LINK Financial? Check this out...

[AA99]

Actually starting to enjoy this, putting the world to right and all that. Now, if I could only find myself a cape...

 

WE are your cape emandcole

[angry cat]

We are ALL in this together AA99...

I salute emandcole for his/her tenacity!

 

Pity, more members didn't step forward and challenge Link Financial's Unfair Business Practices...they will carry on abusing Consumers 'Rights', until we ALL put up a united front in order that, the so-called regulators will have to listen.

 

AC

[DonkeyB]

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

 

Quite agree AC. S'pose what I'm saying is you should not use the F word if you can't back it up (or even if you can, sadly)! Talk around it, but don't use it.

[AA99]

We are ALL in this together AA99...

I salute emandcole for his/her tenacity!

 

AC

 

Quite agree AC. S'pose what I'm saying is you should not use the F word if you can't back it up (or even if you can, sadly)! Talk around it, but don't use it.

 

 

You know I'm your greatest ally guys but, we are looking at achieving more than just tenacity and the F word;)

[angry cat]

The 'F' word?

 

DB, I was speaking as one does with ships; and all who sail in her...

 

Batman, we do hope so!

 

AC

X

[miziwizzi]

I did not stand up to them at the tme, too naive etc but now my account is fully paid I will soon start a thread in order to take them on!

[AA99]

I did not stand up to them at the tme, too naive etc but now my account is fully paid I will soon start a thread in order to take them on!

 

 

Good !!!!!!!!!!

[angry cat]

I did not stand up to them at the tme, too naive etc but now my account is fully paid I will soon start a thread in order to take them on!

 

In all honesty, I believe that many of us can be either, to naieve, scared or, for whatever reason?

about making a complaint against a firm who are using Unfair/Misleading/Harassment tactics against us: the Consumer.

However, this is akin to the 'Bully in the Playground'. If you do not stand up to the 'Bully', the 'Bully' will take advantage and see you as fair play; WEAK!

 

Good for you miziwizzi...

 

As stated prior, many mouths, maketh;

A CHOIR;

many instruments maketh;

AN ORCHESTRA.

 

AC

Edited October 15, 2009 by angry cat
error

[emandcole]

Adjusted letter after feedback from Martin g, thanks. Think it reads much better and agree the need to add the exact legislation is much clearer. Will be in the post today

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, the preamble is as follows:

 

1 Fraud

 

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in

subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

 

(2) The sections are—

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

© section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

 

(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

10 years or to a fine (or to both).

 

(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

 

2 Fraud by false representation

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

 

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

 

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

 

I believe that the Link officer has fallen foul of Fraud by False Representation, specifically 1A and 1B (i) & (ii). 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, Gain and Loss, 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. The specifics can be found here:

 

4 Fraud by abuse of position

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act

against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

© intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

 

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 have gone out of her way 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 employee are illegal. I have provided ample evidence of the offence. I have highlighted the area of the law that I believe has been broken. Irrespective of this, Link should be reviewed in relation to Unfair Misleading Practices, CPUTR, along with general issues of competance, negligence and due diligence to ensure what they send to the public is both fair and reasonable. Unless you can provide me with good 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. I believe I have other examples to hand where Trading Standards should have acted against Link but haven’t and I am bewildered as to why a multi agency approach is not appropriate.

 

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,

[emandcole]

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

 

AA99, would welcome any intervention from someone who can help. Clearly it would help me individually in the first instance but I'm not worried by Link, I have enough on them regardless of all this to ensure they won't win. The bigger picture however is that all of us together can try and sort this lot out once and for all for the benefit of everyone, that'd be great. I'm in Northampton so chances are you're not but perhaps your MP friend could suggest the MP's I wrote to get involved? Wayne David MP Caerphilly, Kate Hoey MP Lambeth and Sally Keeble MP my part of Northampton.

 

They should take an interest, it does seem that the debt collection industry enjoys an extraordinary amount of flexibility when the law is concerned and I can't help but wonder the reason for this. Is the government involved at a higher level the public doesn't know about? Think I'll call Mulder & Scully

[AA99]

I sent an email last night to Kate Hoey and copied in my MP:D Have posted in my thread:cool:

[martin g]

Good Afternoon,

 

Looks good and much tidier to me, they probably won't give you a sensible answer and you may need to move up the complaint ladder to the Local

Government Ombudsman. The word seems to have been omitted in the last but one para.

 

I have always admired Kate Hoey, anyone sacked by Tony Blair must have been doing something right, and I would like to think that she would get involved. I suppose that with the current unemployment figures local jobs count.

 

I think that you, like me, are job hunting and wasting time on these pages.

 

Best of luck

 

Martin g

[livelifeloveit]

after listening to your recording it brought back memories of the time they phoned me a few years back but their tactics were slightly different when i got my call they said "hi im from link and we are trying to trace lost money can you confirm a few details he asked for my name and d.o.b" like a fool i told him as i was thinking at the time maybe some one or a long lost relative had left something for me in a will. lol

next thing i am lumbered with a debt thats not mine i only found out by chance when i checked my credit file only to find a default re link financial and i had been dealt with by the courts and have a ccj against me have sent a s.a.r and the £10.00 fee on 18/8/2009 and had no reply from them to date i got in touch with experian and a lady there is going to get in touch with link and the court to investigate the matter.

[angry cat]

after listening to your recording it brought back memories of the time they phoned me a few years back but their tactics were slightly different when i got my call they said "hi im from link and we are trying to trace lost money can you confirm a few details he asked for my name and d.o.b" like a fool i told him as i was thinking at the time maybe some one or a long lost relative had left something for me in a will. lol

next thing i am lumbered with a debt thats not mine i only found out by chance when i checked my credit file only to find a default re link financial and i had been dealt with by the courts and have a ccj against me have sent a s.a.r and the £10.00 fee on 18/8/2009 and had no reply from them to date i got in touch with experian and a lady there is going to get in touch with link and the court to investigate the matter.

 

livelifeloveit, you may wish to log your concerns here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/222298-complaints-link-financial.html

[ODC]

after listening to your recording it brought back memories of the time they phoned me a few years back but their tactics were slightly different when i got my call they said "hi im from link and we are trying to trace lost money can you confirm a few details he asked for my name and d.o.b" like a fool i told him as i was thinking at the time maybe some one or a long lost relative had left something for me in a will. lol

next thing i am lumbered with a debt thats not mine i only found out by chance when i checked my credit file only to find a default re link financial and i had been dealt with by the courts and have a ccj against me have sent a s.a.r and the £10.00 fee on 18/8/2009 and had no reply from them to date i got in touch with experian and a lady there is going to get in touch with link and the court to investigate the matter.

You need to make a formal complaint to the OFT, trading standards and your MP

[livelifeloveit]

First I would like to thank everyone for the help and information on this site and especially those who take the time to help other,s with out the knowledge to do it them selves would be in the dark,

I am writing just to give an update to my scenario regarding mbna credit card debt witch was sold to link financial (not my card not my debt) I sent a sar as advised by this site and used a template again from this site sar sent on 18/8/09 as of now no reply .against what is said about telephoning the dca I could not wait any longer and called them asking about no reply to sar and I demanded answers so some questions I had was told they had received my sar but they were still awaiting some info from mbna i proceeded to ask questions as to were the card was sent to as the card application was started in may 2001 I was not living at the address at the time although I did get the mortgage and take possession of the keys to the card application address june 2001 the guy I spoke to said he could not give me any info as it was in the evening when I called but he would get a manager to telephone me back by Thursday two days later no reply ( NOW THIS GETS INTRESTING )

i phoned mbna card services to ask them about the card the conversation went like this “mbna I need to go through some security details first what’s my mothers maiden name and what’s my dob I told her it was irrelevant as I have never had an account with them so she said they cant tell me any info on acc so I thought I will play the game and give her what she asked I nearly fell through the floor when she said thank you how can I help, she confirmed the date and address the application was taken out and would forward a copy of agreement but did not have info regarding address of were the card was sent and but she did proceed to say their were two cards and a balance due of £19 then changed her mind after a pause asked me to hold while she talked to a manager on returning said it was a system error it was only one card with the default balance which was sold on to link and that’s all she could tell me end of conversation I phoned the police to report the fraud they basically thought I was nuts and that a card taken out in my name with my address and that I have never had a statement and only now find out about it five years after the default after checking my credit file , he did not want to know and would not give me crime ref no but its true if god should be my witness then after a lot of thinking and head aches it did come back to me that when I first took out the mortgage with northern rock the adviser said with the mortgage deal I had I could have a credit card with £5000,00

Limit witch I declined. Have I been had by my broker I don’t know as I cant get the ansew to some simple questions like were was the card sent were was the statements sent and were was the card used Sherlock homes is not needed in this case but were do I find this info out im frustrated and at the end of my tether

[angry cat]

You need to get Trading Standards in on this case.

 

Telephone Consumer Direct 08454 04 05 06 (Consumer Direct are the consumer arm of the OFT) they will put you in touch with your local trading standards office.

 

It is not fair nor reasonable that you should be expected to be a, as you put it, Sherlocke Holmes!

Your concerns need to be resolved and resolved quickly.

[angry cat]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/229766-problem-link-finacial.html

[wendella]

Subbing...

[emandcole]

Quick update. Nothing yet from Trading Standards regarding my threat to escalate to Local Government Ombudsman if they insist on passing the buck to the OFT.

 

I have however received confirmation of date next year for my Application Notice to be heard in the court (cost me £75.00 to obtain an order to get the claimants to provide evidence they are relying on) as they failed to respond to CPR requets for document disclosure. Hearing allocated a 30 minute slot, should be enough for Link to show everything.

 

Quick question if anyone knows offhand. Will Link be expected to bring the original credit agreement here or can they bluff all the way until a late court date? Seems pointless having the hearing if they don't need to bring everything to an earlier review of evidence relied upon.

 

Also, if they fail to provide everything listed in their Particulars of Claim that surely finishes them off regarding future litigation but what happens regarding counter claims and/or my costs? Does that require a further hearing to 'tidy it all up' or will the judge automatically order the return of all monies I've had to pay as in effect the claimant could never substantiate and evidence their claim in the first place?

[angry cat]

The will need to bring a copy of the (alleged) credit agreement, Terms & Conditions plus statement of account to the Directions hearing.

 

Although, these low-life rarely provide the correct docs!

[emandcole]

Ok, new stuff to play with. The Application Notice finally woke them up and in the last few days Link have sent me a statement history. All good except the account was opened in March 2000 and what they have sent starts from Jan 2005.

 

In this pile which should carry us through to now the following months are missing:

 

February 2005

March 2005

May 2005

August 2006

September 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

October 2007

December 2008

 

January and February 2009 are also missing with the final statement being for March 2009. In effect they haven't managed to provide a single complete year! Clearly I will claim this is not good enough and this prejudices my chance to audit the account history. How can anyone asses the accuracy of a default and the true account balance with/without charges with this sloppy approach to book keeping?

 

On Saturday I then got a letter from Link in London with a single page statement of account to bring us up to date. What's quite amusing is that the starting balance of this statement from March 2009 is £1,114.45 but the March statement they have sent as part of the earlier statement history is for £1,222.61. Given the fact that on their POC they have claimed an initial sum of £1,282.61 it's all just a bit of a mess!

 

Another great argument which I owe thanks to Angry Cat for is the nature of the assignment itself. AC added details of Absolute and Equitable assignments on the forum a while back and this made for very interesting reading. Here's why:

 

I originally placed the account in dispute last year after realising the original creditor had failed to provide charge info on the T&C's. This is contrary to The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. They sulked about this for months and all this time the account was in dispute. During this time the OC decided to breach regulations and let Link Financial have a go and the threats started etc. The account was allegedly assigned to Link (Discovered after SAR) in March 2009 but unknown to me and I continued to deal with the OC. I subsequently received an apology from Santander who now own the old GE brand I believe and they also sent an apology cheque for £50 for not issuing a final response.

 

They also finally acknowledged the fact they had wrongfully applied charges to the account resulting in a balance adjustment of around £150 as they insisted they could still keep the first £12.00 of each charge because "the OFT says we can" which is of course nonsense too.

 

Thing is this final balance adjustment was made to the account around 15 days before Link issued a claim form in September. This shows that Link must have merely had the right to collect the money on behalf of the OC as Link allowed the OC to make balance adjustments that late and just before they started litigation. Why would a dirtball company like Link allow the former debt owner to make balance adjustments if the assignment had been absolute? They wouldn't so it must have been an equitable assignment right? Link however have started proceedings in their own name when they should surely have started proceedings with the OC as a co-claimant?!!!

 

Given the additional fact that the OC have admitted fault with A) The return of a great deal of the charges and B) An apology cheque of £50 for failing to issue a final response (Which I'd need in order to provide remedy before any litigation becomes warranted) it is clear that I was indeed in the right to place the account in dispute in the first place.

 

Given the fact that I have been vindicated in my action by admission of fault from the OC this proves the OC should never have involved a third party and also that Link therefore have no right to bring action right now, regardless of the fact the asssignment is naff and doesn't add up.

 

When you add incomplete statement history, incorrect balance totals, failure in T&C's to reserve the right to even add default/penalty charges and a subsequent default notice which will have incorrect figures on it how on earth do Link think they can win? Oh yeah, they'll need the original agreement too according to CPR rules. A copy isn't good enough as without the original anyway who can say if it really is a true copy? Their POC also lists the sending of a default notice so I've asked for that to be provided too. I'll need them to show it's accurate, good luck with that.

 

So, I'm now adding the £75.00 I had to pay for the application notice to my costs as Link decided to ignore CPR requests for voluntary disclosure of documents. Do they think people are stupid? Just what are they going to say to a court when all of this is dragged up? I'd hate to represent them wouldn't you?!

 

I'm now looking to maximise the counter claim and planning to donate a nice chunk to CAG for the help I've had here. Can anyone suggest any sneaky tactics to bring this total up? I'm thinking about claiming the rest of the charges that the OC had no right to apply and going for the return of all interest paid since the issue of an incorrect default notice. Anyone else got anything good? The unlawful rescission of contract would be good but think that'd be against the OC for doing it, really want to attack Link here for the time being as they've been despicable from day one.

Edited November 29, 2009 by emandcole

[angry cat]

emandcole, I suggest that you pose your question(s) on the 'Legal Forum';

entitle your thread:

Link Financial & GE Money or, similar;

I believe then, you will receive much assistance. (there are several threads running on that forum about GE & Link)

 

Presumably, the account in question was formally terminated by GE, prior to the assignment to Link?

 

If this is the case and GE terminated your account on the back of an ineffective DN. All that they will be able to claim, will be the arrears as stated on the ineffective DN; the remedy.

 

AC

[AA99]

Angry cat, please refresh yourself with my thread with them:roll: It's gone suspiciously quiet out there:roll:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/161277-aa99-ge-money-car.html

[angry cat]

Angry cat, please refresh yourself with my thread with them:roll: It's gone suspiciously quiet out there:roll:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/161277-aa99-ge-money-car.html

 

You could send a reminder?

However, the ball is in their court now.

 

This is a case of: Put up or, Shut Up!

 

Too many of these firms are ignoring CPR 'Disclosure' Requests...

We wonder, why?