Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Tangliss, if you can't upload the letter, could you tell us what the heading is please? My understanding is it should say 'Letter before claim' or similar. HB
    • Do you think I should send the CCA request now then instead of waiting? I really can do without the stress. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you for responding.
    • How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")? Or are they acting for you in insolveny? What's the current role of the agent?
    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

I promise to pay the bearer.. oh yeah?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4989 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've often wondered what would happen if bank customers handed over their fivers (and higher denomination banknotes) and demanded that the bank fulfil the promise on every banknote, ie; the promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of (whatever) pounds. The word "pound" in terms of money refers to the weight 240 silver pennies. Banknotes are not actually money but a promisary note on behalf of the Bank of England. Banknotes were issued to enable merchants to exchange a convenient representation of actual sterling (ie; high grade) silver for goods or services. The banknotes could then be presented to any bank which, by law, was obliged to pay the bearer the banknote's value in sterling silver which did not necessarily have to be in the form of 240 silver pennies per pound but did have to be the equivalent weight in sterling silver.

 

Prior to 1528, the "pound" referred to the Tower Pound (equal to 5,400 grains and worth about £78.75 in the current market value of silver). In 1528, the standard was changed to the Troy Pound, which is a little heavier and valued in today's market at around £84.

 

Now, despite the fluctuations in the value of the pound as a unit of currency, I know of no law passed that voids the promise that is still printed on banknotes today. The word "pounds" still carry the same historical meaning as far as I have been able to ascertain.

 

Maybe there is a law that releives the banks of their obligation to hand over £420 worth of silver when I present my fiver and demand the bank fulfils the promise on the banknote. If anybody knows more about this, I'd be grateful for the info as I'm seriously thinking of doing this and want to be well-armed with information before attempting to screw the banks like they've been screwing us for so long.

 

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered what would happen if bank customers handed over their fivers (and higher denomination banknotes) and demanded that the bank fulfil the promise on every banknote, ie; the promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of (whatever) pounds. The word "pound" in terms of money refers to the weight 240 silver pennies. Banknotes are not actually money but a promisary note on behalf of the Bank of England. Banknotes were issued to enable merchants to exchange a convenient representation of actual sterling (ie; high grade) silver for goods or services. The banknotes could then be presented to any bank which, by law, was obliged to pay the bearer the banknote's value in sterling silver which did not necessarily have to be in the form of 240 silver pennies per pound but did have to be the equivalent weight in sterling silver.

 

Prior to 1528, the "pound" referred to the Tower Pound (equal to 5,400 grains and worth about £78.75 in the current market value of silver). In 1528, the standard was changed to the Troy Pound, which is a little heavier and valued in today's market at around £84.

 

Now, despite the fluctuations in the value of the pound as a unit of currency, I know of no law passed that voids the promise that is still printed on banknotes today. The word "pounds" still carry the same historical meaning as far as I have been able to ascertain.

 

Maybe there is a law that releives the banks of their obligation to hand over £420 worth of silver when I present my fiver and demand the bank fulfils the promise on the banknote. If anybody knows more about this, I'd be grateful for the info as I'm seriously thinking of doing this and want to be well-armed with information before attempting to screw the banks like they've been screwing us for so long.

 

Any ideas?

 

All I can say is whatever you are on, I would like some!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! would be great if you could, but surely there must be some kind of get out clause for the banks for this otherwise everyone would do it!

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! would be great if you could, but surely there must be some kind of get out clause for the banks for this otherwise everyone would do it!

 

Oh I don't doubt that there is! But wouldn't it be wonderful if there wasn't? There are numerous archaic laws that have become dormant because they no longer apply but are actually still legally enforceable. Just suppose this was one of them!?

 

By the way Monty 2007, I'm sorry but there are no dealers providing what I'm on. I'm afraid you actually have to go mad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol good idea!!

 

so many little laws that have gone unchanged from eons ago and yet nobody really has any idea about them for unknown reasons.

 

might be worth researching this one and having a go! but hurry do it before someone changes it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the original post.

 

You would get diddly-squat from your bank (or any other High Street bank). They have made no such promise to you; you have no case against them for failing to pay the bearer.

 

The promise to pay the bearer is one made by the Bank of England (the clue is that a banknote has the promise signed by the Chief Cashier of the BoE) - and they don't deal with individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notes issued by the Bank of England are legal tender and legal tender cannot be refused in payment of a debt. So, if you go to the Bank of England and present a five pound note and point to the promise you will be given...a five pound note. The promise is a vestige of the days when bank notes represented gold held by the banks, but now there is not enough gold to go round. The sole value of the promise is that if you take to the Bank of England an out-of date note you will be given legal tender in exchange.

 

Whether bank notes are or are not money depends on how you look at it. In practice they are accepted as money and what is accepted as money is money, but all money is an illusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 16th century the goldsmith-bankers began to accept deposits, make loans and transfer funds. They also gave receipts for cash, that is to say gold coins, deposited with them. These receipts, known as “running cash notes”, were made out in the name of the depositor and promised to pay him on demand.

Many also carried the words “or bearer” after the name of the depositor, which allow them to circulate in a limited way.

The link between gold and notes issue has been broken many times since their inseption but was finally severed in 1931 when Britain finally left the gold standard and the note issue became entirely fiduciary, that is wholly backed by securities instead of gold.

 

Bank of England|Banknotes|More About Banknotes|A brief history of banknotes

 

skb

Victory over Lloyds £890

Click!

Victory over Vodafone: default removal

click!

Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click!

Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06)

The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

patdavies wrote:

 

"The promise to pay the bearer is one made by the Bank of England (the clue is that a banknote has the promise signed by the Chief Cashier of the BoE) - and they don't deal with individuals."

 

Actually, Pat, they do deal with individuals...... er....... well, individuals that go in with reasonable requests, anyway.

 

Maybe it was the blue woad with which I'd painted my face or maybe it was the hand-woven hemp teeshirt bearing the slogan "DEATH TO THE MONETARY SYSTEM" or the bearskin jodpurs or the lime green wellies... Then again, the horned viking helmet (although I did remove it when entering the bank even though it didn't technically qualify as a motorcycle helmet) may have alerted them to the possibility that this was not a normal customer.

 

However, the cashier smiled politely when I slapped my rather grubby fiver on the counter and demanded 420 quid's worth of sterling silver.

He shrugged and counted out five one pound coins, saying "Best we can do, I'm afraid"

"I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!" I hollered but the cashier simply switched on a mike and announced "Sid! We've got another one!"

Just then, a security guard appeared, frogmarching a customer dressed as Ghengis Khan to the front door "With you in a minute, Tom" he said.

 

Now I admit that I didn't really expect them to hand over five Troy Pounds of sterling silver without an argument but hurling me out the front door head first is hardly the way I'd expected the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street to behave! "You've not heard the last of this!" I shouted...... but, actually, I think they have.... well, from me, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Notes issued by the Bank of England are legal tender and legal tender cannot be refused in payment of a debt. So, if you go to the Bank of England and present a five pound note and point to the promise you will be given...a five pound note.

 

I agree this is probably what would happen, however it 'should' not be possible. In UK law it is illegal to pay a debt with a debt; seeing as notes are essentially IOU's from the bank 'promising' to pay, you should be breaking the law any time you exchange them for goods or services.

 

By making the notes themselves legal tender, independant of any sterling silver to back them up, the government circumvents this illegality and puts us all in hock to the banks. Essentially they made an illegal practice legal, but only for themselves, you or I would be criminals for doing the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have you been for the past couple of years? There is no such thing as money, only confidence in certain things representing relative value. As soon as that value is questioned you get............. oh yes .......... the mess we're all in now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks want to withdraw cheques by 2015, some will cancel the cheque guarantee card from June next year, as a cheque is a promissory note along with money (both being negotiable instruments) I wonder what the banks intentions are going to be when it comes to cash?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Have been reading all the threads to this, some crap and others who have definately got the idea.

But dont forget this, there isnt any money only debt notes.

Because the private banksters have made the governments of this world bankrupt we only deal in debt notes and you cant pay a debt with a debt.

What they have cleverly done is to create us as the liability on all debt by the STRAWMAN system thro our birth certificate.

The real wheeze is that everything therefore is pre paid and so you should not even have to use notes to purchase goods and services.

 

Look into this as its huge and i cannot possibly go into more detail here, but as a heads up on the monetary system as it stands, get out of dodge and buy silver and gold and get rid of as much cash and shares you can.

Don't say I didn't warn you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...