Forums

Tradefair & Financials

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
CAT.
20 Aug 09 20:23
Joined:
Date Joined: 09 Apr 01
| Topic/replies: 874 | Blogger: CAT.'s blog
Do any firms act on a no win-no fee basis
Pause Switch to Standard View Unenforceable Credit Agreements
Show More
Loading...
Report boxingthefox January 19, 2010 3:59 PM GMT
Hi Don, hope you are well and thriving, cheers.
Report Benni Blonko January 19, 2010 4:21 PM GMT
Hi Don...are you still going into business??? :-)
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
hi guys, and ty.

possibly, not there yet though. tbh i think i will be pointing to someone else who is doing something similar but i will be involved in that anyway. still a few months away.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 4:47 PM GMT
your best plan at this stage is to investigate the terms i have mentioned that you are not familiar with, because you will always need to understand basic concepts yourself - it is hard to plan for every possible question and therefore this helps you achieve the state of mind needed. first step is claim of right. secured party creditor comes after and is reliant on the former.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 4:51 PM GMT
secured party creditor is A LOT of prep work
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:08 PM GMT
for anyone interested, ive done some more ramblings on commerce within a thread on politics. "the wealth creator" thread by dr j. thread is long, and it takes a while to get into everything because obv initially we're talking about politics but politics is really superficial and relies on the underlying principles of commerce. unfortunately i suspect the whole thread needs to be read in order to understand what it is im saying even though i dont comment all the time and many things seem unrelated. they are not unrelated - there are no coincidences - everything affects everything else and the keys i am presenting allow you to consider other issues in a new light.

gets quite deep and hard to get your head round but those that understand what i said on this thread will have a better chance of grasping it. read away if you can be @rsed, just another puzzle piece - gl and enjoy :)
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:14 PM GMT
in fact, skip to near the end and you still find a lot. just easier to connect the dots if you know what the initiall debate was about that led us there.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:14 PM GMT
in fact, skip to near the end and you still find a lot. just easier to connect the dots if you know what the initiall debate was about that led us there.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 11:39 PM GMT
something to add i thought of - if police/judge see you have a driving licence, and you havent signed it "without prejudice" thus reserving your common law rights, they will take that as you having waived your common law rights. ALWAYS write without prejudice after any signature - it gives you options for recourse
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 2:58 AM GMT
dealing with police - footage of a police interview.

http://www.tpuc.org/content/sussex-police-interview

when ur done read this entire site. but remember, there is even more and it goes even deeper than what this site takes on.
Report boxingthefox January 20, 2010 11:51 AM GMT
Hi Don, I have been looking at FOTL stuff for a little while now, it seems to be gaining momentum, how involved are you, I understand if you don't want to say on this forum, cheers.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 12:01 PM GMT
im not involved with any outside groups, ie tpuc, fmotl etc etc. i know a couple of individuals involved in this before it came on the scene at all so i have a head start to a degree in terms of thinking but in the main i am working on this myself. ive rushed into nothing though and do not agree with tpuc necessarily with regard to how they word their claims of right etc because i think the may be setting themselves up for another trap down the line. i am trying to cover all the bases.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 12:15 PM GMT
fyi fox - interesting discussion about to start on the subject on politics on the bbc house arrest thread between myself and a former barrister who disagrees with my position that i may withdraw my consent to be governed. ive given a load of food for thought and am waiting on the response which he has said he will provide :)
Report boxingthefox January 20, 2010 1:55 PM GMT
Thanks Don.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 6:06 PM GMT
more here, for the record. copied and pasted the whole lot from my posts on politics

DonWarro 20 Jan 19:04


ok evski. you really want it.

will start here.

evski: So the government owns bonds that no one knows exists and uses them to pay for schools? can you explain this claim in more detail please, as I clearly do not understand.

i cant just explain one tiny bit because you wont get it. im going to have to hit you with a lot here, apologies. i commend you and will be impressed if you read it.

might be worth overboard reading too.


overboard 20 Jan 16:08


Don
All courts are owned by Liz ie the Queen and belong to the Crown. They are not corporations and there is no link between NIC and suspended jail sentences.


DonWarro 20 Jan 17:36


overboard - why are they listed on companies house if they are not corporations... even the ministry of defence and ministry of JUSTICE have ccjs against them, as does the company "house of commons", "house of lords" and "members of parliament" (these are their corporate names which appear and you can find them on duport insight reports (companies house made easy service). they have ccjs against them because they are operating in commerce as corporations. like ive said before if you check the "labour party" you will see it says also trades as "alisair darling" and vice versa. tell me how on earth they are not corporations please!


and i am not saying ni contributions do have anything to do with them. ni and birth bonds however do which is where ni contributions go. the contributions we make are just another tax because they go into the bond that is traded by its owners which is not us which they take income from. anything that you think is provided by the state as an individual (so not collective services but things you must apply for with either birth certificate or national insurance number from this bond) is provided with these bonds. to understand ur going to have to read all that sht i wrote on the wealth creator thread talking to gj etc, and unenforceable credit agreeements would be good too, as would the bbc thread




DonWarro 20 Jan 17:41


i shoudl add "the crown" itself is a corporation. they even refer to it as the crown corporation themselves ffs.



all names hold corporate status and that includes the name you use and the name i do. they have to because that is the only way legal personality is possible and you could not interact in the commerical world without your name and reference numbers etc without the legal identity (fiction - exists as title on paper - birth certificate). all names are involved in commerce whether yours or someone you see as a business. if you dont understand this bit let me know and i will paste a previous post ive made.

all names , since they have legal identity and corporation status (we for example are all debtor companies not creditors) have to be bonded in order to operate in commerce. it's simply the rules of commerical law which encompasses the entire world (it is insurance in case something goes wrong for one party - your side of the contract is you will follow their rules when trading goods/labour while in their jurisdiction ie docked, and only your company remember not your body, and their side of the contract is that they will insure you against loss ie if anything happens to your boat/cargo while they have it in temporary care - although they renegede on this ), with it's rules (commerce) documented, maintained, (and frequently updated in order to confuse us so we may never learn the truth or want to try) by the U.C.C in united states. ucc is uniform commercial code. it is the code of the high seas derived from admiralty law and is world wide.

here goes.

in admiralty, a ship is a vessel and its own company (may be sub-corp of larger company). the vessel docks in a berth(think birth) at port which docks in a harbour where it is registered to a harbourmaster at which point ownership is temporarily transferred to the harbour master and the title created acting as a bond to the value of the ships cargo as provided by the captain of the ship. you are born (you come down the birth canal) in your vessel (the body - you are the conssciousness inside) and are registered (the name of your company is, ie your name) with the state (harbour) where ownership is supposedly temporary transfer to the state (harbour) of your cargo (your weight, sex details etc - signifying the surety for the bond ie you created the prom note!) as provided by the captain of the ship (your parents). a bond is created to insure the cargo (you - since you believe you are the name when it is just your company not you the living being) - $1million it is, but it can be anything if you want it to be since no price can be put on human life in keeping with the code (starting to sound like pirates arent they). your parents as captains unwittingly give you away as property of the state by the process of birth registration. basically the bond created - the birth certificate itself is the corporation of your name and the legal entity itself - you are a different legal entity. the harbour (a corporation - must be for insurance purposes - follow the code) is represented by the harbour master who in commerce is known as the agent of commerce. the queen for example is the agent of commerce for the crown corporation - since the corporation itself is just a paper title just like you name (another corporation) is actually the birth certificate itself - that piece of paper. the birth certificate remember says on it this is NOT evidence of identity. because it is only evidence of identity for itself, and the number refers to a bond.

so this bond they hold In finance, a bond is a debt security, in which the authorized issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed maturity. A bond is a formal contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals.[1]
Thus a bond is like a loan: the issuer is the borrower (debtor), the holder is the lender (creditor), and the coupon is the interest. Bonds provide the borrower with external funds to finance long-term investments, or, in the case of government bonds, to finance current expenditure. Certificates of deposit (CDs) or commercial paper are considered to be money market instruments and not bonds. Bonds must be repaid at fixed intervals over a period of time.

considered by most people. in actuality they are bonds.

Bonds and stocks are both securities, but the major difference between the two is that stockholders have an equity stake in the company (i.e., they are owners), whereas bondholders have a creditor stake in the company (i.e., they are lenders).

so if they are lenders they have money to lend to create the bond. they lend via promissory note which is money, expressed as currency (think current - a flow of energy which is what your labour is)). hence before the bond (company title called YOUR NAME with assets being your ni account because its money you gave them as creditor together with your body as your ship which is in the care of the harbour and harbourmaster ie state ) was created that money was yours (you had creditor status, secured party infact being alive) because it is your promise to labour for it in the future promissory note which is all you really have to give when you're born and you an promise to any value you wish cant you..

so there is money in this account which they are holding and in fact your legal entity (title - the birth certificate) you use in commerce (/NAME) giving them title to your cargo (you) they also hold through you being registerd.

Another difference is that bonds usually have a defined term, or maturity, after which the bond is redeemed, whereas stocks may be outstanding indefinitely. An exception is a consol bond, which is a perpetuity (i.e., bond with no maturity).

usually not always. matures upon death.

them holding it is meant to be temporary. your true status is the creditor as expplained above and below but you are treated as the debtor because the pirate code assumes creditor status itself using the very assets you have temporarily (supposedly) deposited (like deposits on a BANK) making you the debtor by signing on for national insurance or social security . the bonds are traded amonst other bonds


when you trade a bond the issuer (you) must pay interest on the bond (this interest is harbour fees / taxes known as ni contributions.

the economic system has been slapped on top and operates using the world of commerce as its framework.

you are being governed by the laws of the sea (admiralty) and the code (unifrom commercial code) and not the laws of the land which are provided by common law. common law maxims used intentionally and with your lack of education on the subject (its not shared) with the carrot of ni dangled in front of your parents (birth certificate needed for ni) meant you thought you were the name ie the legal entity (really the bc) and therefore those holding your bonds and legally owning you (but due to your silence to implied contract lawfully owning you too!) continue to hold your bonds and ni accounts and they trade them in the markets where you labour is also traded (thorugh normal companies) and other commerical paper. al the money comes from you but they get $1million + interest (your ni contributions) of birth which is traded throughout your life for their personal profit (the owner of the harbour/owner of state's corporation) and what you get from the arrangement is the individual services/privileges they grant you whil you are under their jurisdiction - so these services they give you there is essentially no limit too in terms of how much money can be provided because it never needs to be repaid by anyone because you will never claim it, given you dont know.

since you have come of age. it seems appropriate to take back ownership of one's own cargo (self) from temporary ownership which you yourself are funding in terms of privileges they grant you via your ni bond, wherein you have provided the only value - your promise to pay byy your sweat and labour.

this is the system in place.
birth bond. ni bond. bonds for everything - every movement of energy in commerce.

obviously if you reclaim yourself as a creditor you own your own bonds and your own body and you are no longer subject to goverment (the rules of the harbour/state - which is a corporation making money from your bonds by the corporation's creditors) (provided you ahve noticed them with a withdrawl of consent) . to own property as a human you must file a ucc1 form - list on it everything there you consider yours, including your childs bond numbers, and your drivers licence, any licence in fact, bank accounts, everything. then it is truly yours and only then. property updates are done with form ucc3.

labour cannot be taxed and your rights are what they say they are (claim of right, and all natural rights) because you are your own authority subject only to the laws of nature one of which is do not harm a living thing. some creditors however may not consider you living since you appear as a corporate entity to them and not living because you dont act like your living. therefore you reclaim creditor status in commerce (secured against your ability to write promissory notes) file liens on your name like you would lay claim to anything else and against your natural person (actually you the man!) and then you become living in the eyes of all creditors.

creditors are where metaphors of vampires etc come from because effectivey they are draining your life force, ie profitting from your labour on a massive scale compared to how you earn as you labour away for them day after day. you have to be a creditor, a free man and a living being in the eyes of commerce if you would rather not be leached off.

funzies huh.
Report crediter February 5, 2010 12:56 PM GMT
you can also ask card companies for copies of increased monthly interest added to your account and increased credit limits........did you sighn for all of them .......should have a copy then..............also 4 corner rule applies.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) February 23, 2010 11:02 AM GMT
DonWarro 21 Aug 10:48


Your name here
Address here
Date here

REF:
Account/Reference Number

Dear Sir/Madam

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77 will apply.

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

I enclose the sum of ?1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully




The above post by DanWorro. Can someone tell me if this letter should be sent to the credit card company, or the debt recovery firm that they have sold it on to. Many thanks.
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane February 24, 2010 12:39 AM GMT
this is a more up to date one following the dec 23rd cases in manchester..

DO NOT SIGN THIS THOU !!!! just print your name or similar...

I would send it to both the dca and the original creditor (OC) and see what they respond with..

There is a train of thought where the DCA will struggle to provide the copy of the agreement since they would need to get it from the OC and there are data protection issues regarding this...

I have heard of DCA's actually sending fake agreements using OC'S letter heads etc...

Once the dca gets your request they will realise that you are looking to check for unenforceability and will often look to sell this debt onto yet another dca..

After you send the request to the dca you may find in a month or so you start getting calls/letters off someone else... :)

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I hereby formally request a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement, pursuant to s.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974).

I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to any account you deem to be mine, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide. I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit (12 + 2 days). You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request; the provisions of s.77 will apply.

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties. Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b), 6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

Attached is payment in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee - note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee and then remove the incorrect entry from your systems.

I do, expect the main actions to be dealt with, as matter of course, and look forward to hearing from you within the prescribed timescales quoted.

Yours faithfully


Sign digitally


If you are getting harrassed by dca or similar send them this ..
again DO NOT SIGN !!!!!

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing. I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls and I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only. I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine. Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company may be recorded and used in evidence and I expect this harassment to cease immediately.

Yours faithfully


Sign digitally
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) March 26, 2010 7:42 AM GMT
.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) March 26, 2010 7:44 AM GMT

If you are getting harrassed by dca or similar send them this ..





What is the dca please? Thanks in advance.
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane March 27, 2010 4:43 PM GMT
debt collection agency DCA
Report Arch Stanton March 28, 2010 10:23 PM BST
Had a letter from the private company which is pursuing my claim, after recieving a copy of the agreement.


...............

After a review of your file by our in house legal team it has been advised that your case cannot currently be allocated by a 3rd party solicitor, as the agreement that has been audited is a generic agreement

As a result of test cases that went through court in December 2009 it has been ruled that lenders need to provide either a true executed copy or a reconstituted version of the agreement.

.....

So they said that there gone back to my creditcard company asking for a true executed or reconstituted version of the agreement. If they can't provide this then the my debt is null and void.

Does anyone know the difference in a true executed/reconstituted version and a basic plain copy of an agreement?
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane March 28, 2010 11:27 PM BST
its quite complicated now after the court case in dec (judge waksmans ruling.)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements-guide.html

just because they dont supply the original signed agreement doesnt mean that the debt is no longer enforceable...

it would be temp unenforceable up until the point that they produced the agreement..

since the ruling thou the credit card company CCC can produce what in their opinion the original probably looked like , reconstituted version.. ( blue peter version)

If your solicitors tried to take the CCC to court to prove the debt didn't exist, they are the defendant, then all the CCC have to do is provide the reconstituted version ( the blue peter one)

If however you stopped paying the card and the CCC took you to court, they are then the claimant, then you become the defendant and then when they have to prove the debt they have to provide the original or a link back to it from the blue peter one..

most solicitors will not take a case on now unless the client has a copy of the original since the blue peter one the CCC produce cant really be relied on to decide pre trial whether it is flawed enough since the solicitor doesn't want to pay the costs of a lost court case..

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable-29.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) March 29, 2010 11:09 AM BST
Many thanks Sheriff.
Report Arch Stanton March 29, 2010 12:12 PM BST
thanks a lot Sheriff for the info...

probably means that:-

a) forget about it.

or

b) wait for another test case that benefits my situtation.

The CCC can produce what in their opinion the original probably looked like. Doesn't fill me up with too much hope.

I'll keep you posted
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane March 29, 2010 6:12 PM BST
it you want to email me at sweetshop 147 at hot mail co uk i may have another way around it...

it is very much a game of cat and mouse at minute with solicitors on both sides... the sols representing the lenders arent sure tbh what is wrong with the contracts either so they are not keen to go to court either...

depending on what type of credit agreements and also which lenders you have i may or may not be able to show you how to approach this...

cheers... sheriff...
Report Arch Stanton March 31, 2010 2:14 PM BST
Ratio money have gone to the wall


http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/23192-ratio-money-in-administration.html?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=news%2Bfeed&utm_term=Ratio+Money+closes+doors
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane March 31, 2010 9:20 PM BST
they and cartel did it all wrong.. the CMC'S (claims management companies) that have sat back and have the correct structure in place will make millions now but only because have let the others make the mistakes and set the precedents...

The clients will benefit but remember,

In the GOLD RUSH, the people who made the most money were the ones selling the shovels !!
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane April 7, 2010 1:40 PM BST
If you want to scan your agreement and send it to my email address I gave earlier ( obv delete/blank out your personnel stuff like name , address etc) and i will tell you if its a generic version or if they should have been able to do the audit on it.)

Some solicitors are still not sure how to proceed with these since if they lose the case they would have to pay the legal costs.. (some cartel clients are being chased for up to 30000 in costs for losing their cases since they had no ATE [after the event] insurance in place

Ratio have gone into administration today since the solicitors who were dealing with their cases gave most of them back since ratio had apparently took on every case without first doing the audit.

Just email me arch and Ill explain further..

Sheriff
Report Arch Stanton April 7, 2010 1:51 PM BST
ok, if I can't send it today I will send it tommorow...cheers
Report oil April 21, 2010 7:30 PM BST
.
Report oil April 29, 2010 4:17 PM BST
.
Report crediter May 2, 2010 9:52 PM BST
mostly not true sheriff.......
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane May 12, 2010 7:05 PM BST
quite big day tomorrow

walker is appealing against the ruling being overturned... supreme court

http://news.roslingking.com/?p=383
Report crediter May 14, 2010 6:32 PM BST
if they cant produce a proper copy...then all interest charged was not agreed;so ;in theory may be wrong...agreement must have all terms cons on same page...so possible to claim last 6 years interest back.
Report Banwana May 14, 2010 8:21 PM BST
I don't think thats right crediter. If you have a credit agreement before 2005 (and some after 2005) then more than 90% of the time the debt cannot be enforced ie the bank won't take you to court (but will threaten the pants off you), but if you take the bank to court they are allowed to reconstruct the agreement, which means you have to pay.
IE If you are really struggling and don't mind saying goodbye credit for 6 years then it may be a way for getting your life back.
Report Banwana May 14, 2010 8:22 PM BST
Plus that Walker thing has no chance imo. A more important one is the Egg one and "approved limit" inwhich i think the hearing is in early June.
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane May 14, 2010 9:04 PM BST
when the walker case was origianlly over turned, the md's of SPPL actually resigned on the morning of the case since they even thought they wouldnt get it overturned...

the barristers in this appeal feel that it has good chance of being overturned again from what i have been told..

it is easier to get the debt declared unenforcable if the lender takes the client to court since the client is the defendent and the lender has to prove the debt...

they cannot reconstitue in this case, only in response to a section 77/78 request which was purely what the waksman case in dec was all about and only that...
Report Valero May 15, 2010 12:03 AM BST
wrong.

the bank can ONLY reconstruct when responding to a sec 77/78 request (as per Waksman case)

that does NOT mean they can reconstruct in ENFORCEMENT action.

banks are truly buggered when faced with knowledgeable legal action... and they do know this.

thankfully the uneducated likes of craptel helped there cause no end.
Report Valero May 15, 2010 12:08 AM BST
as in bawana is wrong

sheriff nailed it with his last post.

but, i note you were linked with craptel previously... not good.
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane May 15, 2010 12:28 PM BST
craptel relied on the non compliance of section 77/78 and that was crazy.. if done properly then there are many agreements in the uk that are possibly unenforceable if contested
Report Banwana May 15, 2010 7:53 PM BST
True. Its not hard to legally not have to pay. It very hard to get them to remove it from your credit file for 6 years.
Report crediter May 16, 2010 7:42 PM BST
banwana....if for example you had 3k increased to 4k...on a credit card.....how many signed it..with the word increased credit on it...should have been accompanied with a new terms and conditions agreement.....but most were not. card companies didnt care if you couldnt pay...many did and paid 18% interest .
Report solux May 17, 2010 2:58 AM BST
interesting thread guys ...my brain may be muddied atm but don ... if you say the bank bank lends you your money because that is the quantum of yr promisery note surely if you have repaid the the loan the note has no further value thus the bank has made their interest but not the loan amount too ...
Report Banwana May 17, 2010 10:04 PM BST
Like I said crediter, its not hard to have a good legal position for not paying anything back. It's very, very hard to get a bank remove the default from your credit file.
Report crediter May 18, 2010 10:51 PM BST
appreciate your opinion....but these credit agencies arnt always correct...and..many people really dont care bout credit scores....otherewise it would be full of bankers and labour politicians.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) May 27, 2010 7:25 PM BST
Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane, I have a couple of questions for you if you have the time and could oblige.
Report DonWarro May 28, 2010 3:37 PM BST
solux - the note itself is money for all intensive purposes.  £10 notes are promissory notes and therefore money.  repaying the "loan" does not make the note worthless.  the funds created by the note have already been added to balance sheets.  the point is, if you dont repay, they havent lost anything, because they never loaned you anything.  the liability they supposedly took on was already covered by the note.  no liability = no loan took place and no loan to enforce.  they get you because you sign a contract obligating that you will pay them money - but it is invalid because you are not aware of the full picture and full disclosure is a prerequistie for a lawful contract.

credit cards are essentially the same.  the angle they should be approached by is that they never loaned you anything - covers all the bases.  they may try and palm you off that money is borrowed by them from other institutions, but that does not prove the money existed in the first place and if you drill down there is ultimately never a liability incurred.  it is where the liability lies ie where actual money that previously existed was loaned from one person to another that you should be asking for, as well as challenging that there was no disclosure (ie they told you they were loaning you something yet they were not, which means there is no consideration either which is required for lawful contract, consideration meaning something of value, and both parties having to put something up which they accept as being of equal value. what has the bank put up? nothing.  you have put up your labour).

it is perfectly lawful to notice someone that you will happily pay the alleged debt upon proof that there actually is a debt. you just need to specify what proof it is you require.  but since there is nothing physical involved (just numbers, no substance) there never can be real proof of a debt.  thus ALL loans and credit cards can be beaten.

the reason it seems such a daunting task is because everyone is focussing on statutes, yet these are not the law.  they're only rules and must only be followed by subcorporations of the uk corporation (everyone's name is a subcorp of uk corp unless theyve claimed otherwise).  it is the law of contract that matters - the contract they seek to uphold is where you have signed to say you will pay them x ££s.  it is this contract that needs to be argued, on the premice above that it was not lawful.  the statutes are there to confuse you.  yes, employees of banks will only know how to deal with statutory obligations, because this is all they are trained in, but courts know differntly.  statutes will work if you find the right one, but these are different on a case by case basis which makes it difficult.  also, what they will view as loopholes which allow you to win, can be closed by further legislation.  the laws of contract cannot be and apply to all cases.

to finish off - what is it they want you to repay anyway?  promissory notes!  ie nothing.  a piece of paper with no intrinsic value or substance, of use only because people accept it, or to wipe your backside with.

re credit scores - it is a battle to get them cleared.  it has to be done after the loan is ruled or accepted as unenforceable or non-existent.  a claim needs to be made against the offender in the correct manner, ie with notices informing them that they must provide you with evidence of the defaulted debt that supercedes any ruling that no such debt existed (which includes unenforceable), with notice that failure to provide this within x time period will result in a fee being required (since your name is your property (although you need to make it your property first because currently it is state property believe it or not) - make the fee 100 million or something.  they wil respond with some bllsht but if they have not addressed what you asked for you just send them a default notice which becomes binding in law.  they then owe you 100 million.  at which point you can request the 100 million and give them an alternative of clearing the history. proceed to court and they will do it, because the notices and default notice are proof that they owe it- because they have tacitly accepted your terms which are a contract by not providing you with what you asked for or counter offering.  treating your name live a corporation (which it is anyway) would help btw which is what everyone shuold be doing and copyright it.  you can then add libel if you want.

it's all about contracts, and you win by making offers and counter offers, always accepting what they say provided.  arguing is the way to lose, because you are in dishonour.
Report DonWarro May 28, 2010 3:37 PM BST
sheriff - ive changed email address.  cant put it up here but will get it to you some how.
Report DonWarro May 28, 2010 3:44 PM BST
missed a bit here

it's all about contracts, and you win by making offers and counter offers, always accepting what they say provided they prove it and you must specify what you consider to be proof
Report crediter May 28, 2010 8:37 PM BST
banwana..if a crediter cannot prove a c.c.a then he cannot charge interest ...as theres no agreement provable...you can reclaim up to 6 years interest +justice interest ...of 8%.
Report Banwana May 29, 2010 1:15 PM BST
Interesting crediter, can you post the letter that you can send to the banks? Like I say, a big case v cca's is the Egg "approved limit" one in June. If that ends up being a win for the consumer then egg are up **** creek. I don't think it will tho, as legal rulings like this become a a decision made in the senior boys club.
Report crediter May 30, 2010 9:21 AM BST
there is also a law passed in may 2008;that makes dca agency the crediter instead of the chaser...hence they soon pass it on to others....cc that is.....banwana i cant copy n paste....try and find something to post up....cant copy n paste.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) May 30, 2010 8:30 PM BST
DonWarro, you seem up to speed. Could you help me out with a couple of points please?
Report Arch Stanton May 31, 2010 8:57 AM BST
crediter Joined: 23 Dec 05
Replies: 2045 28 May 10 20:37 

banwana..if a crediter cannot prove a c.c.a then he cannot charge interest ...as theres no agreement provable...you can reclaim up to 6 years interest +justice interest ...of 8%.


--------

if a crediter cannot prove a c.c.a then surely he can't claim repayment never mind interest!?!?
Report Arch Stanton May 31, 2010 9:02 AM BST
Also what happends if the debt in question is sold on to a 3rd party.  Surely these debt collectors have been briefed on the latest developements.  They are not going to buy up uncollectable debts.
Report crediter June 1, 2010 6:31 PM BST
think you got that wrong arch.....if the debtor cannot find a legal cc agreement then he has no right to charge interest...you could in theory have asked for the agreement 6 years ago ....if they couldnt find it...you happy to keep paying interest on it.......it is illegal to sell on to a third party whilst the debt is in dispute......and should be reported to trading standards.
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane June 4, 2010 11:35 PM BST
sorry dixon, been away.. only just seen post... whats ur question relate to..?
Report chisel June 5, 2010 12:12 AM BST
Just pay back the money you spent on holidays etc ...
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) June 7, 2010 9:33 AM BST
Hi Sheriff. Thanks for the reply. I'll post the details ASAP.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) June 14, 2010 11:13 AM BST
Sherrif, sorry for the delay in giving you the details, I'm awaiting some documentation which should arrive this week.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) July 3, 2010 4:46 PM BST
Sherriff, I have finally recieved the documentaion that I required. Are you still willing to oblige me with advice? The reason I ask is because it will take a fair bit of typing!!
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane July 6, 2010 11:05 PM BST
the result for WALKER V SPPL CASE number (UKSC 2009/0217) appeal will be handed down

7 July at 9.45 a.m in  Court 2

this will have major effect on whether a charge upon a charge will deem a contract unenforceable..

eg... can a lender add a fee paid to a broker onto the loan and charge interest on that fee...

dixon... send me email to sweetshop147 @ hotmail.co. uk and I will have a look at what docs you have..

cheers
Report Valero July 7, 2010 12:20 AM BST
Banks won the Supreme court walker case appeal.

End of the road for the claims.
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane July 7, 2010 9:32 AM BST
this is the appeal against the appeal valero.... not handed down until 945am this morning... unless you have inside info....
Report Valero July 7, 2010 10:39 AM BST
this is at the supreme court, the noewly formed highest court in the land, no further appeals after this, binding precedent set.

have known the judgement since monday afternoon.

the legal circles who deal in this area of the law have all had the info since then, as the judgement is firstly given to the connected parties to gleen before the officical handing down.

which was this morning.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) July 11, 2010 7:44 PM BST
.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) July 11, 2010 8:32 PM BST
Hi Sheriff
Thanks for the reply again. I have some details that I would like to tell you about and hopefully you will be able to help or anybody elso for that matter.  I have a disabled relative who got himself int a lot of financial trouble through taking out credit cards to a total value of approximately £30k.  The reason I mention he is disabled is that he will not be able to work again and his position is untenable.  He got in touch with me 3 years ago and let me know about his situation.  To cut a long story short he was allowed to take out NINE credit cards in 2004 even though his only income was benefits and disability living allowance.  I agreed to help him to the best of my ability as he is not up to speed with his documentation and correspondence.  I contacted the National Debt Helpline and they sent him out documentation which I helped him complete.  He told all his creditors that his position was untenable and offered to pay them £1 a month which they accepted.  However as what usually happens, all his debt was sold on to debt collection agencies.  He got the usual threatening phone calls and threatening letters and was very concerned in case he lost his house which he still has 9 years of a mortgage left.  I then advised him to write to all the companies concerned and ask them if they would consider writing off his debts due to the fact that all the money as spent on online gambling and he never benefited from the credit cards himself.  Kindly, MBNA wrote off the £3k debt that he owed them however the rest are still pursuing the money "owed".

After reading this thread I decided to test the water and write to two of his creditors with the letter as shown.......


Your name here
Address here
Date here

REF:
Account/Reference Number

Dear Sir/Madam

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77 will apply.

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

I enclose the sum of ?1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully xxxxx xxxxx


He received two replies back, the first one,from apex which read...

Dear Mr xxxx

Original Client: Egg
Please find attached statement of account as requested. (This contained 219 pages which was the full statement of account since the account was opened in 2004).

In my opinion this is not what he requested. 

The other he got from Hillesden Securities representing HBOS was worded as follows:-

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the above account.  I can confirm and advise the following:-

1.  I acknowledge receipt of your payment of £1 in connection with your data request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
2.  We are still awaiting a copy of your original agreement and statement of account from the original lender HBOS.  When these become available they will be forwarded to you.
3.  If we are unable to forward a copy of the original agreement, we will be able to supply a true copy of the document which will comply with section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
4.  We would like to draw your attention to the ruling in the case of McGuffick V RBS judgment dated 6 October 2009 in relation to "what is considered enforcement"; the judgment stated that the bringing of proceedings is not enforcement.  It follows that demanding payment is a step taken prior to the commencement of proceedings and therefore not considered enforcement.  We will continue to report the account status to the Credit Reference Agencies as this is also not considered as enforcement.
5.  Whilst we may not be able to enforce the agreement until the documentation is provided, the monies remain outstanding and the underlying obligation to repay remains intact.  In view of the above judgment the account will remain with our collections department for collections activity to continue.

Should you require anything further at this point please contact me accordingly.  I will update you on developments in 21 days if there are no developments beforehand.

Sheriff, if you or anybody else can advise me on what advice to give to my relative next, I would be most grateful.


              Many thanks

             Dixon
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) July 11, 2010 8:40 PM BST
PS On the first reply from Apex they also stated - "Please contact the office as a matter of urgency on .......... to arrange payment.

Once again I would like to add that in my opinion he never received what he requested ie a copy of his Consumer Credit Agreement, pursuant to s.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Report crediter July 13, 2010 12:04 AM BST
its all been said earlier...
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) July 13, 2010 7:24 PM BST
crediter, excuse my ignorance, but would you care to elaborate please? At this moment in time I'm thinking of advising the person in question to write to all his creditors to take him to court. Is this wise, and would his home be at risk? I know the situation is complex.

Any advice would be appreiciated.
Report crediter July 13, 2010 10:29 PM BST
debt collectors have no powers....if one took him to court ...he would probably end up paying £5 a month......they must get an original agreement ..terms and conditions must be on one side...5 corner rule......if the cards are in dispute they cannot be passed to a 3rd party.....ie.dca...if they phone .say you will not discuss anything over the phone..post only...have they threatened a doorstep call...
Report Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane July 14, 2010 12:39 AM BST
send this to any DCA who is calling you or your friend..(alter as needed)...

if they are unsecured debts then he isnt at any risk of losing home etc but they may still try and put a charge on the property but they would have to go to court and prove the debt exists... thats where they will struggle..

Your Street
Town
City
Postcode
DATE HERE
Company Name
Road
Town
City / County
Postcode

Dear Sirs
Harassment by telephone

Account Number: XXXXXXX
I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.
I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)
I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.
I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.
Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)

Yours faithfully,

[NAME HERE]
Report MBD23 July 14, 2010 1:20 AM BST
theres been a lot of nonsens wrotten on here i work in the industry, happy to help anyone if anyone wants

dont whatyouever you do pay up front fees to anyone

and dont payfor unenenforceable consumer credit agreements - or you will be mis sold

thousands of people have lots thousands of pounts

you can claim for payment protection insurance and unfair cardit card charges and all this is legit

a lender does not need to find a contract or a s signautre to uphold the agreement, they can find one simlar or cobble one together from around the tim,e courts often hear casees hwere contracts are missing or not signed, they are still implied and u received the money and received the goods and still beein making payments according to it etc.
Report crediter July 14, 2010 8:30 PM BST
wrong...so the act is valueless according to you.....you have no idea .look up and read the consumer credit act;sale of goods act....bout 100 pages on each ...take your time;if they go to court without an agreement they lose....if not print one.
Report crediter July 14, 2010 8:31 PM BST
by the way ..do you work for some 2 a penny d.c.agency.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) July 15, 2010 9:42 PM BST
First and foremost, many thanks to crediter and sherriff for your replies. crediter, he has been threatened by a doorstep call and nothing has came of this. (he wouldn't open the door under any circumstances)

Sherriff, the letter you printed............



send this to any DCA who is calling you or your friend..(alter as needed)...

if they are unsecured debts then he isnt at any risk of losing home etc but they may still try and put a charge on the property but they would have to go to court and prove the debt exists... thats where they will struggle..

Your Street
Town
City
Postcode
DATE HERE
Company Name
Road
Town
City / County
Postcode

Dear Sirs
Harassment by telephone

Account Number: XXXXXXX
I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.
I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)
I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.
I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.
Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)

Yours faithfully,

[NAME HERE]

Should he keep paying the £1 per month to the six creditors and await an outcome of the two he has written to, (egg & HBOS) or should he just go for it and send the other six the lettet you put up....


Your name here
Address here
Date here

REF:
Account/Reference Number

Dear Sir/Madam

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77 will apply.

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

I enclose the sum of ?1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully



crediter, just as a matter of interest, he wouldn't be able to pay his 8 creditors £5 per month as he is on benefits, (god knows how he got this credit but I've seen it in black and white and the RBS even phoned him to extend his limit by a grand when he was toiling to make repayments!!!!)


Once again, many thanks and any further advice would be most welcome.



                     Dixon
Report crediter July 16, 2010 1:52 PM BST
you can pay crediters £5 A MONTH ...up to them how they share it out.....they cant put an attachment of earnings on..as he is on benefits.
Report crediter July 16, 2010 2:54 PM BST
no card co.can put a charge on a house..doorstep threats mean nothing......just answer door..ask for original agreement .citing 4 corner rule...if they havent got one ..call ploice..tell em they are tresppasing.....also if they have not complied with your previous requests..you will charge £65 per letter from now on......card companies are nothing but rip off companies...treat them as such...one would imagine his credit limit was increased every now and again...interest was hiked each month..did he sighn annew agreement each time ..doubt it.
Report MBD23 July 18, 2010 7:18 PM BST
i work for a company that does not take a penny in up front fees for checking to see if an agreement is enforeceable or unenforeceable

its all a load of nonsense

the signature on the agreement is nonsense its not required by the lender

the agreement itself isnt even required, they only had to show what one would have looked like at the time as in the event of a loss contract - the money was lent, the client accepted and interest payments have been made, so even without the existance of the contract, its taken as accepted by all by the nature of the relationship

ignore this stuff, you can claim back for payment protection insurance and unfair credit card charges. the rest is just a get rid quick scheme by people who try and manipulate poor people into losing money they cant afford to lose.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) July 19, 2010 9:28 AM BST
Thanks for the last 3 replies. crediter, his debts are not with the cc companies now, there with debt collection agencies. I'm going to see him sometime this week and give him what I think is the best advice. However, the last 2 posts seem to conradict each other, (I think!!) so any other advice before I think is the best way forward would be most welcome.

                                Dixon
Report Arch Stanton July 20, 2010 3:15 PM BST
MBD23 Joined: 18 Jun 10


the agreement itself isnt even required

Rubbish

A judge has ruled in favour of the client and wiped out all her debts after the CC company failed to produce a CCA
Report BankofBetfair July 24, 2010 2:56 PM BST
A judge has ruled many times in favour of BOTH

it's called the "judge lottery"
Report Daley July 31, 2010 6:45 PM BST
A debt is unenforceable without a valid CCA
Report stuffed on the river July 31, 2010 11:21 PM BST
mbd23 what company is that .tesco...try taking anyone to court who have asked and not received a copy of an original agreement as layed down in consumer credit act....shall we all go and buy a new car...just drive it away...no agreement required...lol
Report stuffed on the river July 31, 2010 11:29 PM BST
dixon of dock green.if they are c.c debts.....they are passed to d.c.a.to collect....or bought by some d.c.a for bout 10% of the original debt....regardless of phone calls ;letters;doorcalls;just ask for a copy of all the relevant agreements......they have 21 days.....dont be fobbed of by silly official looking this is your agreement rubbish.....copy or nothing....obviously if a proper agreement is found someday ...pay a minimum.....they get huge tax breaks on non payment.....dca company sell franchises..cos they are sitting on shyteful of debt they cannot collect.....
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) August 1, 2010 3:02 PM BST
stuffed on the river, thanks for that. I was just about to give some very impotant advice this week but will get back to you in the near future with some up to date details.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) August 18, 2010 7:10 PM BST
Urgent help required!!! My relative has now received a copy of agreement and terms and conditions frop Apex and he is now being bombarded with telephone calls. I got him to send this letter to them yesterday by RECORDED DELIVERY......



Your Street
Town
City
Postcode
DATE HERE
Company Name
Road
Town
City / County
Postcode

Dear Sirs
Harassment by telephone

Account Number: XXXXXXX
I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.
I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)
I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.
I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.
Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)

Yours faithfully,


However, what should I advise him now? As you may have read earlier his original debt was with Egg and as far as I'm aware he doesn't have an agreement with Apex?????

I'm thinking of telling him to wrie to Apex and tell them to take him to court, but I'm afraid this might be the way forward??? As I stated before his position is untenable as he is disabled and will never work again. Which begs the question why did he get all this credit?? ( you have read my previous posts)


Anyways, any sound advice would be most appreciated.


                    Many thanks in advance, Dixon
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) August 18, 2010 7:12 PM BST
**might NOT be the way forward
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) August 18, 2010 7:29 PM BST
Jesus Christ, I've just noticed that the agreement he received has his signature on it dated
10/5/04. Cry Is that him in the sh1t? The only thing I can add is tht he requested the documentation on the 6th of april. Is there a clause that they didn't reply in time?
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) August 19, 2010 7:19 PM BST
ttt for any welcome advice.
Report Fedhater August 20, 2010 9:08 PM BST
This is how we beat HFC (Household finance) bank. A sub-prime lender that was preying on the poor and vulnerable in the Uk

My mother was misled and sold a financial product that nearly led to her ruin. Around 5 years ago my mother (who has a mental illness) was lured to their shop by one of their "agents", and had forcefully "persuaded" her to sign a contract for a £5000 loan with a ridiculous interest. Two years later the debt had swelled up to £9K.

We took the case to court and won a decisive judgement against them. They had misled a vulnerable woman to their own ends, and what a sweet day it was when HFC had to write of £9K as bad debts. I still have that letter, a reminder that the small guy can win.

Seeing the banks squirm and collapse due the subprime **** they peddled was an absolute joy.
Report Banwana August 20, 2010 10:09 PM BST
Really not the best place for this. As mentioned before, consumer action group is where this should be.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) August 23, 2010 9:02 PM BST
Banwana Joined: 29 Apr 07
Replies: 565 20 Aug 10 22:09 
Really not the best place for this. As mentioned before, consumer action group is where this should be.



Banwana, could you elaborate please?

In the meantime this is the most recent letter my relative has received. (It's actually my brother)

Apex credit management ltd


Dear Mr *********


Further to your letter dated 15/8/10, the contents of which have been noted, and we apologise for the delay in responding.

In response to your letter, we can confirm that we have noted your request for all further contact to be made via writing only.

We would like to advise that your contact numbers have now been removed from our system and your account has been edited accordingly. 

Please note we still require payment on the above account.  Please advise how you will be making payments to clear the outstanding balance. 

Yours sincerely

Mr **********



The question now is simple. Should I advise my brother to write to them and request they take him to court, or is there any other alternative??

                    Many Thanks

                     Dixon
Report Fedhater August 23, 2010 11:54 PM BST
Dixon - Only take the court option if you have the resources to prepare your case very very well. I've had 1st hand experience of the hounds that'll be unleased by the creditors. As I said before, we only won as we had a watertight case.

A better option might be come to an amicable agreement with the creditors, again this will depend on the strength of your case/arguments/evidence. On multiple occasion my mothers creditors made an offer, such that she only had to pay £900. We then made a counteroffer of £1. Thereafter the case proceeded to the Courts, and ultimately our counteroffer of £1 was accepted.

The other option is a bankruptcy, but that comes with it's own difficulty, primarily the ability to access any type of credit for the forseeable future.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) August 25, 2010 9:06 PM BST
Fedhater, bankrupty is NOT an option as my brother would lose his house. I think my advice will be a letter to Apex to take him to court. I'm 99% sure that they would have to reveal the true amount that they actually bought the debt for, (which cannot be the full £2000) and therefore might back down? (the bluff) I've already stated on here he owes approx £28,000 all in to various DCA's and this particular case is only testing the water so to speak.

Thanks for your input, and any other advice from those in those in the know would be most welcome.
Report Banwana August 26, 2010 8:51 PM BST
You will get all the answers you need from the Debt Industry forums on the consumer action group website
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) September 5, 2010 11:10 AM BST
Banwana, is this the site you refer to?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/


Can't navigate to find Debt Industry forums, but I can ask a solicitor a question.........at £22 a pop????
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) September 5, 2010 11:18 AM BST
*** I forgot to mention that the latest letter my brother received from Apex stated that his account would be passed for pre-litigation assessment. ''We will consider legal enforcement of the debt against you or your property.''


Anybody know what this means please?

Any advice welcome.

   Thanks, Dixon.
Report Dixon Of Dock Green (Y) September 8, 2010 2:41 PM BST
ttt
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com