Cap1 & CCA return

[Terrytocs]

I am having success, it costs me nothing but postage and I have completely rejected the CCA.

 

Firstly, you have to accept that you are the lender and the 'Bank' is the 'Borrower'. What did the 'Bank' lend? They 'lent' your signature on the original agreement which without telling you they sold (monetised) and made lots of money. This is why they will not and cannot produce the original agreement.

 

You have to realise that the 'Agreement' is not only an agreeement. When your signature (unqualified) is appended, it is also a 'Promise to Pay' or a promise to repay the amount you are allegedly 'borrowing'.

 

This applies to credit cards, loans mortgage whatever.

 

Have a look at a UK Bank Note. What does it say on the front? ''I Promise to Pay the Bearer etc'' right? In other words all UK Bank Notes are 'Promises to Pay' and not actual 'Lawful' payment. Legal Tender, yes but not 'Lawful' payment. We are all passing around a promise to pay at some point in the future. Why are we doing this? I can cover that later but please understand that you really are only passing around a promise to pay in the future.

 

OK, the signed Loan agreement is a 'promise to pay' and if you do not believe that then please check it out further. It is therefore a 'Promissory Note' and is 'Legal Tender' according to the in use 'Bills of Exchange Act 1882'. Promissory Notes are legal tender.

 

What you are actually doing is putting your unqualified signature on an agreement and creating a promissory note which in legal definition is also a 'negotiable financial instrument' that the bank can monetise (and do).

 

Let me cover this part now. We all know that a recent High Court ruling has stated that the lender does not need to produce the 'original' agreement right? They can get away with producing a copy on one that you would have signed. Well, thats because you believe and have not pointed out that the agreement you signed is in fact a 'promissory note/negotiable instrument. And, because it carries your signature then you own that instrument and the 'Bank' became 'Holder-in-Due-Course'.

 

So, when you go to the 'Bank' asking for an 'original AGREEMENT' then of course they have argued they do not have to produce the 'Agreement' because once it is signed by you it becomes a 'negotiable instrument/promissory note' and worth a lot of money to the 'Bank'.

 

They can't produce the original agreement because they have sold it on long ago, but it gets worse than that, or better depending which way you look at this.

 

Your promise to pay has created an 'asset' on the Banks books. You have given them a Legal Tender promissory note (like a UK Bank note if you like). They take your signed agreement, treat it as a promissory note/negotiable instrument because that's exactly what it is. They pay that instrument into a demand deposit account as cash/legal tender and then they cary out a currency exchange where they then advance you 'CREDIT' by way of digits into your account. Credit is not legal tender. They have essentially taken real tender from you and converted it to Credit and then given it back to you. They give you Credit based on your own legal tender promisory note. YOU are the lender, the Bank are the Borrower'.

 

OK, I know how hard that is to grasp for many but it is the truth and this is where you need to start looking for your remedy.

 

Why can they use your signed agreement as a legal tender promisory note?

 

OK, first of all check out the definiton of 'money' and you will find that it means something that is backed by substance like Gold or Silver for example. That is how UK 'Money' got its name as UK POUNDS STERLING (SILVER). What backs up your UK Bank Note these days? Since they removed the God and Silver Standard in 1931.

 

The answer is nothing atall. Nothing backs up your UK Bank Notes apart from what it says on the front, 'A Promise to Pay', no better than an IOU.

 

When they removed substance backed 'money' from society they then issued what is now known as 'Fiat Currency' which is simply a 'Promise to Pay. When does that promise come good? When substance backed money returns thats when and that is no time soon.

 

In the meantime we are all just using promises to pay. Therefore a promise to pay note has value as legal tender only, not Lawful tender.

 

You now know that the Bank is in fact the 'borrower' and you lent them your promissory note (signed loan/credit card agreement) which they gave you Credit for in return (non legal tender), and then sold the valuable asset (your promissory note/negotiable instrument) so they could make much more legal tender again.

 

Ingenious yes, corrupt? most certainly.

 

So for all those that say they are not trying to avoid their 'debts' then I beg you to re-think what you actually mean. Yes you have bought goods and 'purchased things with your 'Credit' they gave you but they gave you that Credit because you gave your signature and promise to pay on a promissory note (signed loan agreement) that they treated as an asset, banked it and then sold your promissory note on the markets without your permission. They gave you your own 'money' back and you need to see how they have done that. In other words you owe NOTHING atall and they owe you BIG TIME.

 

Forget using the courts as you are familiar with, they will only ever support the Banks and you now know that from the cases regarding Bank Charges and the recent decision regarding the original agreement. Surely those recent decisions must be making you think about this.

 

Anyway, food for thought, there are many ways to skin a cat

Edited January 29, 2010 by Terrytocs

[gh2008]

I follow your argument apart from this bit

You now know that the Bank is in fact the 'borrower' and you lent them your promissory note (signed loan/credit card agreement) which they gave you Credit for in return (non legal tender

How do you justify that you only lend them the promissory note?

When you earn a £10 the B of E are not lending you the note are they - I appreciate that it is only a promissory note, but it is your promissory note not the bank's

So why should it be any different to a promissory note you give the bank in exchange for promissory notes more acceptable in day to day life.

[Terrytocs]

Thanks gh, good question.

 

The promissory note you sign you actually abandon because how many people actually know it is a promissory note?

 

In fact this 'note' is now a 'Negotiable Instrument' and you are in fact the owner as it carries your signature. However people just don't know this and have no idea what is really happening. As you are the owner of the 'note' (not the agreement) then the 'Bank' become 'Holder-In-Due-Course', but, they sell the 'note' witout your permission because you abandoned it.

 

If people realised that the agreement is in fact a promissory note/negotiable instrument then they would realise the Bank have an absolute duty to produce that document as you own it and it bears your signature. When people demand to see the original 'agreement' the Banks know that you have not worked out what is really happening and they deny it. They do this firstly because of the legal maxim below and secondly because you are ignorant to the fact that the agreement is a promissory note/negotiable instrument. They have sold it and know it cannot be produced so they need an argument to lean on and they have found it.

 

You see people actually believe they are the 'borrower' and when they get the 'Credit' into their account they don't question the process, they think they have actually 'borrowed' money when in fact they haven't.

 

We all know the legal Maxim, ''let him be deceived who be deceived''. They are not really doing anything wrong by not disclosing these facts.

 

They are however not disclosing what they do with your 'note' which is an act of Fraud. But, if you do not prove that you know what is happening then they treat the 'note' as abandoned and claim right of ownership.

 

One way they know that you do not know what is happening is how you append your signature on their paperwork as being 'unqualified' ie what we would term a 'normal signature'.

 

Secondly you have to remem,ber that all Bank of England 'Notes' in circulation are printed and owned by the Bank of England which is without any doubt (and I know of the 1946 Act) a privately owned company.

 

Because the BoE is privately owned by undisclosed share-holders then the 'notes' they print are all privately owned. You hold equitable title when it is in your hand but the BoE own Legal Title and can call all notes in at any time they want to. They own them. Bit like Monopoly money if you like.

 

They also regulate how much that 'note' is worth in 'purchasing power' as well by controlling interest rates and inflation etc.

 

People need to wake up to the fact that the only thing that backs up our Bank Notes is our sweat equity as Gold and Silver are long gone.

 

I hope that answers your question.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Terrytocs

[lexis200]

Nice idea but I doubt it would hold any weight at all if put up against a judge. You try and argue to them that despite the fact you've had money from someone, anyone, and not paid it back that there was not a debt there.

 

However you word it, if someone lends you actual money in the bank then you have borrowed it, regardless of what they then do with any money received in payment. They may have 'essentially' taken your real money, but until they are paid with your real money then they have taken nothing physical - what they do with the notion that you are now in debt to them for £xx is neither here nor there. Credit may not be legal tender but the money in your pocket when you use it is. A logical dissection of the above still shows that they have given you actual money (when it is used, not when it is just sat on a card) and you have not parted with anything.

 

Technicalities of language may point to something else, but in the real world if you tried to tell a judge that the bank had in fact borrowed from you I honestly can't see you getting anywhere - especially with the moralistic judgements that seem to have been popping up.

 

Also, I may have just mis-understood your point with

Let me cover this part now. We all know that a recent High Court ruling has stated that the lender does not need to produce the 'original' agreement right?

, but if you are saying they don't need the original in court then that's not actually what went on. The judge was referring to the need to supply copies for a CCA request - nothing was said about a reconstruction being used in place of an original in court.

[diddydicky]

My point being unless you had some proof of what you sent (ie a letter in your file that shows a recorded delivery number etc to match what they have received), they can simply turn round and say 'the only thing in the envelope was a cheque so we assumed it was a payment'.

 

The fine for non compliance may be £5000 but is it ever enforced? (this is a genuine question as I don't know)

 

And as we've seen recently, the law isn't exactly being used to the letter where banks are concerned.

 

All I'm saying is that for the sake of 75p it is in my opinion a little dicey not to bother, particularly when using a tracked method is advocated for sending any mail to banks/dca's anyway - why would you not bother with something as important as an SAR?.

 

they can indeed, just as you could say the Dn envelope was empty

 

in general the law will not accept such excuses and even a simple proof of posting slip (which is what i use all the time) is sufficient for the court.

 

clearly key documents are better sent recorded but there is no need in terms of general correspondence (IMO)

[diddydicky]

Nice idea but I doubt it would hold any weight at all if put up against a judge. You try and argue to them that despite the fact you've had money from someone, anyone, and not paid it back that there was not a debt there.

 

However you word it, if someone lends you actual money in the bank then you have borrowed it, regardless of what they then do with any money received in payment. They may have 'essentially' taken your real money, but until they are paid with your real money then they have taken nothing physical - what they do with the notion that you are now in debt to them for £xx is neither here nor there. Credit may not be legal tender but the money in your pocket when you use it is. A logical dissection of the above still shows that they have given you actual money (when it is used, not when it is just sat on a card) and you have not parted with anything.

 

Technicalities of language may point to something else, but in the real world if you tried to tell a judge that the bank had in fact borrowed from you I honestly can't see you getting anywhere - especially with the moralistic judgements that seem to have been popping up.

 

Also, I may have just mis-understood your point with , but if you are saying they don't need the original in court then that's not actually what went on. The judge was referring to the need to supply copies for a CCA request - nothing was said about a reconstruction being used in place of an original in court.

 

as you said, there is the real world, and there is this other place that the disciples of Nuke em inhabit!!

[lexis200]

as you said, there is the real world, and there is this other place that the disciples of Nuke em inhabit!!

 

mmm, and the laid-down-30-years-ago laws are apparently being ignored, so while it's lovely to have that sort of attitude (and certainly you need a modicum of it to get anywhere with banks) I stand by my opinion that the 'they borrowed from me' argument is not likely to get you anywhere in a court room.

[Terrytocs]

Lexis, thank you for your comments but you may misunderstand a significant amount of what I have said.

 

Firstly do you know of the different types of court in the UK? Admiralty Courts, Courts of Commerce and Equity Courts? Are you familiar with Private Law processes and decisions in Chambers (or in Camara). What I think you are refering to are courts dealing with Statutes, for example the CCA. I am not suggesting for one moment that you go before a Judge utilising the CCA because you will always lose.

 

The proof that you will always lose is right before your eyes in as much as recent results to do with Bank Charges etc. Look at how many people thought that Bank Charges were a definate win. It was a major loss on the basis of the laws used before that court.

 

I am saying, forget the CCA, it is useless and you will never get a mass of victory's against the Banks using their Laws. You will get the odd result of course, thats because they want you following the wrong path. Are there other ways? Absolutely there are.

 

Also this is much more fundamental than you realise. Did you check the defintion of 'Money'? If you did you will soon realise that 'Money' does not exist, it is a redundant term. The Gold Standard Act of 1931 removed anything of value that supported 'money' at the time. The banks then went on to print 'Fiat Currency' not 'Money' (please check the defintion of Fiat Currency).

 

This 'Fiat Currency' is not money, we use the term 'money' but in fact 'money' as we think it is, is not 'money' by its legal definition. Please prove me wrong.

 

The Govt removed the Gold standard from our Bank Notes in a time that the UK was entering Bankruptcy and all the country's Gold was sold to try and pay debts so it couldn't sustain the Gold Standard any longer. The Gold Standard being the value behind our money at the time. The Gold reserves held by the UK being sold. Therefore they couldn't possible back the Notes up with Gold they didn't have.

 

As the UK entered then what was technically a 'Bankruptcy' and removed the 'Value' from 'Money' they needed a replacement and thats where 'Fiat Currency' came in but Fiat Currency is NOT lawful tender, it is legal tender and the difference is enormous.

 

So, please dismiss any notion of 'Money' as 'Money'. What you have in your pocket is not 'Money' by legal definition it is 'Fiat Currency' (a promise to Pay, an IOU) it is not money. The only value it has is the belief you have in it (and that means it could also be bottle tops) and the sweat equity you are prepared to give to possess equitable title of a private 'Promissory Note'.

 

So I think we should be happy now that there is no such thing as 'Money', only promissory notes. The evidence is written before your very eyes on every UK Bank note.

 

So, forget the CCA, its useless and if you try going to a Judge with the truth you will not win in a Statutory Court because you still think money exists and you have not even challenged that one simple point.

 

Im being very serious here, you have to completely dismiss the CCA,you will not get any significant victory's using it.

 

OK, back to promissory notes etc.

 

The money in your pocket Lexis is a promisory note, an IOU, prove me wrong.

 

Money in the Bank is not Money in the bank, it cannot be and never will be until 'Money' supported by substance returns. You have Credit in the Bank. when you go and deposit your 'Notes' in the Bank you actually 'depose' yourself of that amount of 'credit tokens/promissory notes'.

 

Those 'notes' you have 'deposed' yourself of can be used by the Bank however they see fit. They do not have to tell you what they are doing with it either. You no longer own those promissory notes you have deposited (deposed yourself of).

 

If you think you have taken a loan from the Bank then think again. Let me give an example;

 

You sign a £10k Loan Agreement with XYZ Bank. XYZ Bank get you to sign their agreement which by legal definiton becomes a 'Promissory Note'. In other words you are promising to repay them £10k+ Interest right? If you don't believe that you are promising to repay them then please read any agreement.

 

Once signed the the agreement is taken by XYZ and accepted by them and endorsed by them. At that point it becomes a 'Negotiable Instrument' (Promisory Note). Please check the definiton of Negotiable Instrument and check the meaning of the word 'Note', I think you will be surprised.

 

OK, XYZ Bank then have an 'asset' worth £10k + Interest in their hand in value as you have promised to 're-pay' that amount. Remember, there is no such thing as money so Promises to Pay are recognised as legal tender. You have just given them a £10k Note (plus interest worth).

 

They place their 'Note' into a deposit demand account as real value/legal tender worth. The Bank has just added a huge asset to their Bookkeeping in their accounts (your promise to pay).

 

The problem here is that you don't know this and ignorance is no defence.

 

Then, XYZ Bank carry out a currency exchange using 'Fractional Reserve Banking' (please check out what that means if you don't already know), and they transfer the £10k of Credit (not legal tender) into your account.

 

Now, this is not cash, no lender will give you a suitcase containing £10k in cash, they will only do it by 'Credit' or digits on a screen (not money). Yes you can nip down the cash point and take out £300 maybe but thats not £10k in cash and anyway, the notes themselves are only promissory notes and the cash point won't allow you to take out £10k.

 

So what XYZ Bank actually did was give you credit based on your own promissory note/legal tender note. They created the credit from your promissory note/negotiable instrument and gave you what was yours anyway.

 

They then have the asset (promissory note) which they monetise or securitise on the financial markets. Why? because your promissory note is worth legal tender and that legal tender was rightfully yours.

 

Why do you think no-one in several years now has managed to get hold of the original agreement with a wet signature? They have sold it thats why. They sold it because it has value that you were never told about and was never bothered to find out about either.

 

Now, if you use the CCA and take your case to a Statutory High Court then that's your lookout, you will lose, and you will lose because you thought money still existed and you didnt bother to do your research that it has in fact been replaced by 'Fiat Currency'. If you go to court with the wrong notion then do you really think for a second they are going to put you right? That is not their job. It is your job to be aware that money does not exist and take your claim to the proper court through the proper channels.

 

Here is a Maxim in Equity, and Maxims stand as truth in a court of Equity;

 

'Equity Aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights'

 

Solicitors and Barristers etc have no inclination of helping you dicover this information and thats even if they know themselves. Why? Because how much legal tender will they lose if they told you money didn't really exist as you think it does? How much do they earn using the CCA to take cases to court?

 

You do not need a Barrister or Solicitor to take your claim and get a result throught the proper channels but they are not going to help you do that as it is not in their interests to do so. By the way, do you know where the first duty of any Solicitor or Barister lays? It is not with the client, it is with the court.

 

So Lexis, I totally agree with what you say, you will never, ever get a result in a Statutory court trying to fight your case believing money actually exists and using the CCA to do so.

 

There are others ways of doing this and getting the result you desire from a Judge and even if you don't there are other ways of winning.

 

This applies to every single alleged debt out there including mortgages. You have NEVER EVER been lent any 'Money' to begin with and your 'Promissory Notes' that you signed and own have been used by the Banks to give you Credit and then make themselves a terrible amount of legal tender. You are the 'Lender'.

 

The Truth of money and lending is out there and people need to find it. I have given some leads to the information in this post which if you do your research you will find I am telling the truth.

 

This is not an 'Argument' or a 'Point' for discussion, it is a fundamentlal truth.

 

Namaste

Edited January 29, 2010 by Terrytocs

[diddydicky]

yep its an almost identical copy of what Nukem posted last year

[haggis1984]

Ok... bit of A Level Economics there with a hint of conspiracy.

 

So the courts arent are no good, the CCA is useless etc etc... Fine. Im not seeing any alternative put forward though.

[Ems_]

Hi, tried to start my own thread but couldn't find out how to do it!! I successfully made 3 cca requests last year and had letters back to tell me that the debts were unenforcable, checked my credit report this morning and have found the companies that I cca requested have each put a default on my account. I was wondering if this was legal and if not how do I get around getting them taken off. I spoke to credit expert earlier who werent very helpful. Can anyone give me any suggestions please. Many thanks ems

[Gallahad]

Hi, tried to start my own thread but couldn't find out how to do it!! I successfully made 3 cca requests last year and had letters back to tell me that the debts were unenforcable, checked my credit report this morning and have found the companies that I cca requested have each put a default on my account. I was wondering if this was legal and if not how do I get around getting them taken off. I spoke to credit expert earlier who werent very helpful. Can anyone give me any suggestions please. Many thanks ems

I assume you are no longer making payments on the account and if so you are unable to stop them reporting to the cras. You need to decide what your objectives are and then form a strategy by reading applicable threads on here.

G

[haggis1984]

Hi, tried to start my own thread but couldn't find out how to do it!! I successfully made 3 cca requests last year and had letters back to tell me that the debts were unenforcable, checked my credit report this morning and have found the companies that I cca requested have each put a default on my account. I was wondering if this was legal and if not how do I get around getting them taken off. I spoke to credit expert earlier who werent very helpful. Can anyone give me any suggestions please. Many thanks ems

 

Hi!

 

Go back to the main page with the long list of forums. Then scroll down to where there is a list of banks. For each case click on the link for the appropriate bank and then click new thread on the top left of your screen. That way you can get advice from others whove dealt with the same banks.

[haggis1984]

I assume you are no longer making payments on the account and if so you are unable to stop them reporting to the cras. You need to decide what your objectives are and then form a strategy by reading applicable threads on here.

G

 

Thats not neccesarily 100% definite - others better versed in the legal side that me can advise

[Ems_]

Hi, Thanks for quick replies, all the accounts were with catalogues not banks. Really am not sure what to do next, Credit expert were telling me to seek legal advice, am just baffled!!

[lookinforinfo]

Terrytocs, over 5 years ago, Dave-the cofounder of this forum, took his bank to Court and won by using various sections of the Consumer Credit Act to

argue his point.

Since then he has gone on set up this forum with more than 100.000 members. In addition this forum has spawned several other sites dedicated to recovering bank charges etc. and several undred claims companies have also sprung up [though most have since been closed by the OFT].

 

Several years before Dave's battle with his bank, I read a very well reasoned article on an American website espousing the same ideas as yours. One would have expected therefore that were those ideas working, and given the larger population in the USA compared to here, that there would have been many forums, ebooks and Claims Companies on the subject.

 

The lack of such indicators speaks volumes.

 

I have an open mind on your subject, but would ask you to bear in mind that this thread is about agreements controlled by the Consumer Credit Act.

Nowhere in that Act is securitisation mentioned and while you may be able to raise an argument on that matter, I suggest that this is not the right thread.

[Terrytocs]

I have no idea who nukem is but it does sound like he has also found the truth.

 

Alternatives are abundant for those who can see the truth that money does not exist.

 

Please keep fighting your corner with the CCA but I don't see many results forthcoming that are helping the masses of people having problems. And of course, the CCA route has been hammered for several years now without any real progress. You are wasting your time and energy. Please show with proof just one 'person' who has managed to get hold of their 'original wet signature agreement'.

 

Conspiracy? Oh thats ok then I must be a nutter. That's a typical comment from someone who is making money from the poor victims of the lenders as they tell them the CCA is your only remedy. It is also a typical comment of someone who is ignorant and too lazy to actually discover the truth for themselves. Please debate with me and put forward your own arguments to counter my points.

 

Your remedy is withn courts of Equity and private processes. If you want to go blindly down the worn out path of CCA then so be it. You will lose amost every time. Then again maybe a Court of Equity is a figment of my conspiracy imagination.

 

For those that are waking up to the fact that there really isn't any money and you've been taken for the ride of your life I suggest you start looking away from the CCA into other avenues that work.

 

You have to discover this for yourself though, if you are happy thinking the CCA is your answer then good luck, if you want to be directed to research information of what I am talking about and discover the real truth then please pm me.

 

There are those who are stuck in their own Conspiracy of believing real money exists. They will find out the truth one day.

 

Namaste

Edited January 29, 2010 by Terrytocs

[Terrytocs]

LookinforInfo,

 

I totally rspect your point, however my point is in direct relation to financial agreements. The agreement itself is a promissory note/negotiable instrument. Not an agreement. That is why you are not getting the result at court and never will.

 

I am not relying on USA information which is easy to grab hold of and use as a tool of dismissal.

 

I would suggest the founder here was likeme and had perserverance like me. His approach worked at the time, he was almost right but it is in fact much deeper and the CCA approach is not getting desired results.

 

The results of 100,000 people being the plain fact that the CCA is not the answer or they would all be here singing its praises as of course so would I. If it worked I would be still trying to use it.

 

The fact that Bank Charges was on-going for so many years with no real result yet is also an indicator that the Banks are getting the results not us.

 

Please check out my points and rebut them rather than dismiss them out of hand.

 

Money does not exist.

Namaste

 

PS - I think you are not really looking for the sites and forums you mention becuase there are many that have evolved wth success and in the UK so in fact they are speaking volumes. Oh not claims companies though, no way, the information I refer to is freely available and where other good people in the UK help those who come to the conclusion that money does not exist.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Terrytocs

[haggis1984]

So how does one bring a case within a court of Equity?

[pt2537]

LookinforInfo,

 

I totally rspect your point, however my point is in direct relation to financial agreements. The agreement itself is a promissory note/negotiable instrument. Not an agreement. That is why you are not getting the result at court and never will.

 

I am not relying on USA information which is easy to grab hold of and use as a tool of dismissal.

 

I would suggest the founder here was likeme and had perserverance like me. His approach worked at the time, he was almost right but it is in fact much deeper and the CCA approach is not getting desired results.

 

The results of 100,000 people being the plain fact that the CCA is not the answer or they would all be here singing its praises as of course so would I. If it worked I would be still trying to use it.

 

The fact that Bank Charges was on-going for so many years with no real result yet is also an indicator that the Banks are getting the results not us.

 

Please check out my points and rebut them rather than dismiss them out of hand.

 

Money does not exist.

Namaste

 

WOW

 

my goodness, all those years at law school and i must have got it all wrong

 

thanks for enlightening me,

 

Oh and as for the CCA, simply need to refer you here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/244025-delfi101-et-al-weightmans-2.html#post2729941

 

this is FACT not fiction that you are able to deal with credit agreements using the CCA in a court of law

[Terrytocs]

Thank you, firstly I notice you say you are legally qualified. That puts you in a position of self interest so your comments should be viewed with suspicion. Im not saying you don't help others, just that there is actually a financial motive for you to do so.

 

As you are qualified in Law, and financially orientated as well it would appear, then I would assume you also know that money does not exist. That since the UK Govt removed the Gold Standard in 1931 we now only have 'Fiat Currency'.

 

You should also know all about promissory notes and the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and negotiable instruments. So, tell me, why are you not telling people about this vital information that can show them how to get a result without resorting to the CCA? Legal Tender interest for your own pockets maybe? Would certainly appear so.

 

Secondly I did not say that all cases would lose, in fact I said they will allow some wins to keep people on the wrong path, seems I am right again.

 

I do not see an overwhelming abundance of success using the CCA which is exactly what I have been saying. Reading the thread you point to it does seem that people were delighted to at last see something of a result.

 

I am quite worried that these results are not prolific on this site but then you know why not already, you are after all legally qualified.

 

Please, once again, rebut with evidence what I am saying, not point to a single success story that is getting masses of attention because someone actually got a result for once.

 

You will also be aware I am sure of the tens of thousands of cases that have now been put on hold since Carey v HSBC+Others.

 

Is this getting a lot of your attention and promotion as well? I think not.

 

You see, these cases were all go with greedy solicitors advising their clients just a few months ago. Where do they stand now? Well we will wait and see but they are not in the position they thought they were just a few weeks ago.

 

Please, be the educated 'person' you say you are and rebut my points with the evidence that real 'money' does exist and promissory notes are just my crazy imagination.

 

Thank you

Edited January 29, 2010 by Terrytocs

[Gallahad]

Thank you, firstly I notice you say you are legally qualified. That puts you in a position of self interest so your comments should be viewed with suspicion. Im not saying you don't help others, just that there is actually a financial motive for you to do so.

 

As you are qualified in Law, and financially orientated as well it would appear, then I would assume you also know that money does not exist. That since the UK Govt removed the Gold Standard in 1931 we now only have 'Fiat Currency'.

 

You should also know all about promissory notes and the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and negotiable instruments. So, tell me, why are you not telling people about this vital information that can show them how to get a result without resorting to the CCA? Legal Tender interest for yuor own pockets maybe? Would certainly appear so.

 

Secondly I did not say that all cases would lose, in fact I said they will allow some wins to keep people on the wrong path, seems I am right again.

 

I do not see an overwhelming abundance of success using the CCA which is exactly what I have been saying. Reading the thread you point to it does seem that people were delighted to at last see something of a result.

 

I am quite worried that these results are not prolific on this site but then you know why not already, you are after all legally qualified.

 

Please, once again, rebut with evidence what I am saying, not point to a single success story that is getting masses of attention because someone actually got a result for once.

 

You will also be aware I am sure of the tens of thousands of cases that have now been put on hold since Carey v HSBC+Others.

 

Is this getting a lot of your attention and promotion as well? I think not.

 

You see, these cases were all go with greedy solicitors advising their clients just a few months ago. Where do they stand now? Well we will wait and see but they are not in the position they thought they were just a few weeks ago.

 

Please, be the educated 'person' you say you are and rebut my points with the evidence that real 'money' does exist and promissory notes are just my crazy imagination.

 

Thank you

I am sure PT like all of us has financial motives in his work as we all do to make a living. I equally know that he puts much time and effort in helping others for no monetary gain so I trust your other stated "facts" have had more research than that remark.

G

[pt2537]

personally, i find your suggestions offensive, you do not know me, yet you throw accusations based upon your own views at me and suggest that i am motivated by greed . Be careful how far you go with this, there is such a thing as defamation as im sure you are aware.

 

I do not need to answer your points or rebut them , you made a comment that the CCA doesnt work, i have proven that it does and have posted the order from Mondays hearing

 

as for profit, are you aware of a Conditional Fee Agreement? all our cases are taken on these and the client is fully protected. Our gain is at the expense of the lender not the borrower

 

so please get your facts right,

 

i was tempted to remove your comment as it breaches the site rules, however i would prefer to answer you ddirectly so that it shows i have nothing to hide

 

the people who really know me know i am honest, trustworthy and only interested in helping those who really need it

[Gallahad]

Without a shadow of doubt PT

[Jeff2000]

Without a shadow of doubt PT

 

 

 

 

Ditto!