Being bothered by Debt Collectors/3rd Parties /Solicitors etc ? - SEND THEM THIS!

[nick20045]

Yeah, I did... Well, I did know that the theory was floating around and had read it before, should I say.

 

Show me cases where someone has gone to court and won using that argument. Then I'll consider it as something else than empty rhetorics. Until then, I don't buy it.

Incidentally, the information I gave is NOT for a Court BUT it is basically to tell the DCA that they have no right whatsoever to make contact with you.

 

OFT is a goverment appointed body to make the guidelines. The OC and the DCA to obtain their license to trade have to promise to the OFT they will act as per the guidelines. By making such a request to the DCA (i.e. to provide copies of a: letter from OC asking for consent and b: the debtor giving the consent) then both the OC and the DCA are in breach of OFT guidelines and in breach of their license rules and hence the DCA can get lost. Then as correctly advised, can also send the DCA a s.10 data protection act letter.

 

IF the DCA continues then a simple letter to the OFT with a copy of your letters can be sent asking the OFT to instruct both the OC and the DCA to comply with the guidelines. (At the end of the day, it is the OFT who made those guidelines in the first place hence, the OFT cannot say anything except enforce its own guidelines).

[Pinky69]

So the money just materialises out of nowhere and anyone who borrows anything doesn't have to pay it back. I don't buy it either and neither would any court in the land.

[nuke em]

So the money just materialises out of nowhere and anyone who borrows anything doesn't have to pay it back. I don't buy it either and neither would any court in the land.

 

 

It doesnt "materialise out of nowhere" , it occurs (digtally & Held on computers) when you sign, you create the credit in the first place with your signature. I'm sorry but you are really not up to speed on "Money" creation, it took me a year or so & tons of research before i really really got it. Google the "Money Masters" video, although made 20 years ago, thats a good a place as any to start, next Google. "ellen brown web of debt" she provides good, consice next level-history of the whole smoke & mirrors operation. You are 180 degrees out on your current beliefs as are most of the population (and so was i until 18 months ago) . so i'm happy to put you to proof of your claim that you are correct & i'm incorrect!

There is way more stuff to know, its the biggest rabbit hole ever when you get into it. i wont elaborate much more here on CAG as it is far too mainstream ( nothing wrong with that), that's due to the numbers on here. all learning & starting on their journeys. But its all out there in plain sight.. you just have to do your own research!

 

BTW do not confuse a Bank's "lending"with this:- If i grow 20 apples and lend them to you on the basis that you will pay me back 21 apples in 1 week. That is an equitable contract, with full disclosure AND i provided something of substance & value ( i.e i had to grow the apples in the first place)

 

Banks & CC companies do not do that, THey do not lend out deposits,( like most people think they do) they can't, they are not allowed, they are a liability on the Bank not an asset. They do not make an equitable contract, they do not give you full disclosure they provide NOTHING of substance & value

You create the assets when you sign the loan/mortgage/CC doc , then under the magic of the Fractional Reserve System ( another thing to Google & research) the banks leverage that out 10,20, 30 upto 100 times more. This is why every UK bank is technically bust, They do not have the reserves/assets to match their liabilities.

This is also why the Northern Rock went bust last year, at the time there was some bad news about NR, the sheeple panicked, tried to get their money (cash) out, that caused a run on the bank and Ka Boom the lucky taxpayer gets to bail out a private for profit enterprise. The banks do not have the physical cash to back the "digital" amounts in everyone's account! hence bank runs happen.

 

in the last 100 years, there has been only 1 useful thing that Banks have given society, & that's the ATM machine. We dont need private for profit banks creating money as debt when we are the creator of the funds we need ourselves just with our signature. AND the reason we do this is that the "United Kingdom" is a Corporation (more research req'd for you to get with the program on that one) and has been operating in bankrupcy since about 1914.

 

and you cant pay a debt with a debt in Bankrupcy!

 

that's enough for now, most people are on a very steep learning curve here, don't take my word for, but don't just knock me down out of fear , do your own research. what i'm telling you will be mainstream everywhere within the next 12- 18 months when the "system" finally resets. ( due to world-wide un payable debts) . mark my words....... we are all in for stormy waters ahead.

 

 

 

finally, some heads up on "our" Bank Of England

 

http://www.safe-online.org/BOE-NOMINEES.html

Edited January 8, 2010 by nuke em

[PriorityOne]

Nuke em... everyone's entitled to their own opinion but your last few threads on these forums appear to preach all sorts. Maybe you need a platform to rant from and that's fine, but it's not very fair to encourage/persuade newcomers on these boards to take on the DCAs (1st post) expecting to gain financially or otherwise from it. They won't....

 

Also, if you took on the system with a lot of what you've posted so far, then you risk coming across as a raving nutter in court....

[Pinky69]

OK I'll take your word for it and we will see what happens in the next 12-18 months. I predict people will still be asked to repay the money they "created" by a signature, debt collection agencies will still be pursuing debts assigned to them and the courts will still be making orders for payment of enforceable debts.

[Kamie26]

I don't know wether this information will be of any use considering that its not regarding a DCA but when I worked for a rather large insurance back in 2006, there was a guy that billed us for the time that he had to spend dealing with his claim and was successful in the courts. I don't remember to many details but I remember he provided evidence to the court by way of his salary to prove how much his time was worth.

 

There was no contract between him and the company as he was a third party, so I don't see how this could not perhaps work for other companies that take up your time. As they say, time is money.

[Bookworm]

I don't know wether this information will be of any use considering that its not regarding a DCA but when I worked for a rather large insurance back in 2006, there was a guy that billed us for the time that he had to spend dealing with his claim and was successful in the courts. I don't remember to many details but I remember he provided evidence to the court by way of his salary to prove how much his time was worth.

 

There was no contract between him and the company as he was a third party, so I don't see how this could not perhaps work for other companies that take up your time. As they say, time is money.

A litigant in person is allowed to charge £9.25 an hour + reasonable expenses in dealing with a court claim, that's the difference. ;-)

[nicklea]

I get the impression that 'some' posters want to swiftly kill off this excellent effort to put ****** sharks in their place...

 

Perhaps I am am just a little too suspicious in seeing panic-stricken DCA agents rushing about on this thread like headless chickens.

 

Questioner,

 

Just because I mention the flaws in somebody's argument does not make me a DCA agent. If you have any doubts on this matter please have a look over my posts.

 

It's interesting that you saw my post as being that of a "panic sticken ... headless chicken" - I rather thought it was quite measured.

 

There are plenty of ways to deal with DCAs but, I believe, this really is not the way to do it.

 

For what it's worth, I personally have found that a s10 Data Protection Act notice followed up by issuing a claim when they (invariably) fail to respond has had the benefit of doing two things at once. Firstly making them go away and secondly, actually getting a copy of my signed agreement which turned out not to be enforceable.

 

Regards

 

nicklea

[Bookworm]

Perhaps I am am just a little too suspicious in seeing panic-stricken DCA agents rushing about on this thread like headless chickens.

As one of the earliest members of CAG, ex-mod and endless campaigner for consumer rights, I think that you may be a tad, yes. I have been suspected of many things, but a DCA agent? I could take exception to that if it wasn't comical.

 

Incidentally, or maybe crucially, I think that a DCA agent would be more likely to post on here to encourage people to dive headlong in this, not advising caution. That's how little I think of said scheme. ;-)

[jonoh1]

Surely this is the correct use of the forum. Some one with an idea to defend themselves and then states the idea. Other more knowledgeable and excellent people put forward there views. Then if possible the idea can be used. If not possible the idea can be destroyed before it does any damage.

 

The moral is do not starve the ideas, but put forward and then take a measured view. That is after the reaction of the very formidable information on these forums. In other words take nothing as gospel and do not do anything without good advice.

[Bookworm]

Absolutely right, Jonoh.

 

Unfortunately, we have had agents from the other side, whether be banks, DCAs or private parking companies, occasionally infiltrating our ranks and trying to put people off, so it's natural a certain climate of suspicion occurs... I do however dislike the fact that as soon as someone disagrees with someone else, they get accused of being "agents", because far too often that will only deter a more in-depth conversation and also because I do believe that even if it WERE the other side talking, yo can often learn an awful lot more that way than by all nodding along, agreeing with one another...;-) Hell, I'll even play Devil#s advocate if it helps, lol.

[PriorityOne]

Surely this is the correct use of the forum. Some one with an idea to defend themselves and then states the idea. Other more knowledgeable and excellent people put forward there views. Then if possible the idea can be used. If not possible the idea can be destroyed before it does any damage.

 

The moral is do not starve the ideas, but put forward and then take a measured view. That is after the reaction of the very formidable information on these forums. In other words take nothing as gospel and do not do anything without good advice.

 

I agree with you. Trouble is, Nuke em is actively telling people on other threads to send this ridiculous letter.... without discussing the consequences of doing so.

 

This doesn't help anyone... and can be very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

[jonoh1]

Well said Bookworm 100% agree. It is all a very steep learning curve.

 

Also agree it is very dangerous to go with advice without it being completely dissected for the very reasons you advance.

[jonoh1]

I do not have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with Nuke em.

 

Yet looking at the negatives and positives after reading all your comments I would certainly not send such a letter.

 

I much prefer the Nick approach, but that is only my opinion.

 

So I do agree with you Priority One. At least the idea was aired and then the negatives do not make it very attractive proposition. Again only my opinion.

 

Yet I do value all opinions.

[nick20045]

Some one with an idea to defend themselves and then states the idea.

One of the main problems, in my opinion, with the idea were the "crazy" alleged charges mentioned. As properly stated, a litigiant in person is allowed to claim £9.25 an hour plus reasonable disbursements. (I said this and Bookworm confirmed it).

 

Secondly, as has also be rightly said, when somebody gets something like the letter which can be based as "ranting and raving" one tends to actually smile, have a laugh and bin it especially if one knows it is unenforceable. Indeed, it can actually backfire as it can be taken that the person is a simple "cut and paste template" user (well............. their "monkeys" are the same really arent they?) and hence can lead to more "attacks" by the DCA.

 

I have expressed what I use to get a DCA to "move on" and leave alone. One page letter, quote to them the OFT Guidelines. Ask them to prove the debtor gave consent (as per the Guidelines). Failure that it basically says "Move on before I report you to the OFT for breaking the Guidelines". Every time I have used it (I dont personally have any debt or any DCA after me but my son seems to have made it a privilege :rolleyes: ) they just move on and the file gets sent back to the OC. (And if you want, add to the letter that the account is in dispute and you have two OFT Guidelines at least being breached). Add a section 10 Data Protection Act service and "Bob's your uncle". Will I do a template? No. Simple reason, it is an easy letter to draft in your own words.

 

IF you want the DCA to leave you alone there are easier ways to do it.

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry-posted on wrong thread.

 

LFI

Edited January 9, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[jonoh1]

Yes agree Nick would certainly think that your letter is a good way to deal with them.

[nick20045]

Yes agree Nick would certainly think that your letter is a good way to deal with them.

For easy reference basic letter info is on post 35 and the explanation of how it works is in post 51.

 

Thanks. Like I said it has always worked and simply because if they then continue, as also said, a simple letter to the OFT saying something like:

 

Hoi You!

 

You made the Guidelines. You gave this tw@t a license to operate. They are breaking your guidelines. Tell the $od to move on and stop contacting me unless they can prove I gave consent. And while ya are at it, explain what the words "in dispute" means coz this plonker seems to not know how to speak English. It is bad enough phoning some company and getting some call centre in India who work only on scripts now we have them also working on behalf of DCA's.

 

Ta' very much and if I meet you I will buy you a cuppa. Oh and I am sending ya copies of the letters I posted. As ya can C I kna how 2 rite in England.

 

Signed:

 

 

p.s. Above draft letter is posted in humour. Whatever you do dont use that wording but something that basically says the same but more polite. :D

Edited January 9, 2010 by nick20045
Added top note where to find the info.

[lickthewallfatboy]

you have to offer "a service" in order for a contract to be established

 

you can't just fire off a list of inflated charges for nothing

 

it's called offer and consideration

 

you need to have the correct elements in place to have a binding contract

[spartathisis]

Nuke ems points do have some merit (not saying his letter has). When first joining CAG I began looking into the securitisation issue to see if that route held any joy to combat CCC's and it would if the average man in the street could get some of the expensive documentation available ($3,4,5k a shot).

 

CCC's have long rolled up large swathes of debt and sold as Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV), they are an investment sold to investors, usually the large investment banks (those that have done all the damage) through an issue of a package of documents (the expensive ones). These show that the debt is to be sold and what rate of interest is to be given to the investor, but it also HAS to show the rate of delinquinancy etc. The big thing is that these investers DO NOT HOLD A CREDIT LICENCE, they therefore cannot chase the debt. The OC takes a servicing fee and does the chasing, BUT they do not own the debt (its been sold) so by law they cannot enforce (lots of legal stuff involved that I admit I do not understand).

 

What the DCA's buy is actually nothing as “nemo dat quod non habet” applies,

"You cannot give what you do not own".

 

Interest free credit card deals are done to raise money (debt) to sell as an investment, biggest/best? for some time is Virgin who runs it? MBNA, one of the US originators of debt secutitisation. It is not just the market of crdit that has been securitised, but virtually everything is or will be, business sell off their future profits for investments now, hence the reason so many massage the figures,

 

This gives a quick look at the UK market from a few years ago (when many Caggers had CC's) UK securitization market fears tougher times - International Financial Law Review - The 2005 Guide to Structured Finance

http://www.iflr.com/Article/1984791/Why-the-forecast-is-cloudy-for-UK-credit-card-securitization.html

 

I still think that securitisation really does offer the biggest chance for everyone to have all their debt written off, inc mortgaes, on the basis that the debt has been sold to a third party that does not hold a credit licence (all off shore for tax purposes, usually Jersey).

 

This thread is on mortgage issues, you think we have it bad with DCA's! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/170607-spml-london-mortgage-company.html

 

If you join the dots of Mcguffick, J Wakeson MMCourt, OFT changing some of its core recommendations from those it told MP's last year then the banks and financial institutions really are screwing us good n proper.

Edited January 9, 2010 by spartathisis

[spartathisis]

From 2yrs ago!! Anyone surprised?

Revealed: how UK banks exploit charity tax laws | Business | The Guardian

[nuke em]

I agree with you. Trouble is, Nuke em is actively telling people on other threads to send this ridiculous letter.... without discussing the consequences of doing so. err sorry, i put you to proof of your claim. which other thread do you think i am posting this letter on? 'cos its certainly not me. Plus its a Notice not a letter

This doesn't help anyone.( oh yes it can) .. and can be very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing ( true, this is not the stuff for newbies. but everyone has a duty to do their own research

 

 

CORRECTION to the above edit

 

sorry i miss-read this, i thought you said i was posting this on Other forums, not threads. MY MISTAKE

Edited January 10, 2010 by nuke em

[PriorityOne]

For example....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/241025-debt-collectors.html#post2686699

 

Are there more of you then?

 

The "proof of your claim" is yours Nuke em; not mine. That's the whole point. All you're doing is spouting on about the financial system in one way or another and you're coming across as a bit strange, to say the least.

 

[Gaznkaz08]

For easy reference basic letter info is on post 35 and the explanation of how it works is in post 51.

 

Thanks. Like I said it has always worked and simply because if they then continue, as also said, a simple letter to the OFT saying something like:

 

Hoi You!

 

You made the Guidelines. You gave this tw@t a license to operate. They are breaking your guidelines. Tell the $od to move on and stop contacting me unless they can prove I gave consent. And while ya are at it, explain what the words "in dispute" means coz this plonker seems to not know how to speak English. It is bad enough phoning some company and getting some call centre in India who work only on scripts now we have them also working on behalf of DCA's.

 

Ta' very much and if I meet you I will buy you a cuppa. Oh and I am sending ya copies of the letters I posted. As ya can C I kna how 2 rite in England.

 

Signed:

 

 

p.s. Above draft letter is posted in humour. Whatever you do dont use that wording but something that basically says the same but more polite. :D

 

hi i've downloaded the OFT guidelines and had a stab at a letter like you suggested could you have a look at it see if it'll do the trick?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/229212-6-cca-letters-ready-9.html#post2690567

[PriorityOne]

Most of what you say re. the system is no surprise to many people on here. Social policy and Gov/monetary policy are no different in some respects. The interests of those with money are protected and the rest of us are kept in the dark about it through media spin, etc., etc.,.... One particular tabloid newspaper has a reading age of 10-12 and is normally full of sensationalised cr*p about what's (allegedly) going on in the country and how irresponsible we all are....

 

This kind of spin has worked reasonably well for years, but the internet has changed all of that and started giving the little people a collective knowledge and the power to challenge some of the "rules", so to speak, that have been taken for granted for a very long time.

 

I'm not challenging you on the points you make; only on the way that you're trying to drum up support for your views. Until you have your own personal success stories to share with us instead of tales of some bloke you've read about/know of or, opinions about things that aren't right/unfair, then you run the risk of coming across as a raving nutter on a soap box.... and anyone sending one of your letters could be slaughtered in court (if it went that far) for the same reason.

 

No offence, by the way...