Hello from Ireland, Student Loan Dilema & Link Financial have lead me here.

[WarrenBuffet]

Telephoned the Student Loans Company today lunchtime on the 0141 243 3964 telephone number and

 

spoke with a very decent chap by the name of .....,

 

he told me what i already knew and that his computer systems do not go back as far as the pre98 loans

but he would pass me through to someone who could help me out ...........

 

........ I was passed through to a Scottish chap who called himself ..... and

 

i had this gut feeling that i had spoken with this fella before but couldn't for the life of me work out where or when?

 

I asked ..... if he would tell me how many loans and when i had taken these loans out?

 

He refused and said that he was not 'Legally obliged'!?

 

at this point the penny dropped and i remember he was the guy who first made contact with me over 10 years ago

and was threatening at the time citing CCJ, Debt Collectors and demanding payment in full for the outstanding debt!

 

I remember at the time he did cause me considerable alarm and it was he who forced me to set up the £5 standing order!!!!

 

I asked him for his full name and he was abit taken aback but he did give his surname

and i then decided to have some fun and told him that he was legally obligated to divulge these details

as i had passed through his security questions and that

 

i demanded to know how many student loans i had:

 

what were the years of these loans and

what was the full amount of these loans combined upon them being passed over to the DCA?

 

He then proceeded to tell me his surname,

position within SLC,

amount of loans taken by myself but

 

at this point he would divulge when the loans were "Sold" to Thesis and

he told me to contact them regarding this info.

 

I told him that i would SAR SLC as he had confirmed that they do hold details on my loans upto the time upon which the loans had been sold to Thesis,

 

i have progress and it looks like i will be sending SLC a SAR's letter.

 

he, it turns out is not the "Legal dept" of the SLC that he claimed to be some 10yrs previously

rather he is the "Collections dept" of the same organisation and it would appear that the SLC are as dishonest as the Debt Collectors they employ.

 

In case anyone wishes to know who this disgrace to the Scottish Nation is and he tries a dirty tricks campaign that causes considerable

anxiety, worry and distress then his surname [EDIT}

 

So if you encounter him beware!!!!

 

He would not confirm if a CCJ had been taken against me

 

i will await Links response on that although he was the original person to tell me i did have a CCJ.

 

I did not tell him that i recognised his voice but i did and i kept the conversation civil

as we all know you don't get very far when you become aggressive.

Edited October 8, 2013 by WarrenBuffet

[WarrenBuffet]

Sorry dx, i have just seen your post. OK i will trust you as you are experienced in these things and withhold the CCA,SAR and payment until Link react.Many thanks

[dx100uk]

sar to SLC wont hurt.

 

its obv you've been had here

 

it would be really good to here all your recorded calls

 

I can fwd a email ad if you wish DO NOT publish them here.

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

Hi dx,

 

i have just this lunch time had the standing order i have with my bank for Link Financial stopped so the waiting game begins,

 

it may be a bit quiet on this thread for a week or two until they realise that the payment has failed to materalise

and they send the usual 'Payment not received' letter.

If you would like to hear the recorded conversations i have no problem but they are just a case of me double bluffing the bluffers

and pretending i know what i am talking about and quoting terms like SAR and CCA etc and them bluffing me back! lol.

 

******NB*********************

 

I really do not understand what is going on when i post as i am typing paragraphs

and using double spacing but it still comes up clumped together.

 

I am at times using a mobile phone in some posts but the majority are from a Microsoft Computer if that explains anything?

***************************************************

[WarrenBuffet]

Thanks dx I am as im typing (on my phone) trying with the multiple A button. I am in the process of preparing myself SAR for SLC and have a question, should I also send SLC a CCA? I believe I have read elsewhere that CCA should only be sent to DCA? If this is so what is the reasoning as im abit uneducated as regards protocol.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

WB.

 

# NB the triple A button works dx, thanks you!

[dx100uk]

if you were to cca it would be to whomever chases you.

 

sar will do to SLC

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

Thanks dx, succinctly explained.

[WarrenBuffet]

SAR sent to SLC today postal order and recorded delivery cost £12.50.

 

As a footnote SLC told me they had sold my debt back in 2002 yet when I called them recently they knew my current address,

is this not abit strange if they no longer have an interest in my alleged debt?

 

Link, contradicts SLC in claiming they are only servicing my alleged debt on behalf of the SLC?

 

So, why are neither claiming ownership of my alleged debt???

[dx100uk]

because they now know that you know you've been fleeced blind all these years.

 

and they want to distance themselves from what in all but another name could be deemed as fraud.

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

Had a telephone call from Link last night at 7.45pm,

 

it was the same lady i had spoken with on the 30th Sept

who told me she would pass my details to Links Legal dept (Roll my eyes icon)

and that they would get back to me with adjusted figure but

 

instead and true too form i have not received any letter correspondence but

 

Lisa did call me to tell me that my adjusted figure and the total amount payable was £3,919.28!

 

I asked her to explain how she had come to that figure,

and was told that it was my payments made deducted from the £4,400.28

which acording to my basic marths is not the correct figure?

 

especially when i pointed out that the payments that i had been making were for £5 per month

and for the last 11 months these payments had been £10

 

so how did they come to the figure £3,919.28

when at least the figure should have been a figure ending in a 10 or a 5 AND NOT A 19!? .....

 

......She would not give me an explanation.

 

I then told her that i wished for a written detail on the amount with full explanation of the workings and was told no!

 

At this point my blood began to boil and

 

i then told her that i had cancelled my Standing Order with my bank for payment towards

and would not be reinstating the payment unless they could prove that i was legally obliged to do so?

 

I then decided to drop the bombshell and told her that i had been recording all conversations with Link for the last few months

and i was immediately interupted with "

 

I don't want this conversation recorded - this is illegal"

 

so i bit back and told her that as it was going to be a case of their word against mine

Trading Standards will be very interested in my recordings as they demonstrate

that Link have been dishonest and fraudulent and telling me blatant lies!

 

At this point i went after the supposed debt ownership and

 

again was told

 

"We do not own the debt we are just servicing this debt on behalf of student loans company"

 

i then told her that i had a recorded conversation with the SLC in which they state

that they have no interest in my Loans as these had been sold to thesis back in 2002 and

 

her reply to this was

 

"Were SLC aware that i was recording the conversation!"

 

I told her that the SLC record all conversations themselves so what's her point!???

 

after another 10mins of the two of us talking over each other,

 

i told her that i ask that all future correspondence with LInk must be done in writing

and that as she was aware i was recording this conversation

 

if they had anything else they wished to discuss that they were to put it in writing. ......

 

.........Let's see what happens next?

[dx100uk]

little fleecers

 

coming back to bite them now all this spoofing you out of money you didn't even owe

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

Thinking out loud,

 

would it be a sensible approach to take the DCA ie Thesis/Link to a small claims court

and demand that they refund me all payments made? ie: Karma.

 

So, would i be wise to take a claim against LINK/Thesis stating that they have been Fraudulently extorting money

from me when they have no legal right as the debt was unservicable,

or just forget about what i have already paid and concentrate on not paying them anymore?

 

1.) SLC have no interest in my debt as it was sold to thesis back in 2002, 7 years after my last Student Loan.

 

2.) Link claim that they are servicing debt on behalf of SLC

which SLC deny and state that the reference at the top of my Link statement

is grouping of my Loans into one as sold to thesis.

 

3.) CCJ allegation would appear to have been used to blackmail/extorte money from me

and reference given by Link appears to be nonsense

and why would a CCJ be taken against me in London when i live in N. Ireland?

 

4.) I suspect that the original debt was sold after the Loans became Statute Barred

although i cannot yet be sure until SAR is answered by SLC.

 

5.) Thesis / Link have acted Fraudulently.

*********************NB************************ Sorry but i am getting the same problems with posting again and the AA box on the top left is now no longer working for me.***************************************************

[dx100uk]

adly that's there whole business model

 

i'm sure there was a whistleblower sometime back

that said he knew that 75% of what link collect money on is pure profit and cash cowing.

 

lets things run till we get ever shred of info we can.

 

I must say, compared to others, you 'case' does seem rather watertight, that they have spoofed you.

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

Its now over a month since i told Link that i would be ceasing payments and

 

it is now 7 days since my monthly payment was due and i still have not heard a thing from Link,

 

it was this time last year that they began hassling me as regards increasing my payments from £5 to £10

when i was stupid and agreed to increase.

 

The payment details were changed at the bank by myself and for whatever reason failed to go through

and it was the 3rd of that month that they contacted and made me aware,

yet its the 6th of the month and we appear to be in a Mexican-Stand-off.

 

The SLC told me that they would reply to my SAR by the 23rd of this month

so if they fail to start the ball rolling i will begin motions myself.

 

Wouldn't it be Karma if i took these thieves to Court and sued them for all the payments i have made,

however it looks as if i will have to sue Thesis also as they received my payments for approx 8 years

before my alleged debt received a transfer to Link for no apparent reason?

 

Would anyone happen to have a hypothesis as too why they should do this

as my thinking is they move it around inorder to complicate the situation

or might Thesis have been under investigation

and they transfered the alleged debts to Link to take heat of Thesis?

[dx100uk]

http://www.thesis-servicing.co.uk/

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?258079-Link-Thesis-and-Student-Loans-Company-Defaults

[WarrenBuffet]

Thanks for the thread links DX, some enjoyable reading there and

 

i have as of last Friday the (16th Nov 2013) received the SAR back from the Student Loans Company.

 

I am as a result more confused than i was before i started this thread,

but the general jist of what rthe SLC are saying is ......

 

1.) They sold my debt in 2008 to Thesis.

 

NB* If they sold my Student Loans in 2008 why have i been paying Thesis/Link for over 10 years?

 

I now have from them evidence of this alleged CCJ which i will discuss later

as i am currently unsure as whether i actually do or not but there was clearly an attempt to have a CCJ against me by the SLC.

 

As regards my Student Loans being sold to thesis/Link etc

i noticed a letter included with my SLC SAR which dates back to 4th May 2006

and my attempt to defer my loans and i was sent a reply

 

" Thank you for your correspondence enclosing evidence that you wish to defer your payments,

unfortunately as your loans matured on 31st March 2006 deferment is no longer an option.

As the administration of your account is currently in the hands of our Agents,

we request that you contact them direct to setup a payment plan.

 

Allied International Credit

Anderson House

389 Argyle St

Glasgow

G2 8LR"

 

Am i correct in thinking that Student Loans Company acted unlawfully in selling my Loans

when i had not broken any rules and had attempted to defer my loans as per normal

and i was not within the salary range to begin repayments,

 

the SLC illegally handed my loans over to a debt collection agency

simply on the basis that my Loans had matured on 31st March 2006

and they couldn't be bothered anymore?

 

2.)The CCJ (alleged) taken against me by the SLC in 2002.

Included with SAR are three documents that show communication from the SLC's Legal dept

with the courts in London with different dates on each paper with one date obscured.

 

* On the 2nd Aug 2002 in Central London Court

 

'The court has received your application for an attachment of earnings order

and has given it the above Attachment of Earnings (AE) number.

 

Before the court can make an order, it needs details of the defendant's income and expenses.

The defendant has therefore been sent a notice saying you have applied for an order (N55)

and a reply form (N56) to complete giving following information.

 

If the defendant does not reply within 8 days from date of receipt of notice the court will

* Ask Defendant's employer, for statement of earnings

* Order defendant to produce a statement of his income & expenses,'

 

Then on the letter upon which the date appears to be obscured but giving 8 days as laid out in the above court letter

im guessing that the date is 10th August 2002.

 

'The defendant has not replied to the request to provide a statement of income and expenses (N55)

The court has therefore ordered the defendant to provide a statement of income and expenses (N61).

The Court Baliff will attempt to serve the order on the address provided.

 

Then the final court letter dated 12th Sept 2002

 

' The court has been unable to serve the N61 Order for production of statement

means because the defendant has left the address given.

 

If you wish the court to attempt further service of this document,

please write to the court supplying further information you beleive would assist the court'

 

So, i was living and working in New York from March 2001 until December 2002

and never received any court papers and im guessing that they were corresponding with my address in London

which i lived up until i moved to America in 2001?

 

How can a CCJ be taken against me if i have not been given the opportunity to defend myself

and does this now make the debt null and void as its now 11 years since they took me to court.

 

There are many other things in this SAR that i still have not got my ming around

and will have to re-read several more times to see if i do understand what exzactly it is that i have,

 

however, i have noticed that the SLC are as dishonest as the Debt collectors they employ

as the SLC have told me in a recorded conversation that they sold my debt to Thesis in 2008

and when i then asked them who i had been paying prior to this they told me that it had been them????

 

I told them that i had been paying Thesis since 2002 and was told that the payment had then been passed onto them???

I then asked that why then had they been charging me interest on a defaulted loan

and they decided to use the Thesis card and told me to ask them.

 

I still have not heard a thing from Link so

 

should i now send Link and Thesis a CCA and a letter stating that i do not recognise this debt

and its unenforceable as the CCJ if one has actually been awarded?

was 11 years ago and therefore is no longer enforceable.

 

Any advice or direction will be very much appreciated.

Edited November 19, 2013 by WarrenBuffet

[dx100uk]

left arm righ tleg...typical to hide the truth you've been had blind.

 

forget the CCJ, no relevence

 

other then..

 

as you've spotted

 

if you were paying thesis, then how come they knew nowt about it and SLC got a CCJ...

 

so WHERE has your money gone...not off the debt thats for sure

 

into links pocket me thinks.

 

yep thats where 75% of their clear profit comes from

[WarrenBuffet]

Hi DX, thanks for replying.

 

 

I went home yesterday evening and dug out some boxes from the loft space that were covered in dust and

 

 

when i opened one labelled "Old Bank Statement" i punched the air as i had filed away bank statements for the last decade going back as far as year 2000.

 

I have previously made a mistake claiming that i have been paying SLC/LINK/Thesis since 2002 but i have not!

 

 

i have only been paying them since 1st july 2006.

 

 

I looked at who the payments were too and it clearly states that a £5 payment was being made on the 1st of each month to the SLC and not Thesis as i had previously thought.

 

So, CCJ was taken in 2002 and then no contact with me until 2006 when the SLC call me when i am back home and force me into setting up a £5 S.O.,

they then send me statements which i have in black and white which shows they are continuing to charge interest even though they took a CCJ in 2002 ......

.. surely the judge froze the amount and stipulated how much i was to pay per month?

 

 

Might the CCJ not have been granted as they were unable to locate me?

 

1st Oct 2008 (FFHE) Finance For Higher Education sent me a letter telling me that it has appointed Thesis Servicing as the new administrators of my loans,

but SLC would remain responsible for the ongoing administration of the loans.

 

* SLC have told me very recently on a recorded telephone conversation that "They no longer have any interest in my Loans as they had been sold to Thesis in 2008"

 

I am still confused but where i currently stand

 

 

would i be correct in thinking that my Loans are statute barred

and had been at the time The SLC company contacted me back in 2006?

 

* They attempted to take out or took out a CCJ against me in Aug - Sept 2002.

* They then failed to establish any contact with me until June 2006 as my first £5 payment was July 2006

* According to the SAR sent by SLC the last Deferment Acceptance letter was 30.03.2000

 

So by my reckoning that's six years? isn't it?

 

How long is/was it before the SLC took a Loan holder to court for a CCJ judgement as i was having my loan before the court in Aug/Sept 2002.

 

 

is there a time scale they have to abide by before proceeding to take loans before a judge

as this way i can work out exzactly when was the last time that i had acknowledged my Student Loans.

 

PS: Still not a word from Links and my next payment to them would have been due on the 1st Dec 2013.

[dx100uk]

right so

CCJ will reset the SB date to 6yrs from the judgement.

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

I'm puzzled as to WHY they took out a CCJ 2002 when you'd deferred until 2000

 

 

is there any notes from SLC that they issued a default notice or any other letters

2000-2002 period

 

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

I will dig out the notes again when i get home dx and report back.

 

If its from the date of the CCJ until i was contacted again in 2006 then its not Statute Barred .....

 

 

... i was hoping that if i had lost contact with them before the CCJ and this had resulted in them being forced to take a CCJ

then the time upto taking Court Action plus the 4 years after amounted to 6+ years.

[WarrenBuffet]

Finally got a response back from Link this morning ....

 

"Dear Mr F......,

 

i am writing in relation to the above referenced account as we have been advised by the Student Loans Company that you have a query concerning your account.

 

I can advise you that interest will continue to be applied to your account to reflect the true position of your account

and will also show on any statements issued by Link Financial Outsourcing ltd.

 

 

If in the future we decide to issue fresh proceedings due to failure to maintain the current agreement

we would be required to submit to the court the true position of the account including any post judgement contractual interest.

 

However

i confirm that when your judgement balance of £4,404.28 has been repaid in full your account will be closed as settled.

i can advise to date payments of 3485 have been received and your remaining judgement balance of £3,919.28 is due payment.

 

I trust that this response has addressed your query to your satisfaction,

however should you require further assistance on this or any other matter,

please contact our Account Officers on the number below."

 

So, in the opening paragraph they stated that they will continue to charge interest to my account

yet below they state what we have already thrashed out that they should not be charging interest on a defaulted loan too which they agreed and deducted immediately!?

so what are these A-holes playing at?

 

DX, i have tried to establish what happened between 2000 and 2002 when SLC took me to court for a CCJ

and i am at a loss as to what forms i need to look at but looking at the customer activity report amd within this i have a

'deferment applications' detail list that begins from 1996 and goes to 2001

 

3rd May 1996 - Accepted Deferement Start 10th April 1996 End: 9th April 1997.

23rd May 1997 - Accepted deferement Start 10th APRIL 1997 End: 9th April 1998

20th March 1998 - Accepted Deferement Start 10th April 1998 End: 9th April 1999.

12th feb 1999 - Requested

24th May 1999 - Accepted deferment Start 10th April 1999 End: 09th April 00.

30th March 2000 - Accepted Deferement Start 10th April 00 End: 9th April 2001

12th Feb Requested.

 

And after this it stops!

 

Going back through other notes,

it shows that in 1998 24th march that my loans had been sold as a combined unit by which they are currently know to'Finance fOR higher Eductaion',

at this time i can see no reasoning for this but my loans had simply been sold.

 

I am still confused by this statement received from the SLC as i still cannot make sense of what it all means

and the legalilty of any action and what still stands if anything,

 

 

but to answer your question DX, there is no record of any default letters in the activity report

yet there are charges on 28th April 01 for £12 and on 15th May 2001 another £12 charge

and the details given as regards these charges are "Charge-Admin Charge Arrears letters"

 

I also noticed that in 2006 on the 20th June there was a £158 Litigation charge.

[dx100uk]

not well sadly

unless the JUDGEMENT is in links NAME as the claimant

they cant use it.

 

 

and unless the judgement say post judgemental int allowed SPECIFICALLY

they cannot charge it.

 

 

more soon..

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

If in the future we decide to issue fresh proceedings due to failure to maintain the current agreement

we would be required to submit to the court the true position of the account including any post judgement contractual interest.

 

 

garbage they cant do that they were not the claimant.

 

 

dx

[WarrenBuffet]

So, will i send a £1 PO to Link now along with a CCA and the Template letter claiming that i do not acknowledge the debt?

 

if i do this i reckon they will then tell me that i will have to CCA Thesis as they bought the debt, ah well i'll just keep a record and add to my increasing charges against them.