Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4233 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by angry cat
error - re-possession not charging order
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...