LINK Financial? Check this out...

[ODC]

HL Legal. A firm used by lots of DCAs because they let them use their headed notepaper to send out computer generated threatomatics.

[AA99]

HL Legal. A firm used by lots of DCAs because they let them use their headed notepaper to send out computer generated threatomatics.

 

 

Oh good, they haven't replied to my CPR31.16 yet:eek: I couldn't find them in a massive trawl of solicitors on the internet............

[ODC]

HL Legal probaly never saw the letter that was sent to you with their name at the top of the page. However here are their CONtact details HL Legal

 

You should contact them directly to see why they have not responded to your CPR request and if necessary report them to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and the Law Society.

 

Do a search on CAG and you will find plenty of references to HL

[emandcole]

Northampton Trading Standards have now officially joined the party but also feel it is a job for the OFT.

 

Dear Mr,

 

Link Financial Ltd

 

Thank you for your letter dated the 23rd September 2009. Caerphilly Trading Standards also referred your letter to us as you are not a Caerphilly resident.

 

I have discussed your complaint with Robert gardner at Lambeth Trading Standards. We believe the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are the most appropriate organisation to deal with your complaint under the credit licensing provisions. I understand from your letter and from speaking to Robert Gardner the OFT are aware of your complaint.

 

Although the OFT do not respond to individual complaints they do look at a companies fitness to hold a licence if they receive complaints from consumers.

 

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

 

Linda Cartwright

Fair Trading Officer

 

cc Robert Gardner, Lambeth trading Standards

 

So, all Trading Standards offices have passed to the OFT who will now hopefully do some magical things and champion the cause of the just .

 

Link have broken a fair few of the OFT debt collection guidelines on dishonesty and foul play so it is quite right that their fitness to hold a licence is questioned. The message seems clear though, the more complaints the better so if you have any legitimate complaints about Link or any other DCA then we need to take action and not just chat about it on this site ! The saga continues...

[martin g]

Section 2 of the 2006 Fraud Act specifically deals with fraud by misrepresentation

The act is small as it contains only 16 sections plus 3 schedules.

 

All Theft Act deception offences are abolished to be replaced by 3 new fraud offences: fraud by misrepresentation.......f raud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position..

 

Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2,3,4.

 

Under Section 2 representation must be made dishonestly which is established under the two-stage test as set out in Rv Gosh (1982) QB 1053, 75 Cr App R 154 in which the defendant was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people

 

 

Subsection (1) (b) requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property

 

This section is very wide ranging & could criminalise a lie. Furthermore there is no need to show that the victim was even aware of the lie for there to have been a crime committed. It would not matter to whom, if anyone the representation was addressed nor the eventual effect, if any.

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

Section 3 provides that where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, & intends to make a gain or cause a loss or the risk of a loss an offence has been committed.

 

Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another. This creates a very broad offence.

 

The origionator of the deception faces a lengthy jail sentence and/ or a large fine if convicted before a Crown Court.

 

The Act is well drated and simple to understand ( unlike the CCA) and is easily accesssed through Google if you want to read it.

 

Off down the police Station?

 

Martin g

[martin g]

And

Following my post above I found this on our "neighbours" at Bailiffs and Sheriffs Officers, posted by Happy Contrails- Thanks Happy

 

 

20 Apr 2007

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

 

The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter.

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

 

Whilst the references are to Bailiffs, who are meant to be certificated and respect the law I would suggest that the same answers would apply to Debt Collectors who are meant to be regulated and respect the law and that the same principles apply.

 

Anyone know a Noble Lord who would like to put the above questions to Baroness Scotland with a few words changed?

 

 

Martin g

[DonkeyB]

... and once again, Lambeth Trading Standards manage to pass the buck...

 

I think you should point out to them again - as they acknowledge - that the OFT does not and will not investigate and respond to individual complaints, and therefore you will have no redress. The correct route for your complaint is, indeed, trading standards. I'm beginning to wonder if Link have some Polaroids of Mr Gardner and the Lambeth TS team...

 

Why on earth won't they act? I think you're entitled to ask them why not.

[reorete]

pmsl@angrycat and bravo emandcole

[emandcole]

Martin g...thanks so much for all of that, it seems the consequences of Links litigation officer are hefty in the worst case.

 

In reference to Donkey B I should be able to get Lambeth TS to take this on properly and to insist that a thorough investigation is commenced. Something isn't right and quite rightly I will have no redress as the OFT are something of a mystery for most of us. I'll get something written up and ask for a specific reason as to why they are not acting, Link after all are not trading fairly.

 

Interesting to note that not one MP has had the courtesy to get in touch, not even a 'bugger off, I'm busy working out how to claim for my new helicopter pad' email. And they wonder why no-one wants to vote .

 

Thanks for the feedback, opinion and info

[ODC]

I think a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman about the refusal of Lambeth TS to do the job they are paid to do might be in order.

After all I thought prosecutions under CPUTR 2008 were the remit of Trading Standards

[reorete]

ty emandcole for making things so easy to understand. people forget there are people that are new to this and sometimes make things so hard to understand.

[cab1ne]

"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

[angry cat]

Northampton Trading Standards have now officially joined the party but also feel it is a job for the OFT.

 

Dear Mr,

 

Link Financial Ltd

 

Thank you for your letter dated the 23rd September 2009. Caerphilly Trading Standards also referred your letter to us as you are not a Caerphilly resident.

 

I have discussed your complaint with Robert gardner at Lambeth Trading Standards. We believe the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are the most appropriate organisation to deal with your complaint under the credit licensing provisions. I understand from your letter and from speaking to Robert Gardner the OFT are aware of your complaint.

 

Although the OFT do not respond to individual complaints they do look at a companies fitness to hold a licence if they receive complaints from consumers.

 

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

 

Linda Cartwright

Fair Trading Officer

 

cc Robert Gardner, Lambeth trading Standards

 

So, all Trading Standards offices have passed to the OFT who will now hopefully do some magical things and champion the cause of the just .

 

Link have broken a fair few of the OFT debt collection guidelines on dishonesty and foul play so it is quite right that their fitness to hold a licence is questioned. The message seems clear though, the more complaints the better so if you have any legitimate complaints about Link or any other DCA then we need to take action and not just chat about it on this site ! The saga continues...

 

Sick to the back teeth with Trading Standards!!!

 

So, Mr. Gardner intends passing the buck to the OFT, just as hes has done prior.

Perhaps, he should read the folowing pamphlet:

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/10596.pdf

 

When are Lambeth Trading standards going to do their job?

 

Lambeth Trading Standards are the Home Authority for Link Financial Limited, as that is where Link's company is registered.

 

Furthermore, the OFT will not get involved in individual consumer complaints.

 

Very annoyed...

 

AC

[ODC]

Report Lambeth TS to the Local Government Ombudsman

[emandcole]

All in good time. AC, or any others...do you have evidence of Lambeth TS not doing their jobs? Have written this, will post tomorrow recorded. It's maybe a bit wordy but does the job. Thanks due to Martin g for the info used here...appreciated!

 

15th October 2009

 

Ref:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Having recently highlighted a situation to Trading Standards officers in Caerphilly, Lambeth and Northampton I am somewhat disappointed with the response. As your return letters have correctly pointed out, the Office of Fair Trading is appropriate for this complaint but they will offer me no redress as they do not enter into discussion with members of the public directly.

 

Link Financial Ltd. have broken OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and it is right and proper that their fitness to hold a credit licence is reviewed. Irrespective of this I feel there is adequate evidence of Link employees conducting business in an unfair way. I have enclosed a copy of their letter and a recording of their employees who go on to make a threatening statement when I refused to give my name to a stranger about ‘making further enquiries in my area then’. Is this appropriate if they are dealing with undelivered mail? It is not. They wrongly state they work for Link, an undelivered mail department and not Link Financial Ltd, a third party debt collection agency. They claim to have no knowledge of the letters they claim have been returned when they know exactly what these letters are about and try to collect a disputed debt despite being informed of the account status. This is not just a matter for the OFT, they are trading in an unfit manner and need to be investigated.

 

I see no reason at all to not examine my claims and pursue appropriate action. Further, referring to the enclosed copy letter from Link, the implications of following advice written by their litigation officer would have been catastrophic for me or any other misdirected individual and their practices should be stopped immediately.

 

I refer you to the 2006 Fraud Act. I believe that the Link officer has fallen foul of subsection 1 (b) of this act. Misrepresentation has been made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property. The gain to them would be in the region of £1400, the loss to me would be £1400, a court judgment against my name and subsequent injury to credit.

 

Links litigation officer on two separate occasions directed me as a defendant, in a claim they should not have brought, to return court paperwork to their offices and not to the courts. This cannot be misunderstood as her direction covered any and all paperwork. This was put to paper and hand signed by her, this is not a mass mailer for which no-one is ever seemingly responsible for. The implication of me trusting that direction would have resulted in no acknowledgment of the claim reaching the court and Link would have secured a judgment by default.

 

I would then have been subject to a court judgment which is no laughing matter as Link are famous for pushing these judgments through and then pursuing a charging order on your home. In my case this would have been competely wrong as they are not even legally entitled to act on this debt.

 

Why would anyone trust this advice and how does it matter?

 

Section 4 of the same act is entitled Fraud by Abuse of Position. This states that it is an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another.

 

I feel it is quite clear that the direction Link issued to direct me to return court paperwork to Link and not the courts is a dishonest attempt to cause me loss of the highest level. The statement in their letter was made on two separate occasions, it is not a one off mistake, it is a twice repeated effort to deceive and to profit from that deception. The fact that Elizabeth Jones claims to be a litigation officer and is writing from the litigation department would lead the reasonable person to believe she is in a position of authority. It’s not Ms. Jones, Care Agent from Customer Services or Ms. Jones, Accounts Assistant from Collections is it?

 

If that isn’t the impression she is trying to give she wouldn’t even bother to sign her name and certainly wouldn’t draw attention to litigation departments or otherwise. She is attempting to convey a sense of authority by using such titles. My partner has a law degree (not practicing) , I have a degree in architecture and an HNC in Computer Science and neither of us as professional people would dream of misusing a title on company paper or attempt to falsely imply authority. If Elizabeth Jones has a law degree I would be very surprised, she is a very poor paralegal at best.

 

Her practices, condoned by her employer are illegal. I have provided ample evidence of the offence. I have highlighted the area of the law, amongst others, that I believe has been broken. Unless you can provide me with ample reason for not taking this matter further I will make complaint to the Government Ombudsman as I see this lack of action and apathy to be a failure of duty. If it is a criminal matter then I would welcome proceedings against the employee and/or the employer after you have conducted your own investigation. As I understand it the law is not a large pick and mix candy counter to be wheeled out at the weekend, I believe an offence has been committed and I have every reasonable expectation that the authorities should get involved.

 

I await your response.

 

Yours Faithfully

Edited October 15, 2009 by emandcole

[reorete]

fantastic

[martin g]

Great Letter,

I have attached a link to the fraud act, please take 3 minutes to read it, it won't take longer, and tidy up the references a bit. I think you should put in the pre-amble in section 1 and then refer to section 2 , subsection 1.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

 

Martin g

[AA99]

I think a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman about the refusal of Lambeth TS to do the job they are paid to do might be in order.

After all I thought prosecutions under CPUTR 2008 were the remit of Trading Standards

 

Absolutely! My thoughts too:D Great letter!

 

Emandcole, don't know which area you're in but I have a fantabulous (!) local MP who corresponds with me regularly and sorted a couple of problems out for me within 2 days:D Am even friends with him on Facebook:D Can I get him to get yours involved in any way

[angry cat]

All in good time. AC, or any others...do you have evidence of Lambeth TS not doing their jobs? Have written this, will post tomorrow recorded. It's maybe a bit wordy but does the job. Thanks due to Martin g for the info used here...appreciated!

 

15th October 2009

 

Ref:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Having recently highlighted a situation to Trading Standards officers in Caerphilly, Lambeth and Northampton I am somewhat disappointed with the response. As your return letters have correctly pointed out, the Office of Fair Trading is appropriate for this complaint but they will offer me no redress as they do not enter into discussion with members of the public directly.

 

Link Financial Ltd. have broken OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and it is right and proper that their fitness to hold a credit licence is reviewed. Irrespective of this I feel there is adequate evidence of Link employees conducting business in an unfair way. I have enclosed a copy of their letter and a recording of their employees who go on to make a threatening statement when I refused to give my name to a stranger about ‘making further enquiries in my area then’. Is this appropriate if they are dealing with undelivered mail? It is not. They wrongly state they work for Link, an undelivered mail department and not Link Financial Ltd, a third party debt collection agency. They claim to have no knowledge of the letters they claim have been returned when they know exactly what these letters are about and try to collect a disputed debt despite being informed of the account status. This is not just a matter for the OFT, they are trading in an unfit manner and need to be investigated.

 

I see no reason at all to not examine my claims and pursue appropriate action. Further, referring to the enclosed copy letter from Link, the implications of following advice written by their litigation officer would have been catastrophic for me or any other misdirected individual and their practices should be stopped immediately.

 

I refer you to the 2006 Fraud Act. I believe that the Link officer has fallen foul of subsection 1 (b) of this act. Misrepresentation has been made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property. The gain to them would be in the region of £1400, the loss to me would be £1400, a court judgment against my name and subsequent injury to credit.

 

Links litigation officer on two separate occasions directed me as a defendant, in a claim they should not have brought, to return court paperwork to their offices and not to the courts. This cannot be misunderstood as her direction covered any and all paperwork. This was put to paper and hand signed by her, this is not a mass mailer for which no-one is ever seemingly responsible for. The implication of me trusting that direction would have resulted in no acknowledgment of the claim reaching the court and Link would have secured a judgment by default.

 

I would then have been subject to a court judgment which is no laughing matter as Link are famous for pushing these judgments through and then pursuing a charging order on your home. In my case this would have been competely wrong as they are not even legally entitled to act on this debt.

 

Why would anyone trust this advice and how does it matter?

 

Section 4 of the same act is entitled Fraud by Abuse of Position. This states that it is an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another.

 

I feel it is quite clear that the direction Link issued to direct me to return court paperwork to Link and not the courts is a dishonest attempt to cause me loss of the highest level. The statement in their letter was made on two separate occasions, it is not a one off mistake, it is a twice repeated effort to deceive and to profit from that deception. The fact that Elizabeth Jones claims to be a litigation officer and is writing from the litigation department would lead the reasonable person to believe she is in a position of authority. It’s not Ms. Jones, Care Agent from Customer Services or Ms. Jones, Accounts Assistant from Collections is it?

 

If that isn’t the impression she is trying to give she wouldn’t even bother to sign her name and certainly wouldn’t draw attention to litigation departments or otherwise. She is attempting to convey a sense of authority by using such titles. My partner has a law degree (not practicing) , I have a degree in architecture and an HNC in Computer Science and neither of us as professional people would dream of misusing a title on company paper or attempt to falsely imply authority. If Elizabeth Jones has a law degree I would be very surprised, she is a very poor paralegal at best.

 

Her practices, condoned by her employer are illegal. I have provided ample evidence of the offence. I have highlighted the area of the law, amongst others, that I believe has been broken. Unless you can provide me with ample reason for not taking this matter further I will make complaint to the Government Ombudsman as I see this lack of action and apathy to be a failure of duty. If it is a criminal matter then I would welcome proceedings against the employee and/or the employer after you have conducted your own investigation. As I understand it the law is not a large pick and mix candy counter to be wheeled out at the weekend, I believe an offence has been committed and I have every reasonable expectation that the authorities should get involved.

 

I await your response.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

On here!:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/162255-link-financial-limited-12.html

 

Posts:

239, 240, 242, 262, 167, 272, 275, 277, 278 (others various) and onward.

 

To reiterate the thread was started in order to assist all who were (still are) being harassed by Link Financial Limited and her trading name companies.

 

AC

[DonkeyB]

To reiterate the thread was started in order to assist all who were (still are) being harassed by Link Financial Limited and her trading name companies.

 

AC

 

Crikey AC, never thought of Link as female. I'd hate to meet a woman like that...

 

(though I think my mate is married to her)

[batman1956]

Could this be where the complaints thread comes to fruition?

[emandcole]

Great Letter,

I have attached a link to the fraud act, please take 3 minutes to read it, it won't take longer, and tidy up the references a bit. I think you should put in the pre-amble in section 1 and then refer to section 2 , subsection 1.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

 

Martin g

 

Sweet! I'll do that and we'll see what happens. Fraud is fraud eh? You try getting out of a parking ticket because your car was 'slightly on the yellow line sir' and you'll have no chance so why should a company get away with this sort of thing? Actually starting to enjoy this, putting the world to right and all that. Now, if I could only find myself a cape...

[emandcole]

On here!:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/162255-link-financial-limited-12.html

 

Posts:

239, 240, 242, 262, 167, 272, 275, 277, 278 (others various) and onward.

 

To reiterate the thread was started in order to assist all who were (still are) being harassed by Link Financial Limited and her trading name companies.

 

AC

 

Hmmm, you win AC . Think this needs bringing to the Government Ombudsman if Lambeth choose not to play. The knot gets tighter eh?

[DonkeyB]

The real problem with fraud, as mentioned elsewhere, is that the burden of proof is bloody ridiculous. I'm in a company situation where I have caught someone acting, I believe, fraudulently - I have proof on tape, in writing, in provable actions - but the legal profession are a bit scared of going for a fraud prosecution. Instead, I am urged to use the Companies Act - which is pretty toothless.

 

What I'm saying is don't get too excited at the prospect - fraud is an easy accusation to make, but damned difficult to force in a civil case.

[angry cat]

The real problem with fraud, as mentioned elsewhere, is that the burden of proof is bloody ridiculous. I'm in a company situation where I have caught someone acting, I believe, fraudulently - I have proof on tape, in writing, in provable actions - but the legal profession are a bit scared of going for a fraud prosecution. Instead, I am urged to use the Companies Act - which is pretty toothless.

 

What I'm saying is don't get too excited at the prospect - fraud is an easy accusation to make, but damned difficult to force in a civil case.

 

I agree that fraud can be difficult to prove DB.

 

But, the same does not apply to Unfair Misleading Practices;

CPUTR and;

Incompetance;

Negligence;

Due diligence.

 

AC