www.iva.co.uk

hi- just had my first telephone consultation and i'm worried!! i owe £29k, but 25.5% of that is to Link Financial, which was passed to them from Barclaycard. The guy i spoke to at cccvs says that Link are reknowned for saying no to IVA's. he's going to contact them to get a feeling of there answer before putting my proposal together. i didnt know whether anybody had any success/ failure stories about Link???

Hi Dakota, please see a recent update from Link Financial regarding their IVA policy:

"Debt buyer Link Financial has told a member that its policy, henceforth, will be to only approve IVAs if they:
• Offer a dividend of not less than 80p in the £
• Last for six years as a minimum
• Have a nominees fee of £750"

If your Insolvency Practitioner is a member of the DRF (Debt Resolution Forum) they will have received an email regarding this on 28 October 2011. The DRF has written to the Office of Fair Trading, the Insolvency Service and the IVA Standing Committee to draw attention to this issue but unless your offer meets their criteria it is not likely to be accepted.

The firm you are with are doing the right thing in speaking to Link first to save you the time and hassle of going through the process only to be rejected at the meeting of creditors.

oh thats a bit worrying - my estimated dividend was only coming back as 24p in the pound. guess i'll have to look at the BR option if they say no, unless there's any other options????

Credit card borrower tortured by lender, says judge
By Ian Pollock Business reporter, BBC News
Credit card Card firms may have to be more careful about their debt collection methods after this ruling
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

New leniency for credit card debt
MBNA debt dealings 'must improve'
Debt collectors censured by OFT

The MBNA bank has been accused by a High Court judge of "torturing" a customer with repeated phone calls demanding he repay his credit card.

Keith Harrison had his debt of £20,270 written off by the judge, Nicholas Chambers QC, at Mold in North Wales.

The judge said MBNA had failed to give Mr Harrison the terms and conditions for the card, when he took it out.

MBNA said it was reviewing the comments and said it had been unable to have "meaningful dialogue" with Mr Harrison.

"[We] were unable to ascertain the reason for non-payment," the bank added.

The judge denounced the tactics that MBNA and its debt collection firm had used to force him to pay up.

"In my view, the claimant rightly complains that, mainly by MBNA but also by the defendant [debt collectors Link Financial], he was hounded by telephone calls seeking payment of what was said to be due," said Mr Justice Chambers.

"The calls were a form of torture oppressively frequent in amount and often without attribution to an identifiable number."
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

The sole purpose must have been to make the claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel”

Mr Justice Chambers QC
Improper conduct

The judge was scathing about the non-traceable phone calls which both MBNA and Link Financial - who bought the debt in 2008 - had used to try to recover the debt.

"It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt," Mr Justice Chambers said.

"[There] can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel.

"I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should be countenanced," he added.

Link Financial blamed Mr Harrison, from Devon, for being uncooperative and said its own approach had been "both proportionate and reasonable".

A spokesman said: "We attempted to contact Mr Harrison 18 times over a period of 12 months, as Mr Harrison acknowledges himself through his own records."

"Although all those calls were unanswered, answerphone messages were left with a polite invitation to call us together with a contact telephone number.

"Mr Harrison declined to do so," the spokesman said.
'Total failure'
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

This is a real message to anyone else who tries the same tricks”

Mark Gander, Consumer Action Group

Mr Harrison, a 51-year old businessman, took out the card in 1998, after responding to a mailshot sent to five million people.

From 2007 he ran into financial problems, ran up a large debt and stopped making any repayments.

In court he argued that, contrary to the explicit requirements of the Consumer Credit Regulations 1983, the bank had failed to send him the necessary terms and conditions for his card, either when he applied for the card or when it was issued to him by post.

MBNA said it would have done so. But the bank could not prove to the court that this had occurred.

"I find that neither with the application pack nor with the card was the claimant sent the MBNA terms and conditions," said the judge.

"It is perfectly clear that the legislature regards it as desirable that such documents should be provided.

"It seems to me that a total failure to supply the required documents will prima facie call for some reaction from the court," he added.
'Tricks'

Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (CAG) was delighted with the ruling.

"This is a real message to anyone else who tries the same tricks," he said.

Some financial firms, including mortgage lenders, have been criticised for over aggressive attempts to force defaulting borrowers to pay up.

Last December MBNA agreed to improve the way it dealt with customers struggling with debts.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) had criticised the operation of the lender's in-house debt collection department.

It had been failing to let customers know if offers of partial payments, to start paying back debts, had been accepted.

Your best bet is to speak to your Insolvency Practitioner to see what they suggest. They will have all of your financial details and it is difficult for anyone else to advise you properly without all of the available information.

Good luck and if you have any more questions give me a shout.

google link financial, about as crooked as they come.

just googled them - that makes me feel so much better......
( sarcasm doesn't transpond very well in type!!)

I have to say that unless you can get Link BELOW 25% then an IVA proposal looks doomed, save for complying with their conditions.

I had a similar case a little while ago, Link came in at 26.2%. My client decided to embark upon a DMP but keep Link out and pay them separately. If memory serves she paid 50% to Link and 50% between the rest. As soon as Link was below 25% the IVA was submitted and approved.

I cannot condone such tactics as a DMP should treat all creditors the same, and have absolutely no idea personally think where she got the idea from, however I am also of the opinion that Links position is incredibly unfair on debtors so I don't and won't be losing much sleep in cases where Link get a taste of their own medicine.

Regards.

That really is unfair isn't it? They're even worse than HSBC used to be with their 40p in the pound.

I was a 40p in the pound HSBC IVA, very unfair!

I wondered about mine as my dividend is 31p in the pound but the joint one is 69p in the pound so I presume that was what swayed it.

Is it just MBNA that sell the debt to link, just wondered as one of our creditors is MBNA and our meeting is on the 14th, bit worried now in case it gets rejected

There is nothing new about Link's policy in treating their customers in financial difficulties. They forced one of my clients to increase his IVA to last for nine years and thus pay them back in full. I did not recommend this to him - but as he is in H M Forces he felt he had no choice. I have dealt with many difficult creditors over the 25 years I have been in insolvency practice, but it is fair to say that I have not come across an organisation so inflexible. One wonders how long this practice will be allowed to continue in the eyes of "treating customers fairly".

How awful are they? Why can't they be as flexible as the rest? As long as they get something back then that should be enough.

I wonder how many people they force into BR where they get less, or nothing back?

I suppose if our debt had been sold to link we would have received something from them. I guess if it is rejected hubby will have to go BR, just have to wait till the 14th I guess