Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[spartathisis]

AC; Nuke em posted a rather, on the face of it, ranting letter to send out to DCA's that he stated worked for him, many did not agree on the basis that it was stretching many points to the limit and some untruths. He also made a statement saying that, in effect, money doesnt exist until you apply for a loan (as is quoted in Paul W's link to commons memo), he was loudly shouted down on this even though it is almost correct.

 

Securitization: What section do I post a new thread on the subject?

 

I am thinking of defending on this matter if taken to court, foolish maybe, I have app forms, illegible forms and defective DN's so have a lot to defend with. Saying that I have to date not been threatened with court so all moot at the moment.

 

Anyone interested a good basic guide here: Web's most comprehensive securitization resource

[PriorityOne]

Securitization: What section do I post a new thread on the subject?

 

I am thinking of defending on this matter if taken to court, foolish maybe, If you already think it's foolish, then why go ahead with it? I have app forms, illegible forms and defective DN's you're better off going with these instead... so have a lot to defend with. Saying that I have to date not been threatened with court so all moot at the moment.

 

 

[diddydicky]

 

i can see the point about securitization (as much as i can understand anyway), but it seems to me if you start defending on this basis, bearing in mind nthe apparant international nature of it all - you could be knocking up some pretty horrendous costs if you lose,

 

well into 5 if not 6 figures i would imagine in a hard fought case

 

not a course of action i would recommend for a typical credit card or loan debt.

[angry cat]

I think that the securitization issue has been well discussed:

e.g.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/202474-well-amex-declines-answer.html

 

there are many other threds.

 

If you look on page 97 of the commons memo, you will see just how the banks created money and then lent this created money, all the while adding interest.

 

Great big buckets of debt float around the system;

who owns the debt(s);

the SPV's;

the banks or;

the debt buyers.

 

What about the assignments/sale of these debts?

 

How were they sold?

how many times have they been sold?

and where were they sold?

 

Was UK tax relief claimed on these debts?

 

In reality, who actually owns this toxic debt or is it just floating around in limbo.

 

DCA debt buyers will state that they are the owners of said debt(s).

 

But, can they prove it?

 

IMO, the answer will always be on the DoA/DoS, if they dare let you see these docs!

 

Lastly, do not forget that most DCA assignee's have a put-back insurance in place with the OC.

[angry cat]

i can see the point about securitization (as much as i can understand anyway), but it seems to me if you start defending on this basis, bearing in mind nthe apparant international nature of it all - you could be knocking up some pretty horrendous costs if you lose,

 

well into 5 if not 6 figures i would imagine in a hard fought case

 

not a course of action i would recommend for a typical credit card or loan debt.

 

I am not recommending folowing this route, however, be under no illusion that most credit card accounts are securitized and some have been securitized through dublin eire.

Most are put into SPV's off shore such as Jersey/Guernsey.

 

Note that, there are different rules her in the UK re: securitization;

these differ to that of the USA.

Edited January 25, 2010 by angry cat

[angry cat]

My apologies for going off topic!

[PriorityOne]

The securitisation issue is far too complex for most people to understand... and the risk of looking a pillock in court by bringing it up is far more likely to happen than not.

 

It also doesn't deal with the real issue.... whether an account can be re-enforced in court or not. I think this was one of the points that Oilyrag was losing his rag about (apologies for the pun ) because people are going off on tangents about things that really won't help on the day.... or before the day, for that matter.

[PriorityOne]

My apologies for going off topic!

 

 

No worries....

 

I'm just concerned that people will get too overwhelmed by things that won't really help them when faced with a claim by a creditor, that's all.

[angry cat]

No worries....

 

I'm just concerned that people will get too overwhelmed by things that won't really help them when faced with a claim by a creditor, that's all.

 

Understood PO!

[emandcole]

Start yourself a new thread emandcole, and we will see you over there.

 

Righto

[emandcole]

New thread on Securitization added and can be found here. Let's see what comes of it:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/244131-securitization-discussion.html

 

Let's face it, we just that one nugget of genius to make the banks really sweat. Strangely I feel it is only a matter of time before this happens...there must be something.

[basa48]

Originally Posted by spartathisis

 

I have app forms, illegible forms and defective DN's

you're better off going with these instead...

 

Seriously - what is the effect of a defective DN in getting an agreement declared unenforceable??

[emandcole]

Seriously - what is the effect of a defective DN in getting an agreement declared unenforceable??

 

It's dynamite if you know how to play with it! All the better if they terminate on you. Have you read some of the default threads as all will be revealed?

 

Can do you a link if you need one?

 

So, do you have some default notices and want to know what you can do with them?

[angry cat]

Seriously - what is the effect of a defective DN in getting an agreement declared unenforceable??

 

Been discussed many times before basa!

 

I guess, we had all better get back to dissecting the Manchester Test case.

[Laura Cooke]

I have dodgy applications, off some creditors nothing at all off some others some are illegiable but only one I am told out of my 5 DN`s is defective so where would I stand on this at a creditor taking it to court? been paying DMP for 7 months none of creditors accepted it stopped paying to this and next month going to send them a £1 each run out of ideas on benefits don`t own my home so they can take it to court

[Peterbard]

Been discussed many times before basa!

 

I guess, we had all better get back to dissecting the Manchester Test case.

 

WHy didnt i think of that

[angry cat]

AC;

 

I am thinking of defending on this matter if taken to court, foolish maybe, I have app forms, illegible forms and defective DN's so have a lot to defend with. Saying that I have to date not been threatened with court so all moot at the moment.

 

IF the agreement is illegible then it falls foul of the Cancellation notices regulations;

the court cannot enforce it. Therefore, you would state that the documents are illegible.

 

Further, if the agreement has been terminated on the back of an ineffective Default Notice;

you have a defence against the claim.

[paulwlton]

I can't see how a Time Order can help anyone unless we're talking about secured debt. Payments under a DMP are likely to be equal than/lower than those arranged on a Time Order anyway.... minus the aggrevation.

 

Wouldn't making an application for a time order be a better alternative than having a default or CCJ on your credit file?

[charlie*]

CREATION OF MONEY....

 

There is no huge pool of money beneath any lending bank, just waiting there to be borrowed...

 

Money is created when a borrower requests a loan and most lending is done from high street banks... HSBC, Barclay's, Lloyds, Nat West etc.

 

This is clearly explained by the BANK OF ENGLAND...

 

Bank of England|Home

 

Quarterly Bulletin 2008, Q1, volume 48, no.1,

page 103, left hand column last para, line 4.

 

(banks do not lend money, they create it on demand).

 

All is also explained by the Chicago branch of the Federal Reserve.

 

If all we did was to borrow money that pre-existed the loan agreement, no new money would ever be created.

[angry cat]

Wouldn't making an application for a time order be a better alternative than having a default or CCJ on your credit file?

 

Definately, of benefit for some!

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
professio0nal advice to do so

[Peterbard]

This is my Swansong to CAG.

 

I have almost given up bothering to try and help and make a contribution to the debate and to caggers in trouble. Most battles are won in the intelligence department and one of the key areas is "knowing your opponent" as much as you can. This must necessarily open up the wider issues. I won't go on and divert space from DD's personal problems in this what should be open and full debate BUT in the wake of the 1991 recession which YOU and I paid for in high interest rates, the exact sum of the banks' losses, an "Iron Mountain Conference" was called in 1997. Delegates are the 15 or 20 persons who are alleged to control the whole of the world's money supply. The minutes of this conference have been forcibly removed from the internet on two occasions by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States Of America. The perpetrator of these leaks is alleged to be in hiding with a price on his head. These minutes are alleged to contain a blueprint of the "carve up"" of the money supply and where it will be invested, which are to be the rising areas (nations) and those that are going to be the falling areas (nations) for the next two generations. Can you not ask yourself why New Zealand no longer is a major producer of meat in a world food crisis? There is much more of course. Britain it was alleged would be reduced to "museum" status and poverty of the majority of us was the price to be paid. These are the ideals and principles behind everything that you will have to deal with on a day to day to day basis in a court room when defending yourself against a financial institution. We are just the gnat (even collectively) biting the bum of a very large greedy grumpy bull indeed.

 

NOW in all this wallowing in section 78 there are some very relevant issues around the Manchester test cases which are being swept under the carpet and are not being brought into focus in this debate. I will agree that it is one starting point and probably the most elementary for people to understand and that is all it has ever really been since the wording of the Statute allows it to be so.

 

From what I have been able to glean about the original case management conferences setting up Manchester in the first place a number of LEAD cases were to be heard in the Mercantile Court, note LEAD not TEST to establish a set of rules that could be applied and used by other courts in the light of SECTION 78 claims by claims management companies. Certain solicitors were also involved directly who also wished to establish some ground rules improving the advice to clients and providing a settled course of action to be taken on behalf of clients. The numbers of cases being heard was also settled I believe and have that in writing.

 

Carey v HSBC therefore was a number of cases to be heard subsequently by HHJ David Waksman Qc,

 

In the cold light of day MBNA lost one case and settled two others. No dissection of these on here to any extent. Why? Their details are more than relevant to your/our troubles.

 

In particular due to already but very new case law in the judgement in favour of the debtor handed down by DDJ Smith QC just prior to the hearing itself in Manchester, Waksman alluded to this. Not discussed properly here. Why?

 

DJ LanganQC had also just ruled in Leeds County Court and found for the claimant debtor establishing new case law and making much further comment to boot about the banks behaviour in front of a court of Law. HHJ Waksman actually told you about this. Why no analysis to help others understand?

 

Every bit of these is pertinent, Waksman even gave you the clues on a plate.

 

The other serious thing is that, unless my arithmetic is wrong there is still a case "missing" from the Manchester hearings which was within the numbers issued from the case management conferences. Nothing has been published about this case, if the numbers are to be believed then it wasn't heard by HHJ Waksman. Why was it "pulled"? Why no mention on here? You can all do the sums. What was or is the significance of this case and the implications it might have had for the people here? Does anyone know?

 

I am not a lawyer, I am a simple engineer from the plasma physics industry, who used to turn mad scientists dreams into reality. Sadly all of their funding came on the basis of research into making things to kill more and more of my fellows in a more efficient way. Do not be fooled by the advances in medical science or the like, they have mainly come on the back of or as byproducts of better killing machine research. This PC and yours came as a result of that principle and that principle alone. Facing up to broken health, I now design and make toys in my own workshop to give my fellow humans pleasure and enjoyment if at all possible. That is why I am broke and in financial difficulties. Just ask yourselves the questions honestly!!!!

 

Goodbye I won't be drawn down further to the level of some supposed caggers on this debate

 

oilyrag.

HI

Sorry to see you go, you obviously have a valid point and are more than welcome to express it.

I do not really understand why you didn’t raise these matters yourself or perhaps you did and I missed it.

But anyway now you have mentioned it I will look yet again at the verdict and see if I can locate the points you have raised.

As for over emphasising the section 78 element of the judgement I don’t think that is at all a bad thing over the past three years or so these threads have been full of people some of whom should have frankly known better, giving advice for debtors to stop payment on the none compliance of this request. Anything that puts a permanent stop to that is a good thing.

And it was the major part of the case wasn’t it.

Peter

[creditman09]

Oilyrag

 

I have been extremely interested in your comments and for me they are part of the all round big picture. I believe that you have to take note of what the professionals say and in part this is shown by Emmetts Solicitors on their web site. Also, Baggio seems to have contacts with professional which indicate the way things will go.

 

To a certain extent some of the comments and observations on here appear to be of the disinformation agenda so just be aware of this possibilty. However, the more people looking at this site the more problems caused to the debt collection industry as knowledge increases.

 

Sorry if you do cease posting Oilyrag as this is what some would want.

[saddler68]

'I am a simple engineer from the plasma physics industry'. Im sure there must be a contradiction in that sentence somewhere:) Keep on posting OR, I enjoy your posts.

[spartathisis]

Oily, you appear to be throwing in the towel (or is that rag:)), I fully understand where you are coming from, but if we all walked away from a situation that wasnt to our liking what mess would we be in?

 

You are correct in saying that it seems to be about the negatives, but is that not people trying to turn the negative into a positive? If the downside of manchester's negatives means opening up another avenue, then this coupled with the other points you noted make for a stronger argument in the end. I still believe that manchester was actually better for debtors than appears to be believed by some on here i.e. creditors HAVE to say whether the have an original and provide an exact copy of all details contained within the original.

 

Can I suggest starting a new thread that is specific to the positive points to come out of the cases you quoted and post a link on this thread? When a thread gets to 57 pages many points begin to be repeated, but with the "Chinese whispers" effect thrown in.

 

The New World Order (aka Orwells 1984) is here i'm afraid, but the majority dont see it. Obama has set on some of the top investment bankers from JP Morgans and Goldman Sachs to put right and manage the mess they created. Why?, because they were the biggest contributors to his campaign. All sewn up sorry to say.