Link threat of legal action

buddybudster

Ok, thanks. Just on section D, it asks me to complete the question 'I dispute the debt because....'. Do you think I should put something like 'I want to see a copy of the original agreement, as detailed under section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974'?

Grumpelstiltskin

Say because you have not provided a copy etc.

fatbelly

Say what you said in your first post but yes make reference to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

Credit cards are covered by s78

sourcrates

From my earlier post:

Section D

"I dispute the debt because there is a legal problem with the credit agreement, in June 2020, Link Financial confirmed to me in writing that they could not comply with a request under section 77 of the consumer credit act 1978, for a copy of the original credit agreement, as they were unable to produce one, and because of this the debt was deemed to be unenforceable, this remains the case to this day."

buddybudster

Thank you. Sourcrates, just on your reply, would that not be deemed as me acknowledging the debt? Also, if I did put that answer, would I be right in thinking I might as well include copies of the letters I received from Link in 2020 confirming as such?

sourcrates

You are past the point of caring about acknowledgement here, you have to go with the court process, things have now moved on from that point, there`s more than one way to skin a cat.

buddybudster

Point taken, thanks. So, along with your answer, there's no harm in enclosing the 2020 letters from Link referring to them not being able to obtain CCA and admitting being unenforceable, do you agree?

sourcrates

Yes I agree, you can no longer rely on this becoming statute barred, as they have started a court claim, that`s all they have to do to, so the limitation act no longer applies now.

But if they were unable to produce documents before, that may still be the case now, and if they can`t produce them for the court, that`s it, its over for them.

So you still have a chance, quite a good chance actually.

buddybudster

Update, had a reply from Kearns 'We confirm this account has been returned to Link Financial as servicer on behalf of the claimant', it then goes on to suggest I set up a payment plan etc.

So would I be right in assuming Link haven't bothered looking at the history from 2020, sent it over to Kearns, I've had to put Kearns in the picture and they've now bounced it back to Link, who shouldn't have given it to Kearns in the first place? Bit frustrating, in hindsight maybe a phone call to Link when the initial legal action threat letter came would have avoided me having to reply to Kearns in writing. 

Will update you on any other further developments,  thanks again for everyone's help!

Rob5342

buddybudster said:

So would I be right in assuming Link haven't bothered looking at the history from 2020, sent it over to Kearns, I've had to put Kearns in the picture and they've now bounced it back to Link, who shouldn't have given it to Kearns in the first place? Bit frustrating, in hindsight maybe a phone call to Link when the initial legal action threat letter came would have avoided me having to reply to Kearns in writing.

It's either incompetence or they don't care about the history and send LBAs anyway to see who they can scare into paying, and then worry about whether they can take it any further. Neither would surprise me.