Jump to content

Tricky Dickie

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tricky Dickie

  1. Well Rankine said no one had ever tried this before so it looks like he is right about that anyway as he claims to already have taken on 9 million pounds of other peoples debts and racking up more every day so it will be interesting to see what happens. He apparently guarantees that none of his clients will wind up in court and if they are taken to court by their lender he appoints a solicitor to represent them. It will be interesting to see what happens.
  2. Yeah,we might get round to doing something one day
  3. as soon as the borrower 'sells' the debt to Rankine they stop paying and Rankine writes to the lender to tell them he now is responsible for the debt so that there must be some cases where that happened 6 months ago
  4. Well I guess we just have to wait for the OFT and trading standards to come to a conclusion but what takes so long,for six months the guy has been adv ertising on his website and standing in front of 50 people at a time and taking their money.Surely someone from the OFT could have had him charged well before now.
  5. Rankines answer to that is that he has been 'buying ' debts for 6 months and no lenders have taken legal action yet
  6. Rankines answer to that is that buying debt is not a licensable activity whereas selling it on is and he just buys it he doea not sell it on
  7. So you think that the fact that over 1000 consumers have paid Rankine over a million pounds for something which may or may not be possible is of no consequence?
  8. Not as surprised as I am that no one has actually tackled Rankines proposition and his assertions that there are no laws presently to prevent what he says he can do. If there are such laws what are they?
  9. before I tried that I would like to have some idea of the likely outcome which is presumably why this discussion was started in the first place
  10. It may well be a load of old b**ll***s but there is a guy saying that its possible and there is no law to stop it happening.I was hoping there would be someone on here who could either confirm he is right or provide a convincing argument that he is wrong. At the moment there has been no convincing argument he is wrong so as far as I am concerned his assertions remain a possibility
  11. thanks for that,very interesting. Strange that Rankine is keen to put that judgement in his CV but I suspect that he was not as wrong on some points as was made out and lacked preparation besides being a bit too keen to blow his own trumpet
  12. I was quoting Rankine in the hope that others could offer opinions rather than agreeing with him but I would still like to know what laws are applicable to one party selling a debt to another if anyone can tell me
  13. Can anyone say which laws (civil or criminal) would be appplicable to this proposal put forwar by Rankine as he semms very confident that he will prevail in this matter
  14. I believe Rankines position to be that a credit agreement is a contract and that his process terminates this contract between the lender and the borrower. Once this contract is terminated then either side are free to enter any new contract they like regarding monies owed and if you choose to enter into a contract with Rankine wherby he assumes responsibility for the debt then you are free to do so. The crux of the matter is that when you terminate the agreement with the lender it no longer exists and therefore they can not pursue the debt referring to the non existant agreement. He also
  15. Any chance you can reveal who is taking what action against whom ?
  16. I just love the jolly old OFT,MoJ and FSA what a load of old tea drinking, clock watching, fence sitting,bunch of w*****s. Rankine reckons hbe has asked them all specifically exactly which laws he or the 'debt sellers' has broken and has invited them to commence action against him or them in order to identify which laws they would be relying on in court. In 6 months he reckons he has 'bought' debts off people to the value of 9 million pounds and is looking to double that in the next . By my reckoning he has raked in a cool 1,250,000 pounds so far(less his outgoings of course ) If ther
  17. Alllegedly 9 million pounds in debt and rising but any thought on legal issues rather than just dismissing the guy as a crank
  18. Has anyone heard about a guy who is offering to buy peoples debts for a fee of 10% of what they owe and then he deals with the fall out from the creditor and appoints a solictor to deal with any problems with defaults which may come the way of the original borrower and guarantees that his clients will not be taken to court. He does not care whether the agreement is enforceable or not. He reckons he has asked the MoJ,OFT and FSA if there is any law which prevents the borrower selling the agreement to him and they could not point to any law which this transaction would break. Sounds even m
  19. Here is the transcript of the recent Bank of Scotland v Mitchell case in the Leeds County Court. I have just copied and pasted as I don't know how to attach a copy here,hope its ok IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT Case No: 9LS70096 The Combined Court Centre Oxford Row Leeds 1st June 2009 Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE LANGAN QC __________ BANK OF SCOTLAND (Claimant) -v- ROBERT MITCHELL (Defendant) __________ APPROVED JUDGMENT __________ APPEARANCES: For the Claimant: MISS GARDNER For the Defendant: MR BERKLEY QC __________ Transcribed from tape
  20. Interesting,why did you take action against the site operators rather than the posters who did the defaming?
  21. Fingers, I would be totally in agreement with providing information for others to prevent them falling into the trap of using any so called service which did not come up to scratch. However there does seem to be a real grey area about this question of companies threatening libel action and I was just wanting to highlight this.
  22. I think in this case the CMC in question is owned by one individual but I guess the same applies unless he has a vendetta
  23. Your experience in court is one which seems to be commonplace and one of the problems is that County Court Judges do not know the CCA. So when a couple of barristers facing an LiP tell the Judge something he just believes the barristers and the argument is lost which is why you should be represented in court. It was very interesting in the case conference referred to earlier in the thread that there were numerous occasions when HH Halbert requested that barristers such as David Berkley assist in clarifying the law for him and at the end gave his thanks for their assistance
  • Create New...