|
By:
ignore him
|
|
By:
DonWarro are you a trainer lawyer?
never heard such rubbish in my life. |
|
By:
THEFT is what the banks are doing. theyve no money to lend. your loan application is a promissory note, ie it is money to a bank, no different to a pile of tenners.
you give them a loan application for £5000 - their books will record this as £5000 received/credited. then they "loan" it back to you (ie give you back you money but in note form so you can use it) and expect you to pay interest on your own money. this shows up as a debit on their accounts so their books are balanced. then you start making payments, everyone of which is profit to the bank. the banking system is a scam you pleb. its going down because people are realising. the law is on our side and not theirs. |
|
By:
Many credit agreements are unenforceable, which has precisely f*ck all to do with this situation.
Credit agreements of a certain kind are subject to the consumer credit act. If such a loan was made and errors were made in the paper work, it is possible in some of the cases to have them declared uneforceable. A bank error is entirely different. You hold the money on trust for the bank, and it is returnable on demand. You are entitled to any interest earned in the mean time. |
|
By:
from wiki fyi A promissory note, referred to as a note payable in accounting, or commonly as just a "note", is a contract where one party (the maker or issuer) makes an unconditional promise in writing to pay a sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms. They differ from IOUs in that they contain a specific promise to pay, rather than simply acknowledging that a debt exists. The terms of a note typically include the principal amount, the interest rate if any, the parties, the date, the terms of repayment (which could include interest) and the maturity date. Sometimes, provisions are included concerning the payee's rights in the event of a default, which may include foreclosure of the maker's assets. Demand promissory notes are notes that do not carry a specific maturity date, but are due on demand of the lender. Usually the lender will only give the borrower a few days notice before the payment is due. For loans between individuals, writing and signing a promissory note are often instrumental for tax and record keeping. In the United States, a promissory note that meets certain conditions is a negotiable instrument regulated by article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Negotiable promissory notes are used extensively in combination with mortgages in the financing of real estate transactions. Promissory notes, or commercial papers, are also issued to provide capital to businesses. Historically, promissory notes have acted as a form of privately issued currency. In many jurisdictions today, bearer negotiable promissory notes are illegal because they can act as an alternative currency. DonWarro 21 Oct 12:55 those 3 paragraphs are direct quote btw. now think about what a loan application is DonWarro 21 Oct 13:01 now think about what a £10 note is. it is a promissory note (and privately issued too by BofE, as is a loan application by yourself) |
|
By:
my mate took notice of a thread on here about MBNA and has now not had to repay around £30,000 in credit card debt as they were not allowed to enforce the debt; i think its terrible as it cost us in the long run, but the system seems to allow it,
|
|
By:
Credit agreements of a certain kind are subject to the consumer credit act. If such a loan was made and errors were made in the paper work, it is possible in some of the cases to have them declared uneforceable.
And all are subject to the common law. the consumer credit act is simply the rules within the game - the game is built upon common law rules. the credit consumer act has nothing to do with the situation the OP is in. A bank error is entirely different. You hold the money on trust for the bank, and it is returnable on demand. You are entitled to any interest earned in the mean time. you hold the money on trust? really? lmao sib. what trust? what agreement? |
|
By:
Well, I have fired off six such claims only today (not for me), and expect them all to be succesful.
|
|
By:
budapest - the system is robbing all of us. people are taking back what is there's.
what i have talked about IS relevant to the situation, because from that angle it's all about the SOURCE of the funds - which is YOU, not the bank. |
|
By:
Laughing your *rse off Warro? The concept of a "trust" is hundreds of years old, don't know how many.
|
|
By:
of course the claims will work sib if they have not met requriements of the credit consumer act. but that act is only their to fool us some more anyway. it legitimises the practice of banks stealing from it's customers. under common law it is fraud because they are telling you they're loaning you something when they are not, whether they meet the conditiond of the CCA or not.
|
|
By:
no it isn't, but there we are. Enjoy your fantasy.
|
|
By:
concept of trust may well be old. but at no point did they say "im trusting you with this money, do you agree to give it back under these terms..."
|
|
By:
sib - i know people that have beaten mortgages with this stuff. and i should add, that they received the advice from some very respected individuals on the international finance/government scene. these people lend money to banks mate. they are creditors, while the rest of the population are debtors, regadless of whether what you see as your bank account is overdrawn or has a balance of $1million.
|
|
By:
i seem to have got my "there" and "their" mixed up several times in this thread :(
|
|
By:
"implied constructive trust" is the phrase you are looking for.
banks do not always win in court, (they usually do) but I can 100% assure you that no-one ever beat them using the arguments you are throwing around. The very idea that only a couple of people know it, and they win with it in acourt and it doesn't get out to the whole community, is just sheer absolute b*llocks. Just as the arguments themsleves are. |
|
By:
DonWarro 24 Nov 15:21
sib - i know people that have beaten mortgages with this stuff. and i should add, that they received the advice from some very respected individuals on the international finance/government scene. these people lend money to banks mate. they are creditors, while the rest of the population are debtors, regadless of whether what you see as your bank account is overdrawn or has a balance of $1million. SO WOT YOU ARE SAYING THEN THAT THE BANKS DONT NEED TO PAY THEM CREDITORS THEN WHO THEY BORROW MONEY OFF THEN.so all this money the gov has lent to the banks the banks could say f off then we aint paying it back |
|
By:
Haven't read the whole fred, but you spent money you knew wasn't yours. No sympathy for you whatsoever.
|
|
By:
no, the banks have to pay creditors if they have actually LOANED them the money. and the banks creditors are not silly. therefore they create the money by promissory note out of jurisdiction first so that they have it to lend.
|
|
By:
read the whole thread dan. it's not their money. they never had it to loan him in the first place. he gave it to them , and then they gave it back but fked up because they didnt get a loan agreement in place
|
|
By:
"implied constructive trust" is the phrase you are looking for.
banks do not always win in court, (they usually do) but I can 100% assure you that no-one ever beat them using the arguments you are throwing around. The very idea that only a couple of people know it, and they win with it in acourt and it doesn't get out to the whole community, is just sheer absolute b*llocks. Just as the arguments themsleves are. banks win against people who do not understand. this includes most solicitors, who are intentionally schooled to only understand the more superficial levels of law, ie statutory. it is not just a couple of people that know, there are loads. but since the majority are busy financing everything so that you can work for them they choose not to say. |
|
By:
IF THIS WAS ALL TRUE, IT WOULD BE FREE LOANS FOR EVERYONE AND EVERYONE WOULD BE DOING IT.
|
|
By:
if it's not their money, its certainly not your money
|
|
By:
that's why no one has told you. and it's not easy to make a free loan, it is a fairly complicated process to get the money in your hand.
and why you think they dont want you all to know, for the very reason that it would mean free money and therefore people wouldnt work. they need people to work for them, produce stuff, run the services, so that those who do know can enjoy their lives at the expense of the rest. it's called a 2 class system. all this upper/middle/lower class stuff is rubbish. you're either a creditor, or you're a debtor. |
|
By:
it certainly is the person's money who applied for the loan. the only thing of value going into the arrangement is that person's signature. the signature is the money.
|
|
By:
got to go now. plus bf might ban me again if i say too much :)
suggest investigating this matter yourselves, if you can be bothered, and you wish to be free both financially and politically (ie not subject to statutory "laws", which are not law at all). gl. |
|
By:
Don, it won't make any difference telling you this, but any way.
There are a large number of people, myself included, making good money writing off Consumer Credit Acts loans. (It is a small part of my practise). Some, not including me, are making millions. These people would be very happy indeed to do the same thing with any vehicle they can find. And they are looking, and they are clever, and they don't give two shiny sh*tes about the effect on the banks. You are, plain and simple, living in a fantasy conspiracy world. |
|
By:
well even more reason you should investigate then. i have spoken with a few reps from credit card cartel or whatever they're called, and a couple of them fully understood and are proceeding with a few cases on this basis.
widen your view. im off to take my son to the park :) |
|
By:
THE WRITER OF THIS THREAD IS TALKING ABSOLUTE RUBBISH IGNORE HIM
|