Several different collection companies for each debt?

[clemma]

Hi clemma,

 

thanks for steping in, just trying to do my bit for those with 0 replies.

 

Good I trawl through them at least once a day

[brindles]

[Redletter]

Hey thanks to both of you!

 

Maybe you can clear something up for me?

 

If I send a CCA request, what exactly is the correct time limit?

12 working days would suggest that if you send the request on Monday 1st of month, allow Monday to Friday (Saturday & Sunday not included as not working days?) So day 6 is Monday 8th of month, day 10 Friday 12th of month? According to this the 12th 'working day' would be the following Tuesday 16th??? So if this is the case, 12 'working days' would actually be the 16th day of the month?????

Is that correct??

 

 

Thanks.

[babybear39]

The timescale for CCA requests is 12 + 2 working days, to allow for postage and for them to find the correct desk

[Redletter]

Got a letter from a DCA today offering significant reduction of over £1000 on a £3.5 grand debt!

 

Kind of them considering they most probably paid about £150 for it!

[Redletter]

Final sentence on letter from DCA.....

 

If you fail to contact (DCA) within the next 7 days your account will remain registered as an unpaid debt.

 

Clever stuff!!

[cerberusalert]

More likely it's unenforceable;)

[Redletter]

More likely it's unenforceable;)

 

 

 

Thanks for reply.

I'm not sure on this one. It's my friend's and his copy of the agreement is dated Jan 2006.

 

It was signed in the banks premises by both parties albeit on the second page.

 

The 1st page outlines the key financial information in little boxes, a seperate box for total loan, loan to repay existing loan, Loan for PPI and total credit. It shows amount of payments, number of payments.

 

Last box contains total charge for each of the above, seperately.

 

However, it has been passed around several DCA's since June 2008 so is there a likelyhood they dont have a copy?????

[Redletter]

In the majority of cases do the DCA's just buy the debt and not bother to obtain the paperwork?

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

It's not fair you demeaning their efforts so . These dca's have a hard time trying to come up with new threats that are not the subject of general merriment and derision . The work experience boy who came up with that one was probably very proud of his achievements at the dca that day , and probably told his mummy about the new letters they were sending out bearing his rapier -like thrust upon the unsuspecting debtors.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It's not fair you demeaning their efforts so . These dca's have a hard time trying to come up with new threats that are not the subject of general merriment and derision.

 

...not to mention OFT disapprobation...

[brindles]

In my experience, some so called dca are just acting on behalf of there client, some buy the debt.

 

I have never known a dca to have any paper work, with me they usually respond by saying, once they have the document requested they will send them to you,(suggesting they do not have them)

then the documents come from someone else altogether? If they come.

 

But thats just in my experience.

[babybear39]

In the majority of cases do the DCA's just buy the debt and not bother to obtain the paperwork?

 

Correct

[lilly white]

ok

 

it depends on old the alleged debt is

 

however in general terms a lot of cca have very large holes.

 

i ask a question the other day how do credit cards company work out

there Apr. i now know, however it can be ague that it is wrong.

 

there are other areas to look at

 

We all need to think outside the box imho.

 

Hope this helps

[DCA-KING]

OK so all those DCa who never send a CCA should i send them a request under cpr as they still write

regards chris

[babybear39]

OK so all those DCa who never send a CCA should i send them a request under cpr as they still write

regards chris

 

Do this if/when they threaten court action

[Viscount Stair]

Provided of course that they remember to include the right wording in the Default Notice, which not all of them do.

[charlie*]

I believe myself to be an honest man - by upbringing, education and by example from my parents.... my father never drove over the speed limit - never had a debt. But then, he was a fortunate man because he had one job for all of his working life and a sound defined maximum benefit pension at the end.... indeed, his and my generations were brought up to believe... never a lender nor a borrower be .... if you want it, then save up. I tell a lie, he did have a mortgage in 1930... for £300.

 

Having said that.... since I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject of money and its history, I have come to the conclusion that, at least since 1814... the next serious step forward being the handing over of the USdollar to the Federal Reserve System in 1913, taking money off the banksters is fair game... just as they have used us, the proles (the masses) to enrich themselves to the nth degree by lying, cheating, murdering, even screwing to expand their control over the monetary system.

 

What I do consider to be a debt of honour is this.... if I borrow money from a friend, relative, anyone who lends me money that is their own, then I am honour bound to repay them. Ya gotta get the words right - you borrow credit from a bank, banks cannot , do not lend money, you borrow money from an individual, individuals do not, cannot lend credit for in context, they cannot create credit only banks can do that.

 

Just try to come to terms with this..... when you borrow money, it is in the form of credit, then you turn it into money as it were and spend it.

 

When you repay what you borrowed in the first place, albeit you borrowed credit, BUT , as the banks do nor create enough to repay that debt, you repay the capital from your own money.... money that you have slaved for (remember, we all start in life with nothing), 9 to 5 for years, as with the interest you paid as well... here's the rub... you have given the bank CASH to repay that debt (as well as cash in the form of interest) NOT credit, thus, the bank loves you and made it possible for their big buildings and fat final salary pensions. However, the credit you were loaned in the first place is NOT paid off, it remains in the system - I believe this is so.

 

Then there's leverage... another subject entirely.

 

You see, this is what it's all about with the banksters.... This is my understanding broadly speaking.... 75%+ of the money in circulation is debt money - it's credit (ink in a ledger created by an illegal promissory note, your contract) and needs converting into money, it is interest bearing (the rest by and large is coinage from the treasury), so it's of no use to the banksters whatsoever. What they need is cash money flowing inwards to pay all their overheads. And that, my friends is where we all come in because that cash money is generated from our labour, it comes in our pay packets... okay, there are deviations here such as money left in a will, winnings from gambling (all money collected and paid out from gambling is from earned, personally owned money, money that was worked for - or won... now and then).

 

If we all stopped borrowing NOW, they'd soon go bust.

 

The sad thing is that there are very few who work in the banking industry who have any idea of what it's all about (except those who have enquiring minds and get stuck into google) and so they really believe that we owe them money when we borrow... you can tell that by some of the words and phraseology in the letters they write to us.

 

In truth, we owe them like for like... they loaned us credit, we should repay them with credit.... see what Mary Croft has to say about this!

 

The point I'm coming to is well expressed in Mary Croft's book (I have occasional contact with her by the way - we have friends in common) - when banks lose money, they by and large don't mean they've lost money, they mean they've lost credit - yet credit is actually worthless insofar as their balance sheets go, all they have to do, bearing in mind that their accounting is based on double entry accounting (a method you and I would we slung in prison for using in our business) is to make an entry to show the credit debit as being zeroed - no loss, no gain except for the interest they were collecting before the alleged loss.

 

Phew, hope I've got it right, anyway, that's what I generally understand.

 

So, the original question in this thread was...

 

"Is it morally wrong to default on an agreement"

 

NO - and here's another reason why, just to finish off.

 

The banks will refer you to "our contract with you" - they will also say "we will lend you money", they even advertise (not so much now tho) "we lend money"...... What a bloody lie and it was ever thus for 400 years.

 

The basis of a valid agreement is trust between two people - generally.

 

The banks break that trust, the trust you place in them because they do not reveal to you the true nature of that 'contract'.

 

1. There is NO disclosure of relevant facts (facts vital to your well being)

2. There is no equal consideration (they do not risk one penny of their own, nor other deposit's).

3. There is no meeting of the minds, a corporation cannot make a contract.

 

A bank agreement is a uni-lateral contract that is for the sole benefit of the bank and to the borrowers detriment..... it's as simple as that.

 

So, if they told the full truth, would anyone ever sign their loan agreements? - I doubt it... and without your signature on that worthless

paper, they cannot create the credit to lend you in the first place.

 

There is more, but from the above 3 points, the fact of the matter is that because they are totally dishonest in their dealings with you, albeit unknown to their employees who will not raise questions because they have good secure jobs (by and large) backed up with maximum final salary pensions (40/60ths) of the average of the last five years salary of bank employment and a career structure too, the moment you sign that loan agreement it becomes invalid, void, worthless. Yet, they use that paper to create the credit to lend you... in fact, what is happening here is that they are lending you th credit that you yourself created. Question is, who should be the benificiary of the loan repayment, the originator of the paper or the bank? The bank stole, without your knowledge your asset therefore, the credit - money belongs to you.

 

This is Commercial / Admiralty Law, the basis of everything... and the CCA is only a statute that, in an honest court would yield to the Law of Contract.

 

So, what do y'all think about that????

 

I hope my take on money is understandable - well, reasonably so.

 

charlie*

Edited March 28, 2009 by charlie*

[creditcardmug]

Subbing

[Viscount Stair]

Well, just one of the things I think about all that is that the reference to admiralty law is a load of old bilge water - and I say that as a former shipping lawyer with a few years before the mast.

 

And another thing I think is that corporations (or companies as we call them more often in the UK) can make contracts as legal persons, creatures of statute.

[charlie*]

Well, Viscount... an actual viscount is a friend of mine - I won't mention his name, naturally.

 

I bow to your superior knowledge.... lawyer or not, I can only write about what I read - oh, and I have read the odd page about the Inns of Court and its purpose... not good for the rest of us, but let us not get into that, except to say....

 

What is it the elite say? - "there's justice for all" - or do they really mean ... "just-us" - 'er, so long as they (meaning us) keep slaving for them and paying us through their +/- 78% composite tax rate and the interest on their loans that keeps us all in luxury...

 

I remember an article somewhere that the Rockerfella's keep over 2,000 domestic staff to maintain their various houses around the world - wow! - I do the washing up and hoovering in my house (see my halo?)

 

Suffice it to say that all these institutions, the law and finance seem to be centred within the square mile... an area of London - or rather I believe an area of London that is not in London where it has its own laws, where, when the monarch visits she or he has to be preceeded by the Mayor.... I wonder why? - I wonder could this have something to do with it being the financial centre of the world, well, maybe historically now... and we all know in whose best interests that lies, don't we? - I have read they also control the daily price of gold... much of which they and their mates seem to own a great deal - wonder if they bought some of Brown - well, on of the national papers did reveal some time ago, after he assumed the throne that "they" were/are advisers to the prime minister p- and come to think of it, didn't Norman Lamont (banker) take leave from them to become an MP, then after defeat, went back to them and picked up his old job?

 

Just a bit of fun.

 

charlie*

 

...Was it not Shakespeare who had something to say about lawyers?

Edited March 28, 2009 by charlie*

[charlie*]

Hey, creditcardmug, I see you come from a part of the UK where it rains all the time.... don't you really mean it rains all of the time, some of the time? (chuckle).

 

Well, yer gotta larf, or go mad, ain't it?

 

charlie*

[Redletter]

Thanks that is very helpful hackers

[Redletter]

bump

[cerberusalert]

The only way to find out is to send a CCA request.