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

[angry cat]

Why should they (or any other DCA) be bothered by the OFT, they are "all teeth and no bite". Untill they actually take real action against a DCA they will continiue to ignore the guidlines.

 

The CPUTR's 2008 have been implementted into UK Law.

 

Furthermore, these contemptuous DCA's had better take notice of and abide by the Guidelines and legislation as next year we will see the coming of the new;

EU Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) :

 

Consumer Rights: 2 Jul 2009: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)

 

AC

[MAGDA]

The CPUTR's 2008 have been implementted into UK Law.

 

Furthermore, these contemptuous DCA's had better take notice of and abide by the Guidelines and legislation as next year we will see the coming of the new;

EU Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) :

 

Consumer Rights: 2 Jul 2009: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)

 

AC

 

Let's hope this makes a difference. The problem is, despite the legislation in place already and any future legislation to 'protect consumers' TS and the OFT are not enforcing these rigidly enough. I watched a tv programme recently about Marlin DCA and the conclusion at the end of the programme was that the OFT etc are basically continuing to allow these companies to get away with the tactics they currently employ. This particular company rang people up claiming to be a representative of Marlin, then rang again claiming to be from Marlin's sister company (who are considerably more threatening) and then rang claiming to be phoning from a firm of solicitors - and this was the same person, just wearing a 'different hat' basically. Still they continue to get away with this kind of misrepresentation.

 

Magda

[angry cat]

Yes, I saw the programme Magda and agree that these firms are circumnavigating the OFT guidelines, sometimes crossing over and breaching them!

 

However, we have seen the coming in of:

The Unfair Commercial Practice Directive;

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which has now been fully implemented into UK Law.

 

Of course, with these extra powers, one has to ask the question;

Why doesn't the OFT show its teeth and Bite?

 

In 2008, we heard about;

The Consumer Rights Directive and;

The Consumer Credit Directive:

Consumer Credit - European Directive - BIS

 

These will come into force in June 2010.

 

I also believe that there is talk about the setting up of a Consumer Advocate Bureau.

 

So, are DCA's really going to ride roughshod over these EEU Directives?

Particularly, ones that are EEU companies, as Link Financial is!

 

AC

[angry cat]

BBC NEWS | Business | What to expect from a consumer champion

 

and:

 

http://www.epolitix.com/stakeholder-websites/press-releases/press-release-details/newsarticle/consumer-advocate-must-be-genuine///sites/british-retail-consortium/

 

AC

[MAGDA]

So, are DCA's really going to ride roughshod over these EEU Directives?

Particularly, ones that are EEU companies, as Link Financial is!

 

AC

 

I hope not, one of these days Link are going to 'come a cropper' and not before time

[angry cat]

Government outlines plans to help Britain?s Consumers

 

Kevin Brennan MP said:

“We’re announcing a package of measures including a new self-help toolkit for those in difficulty with their debts alongside measures to protect people from unscrupulous debt-collection agencies, the creation of a new Consumer Advocate with new powers to demand redress for consumers and a review into credit cards, credit repayments and high cost credit, a ban on unsolicited credit card cheques and a new focus on tackling e-crime, as people increasingly turn to the internet to do their shopping.”

 

AC

[the main man]

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics

 

Above was originally posted by AC, it mentions that the OFT has banned Link from contacting neighbours, because this may potentially reveal that the person is being chased by a DCA. Surely the postcards are no different, as mentioned they could go astray and there is absolutely no confidentiality with this method of passing on messages. Not to mention the fact that I have previously told Link in writing not to send these postcards to me, but to forward any correspondence in a sealed envelope.

 

Magda

 

Thing is, if you read the requirements imposed by the OFT it still allows Link to contact your Neighbours although for tracing purposes only, they are not however allowed to give any information as to identify who they are.

 

Now does this include leaving addresses for all to see on postcards or a traceable number left on caller display ?

 

I think the OFT needs to learn how to firmly shut the door instead of leaving it off the latch

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/Link-requirements.pdf

[MAGDA]

Thing is, if you read the requirements imposed by the OFT it still allows Link to contact your Neighbours although for tracing purposes only, they are not however allowed to give any information as to identify who they are.

 

Now does this include leaving addresses for all to see on postcards or a traceable number left on caller display ?

 

I think the OFT needs to learn how to firmly shut the door instead of leaving it off the latch

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/Link-requirements.pdf

 

Yes, I completely agree.

[MAGDA]

I think the OFT needs to learn how to firmly shut the door instead of leaving it off the latch

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/Link-requirements.pdf

 

Well how 'wishy washy' is that:eek: So basically Link can still contact neighbours, the only difference being that the neighbour cannot be asked to pass on messages. However, Link can still ask the neighbour to confirm the whereabout of the person they are seeking to trace. Although Link may not state their name:rolleyes:, again, a lot of people are going to be only too aware that this is a DCA trying to chase someone for money. Again, absolutely no discretion, and I really don't see that the OFT's restrictions amount to very much at all. No wonder Link et al split their sides laughing at the mention of TS/OFT.

[angry cat]

OFT issues 'neighbourly' warning to tracing agents

 

AC

[angry cat]

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics

 

 

"Nigel Cates, OFT Deputy Director for Consumer Credit, said:

 

'Using neighbours to pass on messages to trace subjects is an unacceptable practice that contravenes our debt collection guidance. It has the potential, whether unintentional or not, to lead to the disclosure of private financial affairs and to cause distress and embarrassment, and we have made this clear in discussions with the Credit Services Association.

 

'We are pleased that Link has acted responsibly and taken positive steps to change its policies and procedures.

 

'If other businesses continue to engage in similar practices we will not hesitate to use our licensing and enforcement powers.'

 

NOTES

 

1. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires debt collectors, businesses that offer goods or services on credit and/or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire, to be licensed by the OFT.

 

2. In 2003 the OFT issued the debt collection guidance (updated December 2006) which sets out minimum standards for those intending to collect debts. This guidance is intended to set out the type of behaviour the OFT considers to fall within the category of unfair business practices which will call into question fitness to retain or be given a licence. It is expected that applicants and licence holders will abide by the spirit as well as the letter of this guidance.

 

3. Section 2.6.j of the OFT's debt collection guidance makes clear that that the OFT considers that acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor is an unfair business practice.

 

4. Following implementation of the OFT's new powers under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 on 6 April 2008, where the OFT is dissatisfied with any matter in connection with a business, a proposal to carry on a business or any other conduct by a licensee, associate or former associate, the OFT may impose 'requirements' on the licensed business. Requirements may require a business to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified for the purposes connected with addressing the OFT's dissatisfaction, or securing that matters of the same or a similar kind do not arise.

 

5. Failure to comply with a requirement could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 and/or be grounds for revocation of a consumer credit licence.

 

6. Two different processes exist for imposition of requirements. One is where an adjudicating officer issues a notice to the trader that the OFT is minded to impose requirements to address dissatisfaction. The trader is then given the opportunity to make representations to the adjudicating officer. The adjudicating officer makes a determination and the trader has the right of appeal against the determination to the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal. Alternatively, a business may offer a proposal to address the OFT's dissatisfaction pursuant to section 33D(4) of the Act. In these circumstances the OFT is not required to issue a notice that it is minded to impose requirements if the proposed determination is in the same terms as the proposal made by the business.

 

7. The fact that requirements have been imposed on Link appears on the consumer credit register. Download a copy of the requirements imposed (pdf 45 kb). We will monitor Link's compliance with the requirements. Any complaints about non-compliance should be sent to:

 

Enquiries

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX

 

[email protected]"

 

 

QUOTE:

5. Failure to comply with a requirement could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 and/or be grounds for revocation of a consumer credit licence."

 

AC

[angry cat]

At the end of the day, the ball is in the Consumer's court;

if Link are not complying with the OFT requirements;

Please report them to Consumer Direct and the OFT.

[citizenB]

So, they cant ask a neighbour to pass on a message but they can ask a neighbour if they know where the alleged debtor is ?..

 

Scenario, Agent arrives at my door asking about a neighbour.

 

How are they going to approach this. In what capacity is the Agent going to represent themselves in order to obtain that information ?

 

Are they going to fib and say they are a friend / relative who has lost touch ?. My instict would be, if the neighbour had wanted to keep in touch they would have done so. So no information would be given.

 

They are not permitted to represent themselves in a legal capacity and even so, I would probably tell the agent to get lost.

[MAGDA]

So, they cant ask a neighbour to pass on a message but they can ask a neighbour if they know where the alleged debtor is ?..

 

Scenario, Agent arrives at my door asking about a neighbour.

 

How are they going to approach this. In what capacity is the Agent going to represent themselves in order to obtain that information ?

 

Are they going to fib and say they are a friend / relative who has lost touch ?. My instict would be, if the neighbour had wanted to keep in touch they would have done so. So no information would be given.

 

They are not permitted to represent themselves in a legal capacity and even so, I would probably tell the agent to get lost.

 

Exactly, I had been under the impression before yesterday that Link were not able to contact neighbours at all, but it would appear that yes, they can contact neighbours still, just not to pass on a message.

 

Why didn't the OFT prevent them from contacting neighbours at all, Full stop.

 

As main man said, the OFT far from shutting the door simply leave it on the latch.

 

Also, we all know that some people are extremely nosy and will try to pump the Link agent for as much info as they can. I, on the other hand would be more like CB and tell them to get lost and simply wouldn't want to get involved.

 

Magda

[the main man]

So, they cant ask a neighbour to pass on a message but they can ask a neighbour if they know where the alleged debtor is ?..

 

 

and no doubt they will continue to do so in the full knowledge that they know where the debtor lives......

 

I wonder how long the requirements imposed on Link stay on the Consumer Credit Register?

[angry cat]

by CitizenB:

Are they going to fib and say they are a friend / relative who has lost touch ?"

 

Well, this is exactly what Link Financial did in my case!

 

A Link Financial rep. by the name of Alan phoned one of my neigbours, pretending to be a friend who had lost contact and asked my neigbour to ask me to give Alan a ring. My neighbour came to my house one dark winters evening with a note in his hand, upon which was written; Please call Alan, the telephone number was Link Financial.

 

In fact, I had only just moved into my house and was extremely embarassed/concerned about this incident.

 

The ridiculous thing was that MBNA had sold my account to Link, whilst 'In Dispute';

MBNA knew of my whereabouts but clearly had not informed Link and;

all my mail was being re-directed to my new address.

 

This was not a case of an alleged debtor being traced, it was pure and simple intimidation and harassment.

 

 

How did I stop Link?

I instructed a solicitor and asserted my 'Rights';

TS did nothing to assist!

 

The moral of the story;

Link were flagrantly breaching the OFT guidleines and breaching legislation

 

AC

[angry cat]

and no doubt they will continue to do so in the full knowledge that they know where the debtor lives......

 

I wonder how long the requirements imposed on Link stay on the Consumer Credit Register?

 

The following shows the Requirements as event number: 29

 

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 08-May-2009 Completed

 

Licence Event Details:

Role Name Action

LICENSEE Link Financial Limited Added / Retained

Officer Bernard Albert Ernest Saunders Added

Officer Bernard Albert Ernest Saunders Removed

Officer Mr Philippe Marcel Etienne Paillart Removed

Officer Paul David Burdell Retained

Officer Petteri BARMAN Added

Officer Philippe Marcel Etienne Paillart Added

Officer Robin Wilfred Roberts Removed

Officer Selina LEE Burdell Added

Officer Selina Lee Burdell Removed

Officer Stephan Karl Edward Ludwig Added

Officer Stephan Karl Edward Ludwig Removed

 

Address Type Address Action

Correspondence Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP Added / Retained

Principal Place Of Business Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP Added / Retained

Registered Office Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP Added / Retained

 

Trading Names:

Name Action

Instantsilver Added

Thesis Servicing Added

 

Categories:

Category Action

Consumer credit Retained

Consumer hire Added

Credit brokerage Retained

Credit reference agency Retained

Debt adjusting/counselling Removed

Debt administration Added

Debt collecting Retained

Provision of debt-adjusting on a commercial basis Added

Provision of debt-counselling on a commercial basis Added

 

Requirement Obtained:

Date of Requirement Obtained: 05-May-2009"

 

AC

[angry cat]

The following will explain the OFT's view about imposing requirements;

makes for an interesting read:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft969.pdf

 

Is it a fairy story?

 

I hope not but at least the UCPD is mentioned:)

 

AC

[the main man]

Interesting..I like the last section

 

Like you say AC it makes it ever more important to complain about any breach and to make sure it goes to all the relevant bodies!

[angry cat]

Interesting..I like the last section

 

Like you say AC it makes it ever more important to complain about any breach and to make sure it goes to all the relevant bodies!

 

Exactly Main Man!

 

Any Breach...

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft969.pdf

 

AC

[citizenB]

by CitizenB:

Are they going to fib and say they are a friend / relative who has lost touch ?"

 

 

Well, this is exactly what Link Financial did in my case!

 

A Link Financial rep. by the name of Alan phoned one of my neigbours, pretending to be a friend who had lost contact and asked my neigbour to ask me to give Alan a ring. My neighbour came to my house one dark winters evening with a note in his hand, upon which was written; Please call Alan, the telephone number was Link Financial.

 

In fact, I had only just moved into my house and was extremely embarassed/concerned about this incident.

 

The ridiculous thing was that MBNA had sold my account to Link, whilst 'In Dispute';

MBNA knew of my whereabouts but clearly had not informed Link and;

all my mail was being re-directed to my new address.

 

This was not a case of an alleged debtor being traced, it was pure and simple intimidation and harassment.

 

 

How did I stop Link?

I instructed a solicitor and asserted my 'Rights';

TS did nothing to assist!

 

The moral of the story;

Link were flagrantly breaching the OFT guidleines and breaching legislation

 

AC

 

There isnt much one can say to that, is there ?

 

Presumably there is a reason for the existence of TS

[angry cat]

 

There isnt much one can say to that, is there ?

 

Presumably there is a reason for the existence of TS

 

If there is, it must be to pursue non financial businesses when they are in breach of legislation?

 

My original complaint to TS was about MBNA prior to their selling the account to Link Financial. My local TS would not investigate any further than contacting the MBNA TS Home Authority in Chester; their excuse was a lack of funding amongst other excuses.

I was one of many who made a mass complaint to Chester Trading Standards, the result of that mass complaint was zero, nothing was done.

 

Had my local Trading Standards fully investigated my complaint about MBNA, I believe that it could have prevented my account being sold to Link Financial.

 

I later made a complaint to Mr. Gardner at Lambeth Trading Standards about the Unfair Business Practices employed by Link, as did many others.

 

My view, is that accounts in dispute should not be off loaded/assigned/sold to uncrupulous debt collection firms, who are not provided with any information about the account or, what has occured prior.

Clearly, any information that was supplied to Link Financial by MBNA at the alleged time of assignment was basic and sketchy to say the least.

 

Both MBNA and Link Financial have codes of conduct that should be followed as per the CPUTR's, sadly these codes have been and are ignored.

 

I feel sorely aggreived with both companies, however, I am just one of thousands of consumers who is being pursued for an alleged debt that I do not acknowledge.

 

AC

[angry cat]

It didn't take Link very long to start up their Bad Business Practices again!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/212677-thesis-gone-too-far.html

 

Shocking and outrageous behaviour:(

 

AC

Edited August 3, 2009 by angry cat

[angry cat]

It didn't take Link very long to start up their Bad Business Practices again!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/212677-thesis-gone-too-far.html

 

Shocking and outrageous behaviour:(

 

AC

 

by Disgruntled Employee:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2337075.html

 

AC

[FCC]

Subbing - thanks fo the " Thesis gone too far " piece. Just what I need for my next ( and last letter to our Ms Peacey