I was in a debt management plan until recently, (I have cancelled that arrangement) and unbeknownst to me, during this plan MBNA decided to sell both my alleged debts to Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd. This happened about a year ago and my DMC did not even think to inform me.
I cancelled the plan and payments to Link in June.
I have now received 2 letters regarding each account. Neither letter came recorded and neither letter have any of the original account numbers on them, but kindly offering me the chance to call them and arrange payment, even giving specific opening times and days of the week. The letter also comes with a handy personal budget plan on the back in case I want to offer a preferred payment plan. (umm….I’m thinking NO!)
Seeing as I have no idea who ‘Link’ are, and as there are no original account Numbers to even give me a hint about where this alleged debt might have come from, with the fact that they were not sent recorded delivery…I’m planning to ignore it for the time being and see what they do next.
But of course, any opinions gratefully accepted for consideration.
I agree with your course if action, maybe just fishing. RTS if you can, then wait and see.
This seems to be a tactic of Link at present. They tried the same crap with me a few months ago, I replied twice in writing asking what their claim related to (I know fine well and I also know that they have broken many rules so far in relation to their activities and can’t wait to confront them about this) but they have yet to respond 🙄
3 letter system carried through to the end and still nothing ……
Ah well, if they’ve got to leave me alone who am I to complain.
Hopefully they go the same route with you.
All the best 😀
You might just want to ignore
I have raised a complaint about them and their practices.
I will keep you updated on what happens. I should hear shortly.
I suggest you report them if you feel their practices are not within the rules.
Don’t suppose you have received a postcard yet asking you to call a Chris White? As this is another tactic they use!
Nothing yet, other than these letters, but I will ignore them until I get something a little more concrete to go on.
Someone from Link called me at home today, but unfortunately they could not get past my security questions and got a little irate, they hung up in the end.
Link: Hello can I speak with *my name* (they didn’t use my surname)
Me: can I ask who is calling?
Link: My name is Fran and I’m Link Financial Outsourcing Limited, can I run you through some questions for the data protection act?
Me: Fran, who?
Link: Fran *Surname*
Me: Link? Who are they?
Link: If you just let me run through some questions, I can give you more information
Me: Ok, can you confirm your full name please?
Link: I just gave you that sir,
Me: Yes, but I need you to confirm it for security questions
Link: No I need to ask you some security questions?
Me: What for?
Link: For data protection purposes?
ME: Whose data are you protecting?
Link: Yours Sir.
ME: So you ring me and want me to give you my full name and other personal details to protect my data protection from myself?
Link: No sir We need to go through the data protection so that I know that I am speaking to the right person.
ME: oh, ok…but how do I know who you are?
Link: I’m sorry sir, I don’t understand.
Me: ok Sam, let me explain
Link: It’s Fran sir, my name is Fran
Me: Where did Sam go? this is confusing.
Link: No sir, it’s always been Fran
Me: ok Fran, hello, can we go through some security questions then?
Link: Yes, can you confirm
Me: Wait…I need to go through the security question first to ensure I know who you are and to protect your data
Link: what? no..sir you need to answer questions
Me: you called me, you need to answer first, why would anyone give personal details to a complete stranger over the phone?
Link: line goes dead……..
That’s exactly what I do, can get quite entertaining – maybe I need to get out more 😀
I dont really suggest speaking to these rsoles on the phone, however whenits entertaining like this and you are in control – GO FOR IT 😀 😀 😀 😀
😆 😆 😆
I do this when I’m bored ….. amazing how they disappear and don’t phone back for ages 😆 😆 😆
Seeing as Link were unsuccessful at passing my security questions last time they called, I suggested to Fran/Sam that they’d be better off sending everything in writing with FULL details of the person responsible for the information.
They have sent this letter… 😆
However, I think they’ll find it was the person at Link that refused to confirm any details…..I know who I am, shame they don’t!
Write if you want and tell them by letter only please or ignore.
It has gone quiet on the ‘Link’ situation. I presume it will take time for my case to be shuffled from various desks and departments before they try to make contact again (unless they try to sell it on I suppose).
They have not telephoned at all though which is strange, I quite like having fun with them….
Peace is good, i guess your case is now on low or not at all priority, sounds good to me
Link have called my home telephone (they have my mobile) and left a message for me to call them back on. I shall be ignoring all calls and not communicating with them until they send a letter detailing fully, what they want. Then I shall start the 3 letter process with them.
Link called my mobile number today, but were unwilling to pass my security questions so hung up empty handed. When I arrived home there was a letter from Stink…I mean Link, stating that I had refused to confirm details (the post is bloody quick thought) on a telephone call.
I haven’t started any 3 letter process yet and will start that once they actually write to me detailing what it is they want from me.
We await further information.
Lost at sea replied:
Maybe we should all have some fun with them and all call them, ask them to pass security questions, oh and ask for fran. 😆
Had exactly the same p*sh from them 4/5 months ago, stuck out the process and have heard nothing since 😆 😆
If they are contacting you about rights due to an assigned debt – then you can tell them – CCA 1974 s.82A no longer exists and has not existed since 1st April 2014…..
cca 1974 s.82A: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/82A
s.82A OMITTED link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013 … icle-20-32 [ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1881/article/20/made#article-20-32 ]
(32) Section 82A (assignment of rights) (24) is omitted.
Not only that – Link Outsourcing don’t even have FCA permission to chase debts under the CCA 1974 – cheeky mares!!
Definitely need to take them through security the next time they call !!! 😆 😆 😆
Is it not now covered by The Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010 Section 36? or does that mean variation of agreement rather than assignment?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010 … on/36/made
[ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1010/regulation/36/made ]
Does the Interim Permission allow them to carry on? Sorry bit confused
Given they have not explained why they need any contact and time has elapsed it cant be that they should be taken seriously ,so just block calls and wait for a sanitised mail response as by now they must be considering passing on or folding ie dont waste any more time on it – IT IS A DEAD PARROT sorry claim.
No it is not… s.82A albeit initially brought into force by the Eu Directive you refer to is one of the sections since omitted by virtue of this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1881/part/5/made
So, there is no longer a s.82A – suggestions that this is not true are not well made out – all that’s happened is it is one of the changes yet to be input into the CCA 1974 – but if you go to s.82A CCA 1974 and go to “View Outstanding Changes” a drop down box will appear and you will see there that s.82A is omitted.
If you go to the FCA Register and look at Link Financial Outsourcing’s status – you will see – like I said previously – they did apply for authority – The “Authorisation” status is there in black and white – however, when you look at their “Permissions” therein – you will see for yourself that debt collecting which was formerly party to their “IP Issued” status is not one of the “permissions” under it’s Authorised Licence status.
It is only those permissions party to the “Authorised” status that they can carry on.
If anything I’ve said still does not make sense by all means let me know….It is not my intent to leave anyone confused :ugeek:
..well…I’ll be bloody jiggered… 😥
So I really do not need to enter in ANY dialogue with them as they have no position or authority.
Have you reported them to Action Fraud Yet??
If not, I strongly suggest you do.
Not yet, but guess what I will be spending the first part of tomorrow doing.
I wonder then, if they have no authority or position, are they legally allowed to process my data? or is it that they simply should not be contacting me until they believe they have what they need?
No, it makes sense that they have no such rights.
I think I’ve seen where GOODF members use section 10 notices… but probably best to report them to AF and other relevant authorities first though.
Arrived just in time for Christmas.
Now, given that Link are not allowed to collect debts or act in regulated activity, do I challenge that part first, then see where that goes and then at some point challenge them with the 3 letter process, or just go straight into the 3 letter process.
I know never to call them, although I do have fun with them when they call me.
I enjoyed reading this…
would love to know the answer to this as I have had Stink Financial on my back for the last couple of years. So far so good with the three letters but it would be great to shake the monkey from my back!
The answer is – ignore them – if they try to bring or enforce any order of the court – if you have reported them to Action Fraud – any bailiff sent – risks being arrested.
As aforesaid – Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd do not have FCA permission to collect on any outstanding MBNA credit card debt.
Their FCA licence was determined and they were granted permission on the 11th April 2014 – their Full FCA Licence DOES NOT include permission to debt collect.
This Statutory Instrument makes it clear – this is what now applies to Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd’s “IP Issued” status:
Duration of interim permission
58.–(1) P’s interim permission, in so far as it relates to a particular regulated activity or class of activity ceases to have effect–
(a)if P applies to the appropriate regulator for Part 4A permission to carry on that activity or (as the case may be) to vary P’s permission to add that activity to those to which the permission relates, before a date specified in a direction given by the FCA (“the application date”), the date on which that application is determined;
If you do have a report lodged with AF – update it – copy word for word what they say in the letter please.
This is just brief info – depends on what they do next – in the meantime, please ignore them – keep the letter on file – but, do not respond to the threatogram letter.
I have reported Link to Action Fraud.
“Duration of interim permission
58.–(1) P’s interim permission, in so far as it relates to a particular regulated activity or class of activity ceases to have effect–
(a)if P applies to the appropriate regulator for Part 4A permission to carry on that activity or (as the case may be) to vary P’s permission to add that activity to those to which the permission relates, before a date specified in a direction given by the FCA (“the application date”), the date on which that application is determined;”
I have also received telephone calls from 2 different people who will not give their full name, just insist they are not allowed to say anything apart from their first name and the name of the organisation. When I ask what Link actually do, they revert to script. They do not want to play anymore….
I have also had an anonymous letter, but no actual details about what it is they are claiming, just that I am not willing to give personal details over the phone. haha
For my other Link account, they have now sent through an anonymous and undated letter claiming my debt has been sold.
We’ll see what happens next I guess
Got a notice/statement this morning.
I have duly noted that it appears to be a statement of account, but also a notice. They also ‘encourage’ me to get in touch (that’s nice) However, If they are sending this in ‘Compliance with the CCA 1974’, but appear not authorised to do so, would that be a criminal matter?
It also appears to be a ‘statement of account’. However, I do not remember borrowing money from this crowd, or entering an agreement or contract with them.
Now I presume I start the 3 letter process on this specific letter.
Non of the letters I have received have been via recorded or guaranteed delivery. This letter does not even have an accompanying letter to explain what it is for, or signed in anyway.
shows ‘bacs’ payments in July and August 15 – have they taken money from your account??
Like I say, if they take this to court – they will have to explain what they are doing ‘entering into an agreement…. blah, blah, blah
I wouldn’t bother sending them the 3 letters – it only acknowledges to them that you are alive and well…. right now they are non the wiser – leave them to it.
i don’t want to bore you with the same ole same ole, but – have you reported them to Action Fraud as yet? – if you did, you would simply update your report to include this letter they have sent to you.
CCA 1974 s.156, s.82A – is omitted.
I was previously in a Debt Management Plan, and had no idea that MBNA had sold the account to Link…the DMA did not let me know, they said it was none of my business – can you believe that? –
anyhoo, I cancelled the DMA and have dealt with Link since then (having nothing to do with them)….I have no business with Link, nor do I want any….
I have reported to action fraud and got the CRN no: & password…I’ll update it later.
Am I right in thinking that;
A firm that only has interim permission (IP) from the FCA cannot appoint a representative to collect or chase debts as they do not have full authorisation.
Interim Permission was given to firms previously regulated by the Office of Fair Trading when the FCA took over the regulation of consumer credit. All interim Permissions were assigned to firms within their own application period in which they had to apply for ‘authorisation’ and the FCA would then decide if they wanted to authorise them or not.
As a result of this, firms with Interim Permission cannot appoint representatives as they are not yet authorised themselves.
You are correct.
Link Financial Outsourcing do not have any Appointed Representatives registered with the FCA.
Yes, as I understand it, the OFT licence was a pre-requisite to firms being allocated “IP Status” by the FCA. Those firms were then expected to make an application within a specified allotted application period.
The FCA had to determine whether they would grant ‘Authorisation’ or not.
At the time the application is considered – firms should have let the FCA know if they wanted or had firms that acted for them as ‘Appointed Representatives’…….
In other words – Link Financial Outsourcing (“LFO”) would be a “Principal” to any such “Appointed Representative” firm/s and be responsible to ensure those Appointed Representatives adhere to FCA Rules and only carry on the permissions under the “Principles” licence – this is not the case for LFO.
IP status firms do not have Appointed Representatives.
The letters from Link states that they are Authorised and Regulated by the FCA quoting number 632508
However, The FCA website also states that Link have Interim Permission only and as such would not be authorised. This a confusing area as the FCA state the IP Issued means they ARE NOT authorised., but interim permission means they can conduct business as they did before until the apply and are authorised.
https://register.fca.org.uk/shpo_search … utsourcing
[ https://register.fca.org.uk/shpo_searchresultspage?search=link+financial+outsourcing&TOKEN=3wq1nht7eg7tr ]
[ “link financial outsourcing” ]
LFO have applied to the FCA and did so within their allotted time frame.
If you now hover your cursur over the IP issued status it will make a lot more sense to you.
I have checked my Experian file today and notice that Link Financial has registered a default on both accounts that were allegedly with MBNA.
I have not had any notice of Link’s intent to do this, but interestingly MBNA had defaulted the account in July of 2014, can Link do this, register another default?
Should they have written prior to this to offer remedy and explain under what section they are placing the default?
if they have bought the debt they are allowed to step into the shoes so as to speak of the original creditor and effectively the default is then registered to them,they cannot default you again as you can only be defaulted once ,however just having quick glance at the history its obvious they don’t have evidence to support their claim so you might just leave sleeping dogs to lie and wait for the inevitable when 6 yrs elapses from original default and the debt dissapears
I think that’s what I shall do, just wait for any potential claim and go from there….
Given the elapsed time i think you can sleep easily ,if they had the evidence by now they would have shown it!!!!!!!!
I am in the same situation with Link Financial. Barclaycard sold my debt to them. Link sent me 2 letters already, the same the other users posted encouraged me to contact them to discuss the options available to settle the debt. The also sent me text message and email with the same purpose.
Are they allowed to collect the debt, or this situation is only for the debt bought from MBNA?
I am so confused and don’t know what to do. I didn’t contact them so far and did not reply for mail or letters. Should I try to offer them a full and final settlement?
Please start your own thread and not hijack someone else,s to get more responses.Then set out your situation including amount,debt type,claimant,original creditor,when defaulted etc.
Posted for reference. 🙂
The nice folk at Link have written to me to say the reason they have NOT written for a while is because they needed to validate my address…
They would like me to contact them regarding my intentions…
Return to sender addressee unknown if you can !!!!!!!!
Funny, I called Barclays and they say they DO NOT DEAL with Link.
Methinks someone at barclays is ILLEGALLY making a few £££ on the side. You will find there is NEVER any notice of assignment with Link. I suspect there cannot be because they they are paying some scumball at barclays through the backdoor (probably taking up there too).