Link ex-MBNA - arrogant and threatening

[arthur256]

I used to be in a financial job, and used to know the 1974 Act well.

 

About 5-6 years ago I was operating a credit card linked loan account in a satisfactory manner with MBNA.

 

I was then redundant and later had serious health problems including two major operations, stroke, and spent 6 months in hospitals and am now disabled. My wife took over handling all finances, as she is OK and I was not to be worried because hypertension had caused all my health problems.

 

She initially agreed with MBNA that they would suspend interest and allow reduced monthly payments, which was reviewed from time to time, as we had expected that I might work again. (I am however still certified by GP to refrain from work, though I am doing some voluntary work to keep occupied).

 

All was well until MBNA miscalculated a date, and accused me of making one payment late - though it was demonstrably paid via bank and cleared exactly on the deadline. They then suddenly said they had assigned it to "Link Financial-Lin" because of default on the arrangement. I have never had a valid Notice of Assignment, just a photocopied unsigned letter. Link promptly contacted me, and I could see MBNA had got their name wrong, and became suspicious, so requested the CC agreement. This was over a year ago and it still has not been supplied.

 

I began reporting the matter to the Ombudsman, but have not pursued that any further in view of the non-compliance over the CC agreement. I said that my main complaint against MBNA was that they had purported to assign a debit because of default - yet there had been NO DEFAULT. I also mentioned that non-compliance over the CC agreement meant it was unenforceable, and would be reported to TS - which I have not yet got round to. We also told Link it was with the FOS (Ombudsman). I send the FOS a copy of Link's threat to get a charging order even though it was not validly assigned AND unenforceable. I told FOS that Link were harassing us.

 

I heard no more from anybody for several months, then in the past month Link started their "usual" pattern of threatening 'phone calls. I have told them only to deal with my wife on my behalf, and only in writing, yet Link keep phoning. I expect she will be phoned this evening.

 

I would still be paying MBNA as agreed by my wife, or with family help I might have paid the 30% a year ago, if their mistake over the date had not thrown up the fact that they can't find the CCA!

 

I have read a lot on this forum, was impressed, and I thank folks in anticipation of any help.

[angry cat]

Hi!

 

Firstly, may I say how sorry I am to hear of your problems with MBNA/Link Financial. MBNA do refer to them as; Link Financial-Lin(?)

 

MBNA, should not be assigning accounts that are in Dispute, but they do this all the time.

 

Link Financial are a particularly nasty firm to deal with, therefore you must keep everything to the written word; keep copies.

 

Please make a further CCA Request, this time to Link Financial;

remind them about the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection and;

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008 (CPUTR's).

 

AC

[angry cat]

Incidentally, Link have been warned by the OFT:

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

 

AC

[angry cat]

arthur256, if your land line is with BT, you can sign up for their;

'Choose to Refuse' service, that way you can block the unwanted telephone calls from either: MBNA or, Link.

 

AC

[arthur256]

Hi!

 

Firstly, may I say how sorry I am to hear of your problems with MBNA/Link Financial. MBNA do refer to them as; Link Financial-Lin(?)

 

MBNA, should not be assigning accounts that are in Dispute, but they do this all the time.

 

Link Financial are a particularly nasty firm to deal with, therefore you must keep everything to the written word; keep copies.

 

Please make a further CCA Request, this time to Link Financial;

remind them about the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection and;

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008 (CPUTR's).

 

AC

 

Thanks.

 

I last wrote to Link over a year ago, saying that I did not acknowledge any debt to them, not to telephone, and as they do not have valid cause or authority to hold data relating to dealings with MBNA, to delete all personal data about me, in accordance with DPA 1998.

 

I also referred them to the Complaints Manager at MBNA, as I had then just made the assignment complaint - asking MBNA to restore the matter to how it was immediately before the "date error".

 

As this said it was my final communication (and I have not written further) is it appropriate to send them a CCA request? Might that imply that I accept the erroneous and invalid MBNA assignment?

 

My original intention was to let them try the Courts, which I would obviously strenuously defend. My wife thinks we should continue to adopt that attitude.

[angry cat]

I quite understand your reasoning, however, if Link Financial claim to be the assignee, then they must provide to you documentary evidence that, they are legally entitled to pursue the account.

 

It is unlikely that Link will cease from harassing you until, you make a CCA request to them.

 

Without doubt, it is easier to defend a claim as opposed to making one. However, the Creditor would need a valid agreement if they are to issue.

 

At this stage, you do not know who the Creditor is;

MBNA;

Link Financial or;

Both (co-creditors).

 

AC

[arthur256]

Thanks. Taking your four points in order:

 

1. Agreed.

 

2. This may be so, but all Link are doing is making phone calls which result in being told to communicate in writing, and we can easily put the phone down. They know I will ignore anything they do - unless/until they can show me or a Court that they have some status in the matter.

 

3. Agreed, and as they still can't produce valid papers, we are willing to sit it out.

 

4. Whichever is true, we feel that if neither is able to do anything, we can just wait and see. (MBNA have shown no interest in it for over a year. We should in any case soon get round to reporting the CCA non-compliance).

[angry cat]

Very good, sounds as though you are in control of the situation!

 

Two other points:

were there any unlawful penalty charges levied on the account?

Did you take out the MBNA Payment Protection Insurance?

 

AC

[wilko1]

Yet another example of one of these greedy firms harassing someone, who is making payments, and ending up with nothing.

[arthur256]

...

 

were there any unlawful penalty charges levied on the account?

 

Did you take out the MBNA Payment Protection Insurance?

 

1. Nothing significant as far as I recall - I would have to get my wife to dig out the earlier part of the file. If they come up with the CCA then we would pursue any charges that were unlawful; until then it is a bit academic, isn't it?

 

2. No.

[angry cat]

MBNA & Link Financial!!!

 

AC

[angry cat]

1. Nothing significant as far as I recall - I would have to get my wife to dig out the earlier part of the file. If they come up with the CCA then we would pursue any charges that were unlawful; until then it is a bit academic, isn't it?

 

2. No.

 

Okay, well if there were any charges levied plus the contractual accrued interest on those charges, that would make the alleged outstanding balance claimed, incorrect.

 

All grits to the Mill.

 

Good Luck and keep us posted.

 

AC

[diamondgirl]

Don't forget the harrassment letter you can send that to Link as well.

They tried it on with me and took me to court - it was struck out.

Only with the help of everyone on the forum was it possible. I wouldn't have stood a chance with the help on here.

Good Luck to you both and whatever happens we're all here to help and

don't go stressing yourself out.

DG

[arthur256]

Sorry I haven't said anything for a while... We decided that as Link was trying to collect a wrongly-assigned card account, we would just leave them alone.

 

There was a vaguely associated separate account which MBNA themselves still had direct control of, and we decided in the summer to clear that as it was a very small sum, and we were nervous about it for reasons I won't mention here (MBNA may be reading this!).

 

Link tried one phone call in about August - I told them I was not going to respond other than if they communicate in writing. In about October they sent a "statement" which just repeated the wrongly-assigned balance, but was not particularly threatening. Nothing else.

 

--

Arthur

[jdes26]

yes im a link fan 2

they are wasters

have reclaimed 1065 ppi and 900 charges and did i pay link NO!

not a proper cca and told them if u want ur cash take me to court

it was the letters that made my mind up to fight and cag the best site on the www! and ac is a saint x.

[angry cat]

arthur256,

please keep us updated on your position;

we are all in the same boat, so to speak;

MBNA/Link will not go away.

 

However, CAG knowledge may assist you and I am not being patronising.

 

AC

X

[jdes26]

yes arthur

 

we all will help u

 

because we have all been dealt bad cards in life

[angry cat]

More like:

MBNA Bad Business Practices and;

the use of covert, misleading and deceitful tactics that are employed by Link Financial Limited...

[arthur256]

Just a quick update. I have heard nothing more from MBNA, and nothing from Link Financial until a "Letter before Action" came just this week. It is arrogant, as one expects: "We will obtain and enforce a CCJ...". A bold assumption! I shall of course see whether they do try, but in the meantime I will ask them for a copy agreement. The original agreement my wife made with MBNA was that if I kept up reduced payments for a year, they would accept a full and final settlement of about 30% of the debt. If they had kept to what was agreed with my wife, they would have had this by now! I could presumably try asking the Court (if they do apply) to void the contract in view of their behaviour?

[harrassed senior]

Hi, have a read here; http://money.uk.msn.com/news/money-n...ntid=155533709

[arthur256]

Further to my post of 15/12/2010, I have not had any response to my Section 77-79 request for the Consumer Credit Agreement. The matter therefore remains unenforceable.

 

I am now considering applying to the Court to get the agreement struck out - is that a good idea? Or should I just wait and see what they do, and if they try to get a CCJ I can defend it and make them look stupid in Court?!

 

The above article only concerns MBNA's internal collections. They weren't as bad to deal with as Link, but still clearly daft (they claimed 31 January was after the end of January)! If they hadn't got that wrong, they would not have assigned it (or tried to) and would have had a 30% settlement which had been pre-agreed on my behalf.

 

Cheers

[arthur256]

Further to previous. Nobody has responded. My wife and I decided to take no action against Link, unless they attempt to enforce the alleged debt. As they apparently can't comply with my S75 request, and have never provided evidence of a valid assignment, we think it unlikely they will attempt this.

[bigshoes...bigsocks]

Incidentally, Link have been warned by the OFT:

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

 

AC

 

Read with interest - however that was written in 2009...how long do these warnings bear weight?

[jdes26]

No assignment- no there clutching at straws

Ignore any correspondance

[arthur256]

Just an "occasional update" (!) as not much happens.... Last year they sent a "statement" from Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd (LFOL). It states that the alleged assignee is Link Financial Ltd (LFL), so LFOL is not claiming any status except that they are presumably acting as an agent for the sister company. At the time I posted on the other thread "Link Financial (MBNA) getting stroppy!", the assignment was invalid, and they ignored a CCA request, so I planned to ignore the new company unless and until they prove a valid claim, and then I will challenge it in Court.

 

Since then however I have been mildly inconvenienced by my CRA records, where this is one of only two slightly embarrassing entries. (The other one is easily rectified, and is in hand). I have also just had a further "statement" from (LFOL). As CAG states elsewhere that DCAs "may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency" and "may not pass to a third party" an alleged debt which is in breach of S78(6), I decided to have one more go at LFOL and have yesterday sent a letter first class recorded reminding them of the default by MBNA and LFL and consequent unenforceable status. I will then ask for removal of the CRA entry.

 

Will report further in due course.

Edited March 6, 2013 by arthur256