Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • T911, Nick, thanks, I got there in the end! Without boring you with the details, it is precisely the most ridiculous cases that end up being lost - because the Cagger knows the other party's case is rubbish so doesn't do the necessary work on their own case. G24 are well aware of double dipping.  They have either done it deliberately or else have cameras which can't handle multiple visits to the car park which G24 happily leave malfunctioning so the £££££ keep rolling in. Sadly most people aren't like you.  I've just read various reviews for the Retail Park on TripAdvisor and Parkopedia.  Virtually all of them are complaining about these unfair charges for daring to spend time & money shopping in a shopping centre.  Yet no-one is refusing to pay.  They moan but think they have been fined and cough up. G24 are unlikely to do court, but it's not impossible with two tickets. Try to get evidence that you were elsewhere at these times. Often retail parks will intervene, but I've Googled & Googled and cannot find an e-mail address for the place.  Could the manager of one of your favourite shops give you a contact e-mail address for the company that run the retail park? Right at the moment I'm supposed to be teaching someone who runs two shops at the local shopping centre, but I'm not as he has had to go to a meeting with the company that runs the shopping centre, so I know for a fact that these business relationships exist!!!
    • Afternoon DX, The files were in date order. How would I put them into an acceptable format? I'm not that pc literate.  
    • I think you need to tell us what actually happened. Your original post gives the impression that you were taken to court for a speeding offence. But you go on to say that you received no paperwork. So you could not have been summonsed for a speeding offence because the police had no evidence that you (or anybody else) was driving (and it seems you were not anyway). You were probably summonsed (or more likely received a Single Justice Procedure Notice) for "failing to provide the driver's details." You would not normally be banned for this offence if you were convicted - it carries six points. So did you have any earlier points which meant you were liable to a "totting up" ban?  If you were originally convicted (as it seems you might have been) how was that conviction set aside? Did you perform a Statutory Declaration? There is simply too much missing for any meaningful help to be given. It seems as if there may have been an error by the DVLA but before you consider suing those idiots until the cows come home, you need to explain exactly what has happened.  
    • Point 4 and 10 duplicate Point 5 and 8 duplicate  Try to keep to one para with regards the agreement...various paras duplicating the same. Statement of truth is out of date refer to the claimants statement    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Link Financial Ltd


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3955 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I was informed yesterday by the Office of Fair Trades that consumer credit licence 446835,

Link Financial Ltd lapsed on 3rd May 2013.

 

They have applied for a new licence 658332 but it will take 25 - 50 working days to process.

 

As such Link Financial are currently operating without a cunsumer credit licence.

 

Can anyone advise, does this make any debts persued during this time non enforcable?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

tell us about the debt please

link are the biggest spoofers out there

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

only when people allow default judgements

which is why they always send papers to your old addresses.

 

where do you think he got the money for this from:

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property_news/news/millionairedebtcollectordigsdeepinsouthkensington.html

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Link should not be chasing debtors. As you state they are unlicensed. Let the OFT know.

 

Nonsense. They are allowed to continue to trade while a licence application is considered. I think it unlikely their application will be refused anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Once a licence has lapsed it can not be renewed. You will need to apply for a new licence. Trading in credit activities without a licence is a criminal offence".

 

The license is lapsed. It is an offence to trade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their new application was approved and a licence issued on 31 May 2013.

 

Please check your facts and stop giving false hope to people, based on incorrect technicalities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should also be aware that the OFT is changing the way it deals with licence applications and their validity/duration. This may have added to the confusion, but was announced by the OFT quite some time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had fallen foul of the system, a quick waiver application to the OFT would have seen them through. Companies can apply for waivers in such circumstances (and have to pay for them, depending on their level of activity), and unless there are serious objections, they are normally granted (as it is an easy revenue stream for the OFT).

 

Although we may hate Link and their like, they know how to play the system.

 

Anyway, Link Financial Outsourcing is normally the company that does the collection on behalf of Link Financial Ltd, and their licence is current and ongoing.

 

What Link Financial Ltd could not have done in that time, themselves, was buy or sell debts, and this would have applied for a period of a couple of weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donkey, you seem to have ridiculed me in an earlier post for "giving false hope....on technicalities", based upon OFT written statements that you yourself provided in a link to the OFT page.

 

You now state "What Link Financial Ltd could not have done in that time, themselves, was buy or sell debts, and this would have applied for a period of a couple of weeks." and appear to agree with my stance that having had a license lapse, the post license holder is not in any position to undertake licensable consumer credit activities until it's license has been re-instated.

 

You appear confused...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it isn’t Link Financial Ltd that is chasing the debt. I think you’ll find it’s Link Financial Outsourcing.

 

Yes, it is an offence to trade in debt without a licence. But it is not an offence to own debt without a licence. Where is the evidence that they traded any debt in that timeframe?

 

You stated today (4 July) that the OP should complain to the OFT about Link Financial Ltd not having a licence when in fact – since the end of May – they DO have a licence. And again, it is usually not Link Financial Ltd which chases the debt, but its agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donkey, MY first post of 13:27 on this subject is in retort to the first post on this board by Macymay 17th May 2013; to wit "I was informed yesterday by the Office of Fair Trades that consumer credit licence 446835, Link Financial Ltd lapsed on 3rd May 2013. "

 

My post of 13:27 is correct based upon OFT written statement. You may agree with me now, having agreed with me previously in an earlier post. So my intention now is to not get into a p###ing contest with you on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, your post was ten weeks late. And inaccurate when posted, as Link Financial Ltd had a valid licence when you posted.

 

You can p*** all you like, because you have suggested the OP complains when in fact there is no evidence that any offence has been committed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well as the op has not been back since 2mins after starting the thread

its now dlosed

 

OP if you need it reopened PM me or the siteteam

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3955 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...