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

[angry cat]

If per chance you are one of the many who has not receved a response from Link for over 6 weeks. Best to re-send a copy of your previous letter plus a covering letter stating;

 

I have not yet received a response to my letter dated XXXXXX. Please give me the courtesy of responding etc.

 

By doing the above then Link will not be able to claim at some point in the future that, they did respond but their reply must have been lost in the post.

 

AC

[tierisch]

Would fully support AC on this one - although as we know they never read the letters so it makes me smirk a little to respond with the 'I refer to my letter of............'.

[Disaronno]

Just to add that all of my above post was done before I found this forum so excuse the naivety of it

[Mr Silver]

I got the mass Link letter in October 2007! Yes, 2007!

 

I paid up because they threatened (on the phone) to take me to the County Court and CCJ against me (which I wanted to avoid).

 

I still have Link default on my Credit file along with an MBNA one for the same Credit card debt!

Edited May 11, 2009 by Mr Silver

[Mr Silver]

Now I want to re-claim UNFAIR credit card bank charges.

 

Who do I claim against? MBNA and or Link?

 

I should also add that Link took me to Court or issued a County Court Summons and a CCJ was issued - which I later paid within a month but the ORIGINAL Default still shows on my Credit File. Can I get that removed?

 

I'm new here - any advice greatly appreciated.

[di.harry]

Would fully support AC on this one - although as we know they never read the letters so it makes me smirk a little to respond with the 'I refer to my letter of............'.

 

Fully agree with you, they don't read our letters, or read only a few lines, for which reason I find it even more enjoyable when I say "I refer to my letter..., paragraph X, line Y" Also, it's good to appear that you know what you've said in your previous correspondence and you can quote it at anytime, so if they take you to court, they will be the ones that haven't done their homework.

 

Plus, knowing that they don't really read through everythin in our letters, I make sure I have a PS summarising what I'm expecting from them (like a sales letter), plus in the text I will highlight in bold, or underlined, the one or two important bits.

[angry cat]

At Last the OFT wake up!!!

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics

 

AC

[angry cat]

Click the link to download the requirements required by the OFT.

 

AC

[angry cat]

At Last the OFT wake up!!!

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics

 

AC

 

[Quot]:

Following an application by Link to renew its existing consumer credit licence, the OFT, working alongside Lambeth Trading Standards, reviewed Link's business practices and raised concerns about the use of this trace method."

 

Err,

Didn't both Lambeth and Caerphilly TS imply that they were not aware of complaints re: Link Financial!?

 

As stated prior, the OFT is a slow moving mechanism;

however, it would appear that at least the OFT have listened to all complainants.

 

Note that Linlk's consumer credit licence has now been renewed, but they had better watch out and start treating consumers fairly...

stop harassing consumers;

stop taking £1 CCA fees and crediting them to accounts.

 

This is only a small win guys but an extremely significant one, it just goes to show how important it is, to stand up for your rights.

 

Thus, if you feel that the OFT guidelines have been breached, complain to the OFT.

 

AC

[Kraken1]

Didn't both Lambeth and Caerphilly TS imply that they were not aware of complaints re: Link Financial!?

 

as I said previously, they are unable to disclose info so this was the only thing they could say.

[Jeff2000]

[Quot]:

Following an application by Link to renew its existing consumer credit licence, the OFT, working alongside Lambeth Trading Standards, reviewed Link's business practices and raised concerns about the use of this trace method."

 

Err,

Didn't both Lambeth and Caerphilly TS imply that they were not aware of complaints re: Link Financial!?

 

As stated prior, the OFT is a slow moving mechanism;

however, it would appear that at least the OFT have listened to all complainants.

 

Note that Linlk's consumer credit licence has now been renewed, but they had better watch out and start treating consumers fairly...

stop harassing consumers;

stop taking £1 CCA fees and crediting them to accounts.

 

This is only a small win guys but an extremely significant one, it just goes to show how important it is, to stand up for your rights.

 

Thus, if you feel that the OFT guidelines have been breached, complain to the OFT.

 

AC

 

 

 

 

This just goes to show that no matter what you may think of organisations like OFT, Trading Standards or The Information Commissioner, you MUST complain!

 

 

And keep complaining but do it politely and keep to the point!

 

 

Jeff.

[Kraken1]

agreed!

[angry cat]

I take the view that the OFT have not taken all complaints seriously enough!

 

Robert Gardner of Lambeth TS was not particularly helpful?

 

Caerphilly TS informed MAGDA and others that they were not aware of any, or many complaints about Link and...

 

Why were Link allowed to carry on trading for just under a year, while the OFT investigated/considered renewal of the Link CCA Licence?

 

Please see the following Link re: BBC Moneybox view about another company who continued to trade, whilst awaiting renewal of their CCA Licence:

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Banned director runs loan firm

 

AC

[Kraken1]

Aghhhhhhhhh

[angry cat]

Aghhhhhhhhh

 

Not Arghhhhhh

But a valid point!

[Kraken1]

I don't think you are actually in the real world.

[angry cat]

I don't think you are actually in the real world.

 

Presumably, you must consider that the BBC are not in the real world either.

[Kraken1]

So what is your complaint?

 

1) that Trading standards did not involve you, that they were doing stuff and didn't tell you?

2) that they've not done enough

3) that the oft let link trade whilst they were looking into it

 

1 - I think this is just plain daft and shows you don't quite get how trading standards work.

2 - I accept this could be a reasonable complaint, I just don't necessarily agree.

3 - I am unaware of any law where you are guilty until proven innocent. To suggest that trading standards or the OFT, or anyone, shuts a company down and puts it out of business whilst they investigate them is just plain daft. You would be the first to complain if your home was demolished because of an allegation that you had breached planning laws, or that your driving licence was removed because someone thought you were a dangerous driver, let alone if the police turned up and threw you in prison because someone had made an allegation of assault*.

 

English law looks to the risk and whether action can be undone if it is taken - look at interim injunctions. It rarely does anything without full due process if there is a risk that it cannot be undone with damages. If a company is shut down that is it - it will be gone forever. You can't just start it again a year later.

 

 

 

*this can happen - but subject to the bail laws and the prosecution really needs meet a decent standard of fact and proof.

[angry cat]

:

 

So what is your complaint?

 

1) that Trading standards did not involve you, that they were doing stuff and didn't tell you?

2) that they've not done enough

3) that the oft let link trade whilst they were looking into it

 

 

Firstly, this matter is not just about me but many, that is why I started the Link Financial Limited thread; to help others and bring about awareness. Furthermore, it would have been helpful if Lambeth & Caerphilly TS had shown some interest. The consumer was left up in the air, not knowing which way to turn...

 

Secondly, it appeared that TS were doing nothing or, very little? The impression that I was given by Lambeth was that they were not interested. MAGDA, I believe was given the same impression by Caerphilly TS.

 

Thirdly, I believe that it would have been sensible if link Financial's wings had been clipped a little, whilst the investigations were taking place; common sense.

 

One only has to read the horror stories that were occuring about Links Bad Business Practice, not just on this site but other consumer websites also, that continued during the OFT investigation

[Kraken1]

it would have been helpful if Lambeth & Caerphilly TS had shown some interest. The consumer was left up in the air, not knowing which way to turn...

 

And then you would have posted all the details here, wouldn't you? Then Link would have read it, and would have seen what was happening and covered their tracks. I don't think this approach would work. Then Link claim that trading standards have disclosed prejudicial info about them and sue trading standards and that stops any action and costs us money. Link then become untouchable. Can't you see that this is how it needs to be if you want something to happen?

 

Secondly, it appeared that TS were doing nothing or, very little? The impression that I was given by Lambeth was that they were not interested. MAGDA, I believe was given the same impression by Caerphilly TS.

 

So? They didn't include you in their investigation. Why should they? They probably didn't for the above reasons and because it is illegal for them to tell you what they are up to

What would you rather have, feigned interest and no action, or feigned disinterest and action?

 

Thirdly, I believe that it would have been sensible if link Financial's wings had been clipped a little, whilst the investigations were taking place; common sense.

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree - are you suggesting that action should be taken against someone before the jury is in? Can't you see how this would just not work?

[MAGDA]

At Last the OFT wake up!!!

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics

 

AC

 

Hopefully, AC, Link will need to tread a little more carefully now. Certainly not before time.

 

Well done with all the work you put into organising and encouraging people to complain, at last it seems to have done some good.

 

Magda

[angry cat]

Quite so MAGDA!

 

by The OFT:

 

We will monitor Link's compliance with the requirements. Any complaints about non-compliance should be sent to:

 

Enquiries

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX" [End Quote]

 

The activities of Link Financial Limited need to be monitored very closely!

 

AC

Edited May 17, 2009 by angry cat
addition

[MAGDA]

Just wondering if anyone can help - do Link apply charges for each letter they send out - I must have received around a million or two by now, and I know that DCA's do sometimes apply charges in this situation don't they, as Ijust had a response to a SAR from Moorcroft/Egg and I have been charged around £30 for each entry shown.

 

The reason I ask is I did a SAR to Link some time ago and received very limited information back in response and the account didn't seem to show up very many charges, which was surprising, as I imagine they do charge for letters, etc.. Many thanks, Magda

[angry cat]

Just wondering if anyone can help - do Link apply charges for each letter they send out - I must have received around a million or two by now, and I know that DCA's do sometimes apply charges in this situation don't they, as Ijust had a response to a SAR from Moorcroft/Egg and I have been charged around £30 for each entry shown.

 

The reason I ask is I did a SAR to Link some time ago and received very limited information back in response and the account didn't seem to show up very many charges, which was surprising, as I imagine they do charge for letters, etc.. Many thanks, Magda

 

On what basis could they charge for letters?

 

AC

[MAGDA]

Hi AC,that's what I'm wondering, if like banks, if they have to send a letter, for example, if they claim someone is in arrears with a payment arrangement, or if it's a LBA letter or whatever, then do they try to justify this by applying a charge on the account (in other words, an admin fee) - it seems from the printouts I have from Moorcroft/Egg that they have done just that - so wondering if Link or any others do the same, thereby increasing the outstanding debt. Magda