives are being seriously affected and emphasises the way that people are being subjected to the dreadful tactics these companies use as the ‘norm’.

 

The harassing tactics reported on the Consumer Action Group forums are by no way isolated. This points to the need for controls to be brought into law NOW; not in several months time and I request that you look at these issues seriously because you have the power to alter the status quo.

 

The Government agencies, such as The Trading Standards Authority and the Office of Fair Trading, that are meant to protect individuals in these matters are showing a marked unwillingness to enforce laws that are being blatantly broken and abused, allowing the debt collecting industry complete freedom to abuse, harass and terrify people. Often these debts have occurred for reasons beyond the individual’s control, caused by devastating circumstances such as a failed business, job loss, illness, divorce and other changes to a person’s life.

 

These issues raise several fundamental issues that need addressing:

 

1) What gives banks and other financial institutions the right to sell a debt to a third party when they should be taking responsibility for their own lending?

 

2) How is a Debt Collection Agency able to set up a business that allows them to buy a debt/alleged debt from a third party when the debt has been ‘written off’ by the lender and the lender has claimed tax relief on their loss?

 

3) If a debt has been written off by the lender, how does legislation allow the lender to then resell a debt to a third party for a small percentage of the original amount (believed to be about 10% of the total debt) and then resurrect the debt in full as their own?

 

4) In many cases the debt collection agency will continue to add interest to an amount that they have not lent in the first place? Can this be legal?

 

5) How can a debt collection agency pursue a third party for money that they have not lent them and without the pursued ‘debtor’ ever entering into any agreement with the debt collection agency? Under current Law surely they have no right to do this?

 

I believe that the above issues bring the current relationships between lenders and the debt collection agencies into serious doubt. I would like to know if there is anything in our constitution that allows this practice to take place at all, let alone without firm controls and vetting procedures. An entire industry has blossomed, that is often being managed by irresponsible and vindictive people who are only concerned with greed. This is causing untold misery to impoverished families and individuals who do not have the means to defend themselves or to pay the alleged debts.

 

I also question the rights of these companies to sell and pass on personal information and files about their customers without the individual’s authority. This contains sensitive financial information that may or may not be accurate. I suggest that this practice might be in direct breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

There is a deep concern about the way people who are in dept are being allowed to be persecuted and harassed by these organisations. Methods frequently use psychological targeting that is damaging the mental and physical health of many individuals and there is evidence that the weakest are targeted the most.

 

.

 

Some of the concerns that must be addressed are:

 

• The licensing and regulating of all agencies that are involved in debt collecting procedures.
  
• Close monitoring to vigorously control the way such agencies make approaches to those in debt or alleged to be in debt.
  
• A total ban on the practice of selling debts to a third party; a process that allows the original creditor to claim tax relief and to rid themselves of responsibility.
  
• A total ban on the practice of selling personal information such as home and business addresses, telephone numbers, names of family members and other information to a third party without the individual’s consent
  
• All agencies including banks and other lenders should ‘come clean’ and be totally open about any third parties that represent them. This to include a ban on the practice of withholding the names of senior officers within their organisation and a ban on withholding their business address by hiding behind Post Office box numbers that deliberately make it difficult to make contact.
  
• The practice of using internal departments under the names of firms to create the impression that they are external solicitors or debt collectors should be controlled to enable customers to determine exactly who they are dealing with.
  
• All bailiffs and debt collectors should be thoroughly scrutinised to ascertain whether they are fit to conduct this type of business.
  
• All bailiffs and debt collectors should be licensed and be responsible to the Courts. At the moment the public are being intimidated by private agencies who claim to be bailiffs with powers to enter the customer’s home.
  
• Any licensed bailiffs that abuse their powers should have their licenses rebuked if they are found guilty of mal-practise, or be immediately suspended if casesarepending.
  
• The wording of letters and other correspondence from all financial organisations and their agents must be properly controlled to prevent the growing practise of sending out illegally worded and intimidating correspondence that is designed to cause distress.
  
• Agencies must be forced to comply with the letter of the law regarding the supply of Subject Access Reports, Consumer Credit Agreements and other information legally requested by an individual to fight their case.
  
• Agencies and bailiffs should be prevented by law to add unfair charges and commissions to their claims. This is open to abuse and racketeering.
  
• Agencies should be prevented from making harassing telephone calls to individuals accused of being in debt. Currently these are frequently made to individuals at home and at work, to other family members and to neighbours whereby the callers pose as friends of the individual. Subversive calls of this nature should be immediately banned under law and those making such calls should be severely dealt with under existing legislation or new laws.
  
• Agencies should ensure that all of their staff are thoroughly trained and are aware of current legislation.
  
• Agency employees involved with customer contact should be enforced to give their names, contact numbers and position within the company. It goes without saying that these should act responsibly and ethically.
  
• Agencies should be forced to observe rules relating to personal visits made to an individual’s home or workplace. These are frequently conducted in a most intimidating way and are often devised to cause the maximum stress for the individual accused of debt.
  
• Agencies should be forced by law to observe the ‘no telephoning’ request of individuals and put their requests in writing.
  
• False and alleged claims by agencies must be dealt with severely
  
• Harassment by telephone, personal calls and threatening letters of senior citizens or those that are mentally or physically sick must be prevented.
  
• The police should be obliged to use their powers when cases of criminal harassment are reported. Currently most police authorities refuse to become involved even though in many cases agencies have clearly broken the law.
  
• The Government agencies, such as the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards Authorities must be better and more appropriately trained. There have been numerous cases of individuals being ‘fobbed off’ or being ill advised by officers that show a marked disrespect of the law when they are meant to enforce it. Similarly these Government agencies frequently appear to be unaware of an individual’s rights and they negligently refuse to act on complaints.
  

The list above is extensive but it highlights some of the most common concerns facing individuals that are in debt. There are probably many other examples of ways that agencies abuse their powers that could be added. There are hundreds of individual examples of breaches in the law that are published in the various forums on the Consumer Action Group website.

 

I appreciate that the OFT are due to be publishing new guidelines within the next few months but I am concerned that this will not come close to offering the protection people deserve. If the OFT cannot administer existing regulations, how can anyone have any confidence in the future.

 

I am afraid to say that I do not believe many Members of Parliament are appreciative or are fully aware of the magnitude of this problem. Others, who may be aware, are choosing to ignore the problem. Unless you have personal experience at dealing with debt collection agencies, it is easy to ignore the problem.

 

I am not alone in believing that the Government must act and be seen to be acting to regulate an industry that has clearly got totally out of hand. Tax Payers’ money is being used to prop up the banks, yet the banks are taking no responsibility for their actions, yet, in many cases they are guilty of irresponsible lending.

 

What kind of country have we created when it allows sick and elderly people to be hounded to death over debts that they owe and trivial fines that they have been unable to pay? The recent death of an elderly man after a bailiff had called at his house is not an isolated incident and the situation is getting worse because the debt collection agencies are being allowed to practice unchecked.

 

I respectfully ask that you give these matters your urgent attention and request that you provide a response outlining the response the Government is prepared to make in order to assist the countless thousands of citizens that are finding themselves at the mercy of these irresponsible individuals and companies that are exploiting this situation purely for greed.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

Edited April 23, 2009 by heathrow

[tierisch]

Hi all

 

Sending letter to OFT but have done that a few times already and it is like head against brickwall! As for TS - i wrote to Lambeth initially who wouldnt touch it and referred to my local one (Walsall). According to them Link doesnt flag up on their system as an issue (interesting - but more evidence to suggest that TS won't tackle this issue).

 

Love the letter by Heathrow so if you dont mind will cut and paste and send it off to Jack and my local MP and perhaps good old Gordon?

 

On another note i had to go to Cologne for work not long back. Was having a few free hours, a lovely sunny day, few beers and had a wander around. THEN...came round the corner and there was a link financial office....omg they are everywhere................

 

Tierisch

[angry cat]

Don't forget Gareth Thomas!

 

Why are Trading Standards in denial about Link Financial?

Sounds very suspicious to me...

 

TS have received sufficient complaints about Link and yet, they will not admit to the complaints being made.

 

Why?

What is the reason?

 

I for one want to know.

 

AC

[A+]

Because regulatory bodies are not (as they would have us believe) there for the protection of the PEOPLE, they are there for the protection of the state. With the amount of INCOME the state gets from these credit companies and their cohorts, versus the amount of INCOME (or should i say COST) the state gets out of WE THE PEOPLE, who do you really think they are there to protect? THEIR INCOME AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS.

 

Oooh, would that be me being cynical again? Ho hum, i must stop that, if only it wasn't TRUE, i would!

 

[Kraken1]

Why are Trading Standards in denial about Link Financial?

Sounds very suspicious to me...

 

TS have received sufficient complaints about Link and yet, they will not admit to the complaints being made.

 

Why?

What is the reason?

 

I for one want to know.

 

Although I love the conspiracy theories, I'm afraid that it is more likely that they cannot give out information about complaints they receive. The Enterprise Act stops them.

 

I suspect that just because they won't tell you what they are doing does not mean that they are doing nothing. It might, of course, but I think it is a fairly simple matter relating to the Enterprise Act.

 

Read the Enterprise Act. There are also a fair few Freedom of Info Act requests on whatdotheyknow which also help to explain it.

 

I think it is true however, that if you annoy a trading standards chap then they will be less likely to try and help you, no matter what the merits of your complaint might be. The worst thing you can do is get known as an irritant or vexatious complainant. Little notice is then taken of you.

 

The first rule of sales is that people by from people - if you are looking to get help remember this. I'm amazed at how many people abuse independent adjudicators. Way to go to persuade him you are reasonable. Same applies to dealing with anyone.

[A+]

Totally agree, if you want help from ANYONE for ANY REASON, you have to be reasonable, and nice to deal with. Its easy to chastise officials who aren't helpful, but i only chastise them when they don't help me, because i ALWAYS go to them very respectfully and politely, also showing a great deal of gratitude, its the only way to deal with people until you have a darn good reason to be less amicable, which still never really helps.

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

"The first rule of sales is that people by from people - if you are looking to get help remember this."

 

An excellent point. I have been considering for a while now that all these long and tedious letters quoting this and that law and precedent may be counter productive. I have always found that people like to help and have therefore made my initial approach as "I wonder if you can help? Could you please explain ..."

 

If you then receive no assistance them I am afraid it is gloves off time.

 

GK

[A+]

Very true GK but i was referring to people who A) Are there to help and B) have a duty to help.

As far as DCAs are concerned, for me at least, they are there to snap a quick buck out of the most vulnerable or gullible, and thats not someone i even begin to have respect for, so my niceties are saved for ombudsmen, govt officers etc

[heathrow]

Hi Tierisch and fellow members

Yes feel free to cut and paste ... and that goes for anyone else who wishes to use the letter to try and push their MPs to act. We need to be firm about these complaints and take them to the press and the highest levels. I agree that we must be personable (now there's a good word) when dealing with bureaucracy but we must also be firm and insist that we have the right to expect them to follow up these complaints. Sadly, and I am getting old in the tooth, we are living in times when A+ states that they are no longer working for us ... the People ... he is right so we have to start fighting back although I suspect with this Government things have already gone too far.

Keep up the good work and make a stand.

Regards

Heathrow

[MAGDA]

Although I love the conspiracy theories, I'm afraid that it is more likely that they cannot give out information about complaints they receive. The Enterprise Act stops them.

 

I suspect that just because they won't tell you what they are doing does not mean that they are doing nothing. It might, of course, but I think it is a fairly simple matter relating to the Enterprise Act.

 

Read the Enterprise Act. There are also a fair few Freedom of Info Act requests on whatdotheyknow which also help to explain it.

 

I think it is true however, that if you annoy a trading standards chap then they will be less likely to try and help you, no matter what the merits of your complaint might be. The worst thing you can do is get known as an irritant or vexatious complainant. Little notice is then taken of you.

 

The first rule of sales is that people by from people - if you are looking to get help remember this. I'm amazed at how many people abuse independent adjudicators. Way to go to persuade him you are reasonable. Same applies to dealing with anyone.

 

I think most of us initially contact TS or whoever in a polite manner, as we are all intelligent enough to realise that we are asking them to help in some way. However, I believe the fact of the matter is that nine times out of ten they simply cannot be bothered to do their actual job. I complained about Link to Caerphilly and they listened to everything Link had to say and took their word as gospel. At the end of the day they informed me that nothing was being done and they had washed their hands of the matter as Link had done nothing wrong!! This, I gather, from reading other threads on here is pretty much the norm with TS.

 

I also think there is a problem with the actual realationship between these companies and TS - for example Caerphilly TS probably regard Link as being useful locally as they do of course employ a number of people in this area. Why rock the boat? Magda