Momentum Network / CCK

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I don't take kindly to your last comment. If you're going to make such comments I shall disregard your posts. Behaving in a civilized manner is not too much to ask is it?

When a debtor is issued with a claim CCK instruct solicitors to defend on behalf of the original debtor. The solicitors can then serve a part 20 notice and bring in CCK as a co-defendant.


In regards to your comment:

"If CCK at any point during their "intellectual property" special plan, aren't going to use any of the prescribed terms missing arguments or invalid CCA's, then why not buy debts after Jan 08?"

CCK buy debt pre Jan 08. There is no real reason for the date apart from ensuring that people could not take out credit cards today , spend on them and submit them tomorrow.
A date needed to be set but the date is of no real significance.

You mentioned prescribed terms missing arguments etc

Succesfully obtaining a declaration of unenforecability under section 142 of the CCA due to breaches of the Act eg prescribed terms missing etc is not possible.

Can you provide me with one case law where a debtor has succesfully obtained a declaration of unenforecability under the CCA from the courts due to missing prescribed terms?

Ok, i apologise if you were offended by that last comment, it was not my intention to personally insult you, it was just a general remark on this whole claims business thing. Its just that most commision based agents i have come across have been found to be unhelpful.

You say that CCK instruct solicitors to defend the debtor in court.
But what will be the legal basis for CCK's argument?
That because the debtor has cancelled their contract, CCK's contract with them is now legally binding?

From what you've said before, CCK's entire argument is based on the termination of agreement allowing CCK to buy the debt.
But since you say that CCK have defended clients in court on their behalf, where are the examples of the court cases to prove this?

There should be court transcripts which show that this has actually been achieved.

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Actually given my previous questions have been ignored, shall we try - what is the success rate?

How many written off?

How many claims successfully defended?

How many claims reaching suitable compromise?

What would the average discount be via the 'system'?

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thisguy Hunter has been shilling up cck everywhere.

I launched a campaign at www.stokenorthlibdems.com against cck following several complaints from clients who had become embroiled in cck. Hunters defence of my allegations is to accuse me of being a former CCK agent and company who has been terminated and revoked, those of you who know me from the cartel issues will know very differently. I have neveer been a cck ageent, rep, introducer nor our company or any company i am associated with.

We have a court case coming up soon reference 9SQ04468... and we have put CCK into court to explain why they think they own the debt and why our client has continually been hassled by the lender and now faces county court judgement if the so called transfer of liability for the debt were legal.

Rankines defence is rambling and incoherant, i shall be putting copies of all the paperwork into web domains soon so will write a follow up on this case.

There is a huge thread running on http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=855843#post855843 and http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p...d=1#post855232 please accept my apologises in advance for some of the colourful language used by myself, but the whole issue has so made my blood boil, but the more i have been abusive to the cck guys the more they have supplied of their so called 'interlectual material' and so have given me all of their so called legal proof..... its gonna be a good day in January when we finally get the ruling from the judge that cck is nonesense, once we have that judgement west midlands police can then move in and close the whole operation down and prosecute those running and involved with this most horrid scam.

The funny thing is in all of this Basil Rankine could have done things so mucch differently and actualluy helped consumers really get justice against some the lenders and their shoddy practices, but his ego and greed got in the way.... now they have guys using blog names such as 'fighting for conssumer justice' and 'champion for consumers' who are actually doing nothing other than scamming people and lining their own pockets.

Anyone who wants to speak to me in confidence or private please feel free to do so on davidjack@stokenorthlibdems.com

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hi David, nice to see you, we have spoken previously regarding these companies. I hope things are going okay

I have been reading the SCAM thread, and I trust this won't be descending in that direction here.

We'll look forward to seeing the evidence of the court proceedings - both from your side, and that which I asked Hunter about earlier.

Rise above it, act properly, and they will be exposed. Sink to their level and you get dragged down with them.

Ame
xx

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

No i wont be descending to those levels here i can assure you all of that, there was a reason i ran an abusive campaign on scam, the more abuse i gave them the more info they were sending me privately, i now have their full business model and all their 'interlectual property', not that its very consistant, useful of factual, but it will help in me continuing to expose the scam and those involved in it.

I will certainly keep everyone informed of the outcome of the case.

Like wise i am still awaiting a high court date for cartel, still no sign of a date.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks David appreciate it and look forward to hearing further details of your concerns.

Its interesting chatting with Hunter about this. I really just want explaining the laws surrounding sale of CCA debt by the debtor, and really what the motives behind the 'purchases' are, but this seems to be proving difficult. I'm sure if they did and could show it was above board, and proven in a court (precedent or no) then regardless of the opinion of the MOJ and OFT (who arent always right as we well know) then I'm sure it would assist them in gaining further business - so I'm not really sure of their reluctance to do so.

I was looking at using the UTCCR to deem the unilateral term that sale of debt can be made by the creditor at any time, but not the debtor, and that the term providing that, in most cases, doesnt even state with permission of both parties it is possible under the CCA.

Don't know if you have had any thoughts on that ?

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

This afternoon I received an email from Mr Rankine.

He requested that I put the following post on here for him. I shall duly oblige & i hope you enjoy reading it.

Let me put things straight once and for all, now I am a forum member I can say what I like about anyone I like without having to prove a thing, I can make accusations and insult anyone I like and they can not do a thing about it.

How dare anyone call me and my company a scam (this means we are carrying out illegal activity and committing a crime). CreditCardKiller buys debts from consumer’s yes I admit it, now you have my written confession. Cut and paste it, print it off and take it to the Police, OFT, MoJ and Trading Standards. Use the proper process and tell them to come and arrest me for committing a criminal offence that actually no one can quote me or give me details of anyone else that has ever been convicted of this offence. Will I be the first, funny I tend to be the first to do anything legal that is impossible?

We have been buying debt for 11 months look at our website, we have spoken and written to everyone who objected to us and they have no valid legal response. The MoJ say we are regulated, the OFT say they did not name us so the press release is nothing to do with us and if it does they will not say, Trading Standards say they are getting another legal opinion as they are not sure what we are doing.

If anyone wants to say we are a scam, we have the backing of the MoJ and all the paperwork is on our website and the Tribunal has declared debt purchase as a regulated activity. You have all been asking for proof and it is there, read it follow the links even thisismoney.co.uk understand what The MoJ are saying.

If you believe we are guilty of a criminal offence then the law allows us to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent or have I got that wrong as well. You have no respect for the law or our Human rights. How can you allow people to post statements that we are guilty and must prove our innocence? Remember people are saying we have committed a criminal offence would you like to be call a criminal online without been convicted on anything?. DJ talks about proving things in court, well as yet has has proved nothing, go to court prove your point and then post the results and no one can say you are wrong. To talk about what you are going to do is wrong. CreditCardKiller only talk about what we have done, we do not have to prove anything to anyone not even the regulators; they must prove we are wrong and no one has in the last 11 months.

It is always talk, show me some action, I can not understand why the Police would be interested in a county court claim even if DJ won, it is not proof of criminal activity as it is in a civil court, why are you allowing him to make a fool out of all of you. Why has the MoJ and OFT or TStandards not closed us down, they have the power to seize all computers with a court order, close bank accounts, they work with the Police to issues proceedings and make criminal charges, why has all this not been done, why?

No one can answer, before people said they were collecting evidence, then more evidence, then more evidence. What are they waiting for? Leave us alone hassle the regulators and Police do not say we are criminals when you are not in a position to do so. Our head office has CCTV cameras I will try and get images of when DJ came to our office, I will not post his emails confirming the meetings or other forms he and his associated completed because they are private. All the private hurtful messages that have been sent he has made them up.

What is the world coming to, that you spend all holiday writing rubbish about legally trading companies, write to any regulator and ask them to confirm that CCK has been convicted of any criminal offence or under investigation for committing a criminal offence, ask them to detail that offence and what and when they intend to do about it? Until they have done something about it, do not write posts second guessing the outcome. As no convictions are outstanding we are not guilty of anything, OK no one can disagree with that statement. As I stated earlier respect the law and treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty.

Why is it so hard to believe that debt purchase is possible, I will never understand the closed minded attitude of people. I have battled with regulators and lenders who have failed to prove to me all the points DJ and others are moaning about. Just one last thought if CCK can not legally take over the liabilities of others how can DJ be taking on the liabilities of so called CCK sellers. If debt sale is illegal then the sale contract is invalid and any claim based on the contract is invalid. The very fact that he claims he has a court case means the sale was valid and the contract is binding. Is he going to go to court with the seller and tell the judge the contract is invalid and void as his case will be thrown out with cost awarded to CCK. I can issue a court claim against anyone DJ obviously has no confidence in the claim as he can not even wait 1 month until he has his victory before he starts bragging.

What if he loses is it justice that he keeps on making incorrect comments forever and a day. I do not post on forums anymore as I get told I am wrong by everyone. I sit in court listening to judges tell me I am wrong, I take what a judges says and build a business and people say I am wrong along with the judge, funny that is. People have no idea of how many court cases I have been involved with and how many have been settled in our favour.

All is not what it seems and next year will change a lot of people’s thoughts on debt purchase. Credit Today the industry leading magazine voted myself and my wife in the top 100 influential people in the credit/debt industry in 2009. For what ever reason they understand the impact we have had and the contribution we are making to help consumer. We do not do it to be rich as for years we were on benefits, we are not millionaires but some like to say we are just in it to rip off consumers, read the post from two and a half years ago, we were supposedly ripping off consumers by offering claims management well before the MoJ started the CMU. We have help thousands of sellers, most are happy some are not, we buy debt we do not sell happiness.

Laugh and mock us all you want, not much at the moment I can do about it but one thing I know is that things always change and I know who will be the last person standing. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

CreditCardKiller

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

So Rankine worte this did he? again all statement and no proof, why didnt he post it himself?

To quote 'Our head office has CCTV cameras I will try and get images of when DJ came to our office, I will not post his emails confirming the meetings or other forms he and his associated completed because they are private. All the private hurtful messages that have been sent he has made them up.'

Yes i have been to your offices twice, and challanged your business model and questioned things but never had satisfactory answers.

What documents? I have never signed anything with your company.... put your evidence where your mouth is, there isnt one single agreement between me and your scam company.... issue proceedings against me for libel why dont you?

And Credit Today did what?

See this email.....I was surprised to see the brief article on the Credit Card Killer website; they have simply copied and pasted our material without even asking us. We were not endorsing the product either; that article focused on Basil Rankine because of his impact on the credit industry – and that impact has come under criticism from the MoJ, FSA, MPs, banks, building societies, consumer advice groups, solicitors and a host of others.

It is somewhat surprising that they seemed to be pleased with being mentioned in our magazine: Credit Card Killer is constantly under heavy criticism in our articles for actually causing consumer detriment. I’d like to keep track of how you are challenging the businesses – the practices of firms like Credit Card killer are of great interest to our readership.

Not ment as an indorsement you idiot , you were voted as one of the top 100 reasons why people ended up in debt and had county court judgements laid against them as well as ruined credit files!!!!!!

Just like Judge HH Brown called you a dreamer, did he not rebuke you and say your legal arguements were fanciful at best and deluded and rambling, incoherant and had no baisis in law? Or is my understanding of written english and everyone elses understanding different to your own slant on it?

Publish your proof or sue me for calling you a scam artist of the highest proportions.

See you in court in the new year.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Let me put things straight once and for all, now I am a forum member I can say what I like about anyone I like without having to prove a thing, I can make accusations and insult anyone I like and they can not do a thing about it.

Thats not actually true, (just so we all know that) but I'll take it with the intention it was presented.

Not sure exactly who you are addressing this at, but I assume David. We have all the way through this thread tried to get to the bottom of how CCK operates and the law used to complete the purchases and evidence of cases where this has worked. Things do get heated through frustration. I don't think any one has called anyone a criminal, but if you feel they have point me to it and I can review things.

David has made what two posts on here, so please don't direct everything you feel about him (which is understandable) at everyone on beagles. We are simply here to protect consumers and try and find out the best ways to ue the law for that purpose. If we don't understand something we will discuss it as candidly as possible until we DO. So far we have not been able to agree with what CCK are doing as we cannot see a way around the CCA to operate the sale of debts by debtors without the creditors agreement - so if you can explain that (from the horses mouth as it were) it would be useful.

If you will notice we have asked david for evidence of the case he says he is taking against cck, as well as asking hunter for evidence of cases he says have been successful. neither have answered in any depth.

You are quite welcome to post here but we are trying not to descend to the depths which occur on sites such as scam.com. It is a subject which gets heated understandably and we are only looking for answers.

If we are going to continue discussing this can we please stick to the law and the issues surrounding the cases, and not descend to personal name calling, I don't like moderating people but if I have to then I will.

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you for that.

The case i am running against CCK is case numnber 9SQ04468 being heard in the Stoke-on-Trent County Court early 2010, just awaiting final date now, but told it will be end jan, begin feb.

The case centres around a client who is suppossed to have sold the debt to cck through an agent. They were issued with a 'notice of assignment' from cck.

A couple of months later the lender, Halifax, then started legal proceedings against the client and refuses to agree that a debt can be sold by a borrower on the basis of both CCA 74 and Trietel precedents not to mention pure english law of contract whetre a liability remains personal under a regualted agreement.

We are asking the judge for a judgement on whether it is the case that Rankine and CCK are right in their assupmtion in which case a judgement against Rankine and CCK should be made for not paying the debt or proving it uneforceable, although cck dismiss the idea of unenforceability, or that the debt cannot be transfered as cck say ans that a full refund be made together with damages or that the implied terms of the contract means that rankine will have to pay the debt as he has indeminfied the client through contract.

Rankines defence is rambling and inconsistant and relies on his opinion rather than any case law what so ever.

With regards to the said endorsements, having spoken at length with the MoJ and OFT neither have ever endorsed, approved or agreed that CCK is viable as a concept and do not agree that debt sale and transfer is possible.

Further i spoke with Credit Today which Rankine states puts him in the top 100 people for consumer protection, anyone can contact the deputy editor Marcel Le Gouais at Marcel@CreditToday.co.uk and get it straight from the horses mouth as to what list of top 100 rankine and co appeared in and the exact meaning of their article as well as a copy, its not as rankine says an endorsement of them at all, far from it.

Same with HH Judge Browns verdict and the OFT and MoJ tribunials, dillussional is the only opinion i can say best describes this man.

Now thats all my evidence in the open and lets see if Hunter can actually match that and tell us exactly what we all want to know, how do they claim to be able to buy the liability for the debt? How do they settle the debt and on what basis do they refuse to pay the debt to the lender? Provide this with rulings, court numbers or precedented cases.

[Amethyst]

Thank you David, I appreciate it.


Okay just so I have it clear in my head .... you are helping the defendant defend a claim against them by Halifax on the basis that the debt has been sold to cck, and in the alternative, if it hasnt that the defendant can sue CCK for the fees paid to them, I assume some portion of damages regarding how the debt hasnt been paid and thus ended up in court, and some kind of offer from the defendant to pay halifax / or defend on unenforceability if applicable - with CCK as a party to proceedings to argue whether or not the debt has been formally assigned to them.

Am I on the right page ?


any chance of seeing the copy of the notice of assignment ?

Can someone explain why novation is not available ? Is it purely down to the lender not agreeing (and thus the term in the contract which states obligations cannot be transferred without agreement) or is it legally unavailable under the CCA and thus once outside of the CCA novation can take place (although in my understanding novation requires all three parties to agree), so IF the lender agreed then with unsecured debt the obligations could be transferred whether under the CCA or not.

Also while I'm in a questionning mood - secured debts - are you (CCK) also taking over the securities ? (ie secured car finance - are you taking over the ownership of the portion of the car secured ?)


Also - http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/cck/cckdm.nsf/plinksp/MADN-7X9G46/$File/MOJ1.pdf - are these documents available to view anywhere ?

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you David, I appreciate it.


Okay just so I have it clear in my head .... you are helping the defendant defend a claim against them by Halifax on the basis that the debt has been sold to cck, and in the alternative, if it hasnt that the defendant can sue CCK for the fees paid to them, I assume some portion of damages regarding how the debt hasnt been paid and thus ended up in court, and some kind of offer from the defendant to pay halifax / or defend on unenforceability if applicable - with CCK as a party to proceedings to argue whether or not the debt has been formally assigned to them.

Am I on the right page ?


any chance of seeing the copy of the notice of assignment ?

Can someone explain why novation is not available ? Is it purely down to the lender not agreeing (and thus the term in the contract which states obligations cannot be transferred without agreement) or is it legally unavailable under the CCA and thus once outside of the CCA novation can take place (although in my understanding novation requires all three parties to agree), so IF the lender agreed then with unsecured debt the obligations could be transferred whether under the CCA or not.

Also while I'm in a questionning mood - secured debts - are you (CCK) also taking over the securities ? (ie secured car finance - are you taking over the ownership of the portion of the car secured ?)


Also - http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/cck/cckdm.nsf/plinksp/MADN-7X9G46/$File/MOJ1.pdf - are these documents available to view anywhere ?

No the client is a defendant in one case with the lender, we have issued a claim against CCK in another claiming that monies paid are to be refunded and all costs of the debt paid, its a seperate action in which CCK are defendants.

Novation requires all three parties consent and we have already been told by CCK it is not novation, assignment has already a precedent set in which the creditor can assign a collection or sell the debt for collection but the debtor cannot again cck have told us that this is not the vcase they law they rely on either, i am at a loss as to what case law they seek toi rely on and none of their legal arguements have stacked up so far.

They dont take securitised loans as the lenders will reposses the security and obviously the security cannot be transfered (and therein the liability neither) and so you see the first cracks in the arguements by CCK, surely if it was more to do with pure contract then securtised loans could be included, but because you cannot transfer the liability they cannot do securitised loans.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

hi again, thanks david, sorry am just trying to get things straight

assignment has already a precedent set in which the creditor can assign a collection or sell the debt for collection but the debtor cannot

Which case is this one ?

I mentioned secured loans as in their list of debts they will accept is "secured car finance".

Have CCK not used any case law references in their defence ?


Sooo theres two seperate cases - one bought by halifax against a debtor who has ''sold'' their debt to CCK - they are defending on the basis the debt is owned by cck ? are CCK assisting in the defence as a party ?

How are you bringing a case against CCK ? Is that seperate parties entirely ? I assume its that other company acting for a consumer who has sold their debt to CCK.

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

hi again, thanks david, sorry am just trying to get things straight

Which case is this one ?

I mentioned secured loans as in their list of debts they will accept is "secured car finance".

Have CCK not used any case law references in their defence ?

Cant recall the precedent but the actual legal wording states 'where both parties are agreed to the transfer' also the definition of novation also states both parties have to be in agreement, its the basis of novation, i will dig some more.

With regards to secured, i wasnt aware they had started taking or advertising for secure now, will have to look some more at this worrying development.

With regards to case law used by cck, have a read oif the whole case they cut and paste from and more will become clear, they selectivaly take sections, not the whole context, particulry the rankine case with HH Brown, contact me by email at davidjack@stokenorthlibdems.com and i will send you a full version of the transcript of the court judgement, that will open you eyes.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks, I have the HHBrown Rankine judgment, and yes rather interesting. Its posted on beagles in various places I think.

http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/cck/cckdm.nsf/plinksp/MADN-7X2EJQ
We accept:
personal or business credit card agreements,
unsecured personal loans,
catalogue debt
secured car finance
and overdrafts
taken out before 1st January 2008 under consumer credit agreement or Commercial agreement.
We will pay you £1.00 for each credit agreement you choose to sell.

Re the disclosure docs list i found the mayflower bbc letters on their site - http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/cck/cckdm.nsf/plinksp/MADN-7X8DJV/$File/BBCCorrespondence7Oct09.pdf