Had a response letter from them yesterday basically again referring to their letter informing us of the change of policy with no proof of postage/delivery and also that the information in our ticket booklet saying that the tax had been paid on booking was incorrect??? I would take that as an admission that the goal posts had been moved post booking. Consumer direct will be informed as soon as possible.

Thanks the holiday was booked in May 2008 I think and as far as we were aware the departure tax was included in the price of the holiday. I believe that up to 12,000 people were affected by this change and at the airport in Cancun on the return many passengers had got differing information including one person who worked for Co-Op travel who was not aware of the First Choice change of policy.

I have referred this to consumer direct and they have advised me to write to First Choice again asking their exact reasons for refusing a refund. They seem to think because First Choice claim to have sent me a letter but have no proof of postage that my claim is valid as the website information stated that the exit tax was paid. I will wait and see what develops.

We booked through a travel agent but the information for departure tax was stated on First Choice own website as paid for. This information was the most up to date which was available within the public domain and as i understand this was the information which should be relied on.

We went to Mexico in November with First Choice Holidays afew days prior to our departure from the U.K we had a letter from them stating that we were responsible for paying our own departure tax. A quick visit to the first choice website told a different story and clearly stated that departure tax was part of the cost of the holiday we then checked this information the day before departure from the U.K and also on our return after the holiday and the information remained that this fee was part of the holiday cost. We wrote to first choice and asked for a refund of these charges stating our case and including printed off copies of their own web pages to be met with refusal. A second stronger letter to them has not altered their stance. It is our belief that many people who travelled to this region with First Choice were affected by this charge and would ask for advice how to proceed with getting a refund from them.

Send them a cca letter and wait for their response

Just had a call from 0208 495 8738 which said if you are available to take the call press 1 a quick search on who calls me shows it as crapquest. Beware if you press 1 you could be deemed to have called them. Earlier today had a call from a number in Truro which traces to a possible solicitors told them to go away could this be a coincidence?

This is the reply from the OFT recieved today Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) Complaint Against: Link Financial Limited Licence No: 446835 Thank you for your email dated 14 December 2008, further to your earlier email, updating us about the problems you are still having with the above mentioned trader. We will take into account the further information you have helpfully given us as we continue to monitor this trader’s fitness to hold a credit licence. Unfortunately, we cannot disclose any details about any action we may take, due to legal restrictions on the OFT relating to disclosure of information. Thank you once again for taking the time to write to us about this matter. Yours sincerely Olushola Egbowon Enquiries and Reporting Centre Office of Fair Trading Keep up the pressure folks

Yes it has been sent

Just a rant to the OFT but I had to get it off my chest Link Financial are phoning neighbours purporting to be a long lost friend and asking me to call back. This is totally underhand and probably illegal. I am aware from my association with the consumer action group that this is a tactic that Link Financial employ on a regular basis. I am also aware through this association that that there have been more complaints which have supporting evidence about this company and I demand that their status is urgently reviewed and their fitness to hold a consumer credit licence questioned. If 1 person commits suicide as a result of Link Financial Ltd actions then the blood will be on the hands of the OFT.

My complaint drew this response, if anyone wants to provide deails to the OFT feel free Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) Complaint Against: Link Financial Limited Licence No: 446835 Thank you for your email received on 4 November 2008. I apologise for the delayed response. The Consumer Credit Register (‘CCR’) provides details of applications for holders of consumer credit licences, both current and past. It also contains details of any OFT decisions to refuse an application or revoke a consumer credit licence as well as information relating to any appeal against this decision. Due to legal constraints, the OFT is unable to disclose any further information relating to licence applications above and beyond that which is available on the CCR. The register can be accessed from the OFT web-site at:- http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/Default.aspx The CCR entry for Link Financial Limited (licence number 0446835) shows its licence status to be ‘current’ – which is correct. In considering the fitness of any business to hold a consumer credit licence we can take account of any relevant matters. If you have any information which you believe may be relevant to Link’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, we would be grateful if you could forward full details (including copies of any relevant letters or documents) to us for our consideration. Please do not send any original documents as we will not be able to return these to you. If we were to consider it appropriate to ask Link to respond to any information you provide, we would need to disclose your identity along with details of the information provided. We would therefore be grateful if you could sign the enclosed consent form and return it in the freepost envelope provided. Due to the aforementioned legal constraints on disclosure, we cannot disclose details about- or updates regarding- any action that may be taken as a consequence of any information you provide - should it be considered appropriate to pursue any such action. Providing copies of agreements regulated by the Act We note that your letter raises concern in regard to executed credit agreement. As you may know, s63 of the Act covers how and when lenders must provide consumers with a first (and where appropriate second) copy of a regulated agreement. It is clearly in the lender’s best interests to retain details of the original agreement and any subsequent variations or changes made to it, particularly as consumers can request a subsequent ‘true’ copy of most types of agreement under ss77 and 78 of the CCA (and on payment of the appropriate fee). There are rules about what is likely to constitute a ‘true copy’ under these sections of the Act. Further, if a consumer does make a valid request for a copy of their agreement under these provisions and the lender does not comply with the request the agreement may not be enforceable in the Courts, subject to any other mitigating factors. So apparently Links licence is current

Done e.mail sent

I have today recieved from the court a reposession notice for the car despite the fact that Link have still failed to send a TRUE copy of the cca. They are aware that i know and i wonder if they think i will be stupid enough to send a copy of the original document to either them or the court. The court have advised me to write in with my observations and i also intend to use the fact that i have never recieved a default notice from either GE or Link (which i believe should be delivered either by hand or signed for) to once again get the case dropped. Is there anything else that i can do to cause pain to Link?

I wrote to GE about the lack of DN and also to Link about their "true" copy of the CCA looking different to my TRUE copy Link have written back to me asking for a copy of my copy so that they can peruse it and comment. Strange thing is I have missed the post so unfortunately they wont be getting it.

See my thread re the cca that I have received

I have decided to write to GE (the original owner) and point out that the default notice which i never received from them had not been properly served and point out that in which case they still legally own the debt as it could not have been properly assigned under these circumstances. I have then offered to pay to them installments to bring the matter to a close bearing in mind that about 50% of the balance that is showing is made up of dubious charges. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

It is not my signature that has been forged there are three signatories on the cca mine, the salesperson and the representitive of GE the representitive of GE is a different person on my original and the copy that Link have sent, the salespersons signature looks to be forged therefore it is clear that this is not a true copy of the original cca there are also other discrepancies which reinforce the fact that thiscca is not a copy of the original document

The cca that link have sent me has got a different signature in fact a completely different name for the representitive from G.E. Information is clearly missing which is written on the original along with what appears to be a forged signature from one of the signatory's.The handwriting does not match that on the original document. So it is NOT a true copy

So do I write to them saying that this is not the true copy of the original agreement and await their response or do I go down the route of accusing them of fraud or deception by trying to make me believe that what they had sent me was a true copy. As has been said before T.S and the OFT are useless so which of the authorities would get involved? I dont want to send a copy of the original document to the court because then Link get a chance to see it and they could then reconstruct a document to look more like the original one.:confused:

I still hold my copy of the ORIGINAL agreement and believe me the cca that they have sent me is different in many respects. They have now sent me a copy of the default notice which they claim was sent to me previously but i never received, the point that i was trying to make is that the notice if indeed it was sent before was not sent by either personal delivery or with proof of delivery receipt as it seems is required to make it valid

There is no suggestion in the paperwork that Link are going ahead with the claim but i assume that a copy of the documents will be sent to the court and that will automatically re-start proceedings. Do I let Link know that the cca document is false or do I wait until the court asks for my revised defence ( if that is what will happen) Inerestingly, a previous post mentioned that if the default notice was not personally or recorded delivery then it was not properly delivered and therefore Link do not own the debt, although they may think that they do. I maintain that I never had a default notice and no way can link produce proof otherwise unless it is as forged as the cca.

I have today had some documentation from link financial including what they porport to be a copy of my cca, default notice etc. however on close inspection the cca document is obviously a forgery with details missing, different people signing for Ge (the original owner of the debt) and dates written in a different format. They have also sent in the documentation copies of default notice which I never received and also an assignment notice which again was never previously received. The witness statement signed by Link mentions the service of documents and refers to a case where documents were supposed to have been sent but never received and papers were deemed as delivered. Can someone please advise me what my next step should be? Should I report this matter to the OFT for further investigation

I have a problem with lloyds tsb regarding a credit card and i believe that they may be operating sharp practices. We pay the amount then lloyds hold the payment until they can apply a late payment charge this takes the account over limit and then it is passed to their collections department who then phone, text on a regular basis despite being sent a telephone harrassment letter.This department then does not send a statement for the next due date and the account falls further into arrears causing more charges. If you phone them to complain then you get the verbal treatment, has anyone else had this happen to them?

Yes i used e.mail myself although the initial response took quite a while

I would say complain. If the OFT think that there are no grounds they will advise you