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

[di.harry]

Menucha,

I'm still learning too, so can't tell you if that appears complete... does it answer the reason you asked for a S.A.R. in the first place? If not, and you believe there is something missing, then you have to write back to them.

 

What we need to check is why did they charge you 5 pounds extra, when you already sent 10?

 

Looking at the leaflet by the Information Commissioner on S.A.R.'s, their sample letter says: "If you need further information from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible." So they should ask first, maybe?

 

Elsewhere in the leaflet it says that a Data Controller can charge up to 10 pounds for this. Only for things like Health Records can they ask for up to 50 pounds.

 

Information Commissioner's Office - ICO

 

Or go directly to:

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

[angry cat]

Link Financial cannot charge you an extra 5 Pounds for your SAR;

10 Pounds is the maximum fee payable.

 

Complain to the ICO!

 

AC

[mummybird]

Hi Ac

I'm afraid I'm going to be a bit of a wimp. Not to well at the moment and would like some advice as to how I should reply to Neath/Port Talbot Trading Standards. I note you mention Lacors in your previous post to me. I don't know about this and haven't got the strength to spend hours researching it. I know you're very bust but could I prevail on you for some advice. I don't want to give up at this stage.

luve

mummybird

[Guest Menucha]

I sent for Subject Access Request to both Link and MBNA. This morning I received this from Link. The cheeky b***ers have added £5 to the account for admin fees even though I sent them the £10 - surely they can't do this???

 

I thought I could just upload the album (12 images) from phtobucket but I cant fathom that one out - so I've had to upload 12 seperate images.

 

I've also put the whole lot into one pdf file which is much easier to read as it follows page by page.

 

Can you let me know if this is a complete Subject Access Request please?

 

Oh and once again addressed to the wrong country - CAN'T THEY READ LETTER HEADS???????? Everything in the Subject Access Request with address on is also wrong country. It's a wonder anything reaches me...........

 

Here goes

 

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/LinkletterwithSAR-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/Activitymemoreportpage1of4-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/Activitymemoreportpage2of4.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/Activitymemoreportpage3of4-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/CoreaccountDatareportpage1of5-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/CoreaccountDatareportpage2of5-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/CoreaccountDatareportpage3of5-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/CoreaccountDatareportpage4of5-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/CoreaccountDatareportpage3of5-1.jpg

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/Leahaidel/ScreenShot-EOS-1.jpg

 

 

This is what I asked for in the SAR letter:

1. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, or by any previous creditor

 

2. Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my account formerly held with ORIGINAL CREDITOR.

 

 

3. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that you or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

 

 

4. Details of any collection charges added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers.

 

 

5. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied.

 

 

6. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998

 

 

7. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

 

 

8. True copies of all correspondence relating to the above account.

[heathrow]

I have recently been contacted by Link over several MBNA accounts. I have not heard from MBNA for well over a year when I first started getting into serious difficulties because of the near collapse of my business. I wrote to each account explaining my situation but as usual, apart from the threatening phone calls got no response from any of them Suddenly I have received several letters, all the same except for the account nos. from Link. I wrote back with a recorded delivery letter (naturally they haven't replied) and now have had threats that state "Re Investigation of Assets" and my address and that they have checked the land registry and will be applying for a County Court Judgement and a Final Charging Order.

 

As this has never been to court and I have never had any previous dealinga with Link I am reponding by quoting the Consumer Credit Act and will be sending them responses to each of their letters with a £1 postal order each. I will also be asking for an assignment notice in each case.

 

Nevertheless it is all worrying because a TV programme a couple of weeks ago said they can go for a charging order without any prior court action.

Any advice out there from anyone will be appreciated.

[Guest Menucha]

I've copied my recent posts to my original Link/MBNA my story thread as it's getting a bit clogged up on here. Not sure how to make a link back to it - sorry

[The Phantom]

they can go for a charging order without any prior court action.

 

How would that work ? A charging order is something that a court / judge makes, so where or how would you get one without going to court ? If companies could indeed start getting them like a newspaper or a stamp from a post office then that would be a worry. I just can't see how that would work ?

[AndyOrch]

they can go for a charging order without any prior court action.

 

How would that work ? A charging order is something that a court / judge makes, so where or how would you get one without going to court ? If companies could indeed start getting them like a newspaper or a stamp from a post office then that would be a worry. I just can't see how that would work ?

 

 

No they cant dont believe everything Panoroma conveyed

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Kraken1]

Might be Mr Gardener in the right?

 

Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)

[semyaza]

Aah. Didn't see this thread. I havnt read everything yet.

 

Consider me in the fan club too. Here's my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/152360-asset-link-first-national.html

[angry cat]

I have recently been contacted by Link over several MBNA accounts. I have not heard from MBNA for well over a year when I first started getting into serious difficulties because of the near collapse of my business. I wrote to each account explaining my situation but as usual, apart from the threatening phone calls got no response from any of them Suddenly I have received several letters, all the same except for the account nos. from Link. I wrote back with a recorded delivery letter (naturally they haven't replied) and now have had threats that state "Re Investigation of Assets" and my address and that they have checked the land registry and will be applying for a County Court Judgement and a Final Charging Order.

 

As this has never been to court and I have never had any previous dealinga with Link I am reponding by quoting the Consumer Credit Act and will be sending them responses to each of their letters with a £1 postal order each. I will also be asking for an assignment notice in each case.

 

Nevertheless it is all worrying because a TV programme a couple of weeks ago said they can go for a charging order without any prior court action.

Any advice out there from anyone will be appreciated.

 

Only sub-prime mortgage providers can obtain a re-possession order, without making an application to the Court;

sub-prime mortgage provides remain exempt!

 

AC

Edited December 4, 2008 by angry cat
error - re-possession not charging order

[angry cat]

Hi Ac

I'm afraid I'm going to be a bit of a wimp. Not to well at the moment and would like some advice as to how I should reply to Neath/Port Talbot Trading Standards. I note you mention Lacors in your previous post to me. I don't know about this and haven't got the strength to spend hours researching it. I know you're very bust but could I prevail on you for some advice. I don't want to give up at this stage.

luve

mummybird

 

Sorry to hear that you are unwell mummybird!

 

Please click on the following link:

Trading Standards Division - Business Advice - Home Authority Principle

 

Link Financial have multi locations (more than one) but their HA TS should be Lambeth.

Link have not set up a HA relationship, however Neath/Port Talbot TS should contact Mr. Gardner @ Lambeth TS, in order that they can investigate your complaint fully.

 

AC

[mummybird]

Thanks AC

I'll get a letter together and maybe put it on here for your approval if that's OK. I don't really deserve sympathy, my problems arise from a life time of smoking, but I don't know, but the cold weather does affect my chest.

Luv

mummybird

[The Phantom]

Only sub-prime mortgage providers can obtain a charging order, without making an application to the Court;

sub-prime mortgage provides remain exempt!

 

AC

I thought sub-prime mortgages (like other mortgages) are already secured on the property, why would you need a charging order on top of it.

I am growing more and more confused here:-?

[angry cat]

been on the news today.

I think that the MP's are on to it; hopefully.

 

My post relates to house re-possesions;

sub-prime mortgage providers are exempt;

they can obtain a re-possession order without going to court.

 

My apologies for any confusion caused.

 

AC

[heathrow]

Since posting last night I have been to the following link (excuse the pun) this site explains it all and is very useful:-

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_factsheets/charging_orders_in_the_county_court.phpnd

[Kraken1]

isn't that something to do with btl mortgages? I'm sure there was a post around here somewhere about a case to do with that. Damned if I know where though. This place is like a maze.

[MAGDA]

I received another one of Link's messages today, it had been left with someone who lived nearby - so they are up to their old tricks again of leaving messages with neighbours, etc, as they don't have a telephone number (and won't be getting one either!). I have telephoned TS to complain about this, as it is the third or fourth time they have done this, depsite being told not to and to contact me in writing only. I was told by Consumer Direct when I first complained that this is an offence under the Administration of Justice Act, and I informed TS (Caerphilly) of this today. I am determined they are not going to keep getting away with this. What a nerve - Link actually informed me themeselves that if they did this kind of thing again (after I complained the first time) it would be harassment and so they wouldn't do it. Unbelievable. Magda

[MAGDA]

Just spoken to Caerphilly on the telephone, and the attitude of the manager there was appalling. I explained about the harassment issue - Link contacting neighbours etc, and he said I should contact myown TS. I asked why, when Link had committed a criminal offence (before the law changed) by not supplying my agreement, were TS not doing anything in response. He said it was their (Link's) word against mine and wasn't interested in the fact that I have proof of Link's non-compliance with the Act. I said it was worrying that they were refusing to do their job and perhaps there was a conflict of interest in that Link are a local employer employing a number of people. He did not take kindly to this and said basically that I could think what I like, he would not be pursuing my complaint against Link, despite the evidence I have that they committed an offence. I asked how many complaints Caerphilly had received and he went quiet for a moment and said he refused to discuss it. I also mentioned Lambeth and the complaints there, but again, he didn't want to know. I am absolutely furious that these people are being paid to provide a service and fail so miserable on all counts. Magda

[tierisch]

Magda - No suprises there then. I bet by them refusing to take up such complaints the total number of complaints within TS is low - hence they have an excuse not to act!

 

I am still waiting for OFT to respond about why Link's licence is active despite being out of date!! This is despite a letter and email so perhaps another one is due.

 

Pity as well that we cant get Link under Advertising standards as their website is full of rubbish............doesnt say anything about harrassment etc etc...

 

Tierisch

[MAGDA]

I know, Link get away with murder and TS are just a huge joke. I am going to email the government minister, I think it is Gareth Thomas, and ask why TS are not doing their job. I have received about three of these messages now from Link via neighbours (I say neighbours, but often the person taking the message lives some distance away). They have a duty to act in this kind of situation, but they couldn't care less. It is very suspicious, I think, that all of our compalaints appear to be brushed under the carpet. Magda

[semyaza]

It's disgusting in that their business works on false information and bullying.

 

I imagine people on this forum are a minor amount of cases brought and that most people will just go and pay without a fight. And even when you do fight they actually contend your defense which is valid.

[MAGDA]

It's disgusting in that their business works on false information and bullying.

 

I imagine people on this forum are a minor amount of cases brought and that most people will just go and pay without a fight. And even when you do fight they actually contend your defense which is valid.

 

At least some people are now fighting back (yourself included) and this company isn't getting everything their own way as far as their court claims are concerned - they don't always win, that only happens for certain if people back down or don't know their rights. I have now telephoned my local TS and I am going to insist that they do something about these telephone messages that Link keep leaving, which is against the Administration of Justice Act (according to Consumer Direct) and they are actually committing an offence. If local TS don't act, I will add this on to the list of complaints to Gareth Thomas. Regards, Magda

[Kraken1]

Not sure what Cons Direct mean about AJA?

 

If they are referring to harassment the correct legislation is the Prevention from Harassment Act 97 and the Consumer Protection Regs.

 

Weird calls DPA things are probably the ICO's bag. Worth an email.

[batman1956]

My complaint drew this response, if anyone wants to provide deails to the OFT feel free Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

Complaint Against: Link Financial Limited

Licence No: 446835

Thank you for your email received on 4 November 2008. I apologise for the delayed response.

The Consumer Credit Register (‘CCR’) provides details of applications for holders of consumer credit licences, both current and past. It also contains details of any OFT decisions to refuse an application or revoke a consumer credit licence as well as information relating to any appeal against this decision. Due to legal constraints, the OFT is unable to disclose any further information relating to licence applications above and beyond that which is available on the CCR. The register can be accessed from the OFT web-site at:-

http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/Default.aspx

The CCR entry for Link Financial Limited (licence number 0446835) shows its licence status to be ‘current’ – which is correct.

In considering the fitness of any business to hold a consumer credit licence we can take account of any relevant matters. If you have any information which you believe may be relevant to Link’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, we would be grateful if you could forward full details (including copies of any relevant letters or documents) to us for our consideration. Please do not send any original documents as we will not be able to return these to you.

If we were to consider it appropriate to ask Link to respond to any information you provide, we would need to disclose your identity along with details of the information provided. We would therefore be grateful if you could sign the enclosed consent form and return it in the freepost envelope provided. Due to the aforementioned legal constraints on disclosure, we cannot disclose details about- or updates regarding- any action that may be taken as a consequence of any information you provide - should it be considered appropriate to pursue any such action.

Providing copies of agreements regulated by the Act

We note that your letter raises concern in regard to executed credit agreement.

As you may know, s63 of the Act covers how and when lenders must provide consumers with a first (and where appropriate second) copy of a regulated agreement. It is clearly in the lender’s best interests to retain details of the original agreement and any subsequent variations or changes made to it, particularly as consumers can request a subsequent ‘true’ copy of most types of agreement under ss77 and 78 of the CCA (and on payment of the appropriate fee). There are rules about what is likely to constitute a ‘true copy’ under these sections of the Act. Further, if a consumer does make a valid request for a copy of their agreement under these provisions and the lender does not comply with the request the agreement may not be enforceable in the Courts, subject to any other mitigating factors.

So apparently Links licence is current