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

[AA99]

Link's letter of 30 Jan 09, is headed Sale of your debt: per-mot-loan.

 

First paragraph is worded

 

We, LINK Financial Ltd, hereby give you notice or intimation that effective from 15 Jan 09 GE Capital Bank Limited assigned to us the benefit of the debt that you owe to them under an agreement with the reference number set out above.

 

Received a Statement of Account from Link on 7 July 09, dated 24 Apr 09, showing balance brought forward on 01 Oct 2008.

 

None of it's ever made any sense to me:?

[MAGDA]

Link's letter of 30 Jan 09, is headed Sale of your debt: per-mot-loan.

 

First paragraph is worded

 

We, LINK Financial Ltd, hereby give you notice or intimation that effective from 15 Jan 09 GE Capital Bank Limited assigned to us the benefit of the debt that you owe to them under an agreement with the reference number set out above.

 

Received a Statement of Account from Link on 7 July 09, dated 24 Apr 09, showing balance brought forward on 01 Oct 2008.

 

None of it's ever made any sense to me:?

 

Link do occasionally pass account on to third party DCA's to recover, usually on the ones they have absolutely no chance of recovering, just to make a further attempt at intimidation. I have an account with Link (one of many) and finally after contacting TS forced Link to provide me with a statement of account. On calculating the unlawful charges, it turns out that link actually owe me money, not the other way around. I informed them of this, but they still continue to use an external DCA to threaten me every so often. I simply ignore these letters completely - Link won't be getting any money from me: Let them take me to court:D

 

Magda

[angry cat]

Link's letter of 30 Jan 09, is headed Sale of your debt: per-mot-loan.

 

First paragraph is worded

 

We, LINK Financial Ltd, hereby give you notice or intimation that effective from 15 Jan 09 GE Capital Bank Limited assigned to us the benefit of the debt that you owe to them under an agreement with the reference number set out above.

 

Received a Statement of Account from Link on 7 July 09, dated 24 Apr 09, showing balance brought forward on 01 Oct 2008.

 

None of it's ever made any sense to me:?

 

Link Financial are obligated to send you an annual statement of account AA99;

under The Consumer Credit Act 2006;

fully implemented 1st October 2008;

thus you received the statement brought forward on 1st October 2008.

 

Sounds like Link are using H L Legal & Collections as a DCA collector;

as suggested by MAGDA.

 

If Link themselves could not enforce the lemon, how on earth will H L Legal?

 

Intimidation and scare tactics, as ever!

 

AC

[AA99]

I bought the car from Carcraft, they acted as broker and financed me through GEMoney, they sold to Link and I was under the impression that HL Legal were acting as the solicitors for Link, the DCA:?

[angry cat]

I bought the car from Carcraft, they acted as broker and financed me through GEMoney, they sold to Link and I was under the impression that HL Legal were acting as the solicitors for Link, the DCA:?

 

If, H L Legal & Collections (acting as solicitors) have been instructed by their client; Link Financial Limited.

I would suggest that, you request "Disclosure" from that firm under the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

In the common tongue; H L Legal will have to put their clients money (Link Financial) where their mouth is.

 

AC

[AA99]

If, H L Legal & Collections (acting as solicitors) have been instructed by their client; Link Financial Limited.

I would suggest that, you request "Disclosure" from that firm under the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

In the common tongue; H L Legal will have to put their clients money (Link Financial) where their mouth is.

 

AC

 

Absolutely! CPR disclosure! On it's way.....

[angry cat]

Link Financial continue with their Bad Business Practices:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2432887.html

 

AC

[24233513afw]

REading with great interest

[angry cat]

REading with great interest

 

Yes, the entire thread makes one raise and eyebrow or, two!

[Disgruntled_Employee]

Well we had a letter back from FOS today returning our paperwork and asking for a copy of the student loan agreement so if we have it we'll return it with the paperwork and if not then it's back to SLC to get a "copy" and forward it on till that FOS won't investigate as they're unsure whether it's in their remit or not I suppose it depends on what type of student loan it was we shall see, still nothing from anyone else, disgraceful!!

[angry cat]

Many have pondered;

what exactly is within the remit of, the FOS?

 

Not surprised:(

 

AC

[angry cat]

We continue to record the Bad Business Practices emplyed by Link Financial!

 

AC

[angry cat]

Yet, another horror story:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/220419-advice-please-link-financial.html

[Kraken1]

WRT FOS - I thought the figures they released were quite illuminating - it seems that very few folk actually complain to them about debt collectors.

 

So - what is within their remit? Probably more stuff than folk seem to bother them with!

[angry cat]

Probably, because so many cases have been dealt with some degree of incompetance.

 

I am aware, of many cases about DCA's, that have been forwarded to the FOS;

the responses that I have seen, were clearly biased.

 

I would love to know on what basis the FOS have calculated their figures?

 

Because, if one takes the time to look on almost every forum, there is another story being told...

[angry cat]

According to the FOS:

e.g.

63% of MBNA cases were resolved and;

91% of Capital One cases were resolved.

 

Do these figures tell the true story;

I think NOT and;

what were these cases about?

 

MBNA and Capital One;

Rolls eyes!

 

AC

[Kraken1]

Because, if one takes the time to look on almost every forum, there is another story being told...

 

I really doubt that FOS would lie with the figures. My conclusion is that folk who say they are complaining to fos, are not, and that as no dca appears to feature in the figures it leads me to conclude that folk are letting problems lie and not complaining to the authorities.

 

The results show that the majority of decisions go in favour of the consumer. Any 'bias' is probably not bias therefore (or how to you explain 99% figures pro-consumer?) but rather poor case presentation or selective reporting of the facts from the complainant.

 

But - the main point -

 

None of these companies will be taken to task if no-one complains about them. We can't criticise Trading Standards etc for doing nothing if we sit on our asses and just whinge.

 

In the words of Nike - just do it!

[WelshMam2009]

I really doubt that FOS would lie with the figures. My conclusion is that folk who say they are complaining to fos, are not, and that as no dca appears to feature in the figures it leads me to conclude that folk are letting problems lie and not complaining to the authorities.

 

The results show that the majority of decisions go in favour of the consumer. Any 'bias' is probably not bias therefore (or how to you explain 99% figures pro-consumer?) but rather poor case presentation or selective reporting of the facts from the complainant.

 

But - the main point -

 

None of these companies will be taken to task if no-one complains about them. We can't criticise Trading Standards etc for doing nothing if we sit on our asses and just whinge.

 

In the words of Nike - just do it!

 

If there's some apathy about reporting to FOS then my guess would be it's because most think they're a waste of space!! This is particularly true if you complain about any failure to comply with a CCA request.

 

There seems to be a greater emphasis on reporting to OFT in the hope that restrictions on licences and/or revoking of licences will take place.

[angry cat]

The FOS is not a Regulator nor, a Government Body.

 

I and many others are of the opinion that, it is not the FOS who should be deciding whether to uphold or, not, complaints about matters concerning:

The Consumer Credit Act;

The Data Protection Act;

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and;

The OFT Guidelines/Fitness to hold a Consumer Credit Licence.

 

The above matters, should be dealt with by:

Trading Standards;

The Information Commissioners Office and:

The Office of Fair Trading.

 

Of course, the FOS may be of benefit to consumers who have complaints relating to PPI etc...

 

But, not in relation to legislation were there are Regulators in place, who are supposed to enforce breaches of said legislation.

 

I agree with welshmam in that, there is apathy about reporting matters as referenced above to the FOS, apathy which is based upon the experiences of many who have already made such complaints!

 

AC

[angry cat]

Turning back to this particular thread, which is about Link Financial Limited.

 

I, personally find it hard to envisage how, a general consumer would be able to provide sufficient detail to the FOS about, how and why, their disputed (alleged) debt was sold by for example by MBNA to Link Financial.

 

And, would the FOS, pursue both MBNA & Link for documentary evidence providing proof that the (alleged) debt was legally assigned;

would MBNA & Link provide to the FOS ALL the legal documents that relate to the complaint?

 

Even if, the FOS were able to garsp the mettle about both complaints;

MBNA and;

Link Financial.

Is it really, the position of the FOS to sit in judgement about such matters i.e.

uphold complaint, or not?

 

Surely, that is for the courts to decide and not the FOS.

 

AC

[Kraken1]

I agree with welshmam in that, there is apathy about reporting matters as referenced above to the FOS, apathy which is based upon the experiences of many who have already made such complaints!

 

I hope the figures released will dispense with this view. They clearly show that there is no bias for companies; arguably it is the opposite.

 

This is particularly true if you complain about any failure to comply with a CCA request.

 

I don't know why you would complain to FOS about that. the enforceability (or not) of an agreement is a matter of law and is for the courts. It is not within the remit of FOS so don't bother. It still strikes me that few bother with even these types of complaints to FOS - or Link etc would feature in the figures. I think the numbers went down to about 30 or so complaints for the first half of the year. If FOS got fewer than that against Link I think it is reasonable to assume the OFT and trading standards got even less. It seems FOS gets substantially more complaints than the OFT (69,841 about financial stuff so far this year, as opposed to less than 6000 for the OFT - Consumer Direct - Consumer Direct reveals half year complaint statistics)

 

I am therefore not surprised that the OFT have not taken away anyone's licence and I would be stunned if they ever did based on these numbers. Extrapolating the above figures across, and adding some guesswork, it seems that complaints to the OFT are approximately 10% (at most) of the FOS figures. This is scary if FOS received less than 30 complaints about Link.

 

Conclusions: Folk that say they have complained - haven't

If we want action to be taken, complaints must be made.

If the status quo remains, nothing will ever happen.

 

 

Is it really, the position of the FOS to sit in judgement about such matters i.e.

uphold complaint, or not?

 

Surely, that is for the courts to decide and not the FOS.

 

I think you are right -FOS look at wrongs and at granting redress. issues of enforceability fall outside of their remit as there is no positive award that can be made - the penalty for unenforceabilty is the creditor not being able to do something, it is a negative sanction, not a positive one. It is very important to understand the roll of FOS. The vast majority of folk who diss it don't understand what it is there for and what it does. These figures give a scary insight in to the numbers of complaints about a dca like link and show that FOS is not bias.

[angry cat]

by Kraken: I don't know why you would complain to FOS about that. the enforceability (or not) of an agreement is a matter of law and is for the courts. It is not within the remit of FOS so don't bother."

 

Quite right, however, perhaps if firms such as MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited stopped directing consumers to the FOS, instead of dealing with matters such thenselves. Then consumers would not be wasting their time and energies in making complaints to the FOS about CCA enforceablility/unenforceability issues;

many naieve consumers believe that the FOS can solve all.

 

MBNA, directed me to the FOS regarding CCA & DPA matters;

I informed them that these were not within the remit of the FOS. A fact, that they later conceded.

 

by Kraken:

"It still strikes me that few bother with even these types of complaints to FOS - or Link etc would feature in the figures."

 

As previously stated:

"I, personally find it hard to envisage how, a general consumer would be able to provide sufficient detail to the FOS about, how and why, their disputed (alleged) debt was sold by for example by MBNA to Link Financial."

 

by Kraken:

 

"I am therefore not surprised that the OFT have not taken away anyone's licence and I would be stunned if they ever did based on these numbers. Extrapolating the above figures across, and adding some guesswork, it seems that complaints to the OFT are approximately 10% (at most) of the FOS figures. This is scary if FOS received less than 30 complaints about Link.

 

Conclusions: Folk that say they have complained - haven't

If we want action to be taken, complaints must be made.

If the status quo remains, nothing will ever happen."

 

The OFT, must have received sufficient complaints about Link Financial Limited, otherwise the OFT would not have imposed the 'Requirements' upon Link!

 

At the end of the day, it is up to every single consumer to complain about the Unfair Business Practices of DCA's, in this case Link Financial

 

AC

[hsbcfiddled]

subscribing

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/220591-car-finance-link-financial.html#post2438649

 

Link are a menace and people should be making their complaints. It is beyond belief they are allowed to continue if the amount of people who have said they have complained .. have indeed done so.

[angry cat]

Link Financial never cease to AMAZE me!

 

by Lorry25:

 

Car Finance Link Financial Services reposesion

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I took out a car loan to buy a car a number of years ago for £6000. 2 years ago i was signed off long term sick and could not keep up with the payments, the original debt was with GE Capital, this debt was sold to Link Financial Services and after they refused my reduced monthly payment of £40 I ended up in county court in October 2008.

 

No representative showed up in court from Link Financial Services, and the Judge granted them a Suspended return of goods order, as long as i paid them £40 per month. I have been regularly making this payment (as far as I was aware) and the next thing I knew of anything was 2 men coming to my door a week ago friday telling me they were taking the car there and then for non payment. I spoke to Link Finance and they agreed to wait until after the weekend so I could sort out some money.

 

I spoke to them on Monday and made a token payment of £100 over the phone to show them that i was not tyring to fob them off and I had every intent to pay off the debt. They seemed happy with that and when I asked how much was outstanding they told me it was £566.44. This figure did not sound right to me and so I asked them to send me a statement, since the first I knew of any problem with them receiving payment every month was these people turning up on my doorstep, I had no letters to say I was in arrears nor did I ever speak to Anyone on the phone.

 

This morning (3 days after requesting a statement) I wandered outside to see a low loader by my car, they had come to take away the car. When i explained to them that I had spoken to Link only 3 days ago they got onto the phone and took instructions from someone, then informed me I had until the end of the day to make full payment or they would be back to remove the car.

 

I was obviously panicked, I contacted Link and asked them to explain this, Link told me they would give me an extension until monday to pay them but the statement I would have to pay them the amount they quoted (£566.44) immediately and they would send me the statement and if there was any adjustment to make they would refund me. After much pleading they agreed to give me until monday to arange the money.

 

What really confused me was the amount of money they wanted. and that I had to pay before seeing a statement. When I went to court the total amount was for £850 + £150 court fee. I paid £400 immediately to Link (which the court had agreed) making the total outstanding to be £600. I made several payments over the phone by debit card although (stupidly) I did not have ready access to proove this which is why I wanted the statement.

 

Still panicked, I telephoned the court and was told that the company only had a Suspended Return of Goods order and could not remove the vehicle without my consent! The court telephoned the finance company and returned a call to me and the court were adament that they would not be allowed to remove the vehicle. Link told the court that it was "voluntary" surrender and had obviously been lying through there teeth.

 

After going through my bank statements of everything paid to Link I calculated the balance to remaining to only be £289 and they were asking for £566. Feeling alot more confident that they could not remove the car, and if they did I would be calling the police, I telephoned Link and found that they applied a fee of £169.00 for the visit on Friday to remove the vehicle, and had added a further charge of £100 for there litigation for taking me to court (in addition to the fee of £150 that the court ordered me to pay). I am waiting for a statement from them but at least I know they cannot remove the car.

 

Any Advice would be hugely appreciated, especially on these added charges since going to court, I should also note that without Link's added charges, I am now up to date with my payments as per the courts ruling."

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/220591-car-finance-link-financial.html#post2438649

 

SHOCKING!!!

 

AC