Link PAPLOC Now Claimform - Old SLC Loans

[citizenB]

Quote

In regards to the payment applied to your account in July 2005, I have taken the liberty of enclosing reprints of your annual statements previously issued by the SLC. I have highlighted the payment in question which I hope satisfies your claim."

Do you recognise the payment they have highlighted ?

It seems to me as though Link are clutching at straws.

1st they try to prevent you from sending SAR to the original creditor.

Then they seem to think that just because there IS an amount on the statement, they can just hoodwink you into beleiving that you did actually make the payment.

Were there any payments made AFTER the amount they are claiming you made ?

[WhitmoreReans]

I have no knowledge of the payment at all, and as far as I know, no other payments have been made after this.

[dx100uk]

what awlays makes me laugh is its ALWAYS

link and stdent loans that these 'phantom' payments appear on.

 

pers i think its time to ignore them.

 

then lets study that sar.

 

dx

[Bazooka Boo]

I'd certainly be inclined to ignore Link farcical and their very spurious claims, could be deemed as misleading but that won't help the issue at hand ATM.

 

Get the SAR off to SLC pronto, and regardless of what they believe or consider, the account is still firmly in dispute up and until the SLC have replied to your SAR.

[citizenB]

I have no knowledge of the payment at all, and as far as I know, no other payments have been made after this.

 

Chances are that this is a "phantom" payment then.

 

What you need to do is look at the payments made previously.. any gap between the "queried" payment and the payment made prior to that one?

[WhitmoreReans]

I'm back from my disastrous camping trip so I can now move forward:

So, I will get the SAR letter off to the SLC and

Write to Link to inform them that I've requested the SAR and that the account is still firmly in dispute until I hear from the SLC.

The objective here is to prevent a CCJ, that would be a disaster for me - I'm not a 'won't pay' person, but I am trying to hold them off until I am in a position to pay on my terms, and I definitely don't want to surrender to this bunch of crooks.

citizenB said:

any gap between the "queried" payment and the payment made prior to that one?

Absolutely, as far as I can remember there were no other payments prior to the one in question - sadly I've never earned enough to pass the repayment threshold.

[Bazooka Boo]

I'm back from my disastrous camping trip so I can now move forward:.

That didn't involve a polar bear did it??

 

The objective here is to prevent a CCJ,

I don't think you need worry about that, you will have plenty of opportunity to defend that if it ever reared it's ugly!

[WhitmoreReans]

Fortunately no polar bear but a flooded tent and a very very annoyed staffie (and wife!)

[WhitmoreReans]

Still not heard from the SLC, but I have had a letter from Link in reply to me teeling them that I would be seeking an SAR from the student loans company:

 

"Dear Mr WhitmoreReans,

 

As previously explained to you, the original creditor sold your account as part of the government Student Loan Debt Sale in 1998 to Finance for Higher Education (FFHE). We, Link Financial Outsourcing, are servicing the account on behalf of the debt owner FFHE. THerefore, any Subject Access Request must be submitted to us and not the Student Loans Company, who no longer have an interest in your account.

 

We may, if necessary, contact the Student Loans Company to verify information or extract documents, however this is part of the compilation of the SAR request of which the fee of £10.00 covers.

 

I am concerned that you have been given independent advice that advises you otherwise from what I have stated above and would be grateful if you could inform me of the independent advice body used and I will contact them directly to explain the SAR process to ensure that other customers are not given incorrect and time wasting advice.

 

I cannot empahsise strongly enough that if you require advice or guidance towards the seriousness of your current position or the inevitable consequences of your failure to agree a repayment plan with us, that you contact a recognised independent advice council such as the Citizens Advice Bureau or the Coinsumer Credit Counselling Service, both of whom offer free and accurtate advice.

 

We have advised you as your deferment period ended on 19 September 2005, this is the Cause of Action date that we have used to refute your claim that the account is out of statute.

 

With regards to the payment of 5 July 2005, we have shown you this appeared on your annual statement issued in 2005 and you failed to challenge this at this point and therefore I am satisfied from the collecting agent to the SLC correctly. Also, as stated, this payment does not form part of the Cause of Action date.

 

As advised in your complaint response of 9 June 2011, we no longer consider this account in dispute and see this letter merely as a time wasting tactic to avoid repayment of this debt. We have offered you the opportunity to contact us and with a reasonable offer of repayment and we would be happy to discuss that with you. however, if you continue to ignore your responsibility towards this debt or act on inaccurate advice from a non recognised service, then we will continue our process of obtaining and enforcing a County Court Judgement against you. I have also commenced the process of updating the UK Credit Refernce agencies with your defaulted balance, and this will be reported at August end month.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Link Dicksplash."

 

 

Now, as the defaulted balance dropped off my credit files months ago, am I right in thinking that they can't put it back onto my credit files? And, more importantly, where do I go from here? Now quite worried.

[dx100uk]

what a load of old twaddle

 

all trying to convice you its not statute barred.

 

it IS statute barred as it's off your CRA

 

and no they cannot re-reg it.

 

i bet the OFT etc would love to see the lengths these muppets to to try and spoof people.

 

dx

[Cadbury1879]

Hi

IMO nothing to worry about, mind games from stink.

Take the advice and speak to cab etc. Then qoute in any correspondence.

Can't see why anyone can state that this is not SB.

All the best

Cad

[debt4get]

yep i agree defo statute barred...this is simply an attempt to screw money out of you...

i have also just realised that the payment they are claiming could have been made any time that year..as according to slc they do not have access to any payments made until after the end of the financial year when they are then informed by the revenue that payments have been made onto the account...this means that the payment could have been made any time in that year

[Bazooka Boo]

It also seems they are following your case on here! Referring to CAG as a "Non recognised service"

 

Now is the time to make a formal complaint to the OFT & TS via consumer direct, continuing to chase a debt that is SB...

[WhitmoreReans]

Thanks for your help gents, I'll look into making a complaint via consumer direct, and I'll keep you posted when I hear from the SLC.

[Condado]

I think debt4get has came in halfway through the movie:???:.

The debt is pre 98 therefore not collected by inland revenue.

A bit mixed metaphores with loan types.

[debt4get]

i apologise didnt read whole thread you are quite correct if it is pre1998, then it is not collected by ir...

[MrHat]

any updates?

[Condado]

Probably still Party Partying Share the good word with us !!

[WhitmoreReans]

Evening all,

As you are all no doubt aware, today is the 20th of September 2011.

Now, for those of you who have been following this sorry saga may be aware that according to Link, this matter wasn't statute barred due to the loan being deferred in september 2005 and that SB status wouldn't kick in until six years later.

Well, today is indeed that momentous day, six years from deferment, so even according to link this is SB. So imagine my surprise when i returned home to find a statement of account from link which showed that they are adding £15 odd quid a month in interest! Well, Link parasites, you can add as much interest as you like, a million a month if you like

For all of you that have supported me I would like to say a sincere thank you, to Link, I'd like to say a sincere [edit]

I mentioned a while ago that it would be good to buy you guys a beer, instead ill be making a donation to CAG and if you sign up to the Marston's mailing list they'll send you beer vouchers!

Seriously gents thank you.

ps does any one have any ideas as to how I could give Link a taste of their own medicine?

[Bazooka Boo]

I believe you have just done it!

 

If I was being really vindictive and wanted to gloat, I might send them one final letter outlining their last missive remarking that the debt wasn't SB and wouldn't be SB until TODAY..... then thank them for their assistance in advising you accordingly, you have again closed your files, as you did when this account did infact first become statute barred, but you were just having some fun with them and appeasing their tiny minds in making them think you actually gave a monkeys.

 

Sign off

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

[MrHat]

thanks for the update!

[count orlok]

I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, but there is an argument that as you deferred for a year the "clock" does not start until a year after deferment; as that would be the time payment was due, up until then all things where as they should be and you had effectively acknowledged that you owed the debt for the year just that under the rules you didn't need to pay.

In the way that a normal debt's SB clock does not start until a month after the last payment was made.

Had you not deferred then the clock would have started when the first payment was due, and not paid.

The fact that link have said the loan will become SB on said date could be a trick to get you to acknowledge it.

[martin g]

hi,

 

Wouldn't claiming a date to mislead be an offence under CPUTP 2008?

 

I am sure that it would and should cause Link a lot of grief and possible action against them in a criminal court.

 

Martin g

[victoria_siempre]

Hi

 

I agree with count; do not let vanity give hostage to fortune.

 

x

 

v

[WhitmoreReans]

I understand your point, howevever the loan was deferred in 2004 and exited deferment in September 2005,so unless I'm mistaken the six years are up.