**COMPLAINTS** Link Financial

[emandcole]

Hmmm, I'd mistakenly like to feel that might partially be my fault. They might be a bit busy with how they're going to manage my counterclaim and on the 9th their own claim gets struck out .

 

Or...perhaps cash flow problems have led to a cut back in the amount of literary detritus they're choosing to send. Either way, if Link are being quiet it's good, less people being bothered and annoyed by their latest 'what we're going to do to you' nonsense.

[FCC]

Forgive an old godger his confusion. In September 2008 Crap1 write to me telling me that they are going to default me, after eight years of regular repayments. On the same day they agree a further twelve month repayment plan. December 2008 they write to tell me that they have " sold me " to Link Financial. January 2009 Link order me to repay them in full the small amount left owing. With the help of CAG I write and tell the to " go away ". I write to Crap1 and complain and they tell me that I must deal with Link as they now " own " me. November I write to Crap1 and ask what type of assignment was in place between them and Link and they replied that it was an Equitable Assignment. Now here is my confusion: I am under the impression that an equitable assignment means that Link are acting as a collection agency and cannot take action against me in their own name but through Crap1. If I am right am I not also right that when they changed the default from Crap1 to Link with all the CRA's then this was unlawful. Your advice would be gratefully received. regards

[emandcole]

Hi FCC, absolute assignments are 'the complete package with all rights' and equitable is merely the 'right' to collect a debt on behalf of the assigning party. As for litigation you are correct to assume that if an equitable assignment has taken place that the collecting party (Link) cannot take action in their own name and would have to include the name of the actual debt owner as co-claimants.

 

Link are typically very poor at assignment compliance (amongst other things ) and as such this is a good form of attack if you are ever litigated against by Link. As for the CRA's I would think that yes, if the assignment is only equitable in nature then Link would have no right to go amending your credit file as they merely have collection duties on behalf of the debt owner. Only the debt owner has any right to report to CRA's as you would have given them permission (presumably) during the credit application process.

 

Would definitely consider a complaint and escalate it to the Info Commissioner as a breach of Data Protection. You can perhaps pursue damages for this against Link and perhaps even an injury to credit claim.

[jdes26]

well since i sent them the get stuffed letter i havent heard anything in 9months and they can whistle ............... link! they dont scare me

[Dustyd]

Hi FCC,

 

What sort of small amount is owing? The reason I ask is they are very adept and quick in bulk processing a CCJ and then a charging order if the value is worth it, so just be very very careful.

 

You may need to spell out to Link what you are saying, so at least you have a paper trail for anything that may go to court.

 

Good Luck,

 

Dusty

 

Forgive an old godger his confusion. In September 2008 Crap1 write to me telling me that they are going to default me, after eight years of regular repayments. On the same day they agree a further twelve month repayment plan. December 2008 they write to tell me that they have " sold me " to Link Financial. January 2009 Link order me to repay them in full the small amount left owing. With the help of CAG I write and tell the to " go away ". I write to Crap1 and complain and they tell me that I must deal with Link as they now " own " me. November I write to Crap1 and ask what type of assignment was in place between them and Link and they replied that it was an Equitable Assignment. Now here is my confusion: I am under the impression that an equitable assignment means that Link are acting as a collection agency and cannot take action against me in their own name but through Crap1. If I am right am I not also right that when they changed the default from Crap1 to Link with all the CRA's then this was unlawful. Your advice would be gratefully received. regards

[batman1956]

Looks like Link Financial have got yet another new name

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/256368-elmwood-park-re-link.html

 

 

 

 

Watch out for a bombardment like there was when they became Thesis,Asset Link, and all the other names.

 

Do they hold a Consumer Credit Licence in this name?

[HardYards]

Hi, everyone.

 

My complaint:

 

In the midst of a CCA request hoo-ha with Link (here). Despite no production of valid CCA (first requested back in Feb.) they have sent letter demanding payment, which I have answered with the 'when a dca refuses to produce CCA' letter from the library here.

 

BTW recently I did complain in writing to OFT re another matter - another dca pretending to be someone they weren't - and I was fobbed off . I will complain to FOS if Link persist but I don't hold high hopes of a result.

 

Similar protests to AM and MP - both Tories - were also useless . It does put you off.

 

Thanks again to CAGgers who have been such a help.

 

Take care

H.xx

[angry cat]

Don't be put off, keep those complaints rolling in;

the OFT mechanism moves painfully slowly...!

[emandcole]

Absolutely...their fault they run such a duff system not yours and they get paid for it too, hardly a charity!

 

If they can't be bothered then press them for a reason why, half the time they hope you'll give up but if you push and have a legitimate complaint they have to act.

 

As for the outcome well, if Link get enough 5p fines and 'please don't do it again' letters they might eventually stop breaking the law .

[HardYards]

Does anyone know, if Link continue to demand money despite not producing a CCA - they haven't even attempted to produce a bogus one - do I ignore them, or complain to Financial Ombudsman?

 

And if complaint, could anyone point the way to a letter template I could use? Couldn't find in library - got my Monday (i.e. duff) head on.

 

Many thanks, H.xx

[angry cat]

the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) draft guidance (“the guidance”) on the rights and obligations of creditors and debtors under sections 77-79 of the Act and under the Regulations.

 

The OFT’s decision to prepare this guidance primarily resulted from their concern that debtors are being misled and on the other hand concern that some creditors appear not to understand the nature and extent of their obligations under these sections.

 

The OFT considers that where there has been a sale of the debt it is an unfair business practice to seek to take advantage of any confusion...

 

The OFT is clear that if a contract is unenforceable under sections 77-79, and that it is apparent to the creditor or owner, then not only must the creditor or owner not obtain judgement or take any of the steps listed in sections 76(1) and 87(1), it must not in any way mislead debtors or hirers, either by action or omission, into thinking that it will be able to obtain a judgement on a debt or to recover possession of goods or otherwise enforce any rights under the agreement.

Misleading debtors as to unenforceability is very likely to be seen as an unfair or improper business practice under the Act.

 

The creditor or owner should make it clear in communications to the debtor that the debt is in fact unenforceable. Failure to do so, where the creditor or owner is aware of unenforceability, would in the OFT’s view unfairly mislead the debtor by omission.

 

Unfair or improper business practices may form the basis for action by the OFT under the Act, including by licensing action or the imposition of formal requirements. In addition, to mislead debtors into making certain circumstances amount to an unfair commercial practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

Link Financial remain in default of your legal CCA request!

 

I fail to see what the FOS could do about it?

 

Surely this is a case of; put up or, shut up.

[HardYards]

Thank you very much for your long reply, angrycat. I sympathise with your 'in a filing cabinet' (Seems this month I am spending more time than usual writing to dca cretins.)

 

Sounds like best to ignore Link unless they come up with relevant paperwork. Cheers.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Hwyl56

[pumpytums]

I'm currently having dealings with this bunch of clowns. They allegedly bought the debt, I requested the CCA, they partially complied and sent just one side of CCA. I wrote back requesting the rest and informing them the account was in dispute. Next thing I know they have issued a claim in Northampton. They ignored both my CPR requests and sent some rubbish 2 months latter. After I filed an embarrassed defence they gave me the offer to accept the full claimed amount and that they would then allow me to pay it off while they had a charging order on my property. I quote

 

 

"It is our intention to proceed to Judgment in this matter and hereby enclose a letter for your consideration. By signing and returning this to us you will be admitting the debt in full and consenting to Judgment being entered. Upon Judgment being obtained we will look to make an application to the Court for a Charging Order as a means of securing the outstanding balance against your property. We will then revert back to you so that an amicable payment arrangement can be reached."

 

The above quote by the way was what they call trying to settle before the hearing.

 

The case is currently at the hearing stage as the judge doesn't like something in the AQ's hopefully theirs.

Additionally they took it upon themselves to file a default in their name with the CRA the OC never issued or filed a DN I have proof.

 

My link is as follows :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/236115-pumpytums-goes-northampton-help.html

 

If they know you have property they go for a charging order full stop they are in no way interested in you making payments.

 

They are beneath contempt and deserve to be roasted in court which I will be doing very soon in a counterclaim.

 

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Hi, glad you've stuck this up here. Can't believe they have the arrogance to send you a letter in the clear hope of intimidating or fooling you into allowing them to bypass the court system.

 

WHEN ARE THE RUDDY AUTHORITIES GOING TO

WAKE UP TO THESE PEOPLE?

Cannot believe such companies can go on year after year behaving in this manner when time after time forums like CAG reveal them to be wholly unscrupulous...makes me so damn angry.

 

PT, are you going to complain about this letter to Trading Standards? Please do and if you get any lethargy from them state you'll take it higher and complain about their lack of energy to act. This letter is clearly inappropriate, especially given the clear fact that they are in the wrong having done their usual 'issue proceedings and then fail to substantiate tricks'.

 

Insist the Licensing Dept. of the OFT are informed and are sent copies of this letter, to my mind it's another attempt to take advantage of the consumer and is so wrong.

 

Also feel they've breached the OFT guidelines on not misleading people as to the enforceability of a debt - they've ignored the fact they can't substantiate entirely and just hope you'll roll over. They need to be held to account!

 

 

[HardYards]

They are beneath contempt and deserve to be roasted in court which I will be doing very soon in a counterclaim.

 

Wishing you all the best of luck with this, Pumpytums - will be following your case to see how you get on.

 

So agree with Emandcole, it's infuriating when these tossers continue to operate against OFT guidelines and/or the law.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Hwyl56
wrong word created hyperlink

[pumpytums]

I have their complete back catalogue to hand if anyone wants me to post them up. I didn't realise it was against trading standards. I will have a read of your thread again emandcole, I believe certain TS are better than others.

 

You can bet I will be taking said letter to my hearing incase I get the question "Why did you not settle prior to hearing Mr Pumpytums?" In fact I will be taking all their nefarious drivel with me. The best thing I ever did was scan all their rubbish into PDF then arrange in order makes everything easy to hand.

 

I forgot to mention the last paragraph :-

 

 

However, in the event you still wish to defend this matter we have requested it be transferred to your local Court.

 

I thought the court did that.

 

Check out the miss-truths on the following threatogram :-

 

 

We have attempted to contact you on a number of occasions bul despite our best efforts the outstanding balance of xxxxxx

remains unpaid. If this is an oversight on your part please telephone us on xxxxxxxx so that we can resolve this matter.

 

If you continue to choose not to contact us we will have no option but to make a decision on your account without the benefit of your input.

 

 

Our decision will be to either refer this account to an external debt collection company who may use a field agent to visit your home or pass the account to our own Litigation team for recovery via the County Court system

.

 

 

It is important that you understand that Link Financial are fully entitled to commence Legal Action to recover this sum. In addition this balance will further increase via statutory interest and court costs and fees, which you will be liable for.

 

 

 

 

Legal Action

: This could result in a County Court claim being issued against you. Once a judgment has been obtained we can consider further enforcement action to recover these monies. Enforcement will take one of the following forms:-

 

 

 

 

 

1. CHARGE ON YOUR PROPERTY - this could result in an order for the sale of the property.

 

 

 

 

2. ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS - if you are in paid employment a Court order may be obtained so that your employer pays to us directly the money that you owe.

 

 

 

 

3. WARRANT OF EXECUTION - this could result in the seizure of goods from your property to the value of the warrant by a County Court Bailiff or High Court Sheriff.

 

 

 

 

Please contact an Account Officer on the number above to avoid unnecessary further action being taken without us having the opportunity of discussing this account with you.

 

 

 

 

May I add this letter was received only 3 weeks after their initial attempt at a NOA. I don't want to frighten anyone but if you get a letter from Sinking get your CCA off and your SAR to the OC it is vital you have all your info to hand.

 

Pumpytums

 

[pumpytums]

The thanks for action goes to Emandcole, Cheers Mate. He has spearheaded the fight into their corner.

 

So we all wish him the best of luck. Maybe sanity will triumph for a change and give these "individuals" something to think about in the future.

 

The company in question isn't bothered about justice/rules/law/decency they only see £ & $ which can be seen by the size of a connected individuals home.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

You can bet I'll keep you all up to date on how my attempt to counterclaim goes! If I'm successful...and so far the nonsense Sink have offered makes this all the more likely...I'll look forward to passing that info and advice on so we can all bite back.

 

Pumpytums is I believe about to take this step too and is a little behind me so no doubt he'll be the first to possibly benefit from my experiences.

 

Some of you may recall that Sink accused my action as being an abuse of process? Thanks to some other opinions on the severity of that I discovered that such an accusation, if not evidenced or justified, can be punished as contempt of court. I've therefore made a big deal of this and demanded that they demonstrate how the claim is an abuse.

 

Given their behaviour to date I suspect all of this is a pretty desperate attempt to discredit me in any way they can, problem for them being they may really have over stepped the mark this time .

[mrscollins]

This is a great thread, out these **** and let's bring them to book!!!

 

My complaint about Link Financial:

 

Defaulted by OC, agreement terminated and debt passed on to LF with no NOA sent to inform me of this.

 

Discovered DN was invalid, wrote to OC to advise them of this - currently under investigation by OC.

 

LF despite being advised of the invalid DN, no NOA of the debt and despite having been told the complaint is under investigation by the OC have sent a Letter Before Action threatening me with court action.

 

I have complained to TS, Consumer Direct, OFT, Financial Leasing Assoc. and FOS. The letters are only just sent and so I am still waiting on replies but having read this thread am not holding out much hope.

 

I am disgusted at the lack of action/responsibility of those who are supposed to uphold our consumer rights which are set down in LAW! and I am appalled at the contempt with which these DCA's treat the law and ignore it to suit their own ends.

 

My next step is to write to my MP.

 

I believe we need maximum exposure to publicise exactly how these agencies operate.

 

Has anyone thought about a facebook page, or some other type of social networking tool? It may attract more complaints - strength in numbers and all that!

[pumpytums]

Typical sinking link fiasco,

I believe their internal system is computerised they purchase without any documents and then proceed to a claim. If you fight them they usually roll over and move on to the next victim.

 

I will be issuing a counterclaim with them soon so maybe they will think twice in the future about trashing my credit rating before actually checking what they bought.

 

Networking thing sounds good but people will want to remain anonymous like CAG.

 

 

Pumpytums

[flaminscoty]

Flaminscoty,

I am doing every thing I can to stop LF!

see flamiscoty and link.

I have been given the brush off by the powers that be and am not very happy bunny!

I will do every thing I can to help bring this bunch of cowboys down.

My local MP is starting an investigation.

Any evidence I can use big or small I will use!

My thread flaminscoty and link....

my MP is B Jenkins!

I will be asking him to look at why the OFT and FOS and all the People with the power are doing nothing

There must be more than enough info on this forum to get the wheels in motion now!

Is there more than just a whiff of corruption going on here!

I dream that one day the smell will be coming from the rotting corpse of LINK FINANCIAL....MAY THAT DAY BE SOON.

FLAMINSCOTY....

[SF2010]

I received a letter before action from Link in June dated several days before received. I sent a response well within 7 days, but they had already filed a county court claim on line.

 

I contacted them asking them why they had done that when I had responded well within 7 days of receipt and they advised me that they only deal with litigation and would be applying for a charge order if I didnt pay up. I know now that the deatiled particulars of the on-line claim must be served to the defendant within 14 days of filing the on line court claim and they would have to had completed a court form N244 within that time to say that this has been served. No particulars were received.

 

I sent a request for CCA, told it would take up to 30 days.

 

Filed an embarassed defence, got a phone call from Link wishing to discuss my defence though I never gave them my telephone number at any time and had asked for correspondence in writing only.

 

CCA arrived well beyond statutory time limit, seperate T&Cs which could not be substantiated, no default notice, termination notice, or statements sent despite numerous requests.

 

 

I got a Letter acknowledging my defence, but threatening to proceed to judgment asking me to sign to say I accept judgement and withdraw my defence. Sent another request for substantiating documents.

 

Court claim was stayed.

 

Then letter from link received with an unsigned and undated reconstituted letter from Link and supposedly the OC, advising me the debt had been assigned and asking me to sign to accept judgement. The OC's letter did not appear in any of the records sent in response to the SAR information received. There was no data about a debt being sold to them, nor an assignment, despite them advising it was sold to them in 2007.

 

A very distressing time!

[jdes26]

no cca

no dn

no termination

 

they have no case

 

calm down you will be ok

 

we will help

[jdes26]

can u CPR them?

[Mother Duck 2]

Hi I too have problem with Link Financial or Asset Link or FNB they do have so many names. In brief, I have been to county court and their claim has been 'struck out' by the DJ and I have a court order, Asset Link also had to pay costs for one session for me (so I'm sure they really hate me). This all happened in 2008, however, the 'default' debt with increasing interest remains on my credit report (I am registered with all 3 CRA) I have written to all 3 CRA stating claim was 'struck out' and sent photocopies of court orders and the response letter from Asset with cheque for me. Unfortunately I have received one reply to date from Experian informing me that the matter has been investigated and that Asset Link/Link Financial maintain that their information on me (the massive default) is accurate and there is nothing more Experian can do. I believe I shall get the same response from the other 2 CRA, so what can I do to remove the default off my name. I do also have a thread with further info. I'm not allowed a link as I have only posted 3 times - It is in the legal thread area 259127 ''Debt Struck Out but still on Credit Report how do I get it removed.''

Many, many thanks for any help.