Link threat of legal action

matt195

Hi, just jumping onto your  thread here. I had the same letter yesterday giving me 14 days to respond or being passed to Kearns. My debt was classed as unenforceable in 2022, looking at how this has played out, should I call Link advising them of their previous correspondence re unenforceability? My wife is pregnant and even just getting this first letter is causing her stress. We have moved house since all this, and I'm sure the paperwork is in the loft.. maybe I should get that first then call them?
How does this effect it being SB? obviously we are getting closer to that date slowly, I really dont want the clock resetting. Many thanks

Grumpelstiltskin

Do not phone them, it is just wasting your time and money.

Write to them if you want or ignore them and wait to see what happens.

fatbelly

The only letter that matters is a formal letter of claim that comes with reply form and 30-day limit.

If you can find that old letter it would be useful

matt195

Hi, as an update to this, I have the original letter confirming the account is unenforceable. What do I do now? As I said before, my wife is pregnant so I dont want the stress of more (although meaningless) letters coming through the door. The letter is dated October 2021, so is well down the line of being statute barred, but I feel I have to make some sort of contact

ManyWays

It isn't possible to do anything now that doesn't reset the statute barred clock. 
In theory this doesnt matter as you can rely on the letter you have, but at the moment you have a clear timescale until the debt is statute barred forever and you can then insist the letters stop. Why postpone that point? 

fatbelly

I agree with the above. You feel that you have to make contact but you don't.

Follow the advice given to the op, and ignore everything up to a Letter before Claim.

buddybudster

Speaking from my own experience, I think you'll get that formal letter of claim. If I'd have known I was going to get it I'd have called Link, as a verbal conversation with them doesn't reset the SB, where as my response to the formal letter of complaint has, right? That phone call may have stopped Kearns from sending the letter before claim. I'm not saying it definitely would have, but it's possible.

 I feel as though Link didn't bother looking at the history with mine, that's why I got the legal action threat. Since Kearns told me they've sent it back to Link, I've been called and emailed by Link numerous times (I haven't responded) and the flavour of the emails is that of initial contact from them, in other words it's as if I've slid down the snake and I'm at the start of the whole contact process again. It doesn't worry me, but it does make me angry that this behaviour is allowed. I'm considering writing to the ombudsman, although they may advise me to complain to Link first. I made it clear in 2021 that no further payments would be made without the CCA. 4 yrs later I get threatened with legal action, for which I was forced to respond, resetting the SB clock, and now I'm getting hassled again, with no sign of them getting the cca. This is just wrong, whichever way you look at it.

I honestly feel that a phone call to Link, reminding them of their acknowledgement of unenforceability in 2021, and making it clear that my stance has and would not change, could have stopped the LBA. I initially suspected they hadn't bothered looking at the unenforceability status of it, turned out I was right.

DankVielen

I am coming to this late in the day, but here is my approach

1. At the stage BEFORE you got the LBA you should have filed a complaint with the FOS against Link, if more people did this the volume would make the FCA take action about enforcement and fines.

2. When Kearns sent you their first letter I would have made a complaint to the SRA, the Legal Ombudsman and the Civil Court users association.

The basis for complaint regarding Link and their conduct are breach of FCA CONC rules.

First of all under the FCA Consumer Duty  which says:

 "It requires firms to prioritise customer outcomes and treat them fairly, avoiding causing foreseeable harm and supporting them in achieving their financial objectives."

Well chasing debt causes anxiety which can lead to harm to mental health and serious self harm.

So it is a clear breach of the consumer duty, not only is it not treating them fairly and not supporting them achieving their financial objective (not paying debts unnecessarily) plus of course they are not avoiding causing foreseeable harm.

Clearly Link Financial had full details of the debt including the letter THEY WROTE saying it could not be enforced.

I am doing this HIT BACK at another company, I did post it but my post has not been published because I am new (I think) so all I can do is reply to others.

Ombudsman decisions granting awards regularly quote

 CONC 13.1.6 which says that

(1) Failure to comply with the provisions means that the agreement becomes unenforceable while the failure to comply persists, and the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.
(2) In such cases, a firm should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a customer as to the enforceability of the agreement.

(3) In particular, a firm should not in such cases either threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt or imply that the debt is enforceable when it is not.

(4) The firm should, in any request for payment or communication relating to a payment… in such cases, make clear to the customer that although the debt remains outstanding it is unenforceable.

It is absolutely clear that Link Financial AND Kearns are involved in a mass mailing that misleads consumers, they know better and have a duty to know better.

They are licensed for debt recovery under the Financial Conduct Authority and I would be complaining to the FCA that this conduct suggest that Link Financial and Kearns are not fit and proper organisations and should have their respective licenses removed. 

I do not agree that the statute bar has been reset by this breach of CONC rules, Kearns has not taken action, they have simply sent a pre-action letter, they have NOT filed a legal claim in the Court.  They have done a nasty trick that I have seen other legal debt firms try and get punished for.  

They copied documents that the Court would usually send out when there is a claim, the documents you got came from Kearns, not the Court, they did not file a claim as far as I can see from the letters you posted.

I only got one CCJ relating to consumer debt, it was at an old address, but several firms who have been mentioned on this forum used facsimiles of the Court forms that one might get sent as a way to mislead you into thinking they have actually filed a claim.  

In the documents on page 3 of this thread I see no court stamps or first page of a real Court Claim which would have a case number, the parties and so on.

The clue, other than the fact that the letter came from Kearns and not the Court was the page that says at the top

"You have 30 days from the date at the top of the enclosed letter to fill in and return this form.

if you don't it COULD RESULT in court proceedings"

So proceedings were never started and this is yet another dodgy stunt that needs to be reported.

A pre-action letter does need to quote the details of the claim but all these Section A, B, etc are copied from the Acknowledgement of Service, you can download the forms they are copying from the .GOV website. Search for N210 on the part 8 procedure. I can't post a link as I am new here.

An Ack is an acknowledgment of service by a Court, not a pre-action conduct requirement.

This is deliberate and grounds for a complaint to the SRA, Legal Ombudsman and to your MP and the Ministry of Justice who have copyright on the forms.

AGAIN, THE MORE PEOPLE THAT BRING A COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS UNDERHAND CONDUCT THE MORE CHANCE THERE IS OF BOTH LINK AND KEARNS BEING FINED.

I think the debt charities should also be complaining, they are supposed to help consumers and speak for them to Government.

Furthermore there are additional CONC rules that may apply when the debt has been statute barred

CONC 7.15.8 A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred.

I hope this post helps others in the same position as you have found yourself in, this underhand behaviour only stops when enough people complain.  You will probably get a small compensation, but once they see this is widespread they can fine or remove the licence, there is a reason we have a Financial CONDUCT Authority.  They do not deal with individuals but you CAN bring to their attention bad conduct that is widespread, I did this for Lowell and I got their letter saying they accepted the account could not be enforced and they had closed the account on a £11k debt soon after.

matt195

Well just coming back to this, I rang LINK, got a very short answer saying I needed to speak to Kearns. I rang them, being just as short, saying I suggest you check the file. After 90 seconds on hold, they said the file was being passed back to the client. I said I did not want any letters coming about it, they said they would m ake sure any mailings from them ceased.
Ive noted down dates times etc, I am assuming LINK will go back to the once a year letter with a "statement"

Grumpelstiltskin

You do realise letters coming to you are the best thing, with a letter you have proof what is being said with a phone call they can easily deny what was said.