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

[Disgruntled_Employee]

The trading of debts should be illegal why should I as a consumer have to deal with some ****** company that I have no agreement with nor chose to do business with through no fault of my own

 

If you take out a loan with bank x or institution y it should stay there till it's paid off not be traded like some kind of hot potato and if you ignore them you get a letter from yet another DCA sometimes within days of the first one how you're supposed to know who to deal with and pay I don't know, you never receive any official paperwork to say why you're debt has been passed over nor that it has been and xx company will now deal with it.

 

My partner has a loan with Welcome who are now trying to extort money thru a DCA despite never having received a default notice nor any notice of assignment why do the powers that be allow this arseholes to get away with murder????

[jdes26]

link are p r i c k s!

[jdes26]

my ex wife was called mandy and she was a greedy tight thing

still paying maintenance now 5years later 95k pay off from house 6k for the last 5years in child maintenance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! total 30k thats why i gota dca chasing my a s s

[Disgruntled_Employee]

time to form your own limited co abroad and pay yourself as a contractor through that then (assuming your work lends itself to doing so)

[MAGDA]

time to form your own limited co abroad and pay yourself as a contractor through that then (assuming your work lends itself to doing so)

 

What, to avoid paying child maintenance, or to avoid the DCAs?

 

Magda

[Disgruntled_Employee]

I don't agree with not paying child maintenance at a reasonable rates you make em you pay for em

[gustavius rex]

The trading of debts should be illegal why should I as a consumer have to deal with some ****** company that I have no agreement with nor chose to do business with through no fault of my own

 

If you take out a loan with bank x or institution y it should stay there till it's paid off not be traded like some kind of hot potato and if you ignore them you get a letter from yet another DCA sometimes within days of the first one how you're supposed to know who to deal with and pay I don't know, you never receive any official paperwork to say why you're debt has been passed over nor that it has been and xx company will now deal with it.

 

My partner has a loan with Welcome who are now trying to extort money thru a DCA despite never having received a default notice nor any notice of assignment why do the powers that be allow this arseholes to get away with murder????

 

 

 

There is a multitude with problems associated with the trading in debt, be it unsecured or secured. The main problem is that the trade is virtually unregulated and this concerns loans, mortgages and other papers. The second problem is that all lenders are arguing that unless they can securitise or assign debt, they cannot obtain funds to continue lending. The third is the judicial establishment, particularily county court judges who are mostly selected from solicitors nearing retirement age. These solicitors, becoming judges, are all well off and have no consideration for the poor and helpless, but, tacitly supports claimants, irrespective of lending methods, collection methods, rates of interest and the flogging of debt. The same moment you enter a county court to defend yourself agains a debt claim, repossession or charging order, you know you are at the losing end. The claimant can afford a solicitor/legal executive with donkey years of experience of this type of cases while you cannot. The judge and the claimants solicitor will discuss the case over your head and the judge will undoubtly side with the claimant as he see's you as a dodger and social outcast. l'm sorry to say, that until we get a change of attitude, system and selection of judges, we will remain screwed.

Gustavius

[jdes26]

why do people on this site win there cases? because they have support and some guts ! GOOD LUCK TO ALL CAGGERS i as one will support u for:cool:ever more.....

[gustavius rex]

why do people on this site win there cases? because they have support and some guts ! GOOD LUCK TO ALL CAGGERS i as one will support u for:cool:ever more.....

 

 

 

l'm not saying that you cannot win and as has been proven here time after time, many together are strong. What l'm discussing is the problem with securitisation and assignment of debt. There are inherent problems with this issue and the judiciary, that's all. You may even be lucky and face a ''real'' and impartial judge who takes true interest in your case. But, at least in my experience, most judges do not even bother to read through the case notes! l've been fighting one particular case for years now and my collected experience, and that's with more than one judge, is not positive at all. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, l'm fighting every micro inch of the way and never ever give in.

GR

[ds66]

Hi to all,

I first posted on here as a 'newbie' seeking guidance. I sent the CCA letter dated 24/08/09 and received a reply from LINK on the 02/09/09.

 

I would hazard a guess that the letter they have sent me is pretty much standard so will not rewrite it here. However there are a couple of points which raise concern.

 

I understand that LINK have 12 days to respond to my request - they tell me in the letter that it can take up to 30 days. The letter also says they have requested the most recent terms and conditions the account was operated under. Is that the same as the original? Who knows!

 

The letter also states that the account has has already been enforced by way of a legal charge on the property. Is that normal?

 

Finally do I do nothing and wait? Or do I now send them the templated letter I found on here saying they have defaulted?

 

Thanks in advance for your help and reply. Great work on this forum.

Edited September 6, 2009 by ds66

[angry cat]

Hi to all,

I first posted on here as a 'newbie' seeking guidance. I sent the CCA letter dated 24/08/09 and received a reply from LINK on the 02/09/09.

 

I would hazard a guess that the letter they have sent me is pretty much standard so will not rewrite it here. However there are a couple of points which raise concern.

 

I understand that LINK have 12 days to respond to my request - they tell me in the letter that it can take up to 30 days. the letter also says they have requested the most recent terms and conditions the account was operated under. Is tha tthe same as the original? Who knows!

 

The letter also states that the account has has already been enforced by way of a legal charge on the property. Is that normal?

 

Finally do I do nothing and wait? Or do I now send them the templated letter I found on here saying they have defaulted?

 

Thanks in advance for your help and reply. Great work on this forum.

 

No!

 

The timescale to comply with your legal section 77 - 78 CCA Request is 12 + 2 days and;

 

Link Financial Must provide to you a 'True Copy' of the executed (signed) Credit Agreement, together with any other documant referred to in it;

together with a statement of account.

 

That is the Law and until they comply, Link cannot enforce the alleged debt.

 

The Unfair Business Practices that are employed by Link Financial are well know on the forum.

 

AC

[ds66]

Hi AC,

 

Thank you for your prompt reply. Do I now send them the letter I found on the forum saying they are now in default as they have not provided the requested information in 12 days or do I now ignore them?

 

Many thanks

[WelshMam2009]

Hi to all,

The letter also states that the account has has already been enforced by way of a legal charge on the property. Is that normal?

 

 

This is the bit that concerns me!!

 

Did you know about this?? Did they obtain a CCJ??

 

If so, then your purpose in establishing whether or not a valid CCA exists would be to try and get the CCJ set aside, although you would need valid reasons for not defending in the first place (assuming that you didn't of course!!)

[angry cat]

Yes, quite right Welshmam, I missed that part of the letter; sorry.

 

Link Financial cannot enforce an agreement, whilst in default of s 77 - 79;

putting a charge on ones property is enforcement!

 

So, how did they put a charge on your property?

did you go to court, or;

did you ignore the summons?

have you receive an official document advising you of the charge?

 

AC

[ds66]

NO CCJ

Did NOT go to court

Never received a summons

NO documents

 

Up to the 17th August this year I had never heard from this company until one of their rather stroppy call centre reps called me asking me to make a payment. I refused saying I had never heard of them.

 

The thing is, he told me that they bought the debt in 2007 from Northern Rock which I found quite odd considering the account/amount concerned is part of our IVA which we entered into in 2006. Not sure how they say the charge is on the property in that case.

 

I also wonder how Northern Rock or Debtmatters managed to sell this account to LINK as it is part of the IVA

Edited September 6, 2009 by ds66

[Disgruntled_Employee]

You need to check it out but sounds like they're up to their usual lying bar steward ways to attempt to extort money from you, investigate and if no charging order exists off to the OFT

 

In fact don't wait get the complaint in now as either way if they have got one then that's out of order as this is the first you have heard of it and if they don't have one then they lied to extort money

 

Either way complain away.

 

also i'd write to your MP and and MP Kate Hoey who is MP in the area of their reg'd office

[angry cat]

If a charge and/or caution was placed upon your property, each named person on the title deeds, would have received a notification by registered post from the land registry.

You would have been given a period of time, I have a feeling 14 days, to challenge the charge/caution.

 

One letter could go astray, two letters unlikely but three letters impossible.

 

I suugest that you go onto the land registry website and check out the data relating to your property.

 

Agree, with DE, make a complaint to the OFT and your MP.

 

Lastly, methinks that Link have already looked at your land registry data or,

they are distorting the truth...

 

AC

[angry cat]

Addendum,

depending on who placed the charge?

 

Me thinks that Link may be wee weeing in the wind!

 

AC

[Disgruntled_Employee]

I would have thought had the original creditor or DCA gone to the expense of doing this then they would not have handed the debt over to Link as they had already gone so far with enforcement action?

 

Smells like BS to me if it's a lie then that's extortion in my book and last time I checked that was illegal

 

Go get em

[ds66]

I have never received any information from Land Registry or notification of any order so will check this out.

 

Is there a standard letter that I send to my MP, Kate Hoey and OFT/

 

Am going to speak with IVA Supervisior to see if they can shed any light on this.

 

Thanks for your help so far.

[angry cat]

by ds66; Re: Link Financial's letter:

 

The letter also states that the account has has already been enforced by way of a legal charge on the property."

 

Speak to your IVA supervisor and if a charge was placed on the property, ask;

who placed the charge and;

why, were you not advised?

As stated prior, you can for a small fee make a search of the data held about your property on the land registry website.

 

There is no standard letter to send to your MP or Kate Hoey MP;

an individuals own story about Link Financial's Bad Business Practices speaks volumes in itself.

However, I would advise that you mention that many consumers have already complained to the OFT, resulting in the OFT imposing requirements upon,

Link Financial Limited.

 

AC

[ds66]

Many thanks AC.

 

Wisdom is a wonderful thing!

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Will keep you posted of further developments if necessary. I do hope that LINK crawl back under the stone they came from.

[WelshMam2009]

Am going to speak with IVA Supervisior to see if they can shed any light on this.

 

Definitely the first course of action.

 

I'm not a fan of IVA's so can't help much there and don't wish to worry you unduly. However, am wondering if Link are referring to any potential equity in your property possibly??

 

I know one of the reasons that put me off an IVA in 2006 (apart from the high fees) was that National Debtline advised me that it was more than likely I would have to sell my home!!

[ds66]

Funny you should say that WM09 - I'm not a fan of IVA's either now - We saw the Debtmatters advert on TV debt free in 5 Years and saw this as the lifeline to get us out of the misery we were in. On went the blinkers

 

However and this will teach us to read the small, if not smaller print that after 4 years we have to look to remortgage our home!! Didn't bloody well know that! Was never told either during the set up of the IVA. Once we were in it that's when the bombshell landed. Don't mention it in the TV advert either!

 

Ignorance is no defence but anyone here contemplating an IVA make sure you know what you are getting into.

[angry cat]

Funny you should say that WM09 - I'm not a fan of IVA's either now - We saw the Debtmatters advert on TV debt free in 5 Years and saw this as the lifeline to get us out of the misery we were in. On went the blinkers

 

However and this will teach us to read the small, if not smaller print that after 4 years we have to look to remortgage our home!! Didn't bloody well know that! Was never told either during the set up of the IVA. Once we were in it that's when the bombshell landed. Don't mention it in the TV advert either!

 

Ignorance is no defence but anyone here contemplating an IVA make sure you know what you are getting into.

 

I believe that there is going to be a Gov. enquiry about this very matter.

A HOT Potatoe...

 

Remember also that, one can lose ones home through Bankruptcy/Insolvency.

 

Love your comment:

 

"Dont mention it in the TV advert either".

 

Keep stoking the fire guys; the consumer is not happy!!!

 

Nice one, Link Financial forever grabbing at the scraps.

 

AC