MBNA - Link Financial

[Bigdunc]

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

[wotabunny]

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

[wotabunny]

Where would I find the Mccartney - dti letter?

[Jeff2000]

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!!!

 

What agreement!!?

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[robcag]

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

[Jeff2000]

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.

[wotabunny]

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 September 27, 2008 by wotabunny
some people can't see a joke when it is staring them in the face and adverse comment

[matsinlondon]

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....

[ODC]

ONe MAJOR flaw in Wotabunnies post.

 

LINK do NOT decide the Court the matter is heard in. The Court is selected by the defendant.

 

I smell a troll

[wotabunny]

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!

[robcag]

Hi ODC

 

 

I smell a troll

 

I didn't like to say, but .....

 

Cheers

Rob

[The GodMother]

Dont Feed The Troll

[wotabunny]

Talk to the National Debt helpline to quote a lady there.

 

Without an agreement it is unenforceable but up and down the country judges are ignoring that!

[ODC]

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.

[pt2537]

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

[wotabunny]

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..

[mr.ton]

Dont feed the troll

[The GodMother]

hey thats what i said.

[Jeff2000]

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.

[Jeff2000]

There is a link to the abovementioned company!

 

 

Balance Transfer Programme

[matsinlondon]

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.

[blueda]

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 March 19, 2009 by blueda
Added content

[robcag]

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.

 

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

 

Cheers

Rob

[The GodMother]

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.

[diddydicky]

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?)