partial settlement v full and final

[pt2537]

having discussed this with a top commercial silk who categorically confirmed that there is no way you can conduct the business that they claim to do.

 

personally, after the guidance weve received, the words would touch with barge pole spring to mind

[pt2537]

explain then, how can you sell something which you do not own?

[pt2537]

if you want to research why it cant be done , go look up choses in action

[pt2537]

I don't think choses in action applies as it suggets that its not in a persons possession where as this is. So to answer your question how can you sell something you do not own, well you own the debt.

not according to counsels guidance you dont

[pt2537]

ok, lets look at this realistically,

 

you owe me £500 because i gave you £500 , ok.

 

now then, how exactly without my agreement can you sell this debt onto a thrid party? have you though about privity to contract?

 

have you further though about s173 CCA 1974 which expressly prohibits contracting out of the act? which is clearly what is happening if you are trying to sell a debt to a party who is not party to the agreement

[pt2537]

to answer, as i understand action is currently being taken

[pt2537]

It may well be a load of old b**ll***s but there is a guy saying that its possible and there is no law to stop it happening.I was hoping there would be someone on here who could either confirm he is right or provide a convincing argument that he is wrong.

At the moment there has been no convincing argument he is wrong so as far as I am concerned his assertions remain a possibility

Ok, simple way to satisfy yourself, go get a debt, then sell it to the Rankines and simply walk away debt free LOL

[pt2537]

thought it was an ADVICE forum

it is , and its a discussion forum too

 

however, as i see it, its for discussion on topics which have merit which this sell us your debt rubbish doesnt in my opinion

[pt2537]

So you think that the fact that over 1000 consumers have paid Rankine over a million pounds for something which may or may not be possible is of no consequence?

as i understand it, from the contact i have at Birmingham City Council Trading standards , they are subject to an OFT investigation for taking part in licensable activities without a licence

 

says it all imho

[pt2537]

Erm debt purchasing IS Licensable activity clearly, you are buying debt regulated by the CCA 1974.

[pt2537]

well dont forget, under Limitations , they have 6 years to sue and id point out also that, the banks probably wont sue him any way as they will sue the debtor

[pt2537]

well, i have searched Westlaw, Lawtel, LexisNexis and Justis and there is no mention anywhere of a single case where someone has done what Rankine profess to be able to do,

 

now they claimed to have found something that we had all missed , in fact they said we were all wrong on this very forum and didnt know what we were doing

 

However HHJ Brown QC proved that one was wrong didnt he.

 

so its not the first time they have claimed to have found something exclusive only to be found wrong

[pt2537]

if he's running this outfit without the security of a limited liability company ill eat my hat and show my arse in burtons window

 

 

its a [problem] and stupid- he aint!!

you have a fantastic way with words :lol:

[pt2537]

just found it - credit card killer is a trading name of MOMENTUM NETWORK LTD company number 04489395

so at least Burtons can sigh in relief then:lol:

[pt2537]

I went to one of their seminars in London last week. Must have been a few hundred people present, most of whom appeared to be professional mortgage brokers or similar. I would also point out that at least half walked out during the course of the seminar - no doubt due to the rambling on of the speaker. The 2nd half (don't ask me why I stayed that long) was a 'marketing' workshop. Basically, telling professional brokers to go down the pub and leave cards around with your name on, or leaflet drop cards in a road whenever you have an appointment with a client in that road. NOT very professional and veering on cold calling !!! But maybe that is the way they do business in his native Birmingham ! I was speaking to one gentleman who 'transferred' his credit card debt under their scheme a few weeks ago - and received a letter from the credit card basically telling him they did not recognise the transfer.

 

I also spoke to Rankine afterwards, and was struck by his total lack of professionalism, and by his ability to avoid direct answers by rambling.

 

This scheme sounds too good to be true - and I am sure that is the case. He can't lose - takes the 10% plus the £350, does nothing, and doesn't give a sh*t if the card holder loses his credit status, gets sued and ends up having to pay the full card balance to the Card Company - in addition to having paid the 10%. All Rankine has to do is pull in the ££££'s over the next few months - and then disappear with millions !!

Thanks for this, it confirms my view .

 

incidently, i went to one of these seminars too, and exactly the same issues arose. He is like a politician as he never answers direct questions, the words dont touch and Barge pole spring to mind

[pt2537]

ah so they pay £1.00 for a debt of say £1000

 

ok then that cannot work as it would fall foul of the Pinnels case and also Foakes and Beer which was a House of Lords decision which held that payment of a smaller sum in satisfaction of a larger sum is not good consideration

 

so on that basis, payment of a smaller sum to satisfy a larger sum in my view fails straight away. unless of course im missing something here

[pt2537]

In my opinion you are not missing something pt2537

 

In fact I think you have just put the final piece in the jigsaw. The agreement is unenforceable so no debt. No debt = no value + £1.00 would make it legal.

 

incorrect,

there is still a debt, the House of Lords confirmed this point in Wilson and First County Trust

 

so there is still a value, the debt is unenforceable, not void or voidable, there is a serious difference between the them

[pt2537]

Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1 (16 May 1884)

 

D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] EWCA Civ 3 (12 November 1965)

 

Selectmove Ltd, Re [1993] EWCA Civ 8 (21 December 1993)

 

these cases all confirm the point i made