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

[hillards]

'Secondhand debt'

I have often wondered about this myself. Seen as how nobody else ever mentioned the matter, I have assumed that it was OK!

 

However I also thought that a claim in the County Court could only be brought for actual losses incurred!

We need to look deeper into how this situation even exists where a DCA can buy up old accounts and then claim they own the original debt, in full.

 

At best, they have bought a percentage of the debt in paying the original creditor a purchase amount. I would suggest that they may be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining any repayment of the account, which should be restricted to a set percentage of the total. If it is not viable to process an account due to this restriction then that's their lookout, they took a chance in buying these accounts in bulk.

 

I would contest that should they manage to convince the debtor to pay up then the majority of the money is actually due to the original creditor, and not simply to line the pockets of a DCA.

 

Then there is a matter of tax relief in writing off the original debt, prior to the account being sold on. I have no idea what amount this is but have used 10% as an example once before. If the debt was £1,000 and the original creditor gained 10% tax relief then the value of the account is only £900, the DCA should NOT be demanding a full £1,000 as that must be illegal. If this is the case then it is clear that the DCA's are defrauding HMRC of the amount they have overclaimed ?

 

That still does not tell me what right these third party companies have to process a person's data in 'recovering' a debt that they had no dealings in in the first place. I cannot apply the same principals to in-house departments who are what I would class 'debt recovery' as they are still working for the company who advanced the money involved. Having said that, even they need lessons in politeness and human interaction!

 

It boils down to there being a lot of DCA's who only exist to make money out of old accounts that, in reality, were written off by the OC. What loophole of the law they exploit to make this 'legal' puzzles me.

[Kraken1]

Strangely OH has had a letter from Link today - well not actually a letter but a statement of account:confused:. This was an unenforceable GE storecard which was a failed court claim on their behalf (invalid CCA) which was then sold to Link. I am bemused by the arrival of this - are they going to send us monthly statements and then try court again? What does a statement prove?

 

There are new notice provisions now, creditors need to send out certain bits of info regularly. It may well be that this is what you have received.

 

As for the selling on of debt, legally the really isn't any difference between selling on a debt (which is essentially a contract) to selling on a concert ticket, toaster, business, car or potato. Same rationale applies to data I suppose.

 

Virginity it seems can even be sold these days. The one instance where you can be sure that the buyer is going to get f.....

 

Don'e know about tax - not my field.

 

Costs - they can only claim the costs that are reasonably incurred as a result of a breach of contract or those that are specified in the contract.

[Jeff2000]

There are new notice provisions now, creditors need to send out certain bits of info regularly. It may well be that this is what you have received.

 

As for the selling on of debt, legally the really isn't any difference between selling on a debt (which is essentially a contract) to selling on a concert ticket, toaster, business, car or potato. Same rationale applies to data I suppose.

 

Virginity it seems can even be sold these days. The one instance where you can be sure that the buyer is going to get f.....

 

Don'e know about tax - not my field.

 

Costs - they can only claim the costs that are reasonably incurred as a result of a breach of contract or those that are specified in the contract.

 

 

 

 

But surely before an alleged debt is sold the account is first written off!

 

Therefore the account balance is £0.00 in order to declare it a tax write off!!

 

Is it not?

[Kraken1]

Donno. Tax questions = Evil.

[Jeff2000]

Donno. Tax questions = Evil.

 

 

 

Not really my strong point either!!

 

 

Just trying to add to the debate!

[heathrow]

Good to get your feedback guys and gals and thanks for you welcomes.

 

I feel there must be something under contract law (hence my original call for a friendly solicitor who knows his/her stuff). What about the Data Protection Act ... surely it cannot be legal to sell on our personal details without us having the right to challenge the information? If anyone can wade through these laws (they can be found on line) they can be confusing because often they appear to give us a right and then in a subsequent clause, take it away again. This is politicians for you.

HR

[Goldlady]

Hmmm, interesting point about the value of the purchased debts. The OC writes off the whole amount for tax purposes and then sells the debt to another person for 10%, presumably declaring that as income. So the DCA has paid say £100 for a debt that was originally worth £1000. So if they don't get paid, all they have lost is £100. But is the £1000 just a perceived value, for example if you bought a piece of jewellery on Ebay for £100 and its true value was £1000 and it was stolen, how much could you claim on your insurance:confused:

[heathrow]

Hi Goldlady

 

Excuse me if this might seem stupid ... but are the actions in blue below your posting your successes or are they part of a general thing relating to this site?

 

I have decided to write a book about the debt collecting industry as my next project (I am currently just finishing another book - non-related - that is about to go to press) so any information I can get about these sharks will be welcome.

 

Thanks.

HR

[Goldlady]

All my own work Heathrow, well with a great deal of help from the gang on here of course:D If you want to include my saga I will be happy to contribute. It will probably take up a whole chapter!!!

Edited January 15, 2009 by Goldlady
typo

[heathrow]

Hi Goldlady

Highly commended ... award yourself (and the site of course) a house point.

I have just registered an e-mail address on here for the purpose, so if you or any other members would like to mail their success stories and how they have managed to beat these parasites I'd like to hear from you with view to researching a book.

My e-mail address is [email protected]

 

Regards

HR

[heathrow]

Hi All

It would seem that Link have got back from their Christmas bash and are now in their letter sending mode as reported by other members.

I have just received 5 identical letters (only the account numbers have been changed) in response to my CCA requests that were sent to them at Albert Embankment by Recorded Delivery together with £1 postal orders for each account. NOTE for reference: These letters have changed the 89 Albert Embankment address and post code SE1 7TP to the address listed below.

 

The respnse is this:

 

Link Financial Ltd

PO Box 30095

London SE1 7WU

 

"Dear Mr ******

 

REQUESTING INFORMATION

 

You have recently requested information from a member of our team. We always endeavour to supply information our customers require but do ask that all requests are made in writing to the address above.

 

A fee may be charged to your account to cover any costs associated with fulfilling such a request but we will write and notify you of any such fee.

 

Yours sincerely

 

For & on behalf of LINK Financial"

 

They are obviously either trying to stall my request (likely) but the second paragraph of the letter is surely illegal because they have already received my postal orders (and no doubt cashed them), although they haven't acknowledged this. Now is the time for me to get the ball rolling with the first of my pestering letters to the OFT and Trading Standards etc.

 

I have also recieved a further letter today claiming £2622.99 for an account I know nothing about.

 

I will be compiling my responses later and will post them for comment.

 

Regards

HR

[heathrow]

Hi Again

I have just been trying to find out who are members of the Credit Services Association but you have to be a member to obtain these from their web site. But, there is an interesting public access article (quite short) titled "Good To Talk ... Improving Debt Collection" posted 5 January by Steve Denby, Commercial Board Director of a company called Jaywing.

 

This is worth reading and it should be observed by the DCAs but of course isn't. The link is:

CSA Website

 

Please let me know your views as it is sure to cause some debate.

HR

[hillards]

I have just been trying to find out who are members of the Credit Services Association but you have to be a member to obtain these from their web site.

 

Not if you click this link -

CSA Website

[heathrow]

Thanks hillards; my fault I never scrolled beneath the boxes.

[mummybird]

Hi Heathrow,

Tried to e-mail you but failed. Did you see the article in this Saturday's Telegraph about the OAP who had a fatal heart attack after a visit from the bailiff. If you didn't I will fill you in on the details,

Regards

mummybird

[The Phantom]

Hmmm, interesting point about the value of the purchased debts. The OC writes off the whole amount for tax purposes and then sells the debt to another person for 10%, presumably declaring that as income. So the DCA has paid say £100 for a debt that was originally worth £1000. So if they don't get paid, all they have lost is £100. But is the £1000 just a perceived value, for example if you bought a piece of jewellery on Ebay for £100 and its true value was £1000 and it was stolen, how much could you claim on your insurance:confused:

Not sure how relevant this is, but it might answer your query in part: if you bought a diamond ring on a car boot sale for £50.- and sold it on ebay for £500.-, then send it by Royal Mail insured to the buyer and Royal Mail loses the ring in transit, their insurance will only pay you the £50.- you paid not the £500.- you sold it for. You will have to prove to the insurance how much you paid for the item with a valid invoice , they won't accept the price you sold it for. So you refund the buyer £500.- and the insurance refunds you £50.- providing you got a receipt from your car boot seller. So you can't insure your profit.

[Kraken1]

I don't do tax at all, but surely it doesn't matter? Company a sells on the debt and gets tax relief on it, company b buys the debt, claims on it and makes a profit and pays tax on that profit. To the taxman there is no difference, surely?

 

Although I think perhaps a tax expert would be needed to comment. I can't imagine the taxman letting a company get away with a wheeze.

[Goldlady]

Not sure how relevant this is, but it might answer your query in part: if you bought a diamond ring on a car boot sale for £50.- and sold it on ebay for £500.-, then send it by Royal Mail insured to the buyer and Royal Mail loses the ring in transit, their insurance will only pay you the £50.- you paid not the £500.- you sold it for. You will have to prove to the insurance how much you paid for the item with a valid invoice , they won't accept the price you sold it for. So you refund the buyer £500.- and the insurance refunds you £50.- providing you got a receipt from your car boot seller. So you can't insure your profit.

 

 

Let the DCAs beware;)

[Goldlady]

And no the taxman is not worried if the scenario is as I described above.

 

But the DCA's right to claim back the suggested £1000 when they have only paid £100 to purchase the item is certainly questionable IMHO.

[heathrow]

Thanks Mummybird

Yes I had seen the various stuff on the poor man that died. I have in fact sent a very lneghty letter to Jack Straw about this and the need for the DCA industry to be thoroughly investigated.

I don't know why you weren't able to e-mail me. I am having some problems with my own e-mail system at the moment but it should have gone through the address on here.

Regards

HR

[tierisch]

An update.....either i have died or link has gone into liquidation but have heard nothing from them since the batch of DN letters they sent last year.......obviously they are still recruiting scriptwriters but not enough five year olds to go around. Or perhaps they have run out of crayons

 

Still heard nothing else from FSA despite emails.....

 

......and to top all the nothingness i had a letter from equidebt demanding immediate payment of their account and that i had failed to honour the repayments. This was a week after their letter to me confirming the payment schedule and the fact i was paying on time.......another bunch of wotsits!

[iambroke]

If i send a £1 postal order to links address asking for my C/A will they even get it??? It seems to be a mail forwarding/processing operation at Albert Embankment and po box numbers dont usually have anyone there to sign for a registered delivery.

 

Research shows it is also used by various charities but as this is the only address i have for them on the top of their correspondence to me can i assume that by sending stuff there i have done so in good faith and should reasonably expect an answer from them.

[hillards]

Their registered address, according to Companies House, is

LINK FINANCIAL LIMITED

CAMELFORD HOUSE

87 TO 90 ALBERT EMBANKMENT

LONDON

SE1 7TP

 

There are several similar named companies, but that's the one usually referred to on here.

[heathrow]

"If i send a £1 postal order to links address asking for my C/A will they even get it??? It seems to be a mail forwarding/processing operation at Albert Embankment and po box numbers dont usually have anyone there to sign for a registered delivery."

 

They must have somebody to sign for them because despite writing to me to tell me I must now send a further applications to a different PO Box, today I got 2 copies of my original credit card application forms that I had completed for MBNA cards and another saying they were asking the client for a copy of the CCA that would take 30 days. So Link must still be active.

 

I don't think the application forms can form the CCA even though they have attached terms and conditions, interest rates etc but the photocopies are too blurred to read. Interestingly the same signature on behalf of the lender appears to have been added (probably by Link) and it is the same 'rubber stamped' squiggle with a stamped date haphazardly stamped on two entirely different cards. Can anybody tell me if this is good enough to represent a true copy of a CCA because I doubt it?

[hillards]

...a copy of the CCA that would take 30 days

And they are quite wrong in saying that - there used to be part of the CCA procedure that allowed an additional 30 days after the initial 12+2 in which they could comply, but that was stopped last year.

 

If they fail to give you a proper CCA within 12+2 days you just tell them they are failures with Ida's letter - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/172071-letter-co-solicitors.html#post1856406

 

I don't think the application forms can form the CCA...

Probably right, usually it's shown that an application is not an agreement, but there have been exceptions... There are some people around this palce with a keen eye who can look at a scan of the document, less any identifying information of course, if you'd care to post it up for them.