Link proof of CCJ

[Hime]

Hello to the forum.

 

First things first I would like to say a big thank you to all the people that have posted on here

as it has been a great help to me in my fight with them- link, over the past 3 & a half years!!

 

My situation.

The usual pre 98 student loan.

Never paid, recognised or did anything & had completely forgotten all about it until

out of the blue, July 2011 a letter from link!

 

I’ve batted with them for well over 3 years now.

Done the statue barred thing only for them to come back with the CCJ thing by the student union in 2001.

 

the question I have is this and would be very grateful of any advice;

 

Link have not given me any paperwork and have only provided me with a reference number to the alleged CCJ

and repeatedly claim that this is proof enough that the alleged debt is not statue barred?

 

 

For some strange reason they seem to think that I am just going to accept that

 

 

I have checked with Northampton CC where they claim it was issued

(although in one conversation on the phone with them they told me it was Chelmsford CC after I said I checked with Northampton CC…hmm?).

 

 

Checked the trust register online,

phoned registry trust &

checked my credit report & nothing anywhere.

 

 

So is there actually any official way for me to check if this reference number is actually valid?

 

I find it a strange situation that it seams all these official companies destroy or archive their records after 7 years

as they are no longer valid

 

 

yet a CCJ never becomes invalid,

 

 

in a sense so we seem to be left with the situation where we have to take the word of this

well dodgy company link…hmm!!

 

 

Who I do not trust one tiny bit as they have lied to me on several occasions now

and I get the feeling, especially after what I have read about them,

that I wouldn’t put it past them to just copy & photoshop any old CCJ

and claim it is mine if there is no way of actually officiating it??

 

I am now in a circular situation & I just don’t know how to get them off my back anymore.

 

 

I’ve sent them the statue barred letter.

 

 

I’ve told them a million times to take me to court but

they wont as they know dam well that it will be a purple blue moon before for a judge is likely to reissue this CCJ

as I fit all the criteria of the limitations act,

 

 

it’s been 10+ years with no contact whatsoever,

 

 

I've been easy traceable during that time and not committed any kind of fraud

so they have no chance in court and they know it!

 

 

Even if they did take me to court I would rather pay a solicitor £6grand to defend me

than give this company the £3grand they allege I owe them

as I dislike them so much, to put it mildly!!

 

 

They know dam well they don’t have a legal leg to stand on

so they just harass me with their constant phone calls (that I have a log of)

and their letters# (which I have every one of),

 

 

it’s just pure intimidation and I’m the type that will fight back,

 

 

I’m just sick of it now though!

They keep on claiming they have a CCJ by way of just giving me a reference number

but I cannot officiate this anywhere so I have to take their word for it…hmm!

 

 

In the meantime they are free to just harass me by demanding money

just because they say they have a CCJ and given me a reference number,

 

 

is this at all legal??!!

 

# As an added note to their letters.

They are constantly adding interest to the alleged amount even after I have sent the statue barred letter

and I was under the impression that it would be a rare CCJ if they were allowed to charge any interest.

 

 

So by adding interest are they still trying to claim the debt that I have clearly stated is statue barred

as if they were trying to claim the debt by way of the alleged CCJ then it would be for the judgemental amount?

[dx100uk]

that's link for you.

 

 

the CCJ is dead and buried

 

 

doesn't matter if they know the number or not.

 

 

I have a feeling your real issue here is you keep entertaining letter tennis.

 

 

should have been one letter

 

 

the CCJ is now outside of 6yrs old

you were not the claimant

you have not been substituted as the claimant

 

 

until or unless I receive a court date you are now being ignored

 

 

I admit no debt to you or your invisible clients.

 

 

bye bye PLINK

 

 

dx

[Hime]

Thanks dx I've read many many many of your posts in the past & they have been of great help!

 

Yes your absolutly right there has been a lot of letter tennis!

 

Sometimes the phone calls can be fun as I know they are just phishing so I amuse myself with them

but I really just want them to just go away and stop contacting me,

 

 

they somehow got my mobile number which I use for work as I'm self employed it can be a real pain.

 

 

So I know the alleged debt is well & truly gone I just want these people to stop contacting me?

[Hime]

ps The last attempt was this;

 

Without prejudice

 

This is my final complaint.

 

You (link financial ltd) have eight weeks in which to either send me written confirmation that you will not pester me any further or take court action to enforce your babble.

 

If after eight weeks you have not complied or contact me in any way at any time thereafter I will immediately continue with my complain to the financial ombudsmen. Ref; *******.

 

That didn’t work!

[dx100uk]

it wont,

 

 

ignore them

 

 

they'll zoon give up.

 

 

phonecalls...in writing only ..drop call.

 

 

letters scan and shred.

 

 

if you ever get bored and think of entertaining them

then stop and scan up all the letters from them.

 

 

we'd like a laugh!!

 

 

 

 

dx

[SabreSheep]

im not surprised.

 

All it says is "do not contact me or I will complain"

[Hime]

I like a laugh too & this company certainly can be,

unfortunatly other times they are a pain

but I must admit everytime I get one of their letters

& see the PO box Carephilly adress on the back it does make me smile!

I actually get a bit dissapointed when it's just a statement of their accounts!

 

yes when I have more time I will scan & upload all the letters but it's a bit of a mission as there are lots!

 

The only other last thing to ask.

 

I've been going along the lines of trying to get this lawfully settled now

as I do often wonder if they were to change the law of the limitations act??

 

I trust this goverment about as much as I do link and I'm sure the owner of link is in the circle of make a donation

or take a politician on a cruise somewhere & hay presto the law changes

& suddenly these debts are valid...or am I being a touch paranoid?!

[Hime]

sabresheep it was the advise I was given by the financial ombudsmen to make a final complaint so it was a simple final complaint! I have written loads to these ******** and fed up with it as no matter what amount you write they only just carry on contacting you!

[dx100uk]

I like a laugh too & this company certainly can be, unfortunatly other times they are a pain but I must admit everytime I get one of their letters & see the PO box Carephilly adress on the back it does make me smile! I actually get a bit dissapointed when it's just a statement of their accounts!

Anyway yes when I have more time I will scan & upload all the letters but it's a bit of a mission as there are lots!

The only other last thing to ask.

I've been going along the lines of trying to get this lawfully settled now as I do often wonder if they were to change the law of the limitations act??

I trust this goverment about as much as I do link and I'm sure the owner of link is in the circle of make a donation or take a politician on a cruise somewhere & hay presto the law changes & suddenly these debts are valid...or am I being a touch paranoid?!

 

 

you are...........

 

 

if you do scan them

redact and put the pix into a multipage word doc

then PDF and shrink that

for the sake of the server please don't upload every letter singularly

as somehow that seems to be the norm at present

1 page = +3MB and the thread takes ages to load on a

 

 

even 100pages can be less than 1Mb in a word doc

dx

[Hime]

Thought so!

 

Thanks again for all the advise dx...past & present!

[Hime]

Just another thing out of interest, you wrote this earlier;

the CCJ is now outside of 6yrs old

you were not the claimant

you have not been substituted as the claimant

 

I have read that legally they are entitled to all the tearms of the loan as if they were the original lender so do not actually need to get it substituted? So would just need to have it reissued?

[dx100uk]

CCJ over 6 years old ....

 

 

It may drop off your CRA,s but it is still there

 

 

...the Judgment creditor would have to revert back and attain permission from the court to execute it.

 

 

An action cannot be brought on any judgment after the expiry of 6 years from the date it became enforceable.

 

 

The term “action” only applies to the commencement of fresh proceedings on a judgment,

it does not include enforcement proceedings

 

 

so, strictly speaking,

for enforcement purposes and enforcement proceedings, no limitation period applies.

 

 

However, any delay in enforcement on the part of the judgment creditor will affect any award of interest

as recoverable interest is limited to 6 years on a judgment that is executed after the expiry of the 6 year period.

 

 

.....

 

 

extremely rare for a debt buyer to get themselves substituted after 6yrs

even rarer than above

 

 

dx

[Hime]

Thanks & makes sense! Reading about CCJ’s from various sites can be confusing sometimes, there does seam differing opinions and grey areas sometimes.

 

Personally I am 100% confident that there is no way link will ever take this to court. I wish they would & told them a million billion times to take me to court!!

 

So it’s just a game with them, it virtually always was, but it’s a game I am fed up playing now and just want their nuisance phone calls to stop!

[renegadeimp]

Send them a final letter before action regarding the calls, and cite the harrison case. They know damn well what will happen if they keep harassing via phone. They found out the hard way in the harrison case.

[Hime]

Thanks Renegadeimp.

 

 

It was interesting reading.

 

 

I haven’t had as much harassment as this poor bloke, yet, so unfortunately I doubt I will take them to court just yet!

 

 

My case is actually not so much about the intensity of contact but the time scale, 3 & half years.

If any ETHICAL company thought I owed for that long they would have taken me to court long long ago

especially as I have stated to them to do this on several occasions now.

 

 

£120,000 legal fees though, I’m sure link rely on the fact I am unlikely to start an expensive court case for a less than £3grand debt

although with links interest rates it will soon be £20,000!

 

I am continuing with my complaint to the financial ombudsmen though,

I plan to finish getting it ready this weekend & send it Monday morning as I’m interested to see what they make of the whole situation.

I will post the information from them on here when it happens.

This is a bit of a rush reply & I will read more of that case later after work.

[renegadeimp]

Read the Judges comments. Even more than once every few days/week could be seen as excessive. Plenty of companies try multiple times per day, or once per day,e very day (scotcall) for example.

[Hime]

Well if ever there was a list of pointless organisation I think the financial ombudsmen has got to rank quite highly!

 

To be honest though, I kind of had my suspicions from the off.

Since plink constantly sent me leaflets for them & suggested I contact them, they no doubt already knew they were useless & wouldn’t do anything!?

 

I feel completely stupid that I thought UK law was based on facts & proof but not according to the FO.

In their words, it seems to suggest that there was a CCJ.

Strange that an...erm independent company funded by banks and corporations would take the ‘word’ of such a ‘reputable’ company as link!

 

 

Despite my overwhelming proof that plink have no legal right and they are disregarding at least 24 guidelines issued by the OFT

by using nothing but harassment to demand money they are quite happy to allow this to continue!

 

What an absolutely bizarre situation though.

An alleged CCJ that is so old that not even the financial ombudsman can actually prove ever existed

(since all official organisations either destroy or archive these records after 7 years as they are no longer legally valid!)

but even IF it existed then it is so old that by law, due to section 24 of the limitations act,

this company should not be allowed to take any enforcement action against me other than to restart the action in court,

yet they wont take me to court and are demanding money from me so therefore they are breaking the law

as well as god knows how many so called official guidelines (official guidelines that are totally pointless as there is nobody to enforce them!?)

and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it!?

 

 

Other than now it would seam to take them to court, which would cost far too much in money & time.

the little man losses again in this wonderful democracy of ours even though I have the law on my side!

 

 

If plink think they are going to get 1 single penny out of me though then they are sorely mistaken.

I may have lost a few battles but the war is far from over!

 

So when all the excellent advise on here (this site has been a godsend in my fight!) says ignore them then please just ignore them!!

I found out the hard way & oh how I wished I had taken the blue pill!

 

 

Honestly just ignore them, totally & utterly ignore them, full stop, end of!

If you engage as I did you may as well bang your head against a brick wall as even though you may well have the law on your side

it counts for nothing in this game!

 

 

After lots of letters to plink which were going nowhere I contacted stepchange debt advice charity and made a telephone appointment with a legal adviser.

When I explained to the legal adviser all I had gone through all they could say was how bad they thought it was

that this company are treating me this way and all I can do is try ignoring them or make a complaint!

 

 

Notice again that even the legal adviser here says to ignore them!

 

 

Anyway I chose option 2 & made a complaint to the financial ombudsman…wrong, so very very wrong!

They are about as useful as a chocolate teapot, nothing they can do, couldn’t offer any help,

not allowed to give me any legal advise so the best they could do, was something I never would have thought of,

and did a google search for me and suggested I try a debt advise charity like oh I don’t know, stepchange!

 

 

I put that in my letter, you, so shows how much notice they take!

 

 

Round & round we go but there’s nobody left to complain to!?

 

 

So where am I now after 3 years, loads of letters & lots of wasted time.

I’m totally back to square 1 and option 1…ignore them!!!!

Although if I ever win the lottery I am going to take them to court just for the hell of it!!

 

So the game is now this plink know as I know as stepchange know as the FO knows that they have no legal right to this alleged debt

so their only weapon is obviously just harassment and now after 3 years I now know that the law is an ass

(when you’re a little man fighting corporations!) so my only weapon is to just ignore them!!

[saintalan]

Out of interest as I also do not trust Shoosmiths copy of a decree granted against me and am awaiting a SAR from SLC

Have you requested a SAR from SLC as presumably thats where the copy of the original CCJ must lie if it exists ?

[Hime]

Hello saintalan. Basically no for several reasons. 1=It would cost money so I don’t see why I should have to fork out especially when in the eyes of the law (law, laugh out loud!) it is the responsibility of the claimant to produce a copy!

2=I actually spoke to a quite helpful chap at the SLC sometime ago and he said the debt has been sold on to plink so therefore they no longer have any records? Sorry I can’t help you there.

[renegadeimp]

They are obliged to keep records for 6 years. SAR them and force their hand.

[Hime]

Hello renegadeimp. Thanks but I'm not sure who you think I should SAR?

[renegadeimp]

Sar always goes to the oc.

[Hime]

Thanks. Who is the oc though?

I'm still not sure how this would help though as my problem is that everything is well over six years old?

Sorry I have a very busy day today so will look into this more later.

[Hime]

I would be very interested of anybody’s thoughts or experience of the financial ombudsmen?

I am going to fire off a return letter at some point. I now know it is completely pointless but it will make me happy and any ammunition I can get would be helpful, thanks.

 

I received the letter about their decision and quite frankly I’m not sure if I should be insulted or take it as a joke?!

 

They say that I say that link is chasing me for a statue barred debt and they should stop chasing me.

Interesting wording as a six page letter of mine never once mentioned the words ‘chasing’ but did mention harassment about 20x!

So who’s side are they on by dumbing down the words harassment to chasing as it doesn’t sound so bad then?

My letter was nothing like that anyway!

 

 

A CCJ cannot be statue barred, I know that!

My letter, if they bothered to even read it properly was that

A, the CCJ cannot be proved so how can it be in any way legal?!

B, even IF there was a CCJ then it is so old that it is unenforceable

and that by LAW all they should be entitled to do is to take me back to court

and should not be allowed to use nothing but harassment or ‘chasing’ techniques to demand money from me!?

 

Link said that the SLC obtained a CCJ. That’s right,

link do not even own this elusive CCJ so the CCJ is a worthless piece of paper

that doesn’t even exist but no this means nothing to the FO then?

 

It is most likely that the SLC (not link) obtained a CCJ.

So absolutely no proof then.

Which means we are left with just taking the word of link and the FO is happy to just take them at their word?

 

Here’s the cruncher though!

 

It is most likely that the SLC obtained a CCJ on ** January 2002 at Northampton CC.

I clearly stated in my letter that link have clearly stated in writing several times (the FO has a copy of this)

that the SLC obtained a CCJ on ** December 2001 at Northampton CC.

They also said in one phone conversation that the CCJ was issued at Chelmsford CC.

If this was a trial in court I’m sure the judge would just laugh at this evidence as it is plainly obvious that this company is at very least lying

or possibly fabricating evidence hence committing fraud but again no, the FO seams to think this is all fine and above board?!

 

So who’s side is this independent company funded by banks and corporations really on? I wonder?!

[renegadeimp]

Escalate it to an ombudsman. The adjudicators are useless. Link would also need to be named as the new admin of the ccj as well. And if 6 years has gone by with no contact or payment on the ccj, they'd be very very very very lucky to get a judge that would allow them enforcement options.