LINK Financial? Check this out...

[mr.ton]

The politicians & the authorities cant seem to control them...so the public will via sites like this

[DonkeyB]

DonkeyB,

there are already many

"middle class people" who are members of CAG!

 

There is no stigma associated with (alleged) debt;

problems with the cesspit world of DCA's is not confined to

"an underclass";

intelligent consumers are fighting back.

 

Countless numbers of consumers are being affected by the 'Unfair Business Practices' employed by; get rich quick debt collection firms such as Link Financial and;

these firms are not regulated.

 

Yes, there are the OFT guidlines on debt collection but these are not Law.

 

The General British Consumer want these out of control DCA's brought to account and if the so-called enforcement bodies will not do their job, then Consumers must turn to the media...

Name and Shame Them!

 

AC

 

Hi AngryCat

 

I was referring to what I often call the 'Daily Mail' view of the world - I do think it's quite common, sadly - the blinkered trolls who lump gays, blacks, gypsies, etc and debtors in the same bag. My ire is aimed at the kind of idiots who post on debt websites saying 'pay what you owe, you ****' - and you see it often. It's the schadenfreude I'm looking forward to, which will come when these people suffer debt issues themselves, and realise there are people who can't pay rather than won't pay. They might also realise that we all have rights - the laws of contract can work for you as well as against you.

 

My point really related to Watchdog, and my belief that social issues like debt are just too uncomfortable for a revamped jazzed-up entertainment (rather than consumer affairs) show.

 

Thank God for CAG - I am undoubtedly middle class myself, and it saved my neck.

[angry cat]

I know DonkeyB!

 

The dated view of a debtor, being a cluesless unfortunate living in a high rise or, a ghetto has gone out of the window.

 

Link Financial et al vigorously pursue those who have property/assets;

these intelligent "Victims" are fighting back.

 

Whatever may be their class or, creed!

 

AC

[emandcole]

Hi, I'm currently preparing my defence as I have to submit it online fairly shortly. The defence is getting increasingly larger and there is so much to go over given the history that I'm getting kind of bogged down, especially with being able to reference everything I'm relying on from a legal perspective.

 

I'm aware of the skeleton argument but have to admit I'm not sure what the purpose of each item is. When is a skeleton used and who is it submitted to etc. I'm guessing the skeleton is a shortened and more concise overview of the defence but is there a risk this shortened version can be used instead of the defenece with all its terms and arguments? Can anyone advise as Link need to go down and I don't want to waste this opportunity by messing something simple up.

 

There is of course every chance that Link won't persist especially given the aggro they'll shortly have to deal with. I also intend to call the legendary Ms. Jones as a witness to ask why she attempted to interfere with court procedure and to explain why Link are above the courts. Do I ask for this in the defence I submit or later on?

 

Finally, Link have not provided any documentation relied on in their PoC and the SAR has resulted in little, certainly no statements which will of course document any debt and show the now unlawful penalty charges. I will have to submit an amended defence in the future so would I just ask the judge for this in my present defence explaining the claimant has to date failed to produce documentation they intend to rely upon? Appreciate any help.

[angry cat]

If Link issued a vague particulars of claim and they have not disclosed all the documents that their case relies upon.

You should submit the embarassed defence, then when you receive the Allocation Questionairre, make a Draft Order for Directions and amend your defence.

 

Hopefully, others will be along to assist you.

 

AC

[emandcole]

Thanks AC

[Drexl Spivey]

-edit-

-delete-

nm , somebody already posted same info-

Edited September 25, 2009 by Drexl Spivey

[angry cat]

Thanks AC

 

There is a wealth of information on CAG!

 

If you need any more assistance, all that you have to do is to ask.

 

AC

x

[emandcole]

Postman just been and amongst the treasure he left is a letter from the County Court Bulk Centre. Good I thought, the complaint has been read and they're notifying me of steps they're taking to ensure Link can't get away with misdirecting people. Open it up and it says:

 

Dear Mr ----------.

Thank you for your correspondance, received at this office on the 25th September 2009, the contents of which have been noted.

 

This claim was issued on 3rd September 2009 by Link Financial Limited. On the front of the claim pack that you had received it gives instruction on where to send forms depending on whether you intended to admit or defend the claim.

 

Had your intention been to fully admit the claim then as the claimant has stated in their letter to you your response should be sent directly to the claimant within the time limit given to ensure judgment by default is not entered against you.

 

I note that you have stated in your letter to the court your intention is to defend the claim, if this is your intention you would need to send your response directly to the court by 6th October 2009 after this time if no response has been received the claimant would be at liberty to enter judgment by default.

 

Although I understand your frustration as you state you feel the claimants have acted inappropriately, court staff are not legally trained therefore I am unable to assist you with this matter and would advise that you seek independent legal advice. I trust that this satisfactorily explains the points raised, but should you require and further assistance, please contact me at the above address.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Sharon Manning.

 

Pre-Judgment Manager

 

Frankly I'm pretty disgusted with the total lack of comprehension offered by this letter. It's been a week since I delivered it by hand and that's the best they can do? And what about this bit -

 

Had your intention been to fully admit the claim then as the claimant has stated in their letter to you your response should be sent directly to the claimant within the time limit given to ensure judgment by default is not entered against you.

 

She doesn't cover the likely eventuality that I or anyone else would like to defend the claim and the direction from Link is still to send my response back to them.

 

Verdict? - Pathetic.

 

I'm going to chase this up and insist they act as that is a joke. No legal training? No common sense me thinks :-?

[Seminole]

Pretty much par for the course. It's for a judge to comment on the behavior of litigants rather than the court staff who fufill an administrative function. I'd write back to the court and ask them to make the judge aware of this issue when he's looking at it before any hearing and make sure that you take the original letter to the hearing itself.

[angry cat]

DISGUSTING!

 

No Common Sense...unbelievable.

 

I see that you intend to pursue the matter;

Quite Right.

 

AC

[emandcole]

Right, just finished this and it'll go to their offices tonight. Cannot accept that such attempts are of no significance. The letter is a bit strong in parts but I feel they clearly need to wake up a bit.

 

30th September 2009

 

Dear Ms. Manning,

Thank you for your response dated 28th September 2009. I have to admit I am very disappointed with the response which appears to offer little comprehension of the implications for defendants. You correctly state that the claimant is correct to direct defendants to return paperwork to them if they want to admit the claim but fail to offer any explanation as to why this is equally acceptable in the very likely event that a defendant wishes to defend a claim. I feel it is essential that the court recognises the eventuality that the direction from Link is clearly designed to direct defendants to return court documentation to the claimant regardless of their intention to defend or otherwise.

 

A copy of the letter was enclosed for you to examine and it is more than clear to the reasonable person that Link are directing defendants to return any and all paperwork to them, indeed they do this on two separate occasions at the end of the letter. I can understand the courts lethargy if the resultant effect of doing this was of no consequence but a defendant who is misdirected in this manner will end up with a County Court Judgment by default and that is actually quite a big deal. Legal training is not required to understand the nature of the claimants action and I know of one other person who has followed this direction and ended up with a CCJ by default. I would note that Link were far from interested in flagging this ‘error’ up when they were sent the defendants defence and sat smugly on it before delivering the final blow. I am not happy to let this go unaddressed and I do not need legal representation.

 

I do however request for a second time that notice is given to judges in your court that this attempt to misdirect the public is going on. Link are operating nationwide and this is unlikely to be a sole occurance. I would also ask for confirmation that the judge overseeing this claim is made fully aware of the claimants actions. I do not believe any self respecting judge would be happy to have their role effectively removed by a company who have already been subject to numerous trading standards investigations. How is this any better than me heading up to Wales and physically assaulting their staff to prevent them from proceeding against me? I do not believe the court would find that acceptable any more than I would but the end result is still to pervert the flow of legality in an unlawful manner.

 

Once more just to be absolutely clear what part of the following statement issued from Link is related to a defendant returning their paperwork if they wish to admit the claim? I cannot see anything of the sort here other than a blanket direction to return any and all court paperwork to them.

 

“As you are aware, a County Court Summons has been issued against you and we would urge you to complete this and return it to us at your earliest convenience to prevent a default judgment being obtained.

We trust that this is of assistance to you and look forward to receiving your completed Claim form by return of post.”

 

Have any other cases this week involving Link resulted in a judgement by default due to the defendant following instruction from Link? Is someone today losing their right to defend because three weeks ago they returned their paperwork to link in good faith? This is a big issue and I cannot accept that this complaint and warning to the court results only in them ‘being noted’. What does that mean?

 

If the court is truly this apethetic then where will it all end? The intention from Link is quite clear, there have already been victims of their misdirection and had I not have known the process to some extent I too would have ended up with a County Court Judgment. The court has now been aware of this strategy for over a week and as far as I can see if anyone else is the victim of such tactics the court cannot deny a level of responsibility for failing to intervene. I trust I have made my point perfectly clear and respectfully ask once again for a more appropriate response and indication of how the court intends to proceed. This is a matter of public interest and if the court won’t take it seriously I will take steps to ensure someone else does.

 

Yours Faithfully,

[angry cat]

Information About...

[angry cat]

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/links.page

[emandcole]

Thanks, very useful

[angry cat]

My Pleasure Emandcole!

[angry cat]

emandcole, read this!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/223214-link-financial.html

[AA99]

Still subbing, albeit with a gob-smacked face:eek: Am particularly interested as I have had GE Money to Link but they have backed off and now have been issued with threats of court from

HL Legal & Collections, Solicitors in association with Sampson & Co

. Who are this lot and are they perhaps partnered with the whole shady lot of them:???:

 

Well done to you emandcole, great stuff;) Have you got your local MP in on all this, mine is great:cool:

[Gray1509]

Hi,I have had nearly exactly the same dealings with Link. I had a GE money loan sold to Link, without any notification from GE Money...

Link have taken us to court and won (I send forms back to Link, they stated they never received them). They were always rude and abrupt to me whenever I called them. They wouldn't try to sort out a payment plan,they wanted payment in full asap. They are demanding that they have theamount added to our house...

 

Can anyone give me any info on anything that I can do at all???

[angry cat]

I presume that this was Northampton County Court? (the moneyclaim Bulk Centre)

 

You need to contact the Court and get the judgement set aside.

 

Make a formal complaint to the Court Manager, in that Link Financial misled you.

 

Explain exactly what occured;

You must make a formal Complaint.

[joemay]

AC got in before me

[Gray1509]

We had a letter from Northampton court about a fortnight ago stating that it's now been moved to a court in Wales...

[pompeyfaith]

Right this is form EX160 for fee remission fill it in and enclose with the N244

 

There are notes with it to explain

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/EX160_web_0709.pdf

 

PF

[angry cat]

Hi,I have had nearly exactly the same dealings with Link. I had a GE money loan sold to Link, without any notification from GE Money...

Link have taken us to court and won (I send forms back to Link, they stated they never received them). They were always rude and abrupt to me whenever I called them. They wouldn't try to sort out a payment plan,they wanted payment in full asap. They are demanding that they have theamount added to our house...

 

Sorry, now I am confused as this was your original post:

 

Within two weeks of this (start of Aug) we were served with court proceedings against us. I filled in the forms and posted them off to Link. Next we had a letter a few weeks later from the court saying that judgement had gone against us. I contacted the courts who said that no defence had been filed. I told them that I had sent the proposal form back to Link, but they had said that they hadn't had them. The courts then sent us out a form to fill in and send back. The only problem is

that this would cost us £35 (we hadn't got the money to spare on this).

 

Third

:

 

We had a letter from Northampton court about a fortnight ago stating that it's now been moved to a court in Wales..."

 

Am I missing something?

 

AC

[Gray1509]

Sorry, what are you confused about?