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

[MAGDA]

So, if they are sending these DNs out en masse, then that would imply that the account had not been defaulted previously, as I believe it is only possible to default an account once, or should be. Also, if the account was not defaulted by the OC, then the agreement between the debtor and the OC was still intact and the creditor should therefore be unable to assign the debt (legally). Any views on this? Magda

[MAGDA]

Good point, matsinlondon. I should check my credit files.

 

A default registered on a credit file does not prove that they issued a default notice, and vise versa - if a default is not showing on the credit file it does not mean that one was not issued. Magda

[MAGDA]

Perhaps a short and to the point letter may suffice:-

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT WHATSOEVER TO YOUR COMPANY

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Any further demands for payment may be considered to be Harassment, which is a criminal offence, under section 40 the Admin. of Justice Act.

 

Report them to the OFT and the Information Commissioners Office.

 

AC

 

Unfortunately, Link financial will merely find the above amusing. They have actually told me (during telephone conversations) that they couldn't care less about TS or the OFT, and they practically split their sides laughing at any mention of reporting them to these organisations. It would be fantastic if this wasn't the case, but unfortunately it is - they know, at the end of the day, that nothing will be done. A sad fact of the lack of interest or enforcement taken by these bodies. Link actually issued court claims against me at a time when the account was in dispute, but they seem to get away with this.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Apparently, from what I have read on other threads, the Information Commissioner Office is pretty useless as well, seems to be the norm with these organisations that are supposed to do their duty (which they are paid to do) but fail miserably.

Edited October 3, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[MAGDA]

Hi

 

May 2004 MBNA send me a letter entitled Important Default Notification stating that 'failure to bring the account up to date will result in the issue of a Notice of Default'.

 

July 2004 another letterfrom MBNA stating that 'a default is due to regiser for six years on your credit file in the next few days in relation to the above account. When the default is registered the balance on your account will be sold to a third party.'

It then states that:

'the default registered against you will be transferred into the name of the purchaser'.

 

October 2004 I receive a letter from MBNA stating that 'Your outstanding balance has been sold to Link Financial -Lin'.

 

I have a Default showing on my credit file from MBNA dated October 2004.

 

I never actually received a Default Notice from MBNA just lots of threats does this mean that Link are now allowed to issue me with a default?

 

I am trying to clear my credit file and really don't want a 2008 Default.

 

It's as we were discussing earlier. If MBNA did not issue a DN, and it seems that they probably didn't, and the only proof of any default appears to be the one showing on your credit file (which as AC mentioned, is not the same as a Notice of Default), then the contract between you and MBNA (IMO) was not terminated, so therefore, they should not have had the right to assign the debt. If however, a default notice was issued by MBNA, then Link cannot default you again. Perhaps you should send a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request to MBNA and see if a DN turns up among the paperwork. I think that perhaps this whole issue of whether we were actually defaulted correctly by the OC is quite important, as it seems on many occasions they sell the debt on without formally ending the agreement, which should in effect render the debt unenforceable. Magda

Edited October 4, 2008 by MAGDA
added to text

[MAGDA]

It would be worth complaining (for those of you who have letters from the branch in Caerphilly) to TS in Caerphilly. They have my complaint which they have been debating since June/July of this year, and have recently had a meeting with some of the more senior managers to decide what they intend (if anything) to do - probably the same as always - nothing!! Therefore, as they are now very aware of Link, if they suddenly get a lot of other complaints re: these DNs or anything else, then they may sit up and be more inclined to take notice. I'm due, hopefully, to find out the outcome of my complaint on Monday, so see what happens. Magda

[MAGDA]

Just looking at the default notice above, they do actually tell you how much you need to pay to remedy the notice.

 

Also, can i clarify: is it not right that a creditor can default you, but if they sell it on, the DCA can default you but only if the intial one is removed? There should never be more than one default showing on an account.

 

I think the original DN still stands, but the company name shown on the default itself (registered on the credit file) simply changes to that of the new "owner" - I don't think they actually can issue anothe DN in their own name, as you have already been defaulted once(or should have been) by the OC. This is just my understanding of this, so may not be correct?

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

A Default Notice has to be served correctly, if it was not then it would be rendered ineffective!

Furthermore, if the default notice was not served correctly and the account was terminated;

that termination would be ineffective.

 

The following article confirms that;

The Link Financial Group Headquarters;

are in Dublin.

 

Link Financial, Ltd.: Private Company Information - BusinessWeek

 

AC

 

Hi AC where does it say the head office is the Dublin Branch? It mentions they have opened a branch in Dublin, but not that this is their head office (at least I couldn't see anything anyway). It states that they are based in London. The reason I am querying, is TS are saying that the HO is in London, and I recently informed them it is actually Dublin, so the article would have been useful to sent on to them also.

 

Many thanks,

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Just ignore the above post, can see it now:)

 

thanks, Magda

[MAGDA]

Well Guys,

 

Have tried once a gain to obtain the electronic proof of delivery for my Link Financial; SPECIAL DELIVERY letter, from Royal Mail Track & Trace:-

 

The letter was delivered BUT Royal Mail state;

 

Sorry, an electronic proof of delivery is not available for this item!?

 

AC

 

Hi AC, I was told by Royal Mail that when they deliver to these companies, they usually do so in bulk, so the electronic proof isn't always available for some time. If you keep checking it should eventually show up! Keep up the good work by the way. I'm still pursuing my complaint with Caerphilly TS and they are having various meetings both internally and with Lambeth, as well as OFT, to decide on the best way forward. Will let you know if there is any update. Magda

[MAGDA]

Hi MAGDA!

 

I had an email today from Lambeth TS, they cannot answer my additional questions yet...

 

But will do so shortly.

 

AC

 

Yes, it always seems to be put off for another day doesn't it, although hopefully we'll manage to make some headway in the end. I think maybe we might manage to actually get something done on this occasion if we all stick with it.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Hi AC and all, I have been pushing my complaint through with TS Caerphilly for some months now, and together with all the complaints received from those on this site, perhaps it is finally starting to do some good. I received this email today from TS:

 

Miss X has had further discussions with the OFT to whom details of all complaints etc., have been passed on by both Lambeth and ourselves. The OFT have indicated that they will be able to update us on their position in relation to this company hopefully within the next two weeks.

When I am aware of the OFT's position I will be able to consider what action, if any, it is appropriate for Caerphilly to take.

I'm sorry for this delay but I feel it is only prudent to establish the position of other interested parties before considering what options may be available.

Regards,

Hope we will all fnally get somewhere, Link has been able to get aways with their appalling ttactics for far too long. Magda

[MAGDA]

Very Good MAGDA!

 

I am still bashing away at Lambeth TS and will not give up.

 

Note, an MP; John Butterfill MP raised the issue about DCA's dubious practices today 29 October, at Prime Ministers Question Time.

John Butterfill MP for Bournemouth West stated that he was getting complaints from his constituents about store card/credit card debts being passed to DCA's and that the law needs changing.

 

The Prime Minister; Gordon Brown said;

the Government is looking at problems with DCA's;

He also said that;

He had discovered from other MP's that;

DCA's are not playing fair;

 

The law needs changing;

 

I suggest that everyone contacts there own MP's

 

AC

 

Hi AC, yes, that would certainly be worth doing. The more we all complain, the more likely it is that something will be done. Glad to hear that you are still pushing ahead with Lambeth!

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

I am of the opinion that both Caerphilly and Lambeth Trading standards are passing the buck;

both state that they do not have a TS Home Authority relationship with Link Financial! (factually there is no Home Authority for Link, as they do not wish to have one)

Furthermore, if various local Trading Standards services are contacting Lambeth and or Caerphilly and these are stating that,

there are no records of any complaints in relation to Link, something is not quite right, or someone is not telling the truth!

 

I personally, have made three complaints about Link, one in 2006, two more to Lambeth TS in 2007, the other very recently in 2008. Various other members have emailed complaints directly to Lambeth TS within the last 2-3 weeks.

 

One must therefore ask this question;

why is there a reluctance on behalf of TS to investigate Link Financial, when clearly Link are breaching the guidelines.

 

This situation must be seriously looked at by the OFT;

the OFT have received complaints via Consumer Direct, which are logged;

 

It is about time that the OFT do the job that they are paid for, by the taxpayer, that is why I suggested that members send the letter of complaint to the OFT.

 

I also suggest making formal complaints to your MP's.

 

AC

 

This does all seem very strange. When I initially complained to Caerphilly, some 5 months ago now, they claimed not to have heard of Link Financial (Asset Link) before and stated that they had not had any previous problem with this company. I find that very hard to believe. I am going to chase up TS today and see if they can offer any kind of update - if I hear anything, will let you know.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Mr Gardner, Lambeth TS knows full well that I complained about Link Financial in 2007, that complaint is logged on his system, the complaint was also logged on the Consumer Direct system!

 

I am also aware of the fact, that mine was not the only complaint.

 

As stated prior, I amongst others have again complained recently to both Consumer Direct and Lambeth TS.

Mr Gardner, will not state that he has received other complaints, due to the data protection act.

 

I have asked him repeatedly to agree with me that there have been many complaints made to Lambeth about Link. I was then sent details on how one makes a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request, (I actually know how to do that) but within that information I was basically told that one could not make the Freedom of Information Act request to TS, due to exemptions!

 

Therefore, at the end of the day we all that know that many complaints have been made to Lambeth, well documented, but Lambeth will not admit that these complaints having been made?

 

AC

 

Why exactly though are Lambeth and Caerphilly so reluctant to admit that these complaints have been received? As you say, we know that many people are unhappy at the way Link operate and have complained as a result, so in theory, you would think that TS would sit up and take notice. I do wonder if it is due to the fact that Link employ a considerable number of people (no doubt recruited from the local zoo) and perhaps they are reluctant to rock the boat for this very reason. They do appear to have quite cosy relationships on closer inspection. I think we just need to keep pushing for something to be done and getting the complaints fired off, and perhaps this will being about the conclusion we all want. Magda

[MAGDA]

Hi Ac

Link say my son owes £2700.00 on his Virgin Card (MBNA), but he thinks it was about £1400.00 because he only had a credit limited of £1500. This is why its imperative that we get all the necessary documents. He is prepared to pay his real debts

regards

mummybird

 

You'll probably find mummybird that the difference between the figures, i.e., £1,400 and £2,700 is made up by interest charges etc, which where Link are concerned is no surprise. I'm sure they just think of a number and double it, which of course most of the DCA's seem guilty of.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Hi AC, I am expecting to hear something on Monday from TS. They say their legal team are looking into certain aspects and they will be in a position to discuss the outcome then. I was supposed to hear by end of last week, but they didn't contact me, so I have chased them up and will expect a response tomorrow. I did point out that they must be aware now that many other complaints have been made about Link via Lambeth, and she said she would discuss everything once the legal team come back to them. If they do update me tomorrow, I will let you know the outcome. Regards, Magda

[MAGDA]

I complained to Caerphilly TS many months ago now, and this is the reply (final decision) that I have received - I really can't believe it (although I shouldn't really be surprised should I?)

 

Quote:

"My understanding is that your complaint against the above company relates to 2 issues –

a) Harassment

 

b) Delays in provision of information relating to your agreements

I comment as follows:

a) Any offence that may have been committed in relation to harassment would have been at the place it occurred. In this instance your home. Consequently your local Trading Standards Service is the appropriate avenue for dealing with this complaint. (My local TS couldn't be bothered to look into this - each time I rang they just moaned about how busy they are, whch is why I switched to Caerphilly)

b) Delayed Provision

 

At the time of your request remedies and actions for failure to comply with a request for information properly made under S.77 – 79 of the Consumer Credit Act were both civil and criminal.

 

In considering what is the appropriate action, if any, to take in relation to the alleged criminal breach we have taken into account national and local guidelines on

 

· Dealing with traders who span LA boundaries

 

· Factors to be taken into account when considering enforcement actions.

After giving the matter careful consideration we have concluded that it is not appropriate for this authority to take direct enforcement action in relation to your complaint due to a number of factors which include:

- Subsequent provision of the documents (yes, nine months later, after TS intervention)

- The decision and policy making base of the company is not in our area

- The criminal offences no longer exist; the Act having been amended on the introduction of the Consumer Protection Regulations this year.

Consequently we will be taking no further action in respect of your complaint.

 

Typical isn't it? it makes you absolutely furious, but there you go, Link are off Scott free again, I wouldn't hold your breath anyone where Lambeth is concerned (caerphilly has been chatting to them, I know) as I think the result will be pretty much the same. Magda

[MAGDA]

DISGRACEFUL!!!

 

same old nonsense from TS.

 

Under the new CPUTR's they have a duty to act.

 

Furthermore, perhaps they should read the advice given by LACORS.

 

MAGDA, go back and COMPLAIN to your local TS;

Your MP and

MEP.

 

Also check out the 2006 amendments, which are retrospective.

 

Not Good Enough Lambeth and Caerphilly TS!

 

Why Are Lambeth & Caerphilly Trading Standards, Hiding in the Long Grass?

 

These two local gov. bodies are playing with the electorate/Council Tax Payers.

 

SHAME ON YOU LAMBETH & CAERPHILLY; COUNCIL; TRADING STANDARDS:(

 

An utter disgrace...

 

AC

 

I know, I sent an email back to the person concerned and asked if they had a conflict of interests, as Link are a local company employing large numbers of people. Without Link, I'm sure there would be significant job losses, so I don't think they will do anything, in case they rock the boat. The thing is, they have obviously had a lot of complaints on this occasion and still they won't do anything. I actually mentioned on the phone the other day when talking to TS that I know complaints had been made to lambeth and she refused to discuss it. Seems very underhanded somehow. No wonder these companies laugh when TS is mentioned, I'm not surprised. regards, magda

[MAGDA]

ive read the first 8 pages of this thread so i aplogise if im repeating something someone has said or asked before. .. i had a car loan with GE money who gave it to link financial about feb time this year.

do they have thr ight to collect a debt that you signed with someone other company? they are very ignorant .. i made 2 payments to GE before they passed it over, one for £600 and one for £150. im not sure about the later one but link blatantly have said the £600 hasnt been received by them however GE told me it had been received in feb of this year.i only have about £300 left on this debt now and have asked if they have recieved both payments and what my balance is but havent had any reply??

 

Has GE Money or Link sent a Notice of Assignment to you, and have you so far made any repayments directly to Link? If the answer is no to these questions, then the following may apply:

 

"The Assignee must find the Debtor and tell them of the Assignment or risk the Debtor discharging the Debt by paying the Assignor."

 

If you haven't been informed officially of the assigment, pay direct to GE Money.

 

Link are extremely unhelpful, we have all found that to be the case. If you have any dealings with them, do so in writing as it is pointless talking to them on the phone, it won't get you anywhere.

 

In addition, as your loan was for car finance, was it secured on the car as for HP? If that is the case then as long as you have paid more than one third or more of the debt the creditor cannot repossess the car without a court order, which you may already know.

 

Link only have the right to collect if the debt has been correctly assigned and you have been informed in writing of this.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

I was just reading the following on the Link website:

 

"Most people find being in debt stressful. Link Financial is not only aware of this, but also understands that our customers' circumstances when they applied for the credit may have been different from when the account fell into arrears. Yes, they are so understanding, aren't they?

To help alleviate the stress (any stress we have is caused directly by Link) of dealing with creditors, Link Financial aims quickly to set up a payment plan that is affordable to the customer and then to suspend all interest and other charges on the account. By talking to Link Financial, the customer is guided through the process of setting up a payment plan, which may include a calculation of payments to other creditors. Once a customer has come to an agreement with their creditors, the creditors are likely only then to contact them when the account needs to be reviewed, which may be every 6 to 12 months, depending on circumstances. In this way, customers find themselves able to get on with other things in their life, rather than constantly dealing with telephone calls and letters demanding money.

 

What a load of rubbish this really is. As for suspending all interest and charges, they have taken me to court for four accounts this year and the interest and charges are abundant. Doesn't that rather contradict what they say here?

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

Thanks for the "link" to the thread about LINK calling up neighbourghs!! (and the link within that link). Very nasty of them.

 

They do that on a regular basis. They've done it to us twice already. Magda

[MAGDA]

Well, the fact that they faxed my father at his office for one of my accounts is similar to that, so I suppose they've done it to me once as well. These sort of dirty tactics they use are illegal and make me

 

I know, but try getting anyone to do something about it - they just don't want to know.

[MAGDA]

I have just sent the following email to the OFT:

 

Thank you for your email of today's date, which was in response to the electronic letter that I sent to Mr. John Fingleton.

 

Your email states:

 

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

 

Please clarify the above statement, as I have just checked the OFT's Public Register and the information that it shows after clicking on the licence number: 0446835; Link Financial Limited, is that their Consumer Credit Licence expired on 02 May 2008.

 

I was of the understanding that the Consumer Credit Licence for Link Financial Limited is still open and awaiting renewal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

AC

 

Be very interesting AC to see what reply you get!! Magda

[MAGDA]

So far we have had three responses from the OFT:

 

AC

Jeff2000

tierisch.

 

Going by the number of members who stated that they had sent out their letters of complaint to the OFT about Link Financial.

 

Surely there must be other members who have had replies?

 

Or is it just the three of us who are on this crusade for our rights!

 

I/YOU moan about Link Financial's bad practice, but if you don't do anything about it, Link will just ride roughshod over us all.

 

AC

 

Hi AC, I did complain to the OFT, and just received their standard reply in response - it's the same reply Lexis and Citizen B received regarding their own complaints (not Link related), so obviously is just something they send out to anyone who complains. I think if you complain by post CB was saying that they send a form which they claim you can send back to them with your details, and if they get enough complaints about any specific company, they will take action. However, in my email response, I didn't get a form (there wasn't any attachment). They were just like TS and just didn't seem very interested. I agree though that the more people who complain the better as if they eventually do get enough, they may have no alternative other than to take action. Hope so, anyway. Magda