WTF - DCA refusing to tell me who the debt is with!

[Tygermoth]

Who let that bloody Librarian in here???

 

Are we in L-space? That would explain a LOT.

 

(Sorry, hijacking, but you made me!!! )

 

 

baffled - bigstyle.........eh?

[Mal]

baffled - bigstyle.........eh?

 

A reference to to collective works of the great Terry Pratchett.

[Tygermoth]

Aha - things are a LITTLE clearer.

 

Thanks Mal,

 

Tyger

 

 

(oh, and no-one pointed me in the diection of the aforementioned template)

[Tygermoth]

Hello all,

 

I have drafted a reply to Link (please see below) this is a very rough draft as i want to get input and tip before i bang it out in its entirity (i made that mistake before, two days of frantic typing to be told i was not quite right in my arguments!! )

 

____

 

As per you letter dated the XX I note you advise you

are unable to furnish me with any of the requested documents in relation to this alleged debt.

 

You have not provided me, when requested, any proof

of an agreement or the name (if it exists)

of the original debtor. After I have requested the

above information under the CCA and have

sent the statutory fee (which you have banked)

 

As the legal owners of this alleged debt you are

obliged to obtain a copy of the agreement

that you allege is due. As such you will be required

to provide this to me within the thirty

days from the date you banked my cheque or I will be

reporting this breach to the statutory authorities.

 

As you have advised the information you hold on me is

on a system that falls out side the DPA

request I would like to arrange a date for me to

attend your offices as per my right under the

act to view these documents that pertain to me.

 

wadya think?

 

i have been advised to harsh - but that letter was to rude to post here lol

 

Tyger

[Seminole]

I've redrafted the CCA bit:

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company.

As per you letter dated the XX I note you advise you

are unable to furnish me with any of the requested documents in relation to this alleged debt.

 

You have not provided me with a signed copy of the original credit agreement as required under Section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Your failure to do so within 30 days of the request is a criminal offence and will be reported to both my local Trading Standards department and to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). You will be aware that your conduct in dealing with such matters is monitored by the OFT and complaints against you will be taken into account when assessing the fitness of your company to hold a Consumer Credit Licence. You are also reminded that failure to supply a true copy of the original credit agreement is an absolute defence to any court claim you might choose to pursue against me.

Your assertion that this alleged debt is not current is perverse in the context of your apparent attempts to collect it.

I'm not sure about visiting their offices for DPA purposes. I think you should only do this if you are absolutely certain that you are not in default of any agreement or owe anybody any money and haven't done so in the past. Compaines like Link scavenge the dustbins of the financial services industry and they could have picked up something very old.

[Tygermoth]

My thanks to you Seminole - you are a GOD!

 

(bows down)

 

Tyger

[panther12]

I guess that their reluctance to provide even the most basic of information would indicate this relates to a statute barred debt and don't wish to let on. The letter from semi looks good to slap them about.

[garyking]

I recieved a letter from link financial last November (2005). It read, We, Asset Link Capital (No1) Limited (ALC) hereby give you notice or intimation that on 23 March 2005 GE Capital Bank Limited (t/a G E Woodchester) assigned us the benefit of the debt that you owe to them under an agreement with the reference number set out above ("your debt") .

 

I had a car loan with G E Woodchester and then took out a personal loan with them.

I paid off the car loan and the next loan was just a personal loan. The letter says that they will recover the vehicle if this loan is not paid. I no longer have this car, plus the loan outstanding is in no way connected with it. I think they have got the loans mixed up and are not really sure what the loan was for. If this is the case, they obviously havent kept very good records, have they?

[Seminole]

Link are debt buying parasites. The scour the dustbins of the financial services industry looking for tasty morsels. In reality they, like other debt buying parasites, will buy a parcel of accounts for a fraction of their nominal value. They won't be particularly conerned about the underlying paperwork. They will try to place the emphasis on their new "customers" to pay up or prove that the debt isn't owed.

 

If you want to challenge them then asking using your rights under the CCA to get copies of the original agreement is a good starting point. On the other hand you may want to let well alone for the time being.

[Tygermoth]

Hello all,

 

Just an update (have been away - was given a free holiday to Spain!! woohoo)

 

I had a call from Link today. was a bit mad as I have writen to them asking NEVER to call me and to corespond in writing only.

 

I was rudely told they are a telephone based company and i HAVE to accede to their wishes as they ‘Don’t have a secretary to type letters’ and will continue to call me regardless of my request.

 

so shirty letter is one the way with the W&T act quoted ect

 

they are also refusing to get the original credit agreement without me paying a fee. (i have paid the CCA fee - and they have cashed it)

 

when i quoted the CCA and W&T acts to the wally on the phone he said - i refuse to talk to you futher because you keep quoting these MEANINGLESS acts at me!

 

BTW i STILL dont know what the aledged debt is for!!!!

 

lol

 

Tyger

 

[alanfromderby]

I wonder if they have heard of Trading Standards?

[panther12]

Hello all,

 

Just an update (have been away - was given a free holiday to Spain!! woohoo)

 

I had a call from Link today. was a bit mad as I have writen to them asking NEVER to call me and to corespond in writing only.

 

I was rudely told they are a telephone based company and i HAVE to accede to their wishes as they ‘Don’t have a secretary to type letters’ and will continue to call me regardless of my request.

No writing, No secretary! How on earth do they file their claims in the county courts - or are they on speaking terms only with the judge. Sounds like a case of harassment to me.

[Rob S]

Where do they get the idea from that the Data Protection Act doesn't apply to manually held data? The DPA 1998 extended the original 1984 act to cover manually held data, so they should be able to provide the information they hold on you.

[alanfromderby]

Just a thought (and I haven't checked), are they registered under the Data Protection Act?

 

If not, I feel some serious fun ahead!!

[Tygermoth]

Ok the plot thickens and becomes a bit bizarre.....

 

I recived a letter on fri from a futher company Lowell Financial...

 

Chasing the same DEBT! but £900 quid more.

 

I have rung both, each say they are the one i have to deal with and each wont negotiate. So im told to go back to lloyds to see whats going on.

 

however i have no account numbers or details COS I NEVER HAD CREDIT WITH LLOYDS

 

Arrrrrrggggggg!

 

this has been toing and froing all day.

 

Though i must admit Lowell are polite and listen where as Link just yell at you down the fone. Lowell have got a copy of this credit agreement and say they have posted to me, same day, no need for letters ect (but we will see) Link just keep telling me i dont need the credit agreement and i have to pay and the act dont apply to them and they can ring when ever they like dispite me asking/telling them not to.....

 

this just seems to swallow your life.

 

anyhoo.... any ideas ppl??

 

a heartfelt thankyou to anyone who takes pity and replys

 

Tyger

[c_allen]

Sorry if I've missed something but this seems to have been going on longer than 30 days.SO WHAT DEBT?

[alanfromderby]

this just seems to swallow your life.

 

anyhoo.... any ideas ppl??

 

 

Yes, stop dealing with these people over the phone!

 

They are trained in techniques to cause you maximum stress and panic. That is not quite so effective by letter, and they have to be more careful what they say....and you build up evidence for when you have to report them to Trading Standards.

[Tygermoth]

Yup you are quite right, the 30 days for Link has expired - no DPA stuff and no credit Agreement.

 

does this apply to the new one to i hope so?

 

cos if not it will never end...the debt wil just keep getting passed on...

 

and the rest of my life will be spent banging out letters to DCA...

[Tygermoth]

Hello?

 

Please could someone let me know. If you gain a 'Win/unenforcable' can they just pass it on to the next company and you have to start all over again with the letters ect?

 

tyger

[sportbeth]

There is a danger that it will be passed on. However, both sets of clowns in this case have no credit agreement therefore no court judge is even going to acknowledge a claim against you.

 

Next time they phone, refuse to speak with them. If they write, you have done what is expected according to the letter of the law and you now have no expectation to pass even the time of day with them until they come up with the right paperwork.

 

Report them to Trading standards and get on with your life. Chances are they have a debt with your surname attached to it and they have spam-mailed everyone with your surname within a 50 mile radius from the shocking data that local councils sell from the register of electors. They are hoping now that someone will be scared enough to pay it without questioning it. But not you

[NitrousOxide]

You do know as well that it's only supposed to be persued by one company at a time? According to the OFT guidelines it's unfair debt colection if more than one DCA is used. But hey it's just that, a "guideline".

[bs0lth]

Who let that bloody Librarian in here???

 

Are we in L-space? That would explain a LOT.

 

(Sorry, hijacking, but you made me!!! )

 

Very sorry.... but that made me laugh just soooo much