Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yes they mostly would be enforceable, but that wasnt the point. even if they get a CCJ the very worst they could have done is get a restriction k which is useless to them. doesnt hurt anything. the CCJ would remain on file for 6yrs yes, but then gone same as a DN. the rest k charge does not show at all. and even so, the idea was to get your debts issued a default notice ASAP, them RESUME payments.. the advise is NOT conflicting, just you don't read things properly or understand.  oh well. dx
    • This is the dilemma I had then and still have it. The bit that stopped me was the post 2015 comments about them being enforceable now in most instances which I feel hasn’t been answered unless I am missing something. the bonus I guess is not all credit agreements now will be chasing me so less people chasing me down so to speak. this is the problem as there is conflicting messaging out there it is hard to plan a strategic way forward 
    • In 2017 my wife was given PIP and I finally, officially, became her carer. In 2019 she was reviewed and we were told it would be done by phone to make it easier for her as she has mobility issues and anxiety. The review was very simple, Has anything changed? No, ok, we'll stay as you are then. In 2022 a second review, this time by phone again but with an awkward given at the end for 5 years. Today, we got a new review letter (I know wait lists are bad, but I dont think the wait will take til 2027 for a decision). We're a bit confused because it's a letter, not a phone call as before. The form is just questions that ask "has anything changed" Now, since 2017, nothing has changed except we had our home adapted via disability grant. This was noted in the phone calls. So we should really write that nothing has changed in the last 2 years. The adaptations have been mentioned in both previous phone reviews, but not in writing so I guess we should bring it up. But we feel that they want us to explain everything as if it were a new claim again... And are worried if we miss something in the original claim or the phone calls she will risk losing part of the award (a 2 point swing could be really bad) It does just say "has anything changed?" But in dealing with ESA prior to getting PIP, answering the question asked "has your condition worsened or improved" at a review process with a simple "no, I'm still the same" somehow led to ESA ending and needing appeal. So just want a bit of guidance. How much detail is needed? Is minimal ok? Or should we be blunt with the fact nothing has changed, and bullet point the things she struggles with in each section?   I know the obvious thing is to just explain it all,but over 10 years the sheer amount of times the poor woman has had ESA or PIP stopped/refused just because something was missed out in their report, or they felt it meant a new claim should be made, or that they judged her healthy because we missed a tiny thing in our forms. During COVID it finally seemed like it was all just going to be smooth, especially with the phone reviews and the 5 year reward, but here we are. We just want to make sure we have the least chance to trip ourselves up, but making sure we have what is expected if you get me? I wish I still had a copy of the forms from 2017, because I could just verbatim copy them and add in about the adaptation, but (ironically) we lost our photocopies we kept of them when the house was being adapted
    • might of been better to have got them all defaulted 2yrs ago as we carefully explained before then you'd already be 1/3rd there and your current issue would not be one.    
    • No doubt the hotel will have security cameras on the floor you were staying to confirm or deny the allegation??   The only compensation you will probably get, which will be discretionary as a goodwill gesture, will be a credit voucher for the entire hotel group. Very much doubt anything more than that as you have not substantiated, the hotel committed the transgression 
  • 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

Instant Silver


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5344 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

Link were almost certainly one of the '13' previously warned by the OFT regarding their conduct.

 

As sanctions have been now been placed on 1st Credit & Mac Hall, (companies who were warned but ignored the warnings), they could be using this name in the hope that nobody 'joins up the dots'.

 

David

 

Makes you wonder how dim the DCAs and the OFT really are :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi folks

 

Been reading this post with great interest.

 

We have had Link on our back for sometime now,off and on we hadn't heard from them formonths then all of a sudden they popped up from hell again.

 

I CCA'd them last month for two Loan accounts in the process we started to get letters from another company called Instant Silver for one of these loans.

 

However one of the CCA they sent does not match the account number that we have and has appeared to have been hand written on this CCA instead of typed/computerised like the rest of it of the detailson the CCA.

 

On the other we had just realised that they had charged us PPI which with the kind help of pompeyfaith on here we are in the process of claiming back from GE Money. (Well trying to still haven't had any response to letter)

 

ANyway to get to the point we wrote to Link explaining that Instant SIlver is sending out illegal threatening letters to us due to different agreement numbers and other account in default due to unlawful PPI and that we are aware that Instant SIlver and Link are connected.

 

Today we received a letter from link stating :Quote from letter:

"Instant Silver are not part of their company but recovery agrents acting on our behalf and as such until we receive payment from

you in respect of both accounts normal collection activity will continue with Instant SIlver".

 

I have tried to trace these companies through companies house but not had much luck until I found this on CAG can anybody advise me what to do next.

Cheers

AFW

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to write back to them (recorded) outlining your dispute, and explaining that you are awaiting resolution of this....and under the OFT's guidelines they should no tbe contacting you whilst the debt/s are in dispute...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today we received a letter from link stating :Quote from letter:

"Instant Silver are not part of their company but recovery agrents acting on our behalf and as such until we receive payment from

you in respect of both accounts normal collection activity will continue with Instant SIlver".

 

 

Link are lying.

 

Why not write back to them:

 

Dear Cretins

 

Thank you for your letter of (date), in which you state that Instantsilver are not part of your company.

 

I confess to being somewhat puzzled, since Link's entry in the OFT Consumer Credit Licence database shows Instantsilver to be a trading name of Link Financial Ltd. No other company called Instant Silver has a Consumer Credit Licence. If the statement in your letter were true, then Instantsilver would be undertaking licenceable activity without a licence, which is a criminal offence.

 

If, however, the statement is untrue, as appears to be the case, you are clearly trying to communicate with me in a misleading way, contrary to the OFT Guidance on Debt Collection.

 

I require you to clarify the situation, and will not enter into any further correspondence until you have done so.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Public Register CRW

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

 

Application / Licence Details

Licence Number:0446835Licence Status:Current

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name Company Registration Number

Link Financial Limited 3504939

 

Licence Notes:

Evt Stage Open Date Notes

29 Requirement Obtained 05/05/2009

 

Categories:

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Credit reference agency

Debt administration

Debt collecting

Provision of debt-adjusting on a commercial basis

Provision of debt-counselling on a commercial basis

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:No

Trading Name(s) (Current):

Elmwood Park

Instantsilver

Thesis Servicing

 

Issued Date: 03-May-1998 Date Maintenance Payment Due: 02-May-2013

Legal Formation:

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Bernard Albert Ernest Saunders

Paul David Burdell

Petteri BARMAN

Philippe Marcel Etienne Paillart

Selina LEE Burdell

Stephan Karl Edward Ludwig

 

Historic Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Bernard Albert Ernest Saunders OFFICER

Geraldine Ann Kennel OFFICER

Mr Philippe Marcel Etienne Paillart OFFICER

Robert Mark Longden OFFICER

Robin Wilfred Roberts OFFICER

Selina Lee Burdell OFFICER

Stephan Karl Edward Ludwig OFFICER

Stephen Andrew West OFFICER

 

Nature of Business:

Other

 

Current Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP

Principal Place Of Business Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP

Registered Office Camelford House, 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP

 

Historic Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP

Principal Place Of Business 89, Albert Embankment, Londo, SE1 7TP

Principal Place Of Business 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP

Principal Place Of Business Suite 3,01-3,02 Plaza 535, Kings Road, London, SW10 0SZ

Registered Office 89, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP

Registered Office Suite 3,01-3,02 Plaza 535, Kings Road, London, SW10 0SZ"

 

The above has been copied and pasted from The Office of Fair Trading website: Public Register.

 

Instantsilver is a Trading name of Link Financial Limited!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...