LINK Financial? Check this out...

[means2anend]

The info that is missing are not prescribed terms....however does your copy have the name address and postal address of both debtor and creditor as Per HHJ WAksman in Carey v HSBC and Copies Documents and Cancellation Notices Regs 1983?

m2ae

[means2anend]

It MUST [THE COPY] according to HHJ WAKSMAN in Carey v HSBC and Copies Documents and Cancellation Notices Regs 1983 contain the Postal Address and Name of Creditor and Debtor.

 

The info that you have mentioned are not Prescribed Terms and ALSO not HIGH LEVEL omissions that would confuse YOU the debtor.

 

HHJ wAKSMAN stated that the absence of Name and Postal addresses of Both Creditor and Debtor was Important enough to be in the COPY.He pointed to the above regulation as not authorising that omission even though they may have appeared low level.

 

m2ae

[flaminscoty]

m2ae

I will look what r prescribed terms and where should the be on the front page of CCA and what should be included in said terms.

Flaminscoty.

By the by can anyone following this thread do me a big favor and post up the infamous "be so kind as to send your defence to us" letter?

I lost mine and would like to send a copy to OFT ta very muchly.

Flaminscoty..

[Jeff2000]

m2ae

I will look what r prescribed terms and where should the be on the front page of CCA and what should be included in said terms.

Flaminscoty.

By the by can anyone following this thread do me a big favor and post up the infamous "be so kind as to send your defence to us" letter?

I lost mine and would like to send a copy to OFT ta very muchly.

Flaminscoty..

 

 

 

Hi Flaminscoty,

 

 

I believe that I will shortly receiving a claim from Link. If I do and I also get asked to return my defence to them, then I will post the letter up.

 

 

Jeff.

[flaminscoty]

To all on the tread update from flaminscoty.

1. I am in the process of reporting link to the OFT.

(problem) they will not deal with me direct as a member of the public!

has to come from organization such as CAB.

2. made a formal complaint to my MP B Jenkins(Con)

he has passed it on to his pa who is dealing with they are taking this complaint very seriously!

3 I now have to go back to CAB who should have made a super complaint in the first place!

4. Any more help out there providing me with documentary evidence to send direct to OFT would be much appreciated!

5 OFT has sent a copy of guidelines and it would appear that link are in breach of nearly all of them!

OFT are warming up an investigation now!

Flaminscoty..

[emandcole]

I've recently been made aware of attempts by an opposition to introduce the postings of caggers to the court, in some way trying to obtain an advantage over the defendant. In my particular thread I think the oppostion would be stupid to do this as it merely reveals to the court what a scummy company they really are.

 

However, given the fact that DCA's are not known for their intellectual prowess I am erring on the side of caution and including the following.

 

I give credit to Citizen B for taking the time to let me know about it, and great credit to the cagger who introduced it to the forum and posted it for us to learn from - Dad, as he is known.

 

The following links will help any other reader to gain better understanding and to realise the significance of the inclusion.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-2814871.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/show-post/post-2843442.html

 

Litigation privilege notice

 

This thread exists exclusively to assist me in preparing litigation against another party. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect : Re: Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

Copyright information: Alll information contained in this website , associated websites, and forum posts are copyright Reclaim The Right Ltd. If you wish to use the information on this site for publication elsewhere , then please email the site adminstrators for permission.

 

 

 

[AA99]

I got a very colourful postcard from them this morning to call them urgently. I thought that wasn't allowed anymore?!

[emandcole]

I got a very colourful postcard from them this morning to call them urgently. I thought that wasn't allowed anymore?!

 

If it's not in an envelope and reveals that they are trying to collect a debt (eg it has their address on) I believe this is not allowed as it removes your right to deal with the matter with dignity and privacy. Complain to trading standards and ask them to refer to OFT Licensing Section on your behalf if they feel your complaint is valid.

 

They might need a push to do this but they should do it if appropraite, dependent on what's on the card.

[AA99]

Well, it's very pretty and colourful.........

Not sure if I want to..........

it removes your right to deal with the matter with dignity and privacy

 

 

 

[emandcole]

Ooooo pretty.

 

Must have run out of red ink, perhaps that was originally supposed to be blood?!

 

It has their address on which can be checked by anyone nosing into your affairs and the message 'call urgently' suggests something is wrong. I'd say it's a bit deceitful as you're being asked to call about something you may have no knowledge of.

 

Complain anyway, keep the scumbags busy .

[pumpytums]

Hi all,

fancy a laugh have a read of the following this is directly off Sinks website no joke.

 

LINK Financial :: FAQ

 

I didn’t borrow money from LINK , so why am I being asked to pay you?

Just as your previous lender had the right to receive repayments from you, they can also pass on the rights to this debt to another company. In your case, your debt has now been passed to us. You shouldn’t be alarmed by this: LINK has more than two million customers, and like them you will find us fair, helpful and sympathetic.

 

What’s the legal basis for this? LINK Financial, and the lenders we work with, operate strictly within UK consumer credit law. The legal term for your debt is a ‘chose in action’, and under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, we send our customers a ‘Notice of Assignment’ letter. This confirms that your debt is now with LINK Financial.

 

I’ve sent a cheque to my original lender. Is this a problem?

No – they will pass the payment on to us. But remember that this will take time and means a delay in paying off, or reducing, what you owe. Always make future payments to LINK directly.

 

Will you add interest to my debt?

The vast majority of the accounts serviced by Link do not accrue interest during the collections process. We try to negotiate the repayment of the outstanding balance with you without adding any additional costs. The Notice of Assignment sent to you clearly specifies if interest is being applied to the debt. However if we are unable to reach an arrangement-to-pay and the account is passed to our internal legal team, then, statutory interest will be charged up to the point of entry into judgement.

 

A small but specific section of accounts are charged interest throughout the collections process. These are particular personal loan balances and the interest amounts applied by Link are charged at the pre-existing contractual rate and up to the maximum amount that would have been charged by the original lender had you not defaulted on the loan.

 

 

So sink have admitted that s136 of LOP 1925 applies so therefore s196 applies. The part about statutory interest is completely wrong as we all know under "The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 si1984".

 

The first part is good for you emandcole I quote "Just as your previous lender had the right to receive repayments from you, they can also pass on the rights to this debt to another company. In your case, your debt has now been passed to us."

 

They have actually put this cr@p on their website. Useful though if you get my drift:wink:

 

Begs belief

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Hi all,

fancy a laugh have a read of the following this is directly off Sinks website no joke.

 

LINK Financial :: FAQ

 

I didn’t borrow money from LINK , so why am I being asked to pay you?

Just as your previous lender had the right to receive repayments from you, they can also pass on the rights to this debt to another company. In your case, your debt has now been passed to us. You shouldn’t be alarmed by this: LINK has more than two million customers, and like them you will find us fair, helpful and sympathetic.

 

What’s the legal basis for this? LINK Financial, and the lenders we work with, operate strictly within UK consumer credit law. The legal term for your debt is a ‘chose in action’, and under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, we send our customers a ‘Notice of Assignment’ letter. This confirms that your debt is now with LINK Financial.

 

I’ve sent a cheque to my original lender. Is this a problem?

No – they will pass the payment on to us. But remember that this will take time and means a delay in paying off, or reducing, what you owe. Always make future payments to LINK directly.

 

Will you add interest to my debt?

The vast majority of the accounts serviced by Link do not accrue interest during the collections process. We try to negotiate the repayment of the outstanding balance with you without adding any additional costs. The Notice of Assignment sent to you clearly specifies if interest is being applied to the debt. However if we are unable to reach an arrangement-to-pay and the account is passed to our internal legal team, then, statutory interest will be charged up to the point of entry into judgement.

 

A small but specific section of accounts are charged interest throughout the collections process. These are particular personal loan balances and the interest amounts applied by Link are charged at the pre-existing contractual rate and up to the maximum amount that would have been charged by the original lender had you not defaulted on the loan.

 

 

 

So sink have admitted that s136 of LOP 1925 applies so therefore s196 applies. The part about statutory interest is completely wrong as we all know under "The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 si1984".

 

The first part is good for you emandcole I quote "Just as your previous lender had the right to receive repayments from you, they can also pass on the rights to this debt to another company. In your case, your debt has now been passed to us."

 

They have actually put this cr@p on their website. Useful though if you get my drift:wink:

 

Begs belief

 

Pumpytums

 

Certainly is, thanks pumpy!

[emandcole]

Well, finished the response to the court yesterday and I'll drop it in tomorrow. Interestingly enough I was able to point out (after including the OFT stuff on what defines a creditor), that if Sink insist they are not the creditor in an effort to wriggle out of liability then they have essentially followed a criminal path instead.

 

Clearly, if they insist they are now not liable for the damage as they aren't the creditor their litigation amounts to fraud and attempted theft by deception as only the creditor has any right to litigate.

 

How dumb can you get? Seriously!

 

Either way they remain wholly liable, just their choice if they wish to incriminate themselves as well . Have pointed this out to the court as an after thought and respectfully asked the court to allow the counterclaim to continue.

 

Can't see any reason for this to be refused now the judge has been supplied with the info he requested. When I hear more I'll post it up.

[upto the eyeballs]

subbing!

[emandcole]

Just a little extra. Wasn't too happy that the claimant could start this action then discontinue leaving me with costs so had a look through the civil procedure rules and found this.

 

Court’s powers in relation to misconduct 44.14

 

(1) The court may make an order under this rule where –

 

 

(a) a party or his legal representative, in connection with a summary or detailed assessment, fails to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order; or

 

 

 

(b) it appears to the court that the conduct of a party or his legal representative, before or during the proceedings which gave rise to the assessment proceedings, was unreasonable or improper.

 

 

 

 

(2) Where paragraph (1) applies, the court may –

 

 

(a) disallow all or part of the costs which are being assessed; or

 

 

 

(b) order the party at fault or his legal representative to pay costs which he has caused any other party to incur.

 

 

 

Normally for small claims each party has to pay their own costs but as I was unhappy with the way Sink had acted, especially with the upheld complaint by Trading Standards in my favour I have applied in my counterclaim for full costs to be awarded to me due to their misconduct.

 

The court and/or Sink can't argue that attempting to perverse the course of justice was either reasonable or proper so having used 44.14 1B highlighted above in support of my request I'm interested to see how Sink try to get out of that one .

[pumpytums]

Hi emandcole,

would the "Injury to credit" have to be in the form of a counter claim? If so would it be possible to put the amount at the discretion of the court? I really want to counter-claim but I can't afford the £300 fee after it's allocated.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Hi emandcole,

would the "Injury to credit" have to be in the form of a counter claim? If so would it be possible to put the amount at the discretion of the court? I really want to counter-claim but I can't afford the £300 fee after it's allocated.

 

Pumpytums

 

Believe so yes. Mine went in at the end of my amended defence and once they discontinued I was then informed that the claim would be proceeding on its own merits. I had to pay the fee for the counterclaim sum when I submitted it.

 

I've actually only paid around £125 (to secure up to £5000 or so) but did this on the understanding that I could pay more in later on as I was more able to determine the level of damages I was asking for. Sink had after all made it hard to accurately assess this at the time.

 

My thinking was that this was enough to secure a nice win and as I'm doing this partially as an experiment in an effort to 'forge the way' so to speak I was prepared to risk losing a little as the bigger picture was more important. So, if I were to be awarded more I would technically lose out as I'd only be able to secure the amount I'd paid up to.

 

However, it's very much the principle and would also be a warning shot across the bow of Sink. My aim is to beat them, secure damages and show them that their business model with it's crappo documentation exposes them to considerable risk of counterclaim if they meet with someone who is prepared to fight them.

 

As CAG continues to grow and more people get fed up with having financial institutions treat them like dirt the moment a cash flow problem hits them the hope is that the majority will fight them instead of the minority, as is currently likely to be the case.

 

Eventually of course this will be crippling for a DCA as they have to meet the costs of litigating on the back of poorly documented debts .

[pumpytums]

Was yours for small claims? (the main claim not counter)

 

When do you usually file an amended defence after the exchange of witness statements and hearing?

 

Cheers again

 

Pumpytums

[snapper1207]

I don't know if I'm on the right thread I'm new to the site

I have been ignoring letters from Link concerning a credit card debt. I then recieved one of their court letters from Northampton CC. I sent Link the letter asking for my credit agreement but also sent the court a letter outlining what I had done. This was 8 weeks ago and only today I had a letter from link simply saying 'This claim has been transferred to Cardiff county court for enforcement'

I have now sent Link the second letter for failing to respond and a covering letter informing them I class the non return of My £1.00 fee as theft.

Have I gone about this the right way ?

 

Cheers

Snapper 1207

[Jana007]

When I got into financial difficulty, I got a debt management company to manage my debts on my behalf. Out of my numerous creditors, only GE (now Link) are being completely unreasonable (you guys have probably heard all this before!!)

 

They took me to court even though I had been made redundant and are charging me such a shocking rate of interest that, even though I am paying them a monthly amount, my debt to them is escalating rather than reducing.

 

The debt advisory company are little help and say "yes, we always have problems with Link". Today I got 2 letters from Link (I have 2 separate loans with them) in which they detailed the interest I am incurring:

 

The interest Link are charging me since we went to court in December 2009 is almost £2,500!!!!

 

Weren't these debt advisory companies set up to help us get out of debt? I also thought creditors were suppose to be more cooperative (how naive am I!!)

 

Can anyone suggest what I can do to dig myself out of this hole? When I went to court, the debt advisory company said I should ask the judge to make a reduction in the interest rate a condition of their ruling - but the judge said it was nothing to do with them. I was then advised to go to the CAB with a copy of my original finance agreement. HELP!!!!!!

 

Many thanks for any advice you can give me...

[means2anend]

I don't know if I'm on the right thread I'm new to the site

I have been ignoring letters from Link concerning a credit card debt. I then recieved one of their court letters from Northampton CC. I sent Link the letter asking for my credit agreement but also sent the court a letter outlining what I had done. This was 8 weeks ago and only today I had a letter from link simply saying 'This claim has been transferred to Cardiff county court for enforcement'

I have now sent Link the second letter for failing to respond and a covering letter informing them I class the non return of My £1.00 fee as theft.

Have I gone about this the right way ?

 

Cheers

Snapper 1207

 

Northampton County Court Bulk Centre is where claims are usually started electronically on-line...CPR rules dictate that they are then automatically transferred to the County court in the area where the defendant lives in.

 

You have been ignoring correspondence from Link...This is never good practice with any lender/DCA...at the very least YOU should be on the offensive.

 

You should send these statutory requests by RD and keep the evidence.You should also keep receipts of any envelopes that their correspondence has come in...

 

Can you be more precise at to the nature and content of the letters they have sent you without disclosing identifiable data of your agreement.

 

It would be helpful if you set out the chronological events so that I and others may know exactly where you are at and what the appropriate response should be at this time...

 

m2ae

[pumpytums]

Hi Jana & snapper,

I would suggest making new threads in the legal sections make sure you put Link in the title help should follow.

 

Jana did you ever send a Subject access request to GE or a CCA request?

 

Snapper you need to work very quickly. Did you ever acknowledge the claim from Northampton? Did you submit a defence?

 

 

 

Pumpytums

[Jana007]

Thanks Pumpytums - I shall get straight onto it!!

[emandcole]

Ok, it's been a while but heard back from the court this morning that my counterclaim has been allowed to continue after being reviewed for legal credibility.

 

It's been filed for a date in October and I now have to get some more money paid to the court as the claimant and issue the other side and the court with my papers etc.

 

Good news I'd say as the judge wrote a while back asking me to explain how Link are liable and to set out in law the basis of my claim. Clearly the judge has examined the case and the case law I provided and decided I indeed have a case against Link. Guessing someone at Link will not be happy with this at all .

 

Can you imagine if I succeed? It won't set a precedent but others will then be able to reference my case in their counterclaims and list it as 'persuasive' to support their own cases. Link quite simply are really on very dodgy ground now.

 

The default notice they provided was inspected by the original judge and rejected as invalid. They were given an opportunity to provide another, although realistically I could have had that dismissed as the one they registered with the CRA was the one they used and no other DN was issued to correspond with any new date with the CRA's.

 

As the invalid DN forms the basis of the claim for injury to credit they are going to have a near impossible job of refuting the invalid DN was registered when I provide the print off in my evidence bundle. Case law supports the fact that I do not need to prove loss, the mere registration of this DN is enough damage in itself.

 

If Sink have any sense they'll try very hard to get this settled without a hearing as the future implications for them are huge. This is without the 'attempting to pervert the course of justice' complaint I made about them that Trading Standards upheld and passed on to the OFT. The judge will love that when they learn what they've been up to!

 

Will keep you posted.

[citizenB]

So, looking good then