Thanks. What you say is correct, but I don't mind a potential struggle. (I took Vanquis to court recently, and got a settlement two weeks ago; I expected a struggle, but it turned out quite easy). As I have paid HSL what I owe, and object to paying what I do not owe, I would just be asking for the unlawful part of the balance to be cancelled. I think a judge would consider that to be reasonable, but I will wait for more opinion before I go ahead.

Well over ten years ago I had a credit card with Littlewoods, it later became The Associates, and then Citi Financial. During this time I was seriously ill and my income ceased. It was then put on an instalment plan, and sold to Hillesden Securities Ltd (HSL). In 2008 they obtained a CCJ. Due to poor health I did not challenge this, but agreed to continue paying it off monthly, exactly as before. HSL failed to supply, on written request, any statement or explanation of how the alleged balance was calculated. Even though interest and charges were supposedly "frozen", the balance had clearly increased by a substantial sum. That appeared to be (or include) undisclosed, unlawful charges, and/or interest. I worked out that the amount I had paid up to that point was roughly correct EXCLUDING any unlawful charges, and so I stopped paying any more. HSL also failed to comply with a CCA request, so it was and remains unenforceable. They have made no further contact, nor attempted to enforce. The CRA record for HSL was deleted months ago under the 6-year rule, but the CCJ itself remains permanently on file, unsatisfied, which of course fails to reflect that I have paid what I calculated was the agreed remaining amount, many years ago. Should I apply to the Court for the CCJ to be struck out due to something like maladministration (non-compliance with s78(6) statutory request)? I am concerned that if I just leave it, HSL might wait for me to be older, more feeble-minded and less capable, and then resurrect the CCJ and try to enforce it - even though the amount they claim is due appears to be solely residual unlawful charges or interest after the true debt had been cleared. The existence of this one unsatisfied CCJ is also a minor problem. Thoughts will be appreciated. TIA

Just an "occasional update" (!) as not much happens.... Last year they sent a "statement" from Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd (LFOL). It states that the alleged assignee is Link Financial Ltd (LFL), so LFOL is not claiming any status except that they are presumably acting as an agent for the sister company. At the time I posted on the other thread "Link Financial (MBNA) getting stroppy!", the assignment was invalid, and they ignored a CCA request, so I planned to ignore the new company unless and until they prove a valid claim, and then I will challenge it in Court. Since then however I have been mildly inconvenienced by my CRA records, where this is one of only two slightly embarrassing entries. (The other one is easily rectified, and is in hand). I have also just had a further "statement" from (LFOL). As CAG states elsewhere that DCAs "may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency" and "may not pass to a third party" an alleged debt which is in breach of S78(6), I decided to have one more go at LFOL and have yesterday sent a letter first class recorded reminding them of the default by MBNA and LFL and consequent unenforceable status. I will then ask for removal of the CRA entry. Will report further in due course.

It is all earlier in this thread. Basically mishandling of a cancelled continuous payment authority, and loss of a DD!

Some months ago I read that a number of people were grouping together to take some sort of legal action against Vanquis Bank for harassment. I lost the item but it was probably on CAG or something similar. I have recently won the financial side of a small Vanquis claim out-of-court, but did not pursue the harassment aspect because I wanted to work together with those others who want to deal with Vanquis harassment separately. Is there a thread on plans for legal action against Vanquis Bank for harassment?

I can now confirm settlement of this claim in my favour. Vanquis did not pursue the defence of their charges and interest, and instead refunded them in full to the card, as had already happened to the unauthorized Valuesaver debits. They have also made a further payment in lieu of costs and interest, which I consider adequate compensation.

Update on my dispute with Vanquis Bank (Credit cards): They had refunded the improperly debited Valuesaver payments at the point when they put in a defence. The defence was spurious as they were claiming that interest and other charges were valid, when they had arisen solely because Vanquis had "lost" my direct debit and failed to collect. The Court was going to use mediation, but tried calling me using an anonymous phone number, which resulted in a blocked call! Eventually, with less than a week to the hearing, Vanquis has made an offer (without admission) which will refund all the interest and other charges in full, and covers all my direct costs, and leaves a bit of compensation, so I have told the Court to stay the action. As I understand there are other people putting together an action for harassment, I have dropped that aspect of the MoneyClaimOnline case.

Indeed, but they also could not produce a properly executed agreement for my case before the phone calls started. So there is some common ground. I am ignoring them until/unless they do anything to justify bothering me. -- Arthur

PS: The case where Link's history of harassment caused them to lose a Court case, was Keith Harrison vs. Link Financial Limited - this link is to the Solicitors for Mr Harrison: http://www.watsonssolicitors.co.uk/harrison.html and this link is to the judgment http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

My thoughts are based on my own situation, which was unusual, but may be of interest/use... Firstly, the debt was being repaid under an agreement which MBNA breached, apparently simply because one of their staff didn't know that there are 31 days in January, and treated a payment as late when it wasn't. So they sold it in spite of this agreement (which my wife had made with them on my behalf). They also failed to document the assignment correctly. I told them I considered the assignment was invalid and they have done nothing to show otherwise. The most recent correspondence is from what appears to be a different "Link" company, so this makes the validity of its claim even more doubtful than that of the earlier one! My attitude now is "see you in Court" as I don't think they dare try going to court, because they would come up against the history of harassment which lost them another case (I think it is mentioned on the Vanquis Bank thread). I would have been willing to pay them what my wife agreed with MBNA before the invalid assignment, but the history of harassment makes me want the Court to take that on board and possibly throw them out! Good luck -- Arthur

Thank you. As it happens, I too have a problem with Link (unenforceable at present), relating to an invalid assigment, but this information, particularly para 83 of the Judgment is very interesting. -- Arthur

Update on legal action against Vanquis Card... Since submitting a County Court claim for return of unauthorized debits (to Valuesaver), plus interest and associated costs, Vanquis has (only just in time!) made a full credit of 11 times £6.95, i.e. all the unauthorized debits - but refunded nothing of the interest and associated costs they debited over the past 11 months. I will pursue these items, along with compensation for their harassment (over 30 phone calls since I began the legal action). Can anybody please advise how much is reasonable to claim for harassment of this sort? I will be reducing my claim by the amount refunded, and will advise further when the Court case ends. I have also now advised Action Fraud that they have made a partial refund. -- Arthur

I agree and have refused to speak to them right back since 2008 when my account was invalidly assigned to Link Financial Ltd, company 03504939. As it was invalid and they ignored a CCA request, I will just ignore the new company unless and until they prove a valid claim, and then I will challenge it in Court. -- Arthur

Thanks for copy. The problem is that Vanquis Bank is blatantly ignoring these new rules. Since I submitted a Fraud report to the Police and initiated a County Court claim, Vanquis Bank has started harassment by phone, several times a day even though I have refused to speak to them and insisted on all communications being in writing. I am logging these calls where I am aware of them, and will pass details to the Court in due course. -- Arthur

This is without doubt a separate company legally. What we don't know yet is whether they have any right to harass people who owe the earlier company, and even if they have been validly assigned, those which were unenforceable (e.g. due to non-compliance with CCA requests) are not in fact assignable according to one source. Can anybody else shed any light? I have been looking at the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 today - very helpful. -- Arthur

I am under the impression that the company which was harassing me between 2008 and 2011 was Link Financial Ltd, company 03504939, but the one now harassing me is Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd, company 07059696. Do we know whether the former has assigned its debtor assets to the latter company, and whether these assignments were valid? In my case the original MBNA assignment was suspect, as well as being an error (!) and has never been substantiated, and due to failure to reply to a CCA request several years ago, is unenforceable anyway. I have also sent details to the Ombudsman, just for information at this stage, as a complaint with them was not pursued in 2008 because the matter was unenforceable. They (the new company) have just written a letter saying that they are not going to forget about me! -- Arthur

Update: I have not heard from Hillesden for over a year. The debt is now past the date where it is not worth doing anything, particularly as it is still unenforceable. -- Arthur

As indicated some way back in this thread, Vanquis Credit Card and "Valuesaver" seem incapable of complying with the Consumer Protection Regulations - which allow a continuous card payment authority to be cancelled by notifying the bank (card issuer). They rely on repeating the initial £6.95pm debit, even when cancelled, and charge interest and other fees on this - unless one pays it all off in full, every month. They have charged me for ten months even though cancelled by phone and letter, in the second month! After many months of chasing them in writing without any success, I have now reported Vanquis Bankc/o Provident Financial Group (at the Registered Office) via the (Police) Action Fraud website, and also initiated a claim in Northampton County Court for return of what they charged plus an element of compensation for distress and costs. What effect this has we will see...!

Further to previous. Nobody has responded. My wife and I decided to take no action against Link, unless they attempt to enforce the alleged debt. As they apparently can't comply with my S75 request, and have never provided evidence of a valid assignment, we think it unlikely they will attempt this.

I opened a cash account some months ago because I have a bad credit score - due to a former colleague bringing down my business, followed by serious illness and surgery, resulting in disability - and negligible income for several years. The account was opened very quickly on presenting passport and driving licence. They said I could upgrade it to a current account after 3-6 months of satisfactory operation with a regular income stream. The Cash Account card can be used at most ATMs (unlike a Lloyds one), but there are no SOs or DDs (unlike some other cash accounts). Internet Banking is OK, but a little strange-looking if you are used to HBOS for example. Incoming payments by Faster Payment work fine, but may take more than the usual "2 hours" to be shown; this will apparently get faster soon. Cheque clearance times are as with any bank - they use Barclays as clearing agent, so it should be as with anywhere else. After three months I upgraded to Current account, and once the Faster Payments Out service is available (late December 2011) I plan moving all my SOs and DDs, plus regular credits, across from HBOS. Deposit interest is uncompetitive (this is because the bank regards good service as more important), so I still use a PO Internet Savings a/c for savings. It is easy to move money between them.

My Associates card account was sold to Hillesden in about 2005 after I was in hospital for six months and my income stopped unexpectedly. When interest was frozen (04/2005) the balance was £1307, in 02/2006 it was £1013, in 10/2006 supposedly £1429! There is something seriously amiss with the figures as I was then paying nearly £30/month. They appear to have added nearly £600 and can't or won't say why! Eventually they applied for a CCJ, which I did not oppose other than to confirm I could continue to pay £30pm, but not more - which the Court then confirmed. This was later revised by mutual agreement to £10pm because my limited income fell again. I have therefore already paid off a significant part of the original sum, but they have never sent a statement showing the payments and decreasing balance. I requested a copy regulated Consumer Credit Agreement in October 2008. I understand it should be supplied within 12 working days, but have not sent it after over two years. They did say it "would follow" but it never did. I also asked for a statement of the account - from April 2005 (when the balance was £1307) to date. This would identify the discrepancies, but Hillesden have not supplied anything to explain the inflated figures, so I suspended payments. They are unable to enforce the missing agreement, being in breach of the Act, and will not justify their amount by a proper statement. Without any explanation, the balance appears to have been artificially inflated. They just issued an Annual Statement of Account, which does not attempt to show the way the balance is arrived at! All it shows is an unchanged figure of £873 from 06/2009 TO 12/2010. I reckon the balance should be little more than £200, probably less if it includes unlawful extras prior to the sale of the debt. In view of this extremely irregular handling of my debt by Hillesden, I was advised to request that the Judgment be set aside or struck out. I am writing to the Court (Northampton - who deal with the online service), asking for guidance on how to get it sorted out. Has anybody else had this particular problem with Hillesden, and with what outcome? I have looked in the forum, and they seem almost as "sharp" as Link Financial, though in a different way. TIA Arthur

Further to my post of 15/12/2010, I have not had any response to my Section 77-79 request for the Consumer Credit Agreement. The matter therefore remains unenforceable. I am now considering applying to the Court to get the agreement struck out - is that a good idea? Or should I just wait and see what they do, and if they try to get a CCJ I can defend it and make them look stupid in Court?! The above article only concerns MBNA's internal collections. They weren't as bad to deal with as Link, but still clearly daft (they claimed 31 January was after the end of January)! If they hadn't got that wrong, they would not have assigned it (or tried to) and would have had a 30% settlement which had been pre-agreed on my behalf. Cheers

Just a quick update. I have heard nothing more from MBNA, and nothing from Link Financial until a "Letter before Action" came just this week. It is arrogant, as one expects: "We will obtain and enforce a CCJ...". A bold assumption! I shall of course see whether they do try, but in the meantime I will ask them for a copy agreement. The original agreement my wife made with MBNA was that if I kept up reduced payments for a year, they would accept a full and final settlement of about 30% of the debt. If they had kept to what was agreed with my wife, they would have had this by now! I could presumably try asking the Court (if they do apply) to void the contract in view of their behaviour?

Sorry I haven't said anything for a while... We decided that as Link was trying to collect a wrongly-assigned card account, we would just leave them alone. There was a vaguely associated separate account which MBNA themselves still had direct control of, and we decided in the summer to clear that as it was a very small sum, and we were nervous about it for reasons I won't mention here (MBNA may be reading this!). Link tried one phone call in about August - I told them I was not going to respond other than if they communicate in writing. In about October they sent a "statement" which just repeated the wrongly-assigned balance, but was not particularly threatening. Nothing else. -- Arthur

1. Nothing significant as far as I recall - I would have to get my wife to dig out the earlier part of the file. If they come up with the CCA then we would pursue any charges that were unlawful; until then it is a bit academic, isn't it? 2. No.