The FoTL Twaddle Thread

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

SO WHY IS THERE A DEFAULT BUT SIGMA ON MY CREDIT FILE ?????

Because you did not pay your bill and the provider defaulted the account and sold assigned it to Sigma which then quite correctly up dated the file with their details. SIMPLE!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As you are so wise and knowledgeable why are you coming here for advice that you take no notice of??

[eddiemc]

Oh dear...the FOTL brigade are back.

 

What does that mean?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

What does that mean?

 

FOTL = Freemen of or On the Land a sadly delusional faction that believes that they have no liability for their debts or actions, and foolishly state that if a debt purchaser pay a creditor for an account the debtors liability for the debt is extinguished dangerous and misleading twaddle.

[eddiemc]

FOTL = Freemen of or On the Land a sadly delusional faction that believes that they have no liability for their debts or actions, and foolishly state that if a debt purchaser pay a creditor for an account the debtors liability for the debt is extinguished dangerous and misleading twaddle.

 

Interesting however I am a 53 year old insurance broker with a stack of monthly bills that are paid on time like most other normal people.

 

I just believe when a large organisation carry on charging after the end of a contract then sell the alleged debt to a parasite debt collection agency I should have the right to say no.

 

I can guarantee I will win as I am in the right despite all the snide and smug comments I have received on here.

 

I came on here as a genuine person asking for help and everything I have said is from other people who have tried to help me, be they right or wrong.

 

I will let you all know how I get on.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There are no such comments here all that has been stated on the theories of FOTL is correct.

 

As is the advice given on the transfer of rights obligations and benefits of accounts sold on to a debt purchaser.,

no one questions you right to challenge the debt purchaser/DCA or the original creditor all that has been stated here

and explained is the process and the facts of the sale and purchase of debts, l

 

ike it or not when an account is sold on the debt purchaser inherits the rights,

obligations and benefits of the account,

the debtors liability is NOT extinguished by the sale, simple explanation no frills no daft theories.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There are no such comments here by myself,

the information on FOTL is factual as is the advice on the sale and purchase of debts,

and the 'inheritance' of rights, obligations and benefits of an account sold on to a 3rd party by a creditor.

 

Your personal insults are totally unwarranted and I must say that if the advice you have received is from an advocate of the FOTL faction then you are being sadly misled.

 

No one especially me would deny anyone the right to challenge a DCA but any such challenge should not be based on delusional theories that have absolutely no merit and have been repudiated by a court.

[dx100uk]

fotl twaddle moved to its own thread

 

thank you

 

dx

[renegadeimp]

I can guarantee I will win as I am in the right despite all the snide and smug comments I have received on here.

 

Now THAT is something i would love to see. Care to state the legal argument and case law upon which you will be relying in the high court in order to win?

 

The simple fact is, ( and you wont like it), if you try any of this FOTL stuff in a court, you will be laughed at, you will lose the case, and most likely incur heavy costs in addition to the debt you tried to evade.

[eddiemc]

Now THAT is something i would love to see. Care to state the legal argument and case law upon which you will be relying in the high court in order to win?

 

The simple fact is, ( and you wont like it), if you try any of this FOTL stuff in a court, you will be laughed at, you will lose the case, and most likely incur heavy costs in addition to the debt you tried to evade.

 

My post above has all the answers you need and in particular this line.

 

I just believe when a large organisation carry on charging after the end of a contract then sell the alleged debt to a parasite debt collection agency I should have the right to say no.

 

The original debt was incurred because T-Mobile carried on charging after the contract finished that is why I will win the case. No twaddle just a fact.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

No one would argue that point, but the way to challenge it is NOT the misguided rubbish spouted by afcm1 which should be totally ignored.

[postggj]

The only way you would be able to object to a transfer of obligations from a creditor to a collection agency will be a tripartite assignment based on Novation. That is all rights, duties and obligations are transferred.

 

Assignments of obligations are transferred under the Law of Property Act 1925. When you take out an agreement, a term is inserted into the t&c allowing the creditor to sell the debt if he wishes to a third party.

 

YOU AGREE TO THAT TERM when you sign and execute the original agreement.

 

So for people to object later on is a non starter as you have already given your express consent to any possible transfer or sale of the contract to a third party, such as a collection agency

[SOD'EM]

On a more positive note, you are well within your rights to put a 'Notice Of Correction' on your own Credit File (free of charge) if there is a dispute regarding the default. This gives future creditors the chance to read your reasons to object to such default, and should not affect your credit rating in any way (especially if you have other financial commitments that are all up to date).

[renegadeimp]

My post above has all the answers you need and in particular this line.

 

I just believe when a large organisation carry on charging after the end of a contract then sell the alleged debt to a parasite debt collection agency I should have the right to say no.

 

The original debt was incurred because T-Mobile carried on charging after the contract finished that is why I will win the case. No twaddle just a fact.

 

You wont win a case. You might get those charges removed, (keyword = MIGHT) but you wont get the debt written off.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

You wont win a case. You might get those charges removed, (keyword = MIGHT) but you wont get the debt written off.

 

You should be careful not to prejudice your case, it will need to be approached calmly and presented properly.

[renegadeimp]

Just so that poster understands, judges pretty much laugh at FOTL arguments. I don't think i've heard of one that has actually succeeded on a legitimate debt.

[Bill Shidding]

Hi, I have watched a few vids of rob menard/dean c and a few others, and found them to be interesting and thought provoking. I have also heard those "gurus" specifically state that there should be "honesty in contracts" and "legislation is not law". So I'm a little confused why a true FOTL follower would try to use far fetched and baseless reasons to get out of honouring a debt.

The many legitimate statutory failures would normally be enough to see off many a claim anyway.

 

I would also just like to touch on the subject of using "old" laws to circumvent current legislation, in my experience a good/clever/modern lawyer will reference "old" laws to support his case in court. I suspect this is an everyday occurrence. The oldest case brought to the attention of a judge (in a claim against me) was 1838 and in relation to promissary notes. It didn't work that time!

 

I believe there is an "element" of truth in what these "gurus" preach. If that element of truth is the "hook" to reel-in the vulnerable, then I see no real difference between a "guru" and our morally superior and upstanding politicians and their manifestos!.

 

(All generalisations are false, including this one)

 

All the best,

 

Bill.

[renegadeimp]

A lawyer can reference whatever law he likes. If a newer law supercedes it, like it does in pretty much every single FOTL case, then they are useless and need to find another profession.

[Bill Shidding]

Yes, and that lawyer would be victorious even if the law had been superceeded, if his opponent was of lesser knowledge. I don't think many judges would try too hard to find a newer law on behalf his opponent.

[renegadeimp]

Not really. As the judge should know about it, and even if the lawyer won, thats what appeals are for.

[Bill Shidding]

So if a lawyer presents an old case in support of his clients claim and wins, despite there being a more recent judgment/law that superceedes the original, the loser can appeal (if he chooses). Nevertheless, the old/superceeded law was victorious, despite a newer law.

 

If an apparent FOTL follower presents an old law here (on cag) is there always a newer law?

Has there ever been an instance of an apparent FOTL follower having a legitimate argument, when quoting an old law?

[renegadeimp]

Nope. Pretty much every FOTL argument relating to debts has been shot down in the high court.

[Bill Shidding]

I believe that the true ideology of FOTL was never about debt avoidance, it was more about not being enslaved to a "society" that cares not for its citizens.

 

"FOTL" has been somewhat hijacked by the desperate to avoid their legitimate and enforceable contracts, when their true remedy (if any) lies in the contracts and the associated legislation that governs them.

 

Cheers,

Bill.

[renegadeimp]

It might not having been the true ideology, but thats debt avoidance seems to be how it is now.

[fletch70]

You know me,love a good argument but on this one there is little to argue.

 

Every debtor has the right to ask the creditor to prove the debt.

 

As to who placed the default depends on the date of default. I believe an account can be assigned prior to default.

 

I believe that most mobile phone contracts or contracts of this type may have a fixed term but also provide for it turning into a monthly rolling contract with the notice period as stated. If that can be argued on unfair terms i have no idea but i suspect not.

 

IMHO debt avoidance is a very emotive word. It suggests hiding from a debt whereas in reality it is often because the creditor can not get processes and legal requirements sorted or because the debtor has nothing to give.