Threatened by Link – Immediate Advice Needed

[Jacksonjay]

Hi everyone,

I have been dealing with significant credit card and personal loan debt for a long time.

Recently, I received a court threat letter from Link Financial regarding a pre-2007 Alliance & Leicester credit card debt that defaulted in 2008/9. The amount owed is over 4k. I had been making small token payments but stopped about four years ago. In response, I sent them a Pre-Action Conduct letter requesting proof that I owe the debt.

They have now sent me what appears to be a credit agreement; however, it is blurry and nearly impossible to read. They also sent some terms and conditions, but these are on separate pages, and the lender name on these pages is different. On the signed agreement page, the lender is listed as Alliance & Leicester, and it shows my old address. On a separate page with terms and conditions, the lender is listed as MBNA Europe, and my address differs from that on the signed page.

As far as I am aware, any pre-2007 credit agreements must include the prescribed terms on the same page as the agreement. Looking at these documents, I am unsure whether everything is properly included.

I would be very grateful for any immediate advice on the best course of action in my situation and confirmation that I am proceeding correctly.

Many thanks in advance

[echat11]

a) The agreement should be legible, you state that the agreement is 'illegible' 'blurry and nearly impossible to read'.
You should have to put in loads of effort to read it.

b) The copy agreement they send should have your personal details i.e. name, address etc. at the time that you took the agreement out.
(The mismatch of brands could be them showing that the Terms and Conditions of the agreement have been 'varied', the latest being MBNA.
But from what you describe, it does sound 'dubious', that they've just put a whole lot of details / information together hoping that it adds up,
it needs to be compliant. Check for reference numbers on sides / bottom / top of agreement.

You could write to them, state that if they believe the agreement is 'unenforceable' they should inform you of that.
By stating that the account is 'enforceable' when it isn't, they are breaching the FCA's Guidelines.

See what their response is, remember if they lodge a claim, then you can defend it.

[Jacksonjay]

Hi ECHAT11,
Thank you so much for your quick reply.

"b) The copy agreement they send should have your personal details i.e. name, address etc. at the time that you took the agreement out.
(The mismatch of brands could be them showing that the Terms and Conditions of the agreement have been 'varied', the latest being MBNA."

The agreement does include my name and address; however, one page lists Alliance & Leicester and shows one of my previous addresses, while another page lists MBNA and shows a different previous address. I have read online that MBNA bought Alliance & Leicester’s credit card business in 2002, and I wondered whether this could be the reason for the different lender names. However, shouldn’t the agreement contain all the correct information as it was at the time it was executed?

"Check for reference numbers on sides / bottom / top of agreement."

There are some handwritten numbers on two pages, which include two different dates followed by additional numbers, as well as a printed number in the top-left corner of the agreement. If these are the reference numbers you are referring to, what do they indicate?

Given that this is a pre-2007 agreement, if all the prescribed terms are not contained within the same executed document, could the agreement still be enforceable?

Many thanks.

[echat11]

a) "b) The copy agreement they send should have your personal details i.e. name, address etc. at the time that you took the agreement out.
(The mismatch of brands could be them showing that the Terms and Conditions of the agreement have been 'varied', the latest being MBNA."

The agreement does include my name and address; however, one page lists Alliance & Leicester and shows one of my previous addresses, while another page lists MBNA and shows a different previous address. I have read online that MBNA bought Alliance & Leicester’s credit card business in 2002, and I wondered whether this could be the reason for the different lender names. However, shouldn’t the agreement contain all the correct information as it was at the time it was executed?

If you can't read it, then it's 'illegible', that makes it 'unenforceable'.

Once, they provide a 'readable' copy, then you can look at what they have sent, whether what they have sent is 'compliant'.

When was the account opened?

b) "Check for reference numbers on sides / bottom / top of agreement."

There are some handwritten numbers on two pages, which include two different dates followed by additional numbers, as well as a printed number in the top-left corner of the agreement. If these are the reference numbers you are referring to, what do they indicate?

Document reference numbers tell you the year that the agreement / Terms and Conditions were applicable.

Example, if you took the agreement out in 2005, the reference number on the agreement they provided has a reference no. 12/07, you know the agreement they provided is the wrong year, so they've sent you an agreement that can't be compliant, wrong year.

c) Given that this is a pre-2007 agreement, if all the prescribed terms are not contained within the same executed document, could the agreement still be enforceable?

If it hasn't got the 'prescribed' Terms and Conditions, then it's 'unenforceable', but again Judges / Courts don't always stick to the requirements.

[Jacksonjay]

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you for the clarification and for the prompt reply.

When was the account opened?

Document reference numbers tell you the year that the agreement / Terms and Conditions were applicable.

Example, if you took the agreement out in 2005, the reference number on the agreement they provided has a reference no. 12/07, you know the agreement they provided is the wrong year, so they've sent you an agreement that can't be compliant, wrong year.

There is a handwritten date next to the signature on the agreement showing 1997, so I am assuming this is the account opening date. However, on the side of this same signed agreement there is another handwritten date that appears as “2010 APR 27,” followed by some numbers. On another page containing the terms and conditions, there is an additional handwritten date, “2011 March,” also followed by some numbers.

This page has my previous address printed on it, which is different from the one shown on the signed agreement, and the lender listed is MBNA rather than Alliance & Leicester.

[echat11]

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you for the clarification and for the prompt reply.

When was the account opened?

Document reference numbers tell you the year that the agreement / Terms and Conditions were applicable.

Example, if you took the agreement out in 2005, the reference number on the agreement they provided has a reference no. 12/07, you know the agreement they provided is the wrong year, so they've sent you an agreement that can't be compliant, wrong year.

There is a handwritten date next to the signature on the agreement showing 1997, so I am assuming this is the account opening date. However, on the side of this same signed agreement there is another handwritten date that appears as “2010 APR 27,” followed by some numbers. On another page containing the terms and conditions, there is an additional handwritten date, “2011 March,” also followed by some numbers.

This page has my previous address printed on it, which is different from the one shown on the signed agreement, and the lender listed is MBNA rather than Alliance & Leicester.

So account opened 1997, they need to provide a compliant 'True' copy of the agreement.
Those other dates are meaningless as they have no 'context' or why they appear on the agreement.
There has always been type printed ref no's. incorporating a date on agreements, do you know why?, so
they know when the Terms and Conditions applied from and when they need to send the correct Terms and
Conditions out to customers.

[Jacksonjay]

So account opened 1997, they need to provide a compliant 'True' copy of the agreement. Those other dates are meaningless as they have no 'context' or why they appear on the agreement.
There has always been type printed ref no's. incorporating a date on agreements, do you know why?, so
they know when the Terms and Conditions applied from and when they need to send the correct Terms and
Conditions out to customers.

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you very much for this valuable information. I will now go ahead and draft a letter incorporating some of the key points you have raised.
The Pre Action Conduct letter I sent earlier does request several key documents to establish enforceability and their legal standing, including:

Proof of legal assignment, including a compliant Notice of Assignment and evidence of assignment in accordance with section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Any deed of assignment

A copy of any Default Notice

A full statement of account

Evidence of full compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims


Are they not required to provide any of these documents at all?

[echat11]

So account opened 1997, they need to provide a compliant 'True' copy of the agreement. Those other dates are meaningless as they have no 'context' or why they appear on the agreement.
There has always been type printed ref no's. incorporating a date on agreements, do you know why?, so
they know when the Terms and Conditions applied from and when they need to send the correct Terms and
Conditions out to customers.

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you very much for this valuable information. I will now go ahead and draft a letter incorporating some of the key points you have raised.
The Pre Action Conduct letter I sent earlier does request several key documents to establish enforceability and their legal standing, including:

Proof of legal assignment, including a compliant Notice of Assignment and evidence of assignment in accordance with section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Any deed of assignment

A copy of any Default Notice

A full statement of account

Evidence of full compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims


Are they not required to provide any of these documents at all?

If they lodge a claim against you through the Courts, you will be asking for them.
They know what they need to provide to make a claim, but they often fall
short.

[Jacksonjay]

If they lodge a claim against you through the Courts, you will be asking for them. They know what they need to provide to make a claim, but they often fall
short.




Hi ECHAT11,
Just wanted to let you know that I have now posted the letter with all the key points you mentioned. I will update you once I receive a reply.

Many thanks,

[Jacksonjay]

Hi ECHAT11,
I have just received a letter from Link’s solicitors stating that:

"We have been instructed to act on behalf of Link Financial and under the agreement the full balance is due, and Link Financial attempted to negotiate repayment of the account but has not been successful. In the circumstances, we hereby demand repayment of the outstanding debt. If you are unable to pay the outstanding debt, then you should complete and return the attached form and financial statement to our address within the next 30 days. Failure to respond to this letter within the stipulated period will result in court proceedings being issued against you. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, please contact us.”

These are the options available to tick on the form:

A. I agree I owe the debt.
B. I owe some of the debt but not all of it.
C. I don’t know whether I owe the debt.
D. I dispute the debt.
E. I will pay what I owe now.
F. I will pay; I need time to pay.
G. I am getting or intend to get debt advice.
H. I have provided documents.
I. I need more documents or information.

They are asking me to complete this form and return it within 30 days. However, I feel that this form is designed and worded in a tricky way to get me to admit the debt, which I do not feel comfortable doing. Link Financial has already received the response letter I sent, but they must have instructed their solicitors beforehand. I believe the response letter I sent clearly explains my position that they have failed to comply with the Pre-Action Conduct Protocol for debt claims. I do not owe, nor do I acknowledge, the debt in any way to their company.

What would be your advice on how I should respond? Do you think I should send the same letter to the solicitors that I sent to Link Financial and explain that I have already responded to Link Financial’s correspondence, enclosing a copy of the letter? Or do I need to write again with the same response, addressing the solicitors this time?

Any advice would be highly appreciated.

Many thanks

[echat11]

Send a very brief covering letter, thank them for their letter, state that you've already sent a letter to Link Financial on XX/XX/XX, that you are
sending a copy to them to adhere to Pre - Action Protocol, send the form back with the letter (what you've stated in your letter is, but you haven't provided any
of the following e.g. Any deed of assignment, A copy of any Default Notice, A full statement of account etc.) tick I. I need more documents or information.

[Jacksonjay]

Hi ECHAT11,
Thank you so much for the advice. I’ve drafted a letter incorporating your suggestions, but I don’t feel comfortable completing the form they sent me.

Instead, I am enclosing a copy of my response, together with a copy of the Pre-Action Conduct letter I previously sent to Link Financial, in which I formally requested all documents necessary to demonstrate the enforceability of the alleged debt. The account remains formally disputed until they fully comply with their obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol.

I have also pointed out that the Protocol does not require me to use a creditor’s prescribed forms where I have already provided a detailed written response.

[echat11]

Hi ECHAT11,
Thank you so much for the advice. I’ve drafted a letter incorporating your suggestions, but I don’t feel comfortable completing the form they sent me.

Instead, I am enclosing a copy of my response, together with a copy of the Pre-Action Conduct letter I previously sent to Link Financial, in which I formally requested all documents necessary to demonstrate the enforceability of the alleged debt. The account remains formally disputed until they fully comply with their obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol.

I have also pointed out that the Protocol does not require me to use a creditor’s prescribed forms where I have already provided a detailed written response.

That's fine.

[Jacksonjay]

Thank you so much for the reply and for confirming this. I will update you once I receive a reply.