UK debt being Chased in Australia

[seevee]

Skippy, I'll promise to re-look at the forum tomorrow and withdraw my comments if I'm wrong in terms of sufficient evidence.

 

In terms of whether I work for a DCA or a law firm...

 

I really don't know why people have jumped to this conclusion although it has mildly entertained me. All I've done is placed a different point of view on the table which had been attacked by DaveDu and then some others blindly.

 

I appreciate that we're all just trying to protect ourselves but what I have just seen over the last few pages is an atypical exercise in group think. Apart from being wrong which I am not afraid to be the only other thing that I ask the forum for is an open and critical mind for the common good.

 

DaveDu, how was that sermon. You're probably going through your third keyboard now!

[skippycreditdownunder]

Skippy, the debate is on whether debt re-assignment allows plonkers to transfer alledged debts legally and begin pursuit.

 

DaveDu and many other people on this site have said no...so hey trust them. Based on the level of trust this forum has shown me I would be asking for evidence which we all don't seem to be able to find any...

 

trust others on this site> that's subjective...

 

trust the three independant legal opinions i have sought... actually i do.. yes!

 

turn the debate on it's head... show me case law where an assigned uk debt has been remedied overseas....?

[DAVEDU]

Sorry for calling you a twit seevee, I actually used another word, replace the "i" with an "a" and you've got it.

Apparantley have to watch your language on this forum...

[seevee]

Good point Skippy. WA_Newman may be able to shed some light on this.

[skippycreditdownunder]

Good point Skippy. WA_Newman may be able to shed some light on this.

as he seems to be the first cab to stop at perth court defending one of these claims im sure he will when it's heard in a few weeks....

 

meanwhile im confident. for me the alleged debt is less than a weeks wages. i'd have settled months ago if i wasn't comfortable about my position after doing my own due dilligence and paying for good advice.

 

theres no blind faith in this camp just solid arguments backed up with relevant case law and a bloody good legal team....

[DAVEDU]

Skippy, I'll promise to re-look at the forum tomorrow and withdraw my comments if I'm wrong in terms of sufficient evidence.

 

In terms of whether I work for a DCA or a law firm...

 

I really don't know why people have jumped to this conclusion although it has mildly entertained me. All I've done is placed a different point of view on the table which had been attacked by DaveDu and then some others blindly.

 

I appreciate that we're all just trying to protect ourselves but what I have just seen over the last few pages is an atypical exercise in group think. Apart from being wrong which I am not afraid to be the only other thing that I ask the forum for is an open and critical mind for the common good.

 

DaveDu, how was that sermon. You're probably going through your third keyboard now!

 

Don't worry about my keyboards, they only get smashed when I lose on online poker, sure those bloody games are fixed.

 

You don't seriously wonder why you're not trusted? Since your first PM and post you've done nothing but attempt to cause worry and seed doubt about our case, you have offered nothing constructive at all. If done by someone cleverer maybe it would have had the desired effect.. aren't we lucky it was you:D

 

But I do however appreciate your entertainment value, now that's been priceless;)

[skippycreditdownunder]

Don't worry about my keyboards, they only get smashed when I lose on online poker, sure those bloody games are fixed.

 

You don't seriously wonder why you're not trusted? Since your first PM and post you've done nothing but attempt to cause worry and seed doubt about our case, you have offered nothing constructive at all. If done by someone cleverer maybe it would have had the desired effect.. aren't we lucky it was you:D

 

But I do however appreciate your entertainment value, now that's been priceless;)

 

cost of a new keyboard $50

 

cost of legal advice> expensive

 

staying up sparring with seevee - priceless

 

for everything else in life there is barclaycard!

[skippycreditdownunder]

Good point Skippy. WA_Newman may be able to shed some light on this.

explain your comment?

[seevee]

Thanks all for the advice. It has been helpful.

 

DaveDu, no offence ever intended but I gather you are extremely sensitive.

 

I don't see my comments as worrying people. I believe I have attached helpful information to this forum which in no way is misleading,

 

You're right it was fun!

[DAVEDU]

Hey Seevee

 

Done a quick read of both the Law of Property Act 1925 (UK) and the Property Law Act 1969 (WA), you really think you've got a chance with them?

 

God seevee, I'm almost starting to like you as well. Do you do bookings for birthday parties?

[seevee]

I do a great priest impersonation apparently

[Roary 61]

Seevee Its refreshing to get another prospective, even one as flawed as yours.

We can go on for hours arguing over this and that. I on the other hand am a more simple cove. I believe in my case that at the root of this is B'clays bank. I have filled a formal complaint holding them accountable for Pie and beers actions in regard to harrasment, intimidaion and personnel data transmittal.

 

Now I ask you this Seevee, when Barks comes back and says they have no standing with Pie and beer, how will the man in the grey wig take it when he sees that on every pie and beer notice letter they name Sharkleys in big bold writing.

 

I could go out in the street tomorrow and stop a complete stranger and demad that he owes me money. The problem is when actual documentation is required and when Barks is saying they don't know Pie and Beer from a bar of soap me learned judge is going to soon suspect a house of cards.

[skippycreditdownunder]

Hey Seevee

 

Done a quick read of both the Law of Property Act 1925 (UK) and the Property Law Act 1969 (WA), you really think you've got a chance with them?

 

God seevee, I'm almost starting to like you as well. Do you do bookings for birthday parties?

yeah why do this over the net, lets just meet up on neutral territory and do it over a beer....

 

get a couple of locals to adjudicate and it'll save me a court case. whoever the local jury thinks has the strongest argument wins. i'll bring my weeks wages in a brown envelope and seevee can bring a letter agreeing to drop proceedings...

 

dave you can compere the event?

[skippycreditdownunder]

I do a great priest impersonation apparently

that's good cause pioneer believe blind faith will get them through...

[DAVEDU]

that's good cause pioneer believe blind faith will get them through...

 

:D:D:D

[skippycreditdownunder]

how are sphere going with trying to get this forum shut down anyway??

[skippycreditdownunder]

Seevee Its refreshing to get another prospective, even one as flawed as yours.

We can go on for hours arguing over this and that. I on the other hand am a more simple cove. I believe in my case that at the root of this is B'clays bank. I have filled a formal complaint holding them accountable for Pie and beers actions in regard to harrasment, intimidaion and personnel data transmittal.

 

Now I ask you this Seevee, when Barks comes back and says they have no standing with Pie and beer, how will the man in the grey wig take it when he sees that on every pie and beer notice letter they name Sharkleys in big bold writing.

 

I could go out in the street tomorrow and stop a complete stranger and demad that he owes me money. The problem is when actual documentation is required and when Barks is saying they don't know Pie and Beer from a bar of soap me learned judge is going to soon suspect a house of cards.

roary good point well put.

 

funnily enough i'm bit light on with the proof of alleged debt i've been given too

[DAVEDU]

Love to be the compere Skippy, terms seem a little unfair to me though...

 

All you get is a letter to drop proceedings??? Surely you'd deserve a little holiday for all the trouble you've been put to?

 

Thank god ( no not you seevee ) i'm off work tomorrow

[skippycreditdownunder]

good night all. sweet dreams... try to get me some good weather for my trip to perth SeeVee. if you want to do it sooner you know where to find me? i'm open to a sensible discussion.....

[DAVEDU]

I'm open to discussions as well seevee, just tell me how much you're willing to pay me to go away and I'll have a think about where I want to go on holiday.

[WA_Newman]

Sorry for not chipping in earlier but I've been busy.

 

Met with my lawyer and two UK-trained Barristers today. Sorry to disappoint everyone but my case won't be making it to court. There is no case to answer and will be a summary dismissal. Just waiting on any docs from Pie & Beer to pass on to the investigating authorities.

 

For the benefit of seevee: Pie & Beer can not assign the debt to Australia. The original creditor (Barclayshark) assigns the debt and must inform the debtor (PFF) in writing. The assignee (Pie & Beer) can't act on behalf of the original creditor in notifying the debtor of assignment. I believe this is section 136 of the Law of Property Act. Which is almost identical to the WA Property Act which is what Pie & Beer are trying to use since they got busted for trying to use the UCCC.

 

Interesting that Barclayshark assigned the debt to a Canadian firm. Canada is one of the few counties outside Europe that are members of the Adequacy Club, a group of countries that have sufficient data protection laws to allow UK firms to transfer data without breaching the UK Data Protection Act. If Barclayshark had assigned the debt and sent personal data (credit card statements) to Australia, Barclaycard would have been in breach of the the UK Data Protection Act. As it turns out Barclayshark is in the clear if it did in fact export the personal data to Canada, and the data was then exported to Australia without Barclaysharks' knowledge or permission. If this is the case, Pie & Beer are in a whole heap of manure as they initially misrepresented in writing that they were acting on behalf of Sharkleys.

 

There are a couple of issues still to resolve: firstly, did the Canadian company break any Canadian laws in exporting personal data to a country outside the Adequacy Club? (anyone know a good Canadian lawyer?)Secondly, if Sharkleys directly exported the data to Australia, or the Canadian company broke any Canadian laws in exporting the data, then the data was supplied illegally. The question is; is data supplied illegally admissable in an Australia Magistrates Court? I have no idea but I'm meeting my lawyer, one of my barristers and an official from the Attorney General's office tomorrow. I'll ask them.

 

Even if the original creditor writes to the debtor to notify them, and manages to get around novation (sp?), all that is assigned are the rights and obligations of the original agreement which is covered by the CCA (1974). As we should all know, the CCA (1974) clearly states that actions can only be brought in the County Court of England & Wales.

 

Incidentally, for all agreements covered by the CCA (1974) Statute Barred means BARRED. The debt still exists but their is no remedy in law for enforcement of the debt.

 

The UCCC prevents the listing of debts with a CRA that are unenforeable in Australia. If anyone has suffered financial loss through an improper listing of a default notice they are entitled to sue for damages. The courts take a very dim view of this behaviour. There have been some spectacular results in this area. A local City has lost a number of these cases that were less obvious than what Pie & Beer are doing. One local businessman is seeking $10,000,000 in losses because he couldn't refinance his properties because of a default notice that has since been removed. Not being able to get a 0% balance transfer because of a default notice is sufficient grounds to seek damages. If you are going to sue Pie & Beer I would advise you get in quick before the company is shut down and the cowboys are run out of town.

 

I apologise for the length of my post but there is a lot of misinformation knocking about and I wanted to clear this up. Some of the subjects are quite boring. Certainly my post is not as interesting as ceevee's, but hopefully more practical. If you are looking for another way of looking at things, read up on Scientology.

[DAVEDU]

Congratulations WA_Newman, a great result. How come everyone new it was a foregone conclusion except Pioneer?

Looks like I'll be getting my holiday sooner than I thought; you can come if you want seevee seeing as you'll be paying for it:D

[WA_Newman]

Pie & Beer work by intimidation and people's ignorance. They buy these debts for cents in the dollar then threaten people. It is a common tactic in the DCA industry. They only need 10% of people to pay up to make it worth their while.

 

I know a woman from my kids' school who is constantly getting fired for being useless. Each time she threatens to sue her former employer hoping that they will pay out not wanting the cost and hassle. It was a successful ploy until she got greedy and sued a former employer for sexual harrassement. He went to court and the case was thrown out. The judge wasn't very complimentary to her. I've just found out she has trying it again with a new former-employer (she's gave up on the sexual harrassement and is claiming constructive dismissal).

 

The Directors of Pie & Beer figured out that if you threaten to sue enough people, you can make a good living at it. Threatening someone without reason is extortion and is usually unsuccessful unless you are a Triad.

 

Along comes Barclayshark wanting to unload its toxic debt. It must have been a gift from above for Pie & Beer. All those debts for cents in the dollar. Who cares if they are not enforecable? Even with statute barred debts the debt still exists and Pie & Beer can request payment. It could be argued that Pie & Beer deliberately bought all those lemons to make a whole bucket full of lemonade for themselves. What do you think ceevee?

 

To make it more intimidating they registered a legal firm S****e to act under instruction from Pie & Beer. But the Pie & Beer guys got lazy and didn't bother to register S****e at a different address to themselves. Not that it really matters they just engage some sole practitioner experienced in debt collection in the Magistrates Court to represent them.

 

Given that there are so many UK-based debts you would think that they would hire an expert in UK credit law. However, the aim is not to win court cases it is to intimidate people into paying.

 

Pie & Beer know that they will never win in court even with a correct assignment, acknowledgement in writing of the debt, and all the original paperwork. The CCA (1974) is the overiding law: all cases must be heard in County Court of England & Wales (or Scotland or Ireland as appropriate). Does anyone think for one minute that a WA Magistrate is going to allow a plaintif to unilaterally alter a contract against the wishes of the defendant. Now ask yourself; is a WA Magistrate going to allow a plaintif to cancel a foreign contract, governed by the law of another sovereign state, and simply make up a new contract under Australian law against the wishes of the defendant?

 

The absolutely best that Pie & Beer can hope for is a correct assignment of a UK debt that has a recent, legally obtained, CCJ. It then must go to court for enforement of a foreign debt (expensive but not impossible).

 

Pie & Beer can't even go to the UK and obtain a CCJ on a non-UK resident.

 

I

[WA_Newman]

I would like to disagree with a previous poster: from my contacts with Pie & Beer $38,000 plus commissions is a bloody good wage for someone with their skill sets. It is unlikely they could get a job on the checkouts.

[expatdebtor]

Very early in the morning but I think I am extreemeley happy!!