Debt Questions forum. General questions on debt issues.

Moderators: TalbotWoods, JaneClack

By everett
#293923 I have a very old debt with Link Outsourcing.
Just recently they started playing Billy Suggers and insisted on an I&E, we refused so they sent the debt to their litigation dept.
They in turn threatened us with court action so I sent a CCA request.
They acknowledged receipt of the request and said that they purchased the debt from Barclay's in 1998 and needed to send off a request to them for details and that this could take up to 30 days.
It has now been 35 days, what is my next move ?
User avatar
By TalbotWoods
#293933 This could prove interesting, as if Barclays sold the debt in 1998, then in accordance with the financial laws they would almost definitely destroyed the original agreement (if any) around 2005. As they are only legally obliged to keep them for 7 years.

under the law they only actually need to produce a reconstructed copy of the agreement to you at this stage, which must contain the original terms and conditions, names and address (original), but do not need signatures, etc. If it proceeds to court then they are meant to produce the original (which YOU must use as a defence).

So as to actions now, a lot of that will be up to you, but I would suggest carrying on paying them as you have done, but let them know that you are aware the debt is unenforceable in court as they do not have the original agreement.

And leave it at that.

If they do try to proceed to court (that is you actually receive the court papers from Northamptonshire) which is rare for Link, then you have several good defences, the history of good repayment, their threatening and intimidating behaviour and very must the failure to produce the original agreement, which is a requirement in law!!
By everett
#293963 Thanks Tim.
Do I need to send a failure to provide a CCA request letter to them though ?
What if they cant provide even a reconstructed copy ?
By everett
#294713 Ok , Link today have sent a bad photo copy of the original application form dated 1993 signed by my wife and Barclays.
There is a section titled : Credit Agreement Regulated by the consumer credit Act 1974 and signed by my wife, however the print underneath is unreadable.
Does this constitute a CCA request, ? It has taken Link 48 days to produce this document is this valid or can I still quote the 12 + 2 day rule ?
They have threatened to take this to court, do they now have the ammunition to do so in which case should we continue to pay them ?

Link claim. " Where this request was made under section 77 or 78 of the consumer credit act 2006 this document fulfils our obligations"
By nomlas
#294723 Not sure if this actually helps but I hope so. As i understand it a Credit Agreement has to be fully legible, I would certainly dispute this point if you are unable to read ALL the details. I do not think you can dispute soley on the time issue, IE 12 days plus 2.

In my experience Link will not pursue court action if you really go back at them by letting them know that you know the game and will fight them all the way.

This is purely my own experience and I am not sure it will allways work, but Link have backed down when I have stated in writing (recorded) that I do not accept their copy of the credit agreement as a true, fully executed copy and that I would be happy to go to court.

It could, as ever, depend on circumstances, IE assets. Is it worth it for them to pursue? If they know you will fight then the less likely they will be to proceed. I know I do not have to state this to you, but for other readers, allways deal in writing by recorded letters. Regards. -- nomlas
By everett
#294733 Thanks Nomlas.
Tonight I have downloaded my Wife's credit report which actually came back as good :shock:
This debt is not on there, I have be advised by a CAG site team member to stop making payments to Link as they think the CCA will struggle to meet requirements and in their words we have "cash cowed"
What is clear is our address and signatures however, but the terms and conditions are illegible.
If Link did pursue this through the courts would they have to supply the original or would the judge be OK with this shoddy photocopy ?
Surely Barclays could provide link with the original terms and conditions in clear print ?
We have been advised to write a "Dispute" letter to Link on the grounds of the CCA is illegible in parts.
By nomlas
#294743 The problem, as I see it, is that District Judges seem to vary to a big degree. If the CA, as in your case, is not legible then you should have a case for disputing. BUT I dont think you could be 100% sure if it ever did actually go to court.

Personally, and I have had dealings with Link (reported them to FOS and never had a peep from them since) I would go on the offensive with them, I am quite sure they will not proceed with court action if they know it will be contested. Attack being the best form of defence, Just my opinion. Regards. nomlas
By nomlas
#294753 On your point Re. Barclays being able to supply a true copy: I have read on various sites that Barclays, plus others, have not kept true and enforceable copies of agreements and therefore any court action by a DCA IMO would be risky.

Again I reiterate that this is just my opinion but I would certainly have a go at them via recorded letter if you feel that they are intent on court action. Regards. -- nomlas
By nomlas
#294793 This might be helpful, Google - `credit card torture`. It is about a case last year where Link lost out mainly because the agreement did not have the correct terms and conditions. I would cherry pick parts of that case and let Link know. It must of cost them big time and I am sure they would think twice before proceeding if they know you would use the same defence.

A simple generic copy of the T&C that would of been in force at the time is not good enough, it must be the actual T&C attached to the agreement and be fully legible. It might not work if it did go to court as Judges seem to vary but a strong letter informing them you will fight should prevent them taking the risk. Regards. -- nomlas
By simont23
#294833 everett. In fairness, it is time you stopped feeding Link with this old debt, they have had their money a long time ago. You are now contributing to their pensions and unless you stop now, they will be expecting your payments forever.

It is odds on that this will never see any courts, so it time you stopped all dialogue with them. Let them make the usual DCA threats, it costs them nothing but an envelope and a postage stamp. You are holding the full house so call their bluff.