Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am aware of this treatment. Field Debt Solutions approached me at my door claiming to have a warrant of entry, (one of many lies they used) they KNEW I was classed as vulnerable prior to the visit. This was (later found out by The Ombudsman) allegedly to install a pre payment meter (They know I can not use one). Long story short: I was threatened with criminal damage, the police and them not moving till I let them in. They stated they had a warrant, they did not. One FDS employee was waving a crowbar and smiling, the other was basically terrorising me through the window. I complained to EON and all that they did was lie further, covered up their behaviours After contacting the OMBUDSMAN all the truth came out. I am totally disgusted with the way this company operate. I am equally disgusted that the Ombudsman ere not taking any of the FDS Employees behaviours into account (yet all my claims were upheld) this feels like this section of the whole process is left wide open and that's why this is happening imho. The Ombudsman made me feel like they work for EON, (when it came to the consideration of the employees from FDS, they seemed immune to scrutiny) a very confusing and shocking experience when the penny drooped. I have looked at CISA (?) whom are some sort of organisation who debt collection agencies register with (no idea what for) anyway, FDS are not registered, I can not find them anywhere, they are like some sort of enigma and this is where i am thinking how they are protecting themselves from scrutiny and people gaining remedy from them. I also witnessed a EON employee telling me that "FDS do not have to answer anyone," they would not give me any way of complaining directly to them as is the Gov's advice before A Small Claims Tract. I am just making sure now that I record all my efforts to do what I can to give a chance for FDS to attempt to put right what they did to me. I have witnesses and I intend to take them to court. EON has damned them and all the info they provided shows how messed up and disgusting they are, I seriously have witnessed staff laughing at me on the phone when I am trying to tell them what happened. I t seems if you do not pay a bill (in my case this was out of my hands) Then your deserving of what seems to me an inside laugh as the know how we (the vulnerable) get treated when FDS turn up, yes, very much felt this and challenged one employee once.. I have spoken to a Solicitor and they are happy  to do something for me over this. Also the police were phoned by myself even though they threatened me with police "To Help Them Take My DOOR OF ITS HINGES" The police did turn up, they told me that they rarely ever turn up for these idiots as the FDS and others attempt to use the police through bull crapping them. They also said go through a few hoops and if your not happy come back to them, I have a mobile number as they said that a crime number would come after I have exhausted the other moves. They do not like these Debt People one bit, that was comforting. Sorry if this is a little all over but it was all over complexed (I can see why now) but  just wanted to share my experiences and I will be happy to share further if anyone needs to know. I am still wondering what to do but one thing is for sure, I will not be going away, EVER! good luck
    • what does it say if the claimant fails please?
    • Thanks for the feedback.  We have a professional surveyor friend who is willing to give an opinion, and once done as you say, there's no reason not to inform insurers. And as Eric's brother says, that will also give us, hopefully, a more specific discussion with neighbours. No, we can't view the neighbour's roofing from where we are, and neither can they as it's under their conservatory (we always thought it was a bad move on their part to cover felting with a conservatory!) Interesting that council have enforcement powers, hadn't realised that.  I've also had a builder advise, without visiting the site, that the dividing wall (which may be double-skinned) should have waterproof capping, which it doesn't; so maybe a simple solution is to install that across top of both sides.  Anyway, some next steps for us to take so thanks again.
    • un-en doesn't mean its written off but SB'd passing does.. and no why should you get the money??   they are notional charges that weren't paid by you anyway in the 1st place as there is was outstanding balance greater than the refund.
    • If WFH is what leaves people feeling unsupported then I completely agree that's not good.  I wonder if some organisations were better at keeping communication open, managing the situation and making their employees still feel supported and included.  It's likely there have been lessons learned.
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3671 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Following on from discussion on the Dissecting the Manchester Test Case thread, this is intended as an oppertunity to expose the weaknesses and risks of various common arguements, for those who might be intimidated by the usual reaction on this forum to dissent. For the majority it will hopefully sharpen these arguments, as well as sounding a note of caution.

 

To further this purpose, please leave accusations of bad faith (e.g. that any person posting is trolling, posting on behalf of a creditor, stupid, or acting out of self-interest) outside. If you don't like it, leave the thread alone and it will die of its own accord fairly quickly.

 

To set the ball rolling, three arguments I think will not work, and briefly why:

 

1. Reliance upon CCA after a CCJ has already be granted

(save where the CCJ is set aside of course). Reasoning: Once a CCJ has been obtained, any further steps the creditor takes rely upon the CCJ, not on the original credit agreement. As for limitation purposes, the CCJ is a fresh start the debt and unless it is set aside, CCA issues will not be considered by the courts.

 

2. The "Approved Limit" vs "Credit Limit" point.

Reasoning: Wilson v Hurstanger says that "prescribed term" means a contractual term, and that a term is present if the court can identify it. I think that the court will say "Approved Limit", on its true construction means "credit limit". It is not unusual for loan agreements to use terms other than "amount of credit" when expressing a figure which is, in fact the amount of credit.

 

3. The arguement that accepting a repudiatory breach, following the service of a defective DN will prevent the creditor from recovering the outstanding balance.

Reasoning: accepting a repudiatory breach will terminate the contract. In cases where the contract provides that the oustanding balance falls due on termination, no further default notice will be needed, because the creditor will not need to terminate or demand earlier payment of any sum - the whole sum is due on termination.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may i ask where you got your info on the dn

 

a link please

 

very strange

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should point out that the above are, like much else here, arguements - see the Manchester Test case thread starting about page 143 for lengthy arguement about DNs. To expand, as I understand it the presently accepted CAG arguement goes like this:

1. Creditor serves a Default Notice which is wrong and therefore invalid per Woodchester.

2. Creditor then sends a Termination Notice, or does something else that indicates they consider the agreement at an end. This is a repudiatory breach.

3. Either, the repudiatory breach is itself "unlawful recission" or the debtor can accept the breach and so bring the agreement to an end. After this point the creditor cannot by any means recover anything but arrears already outstanding.

 

I disagree, basically for these two reasons:

 

1. I do Not think that the creditor can effect termination without service of a valid default notice, because of section 87(1). Whatever the creditor says, the agreement endures. Its repudiation of the agreement is a breach of contract but does not end the agreement.

 

2. If the agreement is terminated by the debtor - by accepting the repudiatory breach which takes place when the creditor purports to terminate - then the oustanding balance will fall due at that point, if the contract says that that is the case. In the other thread I pointed to a term to that effect in a Cahoot agreement, and another less clear term in a Captial One agreement.

 

That what you wanted?

Edited by Et Contra Pacem Regis
damn typo...
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To further this purpose, please leave accusations of bad faith (e.g. that any person posting is trolling, posting on behalf of a creditor, stupid, or acting out of self-interest) outside. If you don't like it, leave the thread alone and it will die of its own accord fairly quickly.

 

 

Since when have you made the rules on CAG?

 

If you have problems with anything in your list, alert the Site Team and we will moderate the thread and take action against offenders if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if I've trodden on your toes - no rule making intend, just a request, following things said on the previous thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive Had Three Welcome Agreements In Court On A Defective Default Notice

 

Ie

 

Putting A (14 Days) Instead Of A Numerical Date

 

Judge Has Accepted Each One Of Them

 

Thats Me Included On One Of Them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Defective Default notices are no good. If Welcome or anyone else go to court based on one the most they can hope for is arrears to date. That's clear from Woodchester and I accept it.

 

All I'm saying is that the arguement outlined above won't necessarily stop a creditor getting the oustanding balance, if they try.

 

Out of interest have Welcome tried to serve proper DNs and go to court all over again following judgment, or have they just given up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocacy

 

BRW TRANSLATION SERVICE :

 

=============================

 

Following on from discussion on the Dissecting the Manchester test case thread, this is intended as an oppertunity to expose the weaknesses and risks of various common arguements, for those who might be intimidated by the usual reaction on this forum to dissent. For the majority it will hopefully sharpen these arguments, as well as sounding a note of caution.
Translation: I can't be bothered to read Surfaceagentx20's Thread, so thought I'd re-hash things here in the deluded hope that I can engineer a more bank-friendly outcome and trap a few stray Debtors in the process.

 

To further this purpose, please leave accusations of bad faith (e.g. that any person posting is trolling, posting on behalf of a creditor, stupid, or acting out of self-interest) outside. If you don't like it, leave the thread alone and it will die of its own accord fairly quickly.
Translation: I'm hoping to duck below the radar of the more astute CAGGERs, but if they do pitch up, then I felt my best strategy was to drip and moan about how beastly Trolls are treated, hoping to get some sympathy going to hide my true motives. However, being the fine upstanding Troll that I am, I thought I would say this with a hint of venom, in line with standard industry practice.

 

To set the ball rolling, three arguments I think will not work, and briefly why:

 

1. Reliance upon CCA after a CCJ has already be granted (save where the CCJ is set aside of course). Reasoning: Once a CCJ has been obtained, any further steps the creditor takes rely upon the CCJ, not on the original credit agreement. As for limitation purposes, the CCJ is a fresh start the debt and unless it is set aside, CCA issues will not be considered by the courts.

Translation: I wanted to insert something complex sounding that is otherwise common sense, to make out I know what I'm talking about.

 

2. The "Approved Limit" vs "Credit Limit" point. Reasoning: Wilson v Hurstanger says that "prescribed term" means a contractual term, and that a term is present if the court can identify it. I think that the court will say "Approved Limit", on its true construction means "credit limit". It is not unusual for loan agreements to use terms other than "amount of credit" when expressing a figure which is, in fact the amount of credit.
Translation: if I can make people believe this, me and my banking mates can duck s87 and turn sums due in the future into arrears just by slashing the Credit limit, i.e. with just a single shake of our magic DCA sock.

 

3. The arguement that accepting a repudiatory breach, following the service of a defective DN will prevent the creditor from recovering the outstanding balance. Reasoning: accepting a repudiatory breach will terminate the contract. In cases where the contract provides that the oustanding balance falls due on termination, no further default notice will be needed, because the creditor will not need to terminate or demand earlier payment of any sum - the whole sum is due on termination.
Translation: I'm trying the old Contract trumps Law magic trick again, in the hope that people will not spot what I'm really trying to say. That being, when we encounter a troublesome aspect in the Act, we'll pretend our General Terms can overcome anything awkward provided we shout loud enough and keep our fingers crossed you don't spot the flaw in our cunning plan.

 

I should point out that the above are, like much else here, arguements - see the Manchester test thread starting about page 143 for lengthy arguement about DNs. To expand, as I understand it the presently accepted CAG arguement goes like this:

 

1. Creditor serves a Default Notice which is wrong and therefore invalid per Woodchester.

 

2. Creditor then sends a Termination Notice, or does something else that indicates they consider the agreement at an end. This is a repudiatory breach.

 

3. Either, the repudiatory breach is itself "unlawful recission" or the debtor can accept the breach and so bring the agreement to an end. After this point the creditor cannot by any means recover anything but arrears already outstanding.

Translation: correct, that is indeed the CAG argument. Plus, if there is no properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement, then the Creditor can kiss the Arrears goodbye too!

 

I disagree, basically for these two reasons:

 

(1) I do Not think that the creditor can effect termination without service of a valid default notice, because of section 87(1). Whatever the creditor says, the agreement endures. Its repudiation of the agreement is a breach of contract but does not end the agreement.

Translation: Whatever the creditor says, should be taken with a pinch of salt, including my peculiar s87 ideas above. I tried this one on in another Thread, but it didn't work. I hate Regulation because that stops my bank and DCA friends from doing what ever they want.

 

(2) If the agreement is terminated by the debtor - by accepting the repudiatory breach which takes place when the creditor purports to terminate - then the oustanding balance will fall due at that point, if the contract says that that is the case. In the other thread I pointed to a term to that effect in a Cahoot agreement, and another less clear term in a Captial One agreement.
Translation: I'm desperate, because my whole argument is trashed by s173(1) of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, i.e. Contracting Out is Forbidden where the measure is there for the protection of the Borrower. I know Law trumps Contract, but I'm in a fix and I have everything crossed that you won't spot what I'm trying to achieve here.

 

=============================

 

If you don't like it, leave the thread alone and it will die of its own accord fairly quickly.
(1) I confirm I do not like it.

 

(2) No, I can't leave the Thread alone.

 

(3) Yes, I do hope this latest attempt to infest CAG will die a death too, the sooner the better.

 

Cheers,

BRW

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well put BRW! :)

 

I wholeheartedly agree with each and every one of your 'Translations'.

 

I was going to comment on the thread earlier and disagree with the OP, but I'm not as well-phrased or 'poetic' as you are, and my comments wouldn't have come across nearly as well as yours, so congratulations on another of your excellent posts!

 

Cheers

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Et Contra Pacem Regis

 

You are the weakest link........Goodbye

  • Haha 1

Just hate every DCA out there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Defective Default notices are no good. If Welcome or anyone else go to court based on one the most they can hope for is arrears to date. That's clear from Woodchester and I accept it.

 

All I'm saying is that the arguement outlined above won't necessarily stop a creditor getting the oustanding balance, if they try.

 

Out of interest have Welcome tried to serve proper DNs and go to court all over again following judgment, or have they just given up?

 

 

 

i take it then you have not heard of part 38 discontinuance:grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Defective Default notices are no good. If Welcome or anyone else go to court based on one the most they can hope for is arrears to date. That's clear from Woodchester and I accept it.

 

All I'm saying is that the arguement outlined above won't necessarily stop a creditor getting the oustanding balance, if they try.

 

Out of interest have Welcome tried to serve proper DNs and go to court all over again following judgment, or have they just given up?

 

How the hell do you propose that they can serve a Default Notice on a contract that they've ALREADY ended? That is the whole defence, or do you not get this point?

 

The defence is that they unlawfully ended your contract by not following the proper protocol. If what you're saying is true and they could get around this fact by simply sending a new DN, then the contract would HAVE TO STILL BE IN FORCE and therefore there would be no defence at all. This is quite clearly not the case. When they purport to terminate the contract and remove your facilities, they end the contract; therefore there is nothing in the future upon which they can serve a DN.

 

This is all only in my humble opinion, obviously, and I proclaim not to be an expert; but I suspect my motives are considerably more genuine than yours and I credit myself with an ability to read and digest information.

 

Fact is we could name probably hundreds of cases just were people from cag have used this defence successfully. I don't think even a well prepared lip would lose to the argument you put forward, let alone any professional worth his weight in even sea water, never mind salt or gold!!!!

 

I personally think this thread is a FANTASTIC thing and long may it remain....

 

And before any caggers think I've temporarily gone insane and thrown all morals out the window; I think it's a great idea because all new (and existing) caggers can now see at first sight the flimsy, underhand tactics and arguments employed by the credit and dca industry and, more importantly, could be a great place to see the arguments used to rebutt the (often) ridiculous points placed forwards by such an industry.

 

Just in the few hours this thread has been here, we've seen steps towards completely tearing down such argument and showing it for what it is.

 

Potentially quite helpful to other caggers, I think, if everyone can see, in one place, a "dossier" or "index" of these arguments - followed by other experienced caggers shredding them to pieces.

 

Cheers

UF

 

 

P.S. Et Contra Pacem Regis (aka - "and against peace you rule" - apt name, btw), time to come clean mon petit choux-fleur; who are you working for - what dca/bank/credit company? What has been the plan? What is it - seen so many trolls get torn to shreds within a post or two, so make some posts, try to gain respect and confidence and then trap unsuspecting debtors through dodgy advice? A covert operation like you're trying to be a baddie from a James Bond film? If so then bad luck, mon ami, because caggers know what you're about....

Edited by UnitedFront

I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Dear.......Never mind :D

 

I do like it when someone who thinks they are something that they are not (in this case knowledgeable) is shown up to be the opposite. I truly hope your new career goes well because this one seems to be floundering a little.

 

Have a nice day and can I have fries with my burger please


Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Devil's Advocacy

 

BRW TRANSLATION SERVICE :

 

=============================

 

Translation: I can't be bothered to read Surfaceagentx20's Thread, so thought I'd re-hash things here in the deluded hope that I can engineer a more bank-friendly outcome and trap a few stray Debtors in the process.

 

Translation: I'm hoping to duck below the radar of the more astute CAGGERs, but if they do pitch up, then I felt my best strategy was to drip and moan about how beastly Trolls are treated, hoping to get some sympathy going to hide my true motives. However, being the fine upstanding Troll that I am, I thought I would say this with a hint of venom, in line with standard industry practice.

 

Translation: I wanted to insert something complex sounding that is otherwise common sense, to make out I know what I'm talking about.

 

Translation: if I can make people believe this, me and my banking mates can duck s87 and turn sums due in the future into arrears just by slashing the Credit limit, i.e. with just a single shake of our magic DCA sock.

 

Translation: I'm trying the old Contract trumps Law magic trick again, in the hope that people will not spot what I'm really trying to say. That being, when we encounter a troublesome aspect in the Act, we'll pretend our General Terms can overcome anything awkward provided we shout loud enough and keep our fingers crossed you don't spot the flaw in our cunning plan.

 

Translation: correct, that is indeed the CAG argument. Plus, if there is no properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement, then the Creditor can kiss the Arrears goodbye too!

 

Translation: Whatever the creditor says, should be taken with a pinch of salt, including my peculiar s87 ideas above. I tried this one on in another Thread, but it didn't work. I hate Regulation because that stops my bank and DCA friends from doing what ever they want.

 

Translation: I'm desperate, because my whole argument is trashed by s173(1) of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, i.e. Contracting Out is Forbidden where the measure is there for the protection of the Borrower. I know Law trumps Contract, but I'm in a fix and I have everything crossed that you won't spot what I'm trying to achieve here.

 

=============================

 

(1) I confirm I do not like it.

 

(2) No, I can't leave the Thread alone.

 

(3) Yes, I do hope this latest attempt to infest CAG will die a death too, the sooner the better.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Well done, BRW

 

I was gonna write respond the same way too, ha ha

 

Mr W


Regards..Mr Worried :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh Dear.......Never mind :D

 

I do like it when someone who thinks they are something that they are not (in this case knowledgeable) is shown up to be the opposite. I truly hope your new career goes well because this one seems to be floundering a little.

 

Have a nice day and can I have fries with my burger please

 

Spam Spam..do I detect a hint of stereotyping there?

 

Erm but whilst your at it, can I have anothe DOH NUT

 

Mr W


Regards..Mr Worried :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a DCA's compliance manager with to much time on his hands!!:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey guys, steady on! I actually agree with the OP on points 1 and possibly 2. Point 1 is well known on CAG, so no argument.

 

Point 3 I TOTALLY disagree with. It has no merit.

 

However, if you look at the OP's history of posts (which BRW clearly has), they are for the most part useful and questioning if often very provocative and sometimes downright mistaken. The OP in this thread has combined a pile of bulldo with a couple of valid points.

 

But I don't think we should shout 'troll' every time we don't like what someone says. While I think the OP may well be on the other side of the fence from most Caggers, I don't think that's any reason to brand them as enemy. ;)

 

That would be like saying all barristers are evil because they act for DCAs!

 

That said, I love BRW's pithy and amusing reply.

 

While I question the motive for starting the thread, I think it's fair to say that DCAs change tactics all the time - look at Cabot's new strategy of trying to claim as arrears the whole sums on already-defaulted and terminated accounts - so let's keep the arguments open, and try and win them courteously.

 

We can learn from this - if DCAs try to use the arguments in point 3, then we're ready! And that can't be bad. If the OP is a troll, then he's telling us exactly what the DCA tactics may turn to, and that's useful.

Edited by DonkeyB
  • Haha 1

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh Dear.......Never mind :D

 

I do like it when someone who thinks they are something that they are not (in this case knowledgeable) is shown up to be the opposite. I truly hope your new career goes well because this one seems to be floundering a little.

 

Have a nice day and can I have fries with my burger please

 

Ummm..... sorry was that directed at me or Et Contra Pacem Regis....? :???:

 

UF


I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a DCA's compliance manager with to much time on his hands!!:p

 

He got possibly 2 out of 3 points right - so he's overqualified to be a compliance manager!


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cabot Fan Club know EXACTLY who this is. :D

 

Words are powerful things and style of writing is a personal as your hand writing. It didn't take long for CFC to work this one out. ;)

 

CAGers have to ask themselves exactly why these forums are being subjected to a massive troll attack? Could it be that quite ordinary people are having the audacity to actually study the law, learn how to defend themselves against constant and utter bulls1t attacks (and worse) and WIN!!!

 

This, together with changes to regulations (assisted by CAGers and other forums and groups who have had the guts to stand up to the bullying and harrassment) has had a profound affect on the DCAs' prosperity.

 

The banks, in their obscene haste to sign up as many people they could to their shameful little money making activities, engaged in "agreement" practices and shoddy record keeping of a standard that would shock most boy scout groups' petty cash regulations. But such was their arrogance and air of invincibility they assumed no-one would ever have the conjones to challenge them.

 

So, when aforementioned debts go pectorals up they merely write it off to tax (possibly offshore due to massive securitisation sleight-of-hand malarkey) and then sell them for pence in the £ to the DCAs. This way the dirty job goes elsewhere and they can carry on sponsoring Forumla 1 or some such and feeling good about themselves.

 

Do not let any of these people try to tell you they have made a loss. They have not. Securitisation of fiat money is literally making money out of thin air. They have long since made their profits hence the casual sell off for tax "efficiencies".

 

Frankly, I would like to see the day dawn when banks take full responsibility for their lending and bad debt and aren't allowed to sell these debts off to a bunch of DCAs who try and add a veneer of respectability to their dealings but basically all they have done is replace the baseball bat with swish offices and BMWs.

 

As someone once observed: "You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter."

 

I won't even attempt to add anything to BRW's masterly riposte as he is indeed a CAGer at the top of his game.

 

But all I can say is, nice try boys but a last and very desperate throw of the dice mon brave! And if your employer can afford to pay you to spend your time posting on these forums, then one can only summise that things must be very bad indeed.

 

But do keep it coming, the entertainment value is priceless.

Edited by Rhia
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm..... sorry was that directed at me or Et Contra Pacem Regis....? :???:

 

UF

 

Obviously at Contra, UF


I have no legal training, any knowledge I have has come from this forum, and my own experiences. Always balance up any advice you get with your own common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously at Contra, UF

 

Haha yeah I thought so :)

 

UF


I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a better 'handle' for the OP would be Veritas nos defendit?


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a better 'handle' for the OP would be Veritas nos defendit?

 

 

Hahaha I have to love that!! Very good indeed, I love starting the morning with a good chuckle :p


I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Cabot Fan Club know EXACTLY who this is. :D

 

".

 

Frankly, I would like to see the day dawn when banks take full responsibility for their lending and bad debt and aren't allowed to sell these debts off to a bunch of DCAs who try and add a veneer of respectability to their dealings but basically all they have done is replace the baseball bat with swish offices and BMWs.

 

 

..and the odd Aston Rhia, don't forget three Aston Glen will you? :D


Cabot and the Cabot Fan Club Threads:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html

 

Legal Actions Explained for Businesses:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20492-legal-actions-explained-company.html

 

Payplan CCCS Advice:

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/getting-out-debt/128587-info-cccs-payplan-experiences.html?highlight=Payplan

 

How to use the Forum

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

A click on the scales below is appreciated if my posts were helpful

Do not regard my postings or suggestions as professional advice. If in doubt seek a professional opinion.

 

PLEASE DONATE IF SUCCESSFUL - Every little helps :)

 

PLEASE, Do not Private Message me with basic questions, start your own thread and PM a link if you wish, but I will not be able to respond to all individual questions as I am very busy on numerous other things and anyway, others cannot learn from PM's. It also stifles contributions from the vast talent base this site offers from it's contributors and I'm not all that clever really! :D Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...