Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shinobi101

  1. Are you preparing for court cases on this, or just giving banks and DCA's a hard time? I am at the beginning stages of this with about £20k (3 unsecured loans) which I simply cannot afford. I am about to write a complaint letter highlighting all their fraud to them as justification for not paying them anything, although if the debt was genuine then I would negotiate some form of payment:lol: Have you had any interesting responses from banks?
  2. Since most of us know that the entire system is fraudulent, has anyone raised this issue with their bank? What kind of response did you get? Has anyone made any progress in getting loans written off etc?
  3. Brilliant. If the original (alleged) agreement is pre-2007 they can't get the court to enforce the debt. CCA1974 sec 127(3). Any payment you make now is a goodwill gesture.
  4. They forged an agreement?? Remind me - fraud is still a crime isn't it? Talk to the police, you have enough evidence. Get a crime reference number if you can. Then send them a copy telling them it is your intention to press charges. Don't ask them to do anything, so they can't accuse you of blackmail. See what they say.
  5. This kind of thing makes my blood boil. That woman's life was worth more than the bank. The wrong one survived. The solution is for the banks to be forced to write off debt in cases of proven hardship. They should also be banned from the sudden and total withdrawal of facilities when the customer is making a genuine effort. The reason for this is explained here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/175668-how-credit-cards-bank.html Most people think that if you borrow say £30k, that the bank has given you £30k of it's own money in the hope of getting it all back plus enough to make a small profit; and if you don't pay it means the bank will have lost £30k. The reality is that the money you allegedly borrow is in fact (usually) created by the bank itself by means of an accounting entry. They accept your promise to pay as an asset, then create a corresponding liability which becomes your loan. You have swapped a promise to pay for an accounting entry. Transaction over. I see the demand by the bank that you then pay them loads of real money plus interest as outright fraudulent. If you don't pay, they don't lose anything they ever actually had. The money would exist if you hadn't borrowed it! The fact that people are actually dying for this con is unforgiveable.
  6. Of course they want to avoid the issue, but that doesn't mean they should get away with it. The banks are trying to avoid a lot of valid issues at the moment. My thinking is that we should be able to use a CPR request to get the bank's bookkeeping records, which would show where the alleged money came from. It would be literally impossible to get a fair hearing in court without this imformation. We are entitled to a fair hearing aren't we? What these records would typically show is that the bank accepted your promise to pay as an asset. The promise to pay has no real value. When the bank enters the promise to pay into its assets column, it then creates a corresponding liability to balance its books. That liability then becomes your loan. Without your promise to pay, the money would not have existed.
  7. Nuke em, Well done for sticking with this thread for so long. I would have run out of patience ages ago. It's good that a few people seem to understand how fraudulent the system is. The question is how we build a defence based on this. Or maybe even an attack? There are unconfirmed rumours floating around of people getting back every penny they've ever paid on their mortgage, based on contract law, i.e. the bank has provided no consideration for the contract. Does anyone know anything about this? I'm having a bit of an arguement with Barclays about this, but so far they've just completely ignored the question of fraudulent money creation.
  8. IMHO the moral issue is that the bank usually creates the "money" out of thin air, i.e. it lends you "money" that it didn't even have. This thread gives a good explanation. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/175668-how-credit-cards-bank.html When you take out a loan, you risk facing all of the problems faced by caggers, DCA's, court orders, possible bankruptcy etc. The bank risks nothing as the funds loaned are nothing more than an accounting entry. If you don't pay, they won't lose anything they actually had. Seems to me, the balance of power in this relationship is so strongly in favour of the banks that the poor consumer doesn't stand a chance.
  9. So there's 2 CSA's and they're both evil! The same in both name and nature, but different lines of business... You could try the TPUC site, or fmotl.com. These are lawful rebellion/freeman-on-the-land sites, but particularly TPUC seem to know a bit about the CSA and social services. Please, please, please, check your facts very carefully before you take any action on this, as you will find caggers are much better at checking their facts, but those on freeman sites often do claim successes. TPUC is at www.tpuc.org | News for positive people Also, tread carefully if you have a decent access arrangement, or anything else to lose. Maybe the CAG should have a CSA/social services forum. At least to educate people and make sure these agencies obey their own rules and treat people fairly.
  10. So those that lie, cheat, bully harrass and intimidate even those who are trying their best to pay unmanageable debts, now think we shouldn't stand up for ourselves? Is this the hypocrite's last stand? It is the banking system itself that is more fraudulent than most people could possibly imagine. See this thread for details. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/175668-how-credit-cards-bank.html
  11. Thank you. That's a brilliant piece of info. I bet the banks never thought to allow for things like this.
  12. Sorry, may not have been clear enough. The envelope is marked as above, but also says Royal Mail first class on it.
  13. My main worry is about having to prove when it was received. If it ends up being my word against theirs, I could see a dodgy judge ruling against me. On a positive note, if they only get the amount on the DN, I could probably pay it within a year.
  14. It says DEFAULT NOTICE Served under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It all the usual threats, termination, debt collections etc.
  15. There is no postmark or date. The envelope says Advanced Mail, First Class, AAAE-LRXK-TEHY. There is some kind of code stamped on the envelope. Loads of dots that look a bit like a bar code.
  16. Does anyone you actually want to speak to ever withhold their number? If not, you could try something like BT's Anonymous call reject. Or develop a habit of screening your calls. If you can afford it, maybe a 'personal number' that diverts to wherever you want. You could give that to work and friends only. Or maybe "can I speak to Mr........" could be answered with something like "depends who you are and what you want", or "who's calling please?" If you don't want to talk to them, "sorry it's not convenient right now" or "can I take a message?" etc
  17. I received a default notice from Barclays today (11th Nov) with a cut-off date of 23rd Nov. That gives me 12 days. The problem is it is dated 5th Nov, so it looks valid but having only received it today it is not. I have kept it in the envelope and written the delivery date on it. The question is what do I do now? I've been thorugh the faulty DN issue with Amex, but the fault there was evident in the notice itself. This time I'm relying on the actual delivery date but not sure how to prove this.
  18. You could sign up for the Telephone Preference Service. (I don't have a link, but google does) That will help reduce sales calls. Last time the bank called me I answered the phone in Russian:lol: (I only know a few words, but they give up quickly!
  19. Thanks smouk, I never even thought of getting my credit file cleaned up as part of the deal. Maybe I'll send a formal offer including them cleaning up my credit file in return for their £146. That way they can earn their money
  20. AIC gave up straight away:lol: I never even had a reply to the letter I sent them. I've had quite a few voicemails saying "Message for [shinobi101] to call the named drone at RMA resolve on....." Of course I never rang them back because they didn't explain who they are or what they want. They seem to have stopped at the moment as well. Haven't heard anything for a few weeks. I said in one letter (I forget which) that I would offer them £146 (the amount on the dodgy DN) as full and final settlement on a £5500 balance, subject to an enforceable CCA being shown. They don't appear to have accepted my offer:lol:
  21. BRW, looks like we generally agree after all. The situations you describe such as keeping a roof over your head etc are situations where you really do have no choice but to sell gold. My view on gold is something to keep to protect some of your wealth (if you have any - I don't) in the event of a global financial meltdown which I believe is likely to start in less than 5 years, and maybe a soon as a month or two. Nexus magazine have done a few articles on this. Alex Jones has articles on it on prisonplanet.com. There's some good info on davidicke.com as well (don't mention the lizards )
  22. Barclaycard stole a minimum payment from my Barclays current account. I had a new account the next morning. I think I read somewhere that the co-op bank offer a "parachute account" which has standing order and direct debit facilities, so you should be able to get one no matter how bad your credit is. (this might have been on moneysavingexpert.com 'do you need a parachute account' but not totally sure) Insist on a standing order with Barclays. They gave me sort code and account details for one of my loan accounts. They wanted me to set up a direct debit (!?) but the personal banker took the account details and set up a standing order. They can take it, even if they don't want to. Remember the direct debit guarantee. If as a last resort you get a DD, you can get your bank to take the money back if they take too much. You could try demanding Barclays honour the direct debit guarantee on the grounds that no payment was due as the account is in dispute. They will disagree, but at least you get to annoy them;-) Refusing to honour the direct debit guarantee might also be grounds for a formal complaint. If their alleged 'right' to take money this way doesn't come into effect until October, then they're breaking their own rules. Complain about that, tell them they can't do it before October, but still change banks immediately (don't tell them til your money all goes to your new account) One small point on which I disagree with BRW (never thought that would happen;-)) is that I wouldn't sell gold unless you have no other choice. The global (planned) economic crisis isn't nearly over, IMHO it's barely beginning, and I think it'll get a hell of a lot worse. There is a strong possibility that the traitors we refer to as a government (see tpuc.org or ukcolumn.org) will try to crash sterling to justify our entry into the euro Gold and silver are likely to be worth a hell of a lot more in the future.
  23. Thanks Pinky. There's no chance of me sending any cards back now
  24. If I sold enough tickets I could pay all my debts What does an appeal cost? I was thinking in terms of the judge knowing the law, it being stated in your defence and the judge then ignoring the law. This is both biased (which is not allowed) and a clear abuse of power. I was hoping it would take the form of a complaint to the ministry of justice or maybe a criminal complaint.
  25. Found this on TPUC forum. Can we use it when judges refuse to obey the law? e.g. If they make an enforcement order in violation of sec 127(3) 'Misfeasance in Public Office’ is a term frequently used when a public official does his job in a way that is not technically illegal, but nevertheless he is mistaken or wrong. Parliament intended that statutory powers were exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred. The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences. The offence of ‘Malfeasance’ takes the reckless element a stage further and is when a public official intentionally does something either legally or morally wrong which he had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. It is conduct in violation of the law. The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is an intentional tort that can be committed only by a public official and the core concept is abuse of power. This in turn involves other concepts, such as dishonesty, bad faith, and improper purpose. Power is granted to a public official for a public purpose. It is an abuse of that power for him to exercise it for his own private purposes, whether out of spite, malice, revenge, or merely self-advancement. If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences the official cannot argue that he did not intend the consequences of his actions or that they were not aimed at the person who he knew would suffer loss. In a legal system underpinned by the rule of law, administrative power must be exercised in good faith and not for ulterior or improper purposes. Where it can be shown that a body or official was not acting in good faith, liability in the tort of misfeasance in public office might exist. The constituent elements of the tort of misfeasance are as follows: 1. That the act or conduct has been committed by a public officer. 2. The act or conduct must have been done by him in the purported exercise of his power as a public officer. 3. That the act or conduct must have been done either: 1. maliciously; or 2. knowing that the impugned act or conduct is invalid/unauthorised and knowing that it will probably injure the claimant. 4. The act or conduct must cause loss or harm to the claimant. There are two forms of liability for misfeasance. The first form of the tort involves targeted malice by a public officer, or in other words, conduct specifically intended to injure a person. Where a public officer had this intention, it is irrelevant whether the public officer exceeded his powers or acted within the letter of the law. The second form of liability applies where the public officer acts knowing he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act will probably injure a person or persons. The element of bad faith arises, as the public officer does not have an honest belief that his conduct is lawful. In this scenario, it is not necessary to show that the public officer acted with the purpose or object of inflicting harm on the claimant. Misfeasance does not require a claimant to identify a legal right that is being infringed or a particular duty owed to him, beyond the right not to be damaged or injured by a deliberate or reckless abuse of power by a public officer. The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is concerned with preventing public officials from acting beyond their powers to the injury of the citizen, not with compelling them to exercise the powers they do have, particularly when they have a discretion whether to exercise them or not.
  • Create New...