Jump to content


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


angry cat
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3369 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

 

Phantom has agreed to let me use his letter....so it shall go off today.

 

:eek:

Well, it isn't my letter really, I got it from another member who got it from 42man, so it is being passed around. But if we all get bulk mailings of the same default notice I don't think Link will mind a bulk mailing of template letters from the CAG :D

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

Oh - and I just noticed another one - I am not a 'he' at all

:p

Sorry.... whoops!!

 

I can't imagine they will mind one bit receiving a mass mailing - it's their stock in trade I think......

The postie might be a bit irritated with the recorded/registred deliveries though :(

 

On a serious note, the amount that they have stated on the DN to me seems WAY higher - are they adding interest/can they add interest?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On a serious note, the amount that they have stated on the DN to me seems WAY higher - are they adding interest/can they add interest?

 

Thanks

 

As far as I know,whilst in default with the CCA request, they shouldn't make any attempts to collect the debt, they shouldn't have sent you a Default notice...but they did. So they are probably adding charges and interest as well. Who knows. :-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any of you beautiful people answer this question?

 

Yes, the 12 day rule still applies. It's the bit about them committing an offence that has recently been removed from the legislation.

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I smell something desperate. What logical explanation is there for a DCA like Link to do a bulk mailshot of DNs to all and sundry creditors regardless of their own default under s.78 or not. It seems clear that Link have done a substantial mailshot and all the DNs look identical, bar a few technical corrections after the first. Think about it - they have bought a ton of debt in the good times, when credit to finance their operation was easy to come by, when assets to secure the claim (charging orders on property) were rising and when employment was buoyant. Now it's all changed and maybe so has the business model and their own creditor's perceptions.

 

Link is potentially acting without regard to legalities so what does that suggest? Maybe a revised gameplan, but more likely they are prepared to overlook legalities for the moment. Why, one wonders. Could it be survival? A cashflow issue could normally be addressed by selling assets, as many banks have done - in Link's case the accounts on which they seek to collect as did the original creditors (though they had different reasoning such as the US Sarbanes Oxley accounting requirments). But whilst Link bought these accounts in the good times for what seemed like a bargain and didn't have to justify anything more than the business model, now these accounts smell like toxic consumer debt. But it's worse than the US - this is wholly unsecured toxic consumer debt.

 

In the US you can take all that toxic debt and put it in a government sponsored special purpose vehicle and wait for the market to turn, eventually, which it will. This is different - these accounts are either enforceable or not and maybe that hasn't been considered properly in the past.

 

Put that together with the inability to produce properly executed enforceable CCAs (warranties relating to the legal enforceability of which would be required by any corporate lender ) and what do you have? A lot of overhead, an enormous headache and a business model with the odour not of toxic debt but something more pungent - desperation. Just a thought..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously think we should all send an identical letter based on the one above that shows we are part of CAG as well.

 

We shall overcome:D

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

We thought that too Matsinlondon. Like the last ditch advertising attempts made by retailers before they throw in the towel.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right on that one and normally I wouldn't reply. However I do not want a third or fourth default for the same alleged debt - my defaults are almost eligible for their state pensions and a new one would not be welcome. I know they have no right whatsoever to default me for an unenforceable and disputed alleged agreement, but will they do it as their last defiant act before they call in the liquidators?

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right on that one and normally I wouldn't reply. However I do not want a third or fourth default for the same alleged debt - my defaults are almost eligible for their state pensions and a new one would not be welcome. I know they have no right whatsoever to default me for an unenforceable and disputed alleged agreement, but will they do it as their last defiant act before they call in the liquidators?

 

I would suggest that defiant acts don't apply - they are a business; the mantra is profit. If you want to address the wrong in the multiple defaults maybe it's better to focus on how they get away with it - who governs them, who can discipline them, what are they dependent upon..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a draft letter that I have prepared with regard to Link Financial, it may well be too long, but have a look and see what you all think; amend where necessary.

 

October 3, 2008

Your Reference: XXXXXXX

 

Miss Selina Burdell

Link Financial Limited

89 Albert Embankment

London

SE1 7TP

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Dear Miss Burdell,

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS OR ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY WHATSOEVER; ALLEGED ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Thank you for your letter dated 23 September 2008, that was delivered to me by Royal Mail on behalf of TNT post, 27 September 2008. [ insert relavent dates]

 

As I do not acknowledge any debt to you; Link Financial Limited, nor; MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited, I can see no substance in your letter, it would seem to me that this is nothing more than a “stalking exercise”, which is an offence under Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended by Section 42 - 44 of the Justice and Police Act (2001) and Regulation 7 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

Take notice that, Link Financial Limited are in default of my lawful request under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the (“Act”), therefore any attempted enforcement of this alleged debt is barred.

 

I take an extremely dim view about your continued pursuance this account, as it is in dispute with; MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited and has been in dispute for some time. Not only is this a breach of the OFT collection guidelines and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR’s), but also a breach of the ‘Consumer Credit Act 1974’, the (“Act”) as MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited and Link Financial Limited are in Default of Section (77) 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the (“Act”).

 

I draw your attention to the following:

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

 

• AGGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES (REGULATION 7)

The CPR’s prohibit commercial practices which

 

• By harassment, coercion (including physical force) or undue influence,

 

HARASSMENT, COERCION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE

 

• Harassment and coercion are not expressly defined in the CPR’s but include both physical and non-physical, (including psychological) pressure.

FACTORS INDICATING AN AGGRESSIVE PRACTICE

The CPR’s list factors which shall be taken into account when determining whether a commercial practice is aggressive. It is not necessary for all these factors to be present for a practice to be aggressive and therefore unfair (provided that the commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence).

 

The factors are:

• (a) Timing, location, nature or persistence,

• (b) The use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour,

• © The exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune, or circumstance, of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgement, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product,

 

• (d) Any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barriers imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under contract, including rights to terminate a contract or switch to another product or trader.

 

• (e) Any threat to take any action that cannot be taken.

 

POSSIBLE AGGRESSIVE PRACTICES

 

The examples below assume that the average consumer would or would be likely to take a different decision as a result of the practice(s) described.

 

• A debt collector, *pressurises existing borrowers/debtors to repay a debt, for example, by contacting debtors at unreasonable times (such as late at night) or at unreasonable locations (such as at work when they have been requested not to). This could amount to harassment, coercion or undue influence. (Timing, persistence, nature and location, exploitation of circumstances – this might amount to exploitation of the imbalance of power between the creditor and debtor, as well as of the specific circumstances of the debtor)

 

• A debt collector threatens consumers with recovery of money by bailiffs for unenforceable debts, *this could amount to harassment, coercion or undue influence. (Exploitation of circumstances and threat to take action which cannot be legally taken).

 

• *Additional examples of unfair (including aggressive) debt collection practices can be found in the Office of Fair Trading Debt collection guidance – OFT 664.

 

• *this could also breach the prohibitions on misleading actions as well as the prohibition on aggressive practices.

 

I would also draw your attention to the fact that, MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited subscribes to the new Banking Code of Practice and as such both you; Link Financial Limited and MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited are; failing to honour commitments made in that code of conduct;

 

CODES OF CONDUCT

 

• Enforcers may, where appropriate as a means of seeking to prevent or stop breaches of the CPR’s. enlist the help of those responsible for self-regulatory codes of conduct, or practice, adopted by businesses to govern their dealings with consumers

 

I have reported Link Financial Limited to Consumer Direct and to your home authority Trading Standards in the London borough of ‘Lambeth’, regarding these breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

Turning back to your letter dated 23 September 2008. [amend date to suit]

 

If it is your intention to commence legal action against me, I am entitled under stature to submit a defence. I therefore request the following documents under CPR 4.6 pre-action court protocol:

 

• A true signed copy of the alleged executed (signed) credit agreement and any terms and conditions that applied to the alleged account at the time the alleged account was opened.

 

• All records you hold on me relevant to this alleged account, including but not limited to (and including the creditor).

 

• A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, repayments and payments, and both the original credit limit and any repayments made to the alleged account.

 

• Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations.

 

• Where there has been any adverse event in the alleged account’s history over the period from conception of the alleged account, which has required manual intervention by any person (whether they be permanent or temporary staff), 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 the alleged debt.

 

• Documents relating to The Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) added to the alleged account, including the original Payment Protection Insurance contract and terms & conditions of the original PPI policy document.

 

• A genuine copy of any deed of assignment, or documentary evidence that you have a legal right to collect on this alleged debt.

 

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

 

• A true copy of your Consumer Credit Licence.

 

• A true copy of your Data Protection Licence.

 

Take notice that, the commencement of legal proceedings under such circumstances could be counter to the ‘Overriding Objectives’ of the Civil Procedures Rules. You will be aware that the ‘Overriding Objectives’ underpin everything the court does. Moreover, paragraph 4 of the Practice Protocol states that in cases not covered by an approved pre-action protocol, the court will expect parties “to act reasonably…in trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings”.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I would again reiterate that, MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited and Link Financial Limited are in default of my Section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 ‘Request’

 

It remains my position that the document that your client has provided to me, an application form and not a credit agreement, which is not in the prescribed form and does not conform to regulations under Sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; the document is irredeemably unenforceable under section 127(3) of the “Act” and you therefore cannot enforce it against me.

 

Take Notice that you; Link Financial Limited are in breach of the OFT Collection Guidelines, the 'CPUTR’s'; I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

Consequently any legal action you pursue will be averred as both unlawful and vexatious.

 

Lastly, I note that Link Financial Limited by requesting that I must make a payment to an account that is in; DISPUTE, by (one of these methods) Credit Card; are conspiring to commit fraud by putting pressure on me in the taking on of borrowings?

 

Any further demands for payment may be considered to be harassment under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act

 

If there is any part of this letter that you do not understand, I suggest that you pass it on to your legal department

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Copy to; Mrs. J Pearcey, Link Financial

The Office of Fair Trading".

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by MAGDA
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

It's all too much trouble and work for them. They rather change the law to make it no longer an offence rather than take action against these companies.

It's a bit like the policeman not bothering to stop a car with a rear light not working as it would be too much hassle and paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

Let us hope that on this occasion it will be a case of;

her who laughs last, laughs longest...

 

Link Financial's Home Authority Trading Stndards are keeping an eye on this thread and I have been assured that they are going to speak to the OFT today, to highlight the concerns involved.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Link Financial have done a mass mailing of Default Notices re: assigned accounts.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...