Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

MBNA - Link Financial


Jeff2000
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4906 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 have 7 creditors 6 have been very accomodating responding to letters etc... BUT Link who bought the debt on May 6th have only sent one letter, I sent an I&E breakdown and they were prepared to accept my payment of £14 per month yet refused to sent me a payment slip!!!!

 

I have said help me to help you. I want to make a payment yet still they refuse.

 

There staff... OH MY GOD how rude can they be one gent called David told me to "Sort my life out" before hanging up that sent me in a rage lol..

 

I have been handling my own affairs very successfully for 17 months now but this firm is seriously hard work, they dont correspond. Are unhelpful, rude, condescending and arrogant

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You are correct. If MBNA don't have the original agreement then you are quite correct in that the DCA won't. I would double check with MBNA. You've already paid your fee just write back and ask for the credit card agreement. It's too long to go into here but there has been a lot of debate about the application form being produced as a sort of hybrid agreement. The thread I referred you to earlier also has a copy of a letter from Ian McCartney MP who has taken this up with the DTi and it seems the final say is that an application form is not a full agreement. They seem to dress them up witha few terms and conditions and add the words credit agreement but it is still only an application form.

I am in the same boat as you with this so keep in tocuh as interested to know what happens next.

 

Hi Rhia - where would I find the Ian Mcartney - dti letter - it would be most useful cos I'm in court with link next week

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

 

Well, after not hearing anything from Link for ages and ages, I have now received a default notice from them.

 

Strange, as it as already been defaulted by MBNA.

 

The letter states that if I do not contact them soon, then the agreement will be terminated!!!:confused:

 

What agreement!!?

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff

 

I've received 2 said DNs from Link today, and manc1976 has received 1, as he has reported on his thread here; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/141116-mbna-link-financial-3.html#post1732710

 

I've also posted my thoughts on that thread a few minutes ago so I won't type it all out again here, but suffice it to say I reckon this is just more Link BS, especially to people who have CCA'd them and not received an agreement. :)

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff

 

I've received 2 said DNs from Link today, and manc1976 has received 1, as he has reported on his thread here; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/141116-mbna-link-financial-3.html#post1732710

 

I've also posted my thoughts on that thread a few minutes ago so I won't type it all out again here, but suffice it to say I reckon this is just more Link BS, especially to people who have CCA'd them and not received an agreement. :)

 

Cheers

Rob

 

 

 

 

Hi Rob,

 

 

Yeah, looks like it. Smiffy66 received one as well!

 

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks

 

This is how I think Links works.

 

1/ Firstly you should know they are one of the biggest and most successful debt collection companies in europe.

 

2/ Some say the reason they are so successful is that they are super efficient and always treat the debtor with sympathy and care.(what a joke!!!)

 

If you read some of the pages on this site you might think somewhat differently. (and HOW!!)

 

3/ This super efficient company (another joke!!!)has been known to buy MBNA debts and then not pursue them for a number of years ( but under 6 years!!!)

 

The logic behind this is simple if they go to court - they can say this debt is a very long time ago and is quite reasonable for them not to have detailed records and judges have been known to use their discretion in favour of Link.

 

4/ In my experience when it gets to court if you are appearing in front of a certain judge( perhaps not sympathetic to Link)they will just not turn up and the case is struck out for the time being........

 

5/ One of my cases I appeared in front of a judge who proved not sympathetic to me but the case was adjourned to a different court.

 

At the next court the Judge was sympathetic to me but SURPRISE SURPRISE Links chief witness failed to appear!

 

Because the Link witness did not turn up the case was the adjourned to a third court where the judge was openly hostile to me and I felt I was railroaded through.

 

6/ You have to bear in mind Link do use a certain legal agency (K*****) in their court cases who have on their books very glamorous lady barristers!

 

 

 

8/ To get a good case you need to ask for a Consumer Credit agreement and a full detailed statement of every transaction - properly and legally from BOTH Link and MBNA. If their is anything missing you ask for it to be provided as credit card companies have been known to charge exorbitant and or illegal late payment and other charges which in my opinion should not be in enforceable under any circumstances.

 

You send a POSTAL ORDER for £1.00 with the correct letter ( see National Debt helpline standard letters) to Link by recorded delivery . Do the same to MBNA.

 

Keep the post office postal order receipts with the MBNA and LINK names on and keep copies of the letters.

 

If the information is not provided seek advice before going to court.

 

9/ Some judges have been known to rule almost always in favour of Link as in my view they have the attitude - you borrowed the money you pay!

 

There is a huge hole in this argument and that is that MBNA charged very high rates of interest. If you borrowed the same amount of money secured by a loan on your house it would have cost probably a third of the amount of interest. In my case I paid £12,000 of interest to MBNA over 12 years if I had got a 2nd mortgage on my home the interest would have been less than £4,000.

 

Link are using the courts (which are paid for by the taxpayers) to convert these paperwork deficient debts into debts secured on property. Morally this is completely wrong and you should write to your MP and complain about it.

 

PLEASE NOTE!!!!!! IF ENOUGH PEOPLE WRITE TO THEIR MP THEN THE LAW COULD BE CHANGED !!!

Edited by wotabunny
some people can't see a joke when it is staring them in the face and adverse comment
Link to post
Share on other sites

They "treat the creditor with sympathy and care"? Surely you mean the debtor? Well that's the official line, I gather reality is different. The following article about Link may be of interest:

 

Bring me your bad customers: Banks are not very good at collecting outstanding credit card debt. A new crop of firms are showing them how it should be done. (01-DEC-01) The Banker

 

Looks like a great business model in the right market, but in the current one....? They seek to securitise unsecured debt but that depends on:

Medium term realisation of purchased assets

Stability in the institutional lending market to carry their debt load and enforcement costs

Security to enforce charging orders upon - ie. a stable or rising property market

Stable economy/employment

 

If one goes wrong, they can tweak it. When all go wrong what's a second charge order on a property where value is falling at an accelerating rate worth combined with increasing cost of carrying their debt worth? Add to that the questions about first creditor charge offs on delinquent accounts whilst secondary debt purchasers try to secure the whole amount.

 

Not a business I'd want to have major exposure to right now. Maybe time to set up a third tier purchaser....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont Feed The Troll

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link may not decide where a court case is held but as their barrister said to me -she is in court for them 4 times a week - they get to know the judges and could possibly plan their tactics accordingly. I could be wrong!
how wonderful and totally amazing that Link's 4 superglamourous female barristers know all the county court judges. Maybe we should all surrender and roll over and pay Link cos they will win all their cases because of the four gorgeous barristers. Maybe all the female judges are from the Grek island of Lesbos.
  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks

 

This is how I think Links works.

 

1/ Firstly you should know they are one of the biggest and most successful debt collection companies in europe. Who cares, they still lose everytime ive been incourt against them, the bigger they are the...............

2/ Some say the reason they are so successful is that they are super efficient and always treat the creditor with sympathy and care.now this is just so detached from reality im not even gonna bother

 

If you read some of the pages on this site you might think somewhat differently.

 

3/ This super efficient company has been known to buy MBNA debts and then not pursue them for a number of years ( but under 6 years!!!) Really?? id have said it takes them that long to work out the difference between their ar$e and their elbow

The logic behind this is simple if they go to court - they can say this debt is a very long time ago and is quite reasonable for them not to have detailed records and judges have been known to use their discretion in favour of Link.

 

4/ In my experience when it gets to court if you are appearing in front of a certain judge( perhaps not sympathetic to Link)they will just not turn up and the case is struck out for the time being........

 

5/ One of my cases I appeared in front of a judge who proved not sympathetic to me but the case was adjourned to a different court.

 

At the next court the Judge was sympathetic to me but SURPRISE SURPRISE Links chief witness failed to appear!

 

Because the Link witness did not turn up the case was the adjourned to a third court where the judge was openly hostile to me and I felt I was railroaded through.

 

6/ You have to bear in mind Link do use a certain legal agency (K*****) in their court cases who have on their books very glamorous lady barristers!

 

7/ If you have a good case it is imperative that you are legally represented in court by a solicitor who SPECIALIZES in debt cases.

 

8/ To get a good case you need to ask for a Consumer Credit agreement and a full detailed statement of every transaction - properly and legally from BOTH Link and MBNA. If their is anything missing you ask for it to be provided as credit card companies have been known to charge exorbitant and or illegal late payment and other charges which in my opinion should not be in enforceable under any circumstances.No they are not illegal they are unlawful, there is a difference,

 

You send a POSTAL ORDER for £1.00 with the correct letter ( see National Debt helpline standard letters) to Link by recorded delivery . Do the same to MBNA. There is no need if the debt is assigned to Link to send to MBNA as well, the CCA request is only relevent to the creditor themselves or the company whom assume the rights of the creditor by way of operation of law or assignment

 

Keep the post office postal order receipts with the MBNA and LINK names on and keep copies of the letters.

 

If the information is not provided seek legal advice ( Citizens Advice Bereau is a good starting place )before going to court.WHAT??? yeah good move if you wanna be told to admit the debt, bad move if you want to really defend an action

 

9/ Some judges have been known to rule almost always in favour of Link as in my view they have the attitude - you borrowed the money you pay!

 

Then you have grounds for an appeal on the basis of an error on a point of law

There is a huge hole in this argument and that is that MBNA charged very high rates of interest. If you borrowed the same amount of money secured by a loan on your house it would have cost probably a third of the amount of interest. In my case I paid £12,000 of interest to MBNA over 12 years if I had got a 2nd mortgage on my home the interest would have been less than £4,000.

 

Link are using the courts (which are paid for by the taxpayers) to convert these paperwork deficient debts into debts secured on property. Morally this is completely wrong and you should write to your MP and complain about it.

 

PLEASE NOTE!!!!!! IF ENOUGH PEOPLE WRITE TO THEIR MP THEN THE LAW COULD BE CHANGED !!!

 

I think the story you are telling does not reflect the reality of what happens . Your case is very much a break from the norm, in my experience, if you go to court ill prepared you will get hammered, however you do not need a highflying lawyer, what you need is to research, read and understand the CCA 1974, then get yourself a copy of the case law which supports your case and a copy of Blackstones Civil Practice or such and as long as youve done your reasearch your gonna have a fighting chance

 

im sorry but i do disagree with much of what youve said, and i agree with ODC, its not Link who chose the court location that is a FACT, they may issue proceedings in one court but a litigant in person will always have the case transfered to their local court

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm pleased my experience is not the norm.

 

Yep you choose the court but unless you are told otherwise you choose your local court

and that doesnt mean your choice will give you justice.

 

 

I'm now wishing I had chosen Hull.

 

Anyway I'll leave you experts to advise and keep my mouth shut from now on..

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey thats what i said.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hello all,

 

 

A bit of a development on the Link issue!!

 

 

I have recently received a letter from the Balance Transfer Programme.

 

Has anyone else with an account now owned by Link, or indeed, owned by anyone else received a similar letter recently!?

 

 

This is run by a company called JC International Acquisition Corporation.

 

Now then, they claim they are a "different" type of collection company!

 

 

This is how their system works;

 

You agree to pay the outstanding balance.

 

First, you pay a qualifying amount over a twelve month period.

 

Then the remainder of the balance is transferred to a RISE visa credit card.

 

You get a statement and continue to pay off the debt just like any other credit card.

 

They claim there is no catch! (Well, they would).

 

 

However, in order to take up this offer, you must sign a credit agreement! (This will, of course, now be complete with all the prescribed terms etc...).

 

 

So, can I have some comments or thoughts on this?

 

To me, it seems that they are aware that the current credit agreement is flawed. (Not to mention problems with MBNA selling without first sending a default notice and then Link trying to back peddle with the mass issue of default notices).

 

They are just trying to tie you into a new agreement!

 

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

 

A bit of a development on the Link issue!!

 

 

I have recently received a letter from the Balance Transfer Programme.

 

Has anyone else with an account now owned by Link, or indeed, owned by anyone else received a similar letter recently!?

 

 

This is run by a company called JC International Acquisition Corporation.

 

Now then, they claim they are a "different" type of collection company!

 

 

This is how their system works;

 

You agree to pay the outstanding balance.

 

First, you pay a qualifying amount over a twelve month period.

 

Then the remainder of the balance is transferred to a RISE visa credit card.

 

You get a statement and continue to pay off the debt just like any other credit card.

 

They claim there is no catch! (Well, they would).

 

 

However, in order to take up this offer, you must sign a credit agreement! (This will, of course, now be complete with all the prescribed terms etc...).

 

 

So, can I have some comments or thoughts on this?

 

To me, it seems that they are aware that the current credit agreement is flawed. (Not to mention problems with MBNA selling without first sending a default notice and then Link trying to back peddle with the mass issue of default notices).

 

They are just trying to tie you into a new agreement!

 

 

Jeff.

 

It certainly raises Data Protection issues if Link are passing your personal information to this new company. You might want to raise a complaint that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff, this is a ploy to get you to sign a Customer credit agreement and suck you back into the credit card system as Link cannot get a valid CCA from MBNA, I have been paying Link financial since 2001 for a debt they purchased from MBNA, and i have a thread going in the dealing with debt in Scotland forum it should be worth having a look at.

Edited by blueda
Added content
Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly raises Data Protection issues if Link are passing your personal information to this new company. You might want to raise a complaint that way.

 

 

I would think this also raises other issues, e.g. it goes against guidelines which say they shouldn't encourage you to make further borrowings, which in essence it could be construed to be, also the CPUTR 2008 as it seems to be unfair in that they are attempting to hoodwink people into entering a contract to pay back alleged debts which to all intents and purposes are presently unenforceable. :mad:

 

I think anybody who receives this latest ruse from the detestable Link should report it to the relevant regulative bodies.

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff. I would just file that letter after sending a copy of i to your local TS and oft and who ever else u can get to make a fuss of your complaint, Watchdog are currently liking unscurpuloius companys.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

what concerns me is the way he states that they are quick to get ccjs and then charging orders!

 

the fact is that if a defendant is complying with the terms of the ccj (regular monthly payments) the plaintiff has little or no chance of getting a charging order

 

there has been a lot of hype over charging orders recently and forced house sales but if you look carefully they are almost exclusively due to business (large) debts and defendants not complying with court judgements or hiding their assets and misleading the court as to their means to pay

 

i worry that some of these posts are all flannel with the subtle intention of trying to convince people that charging orders are the norm and easy to obtain

 

in addition if you have multiple unsecured debts charging order applications often fail if the court is shown that one unsecured creditor is trying to get an advantage over other unsecured creditors.

 

In short don't let talk of ccj's and charging orders worry you- if they are obtained serrupticoulsy or by devioius means they are easily set aside

 

(did i spell that right?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...