Rankine

[Guest]

http://www.itv.com/news/central/2012...million-fraud/


A salutary lesson, lets hope.

D

[TUTTSI]

Re: Rankine

That is a good bit of news. Thanks for posting this up.

I am copying the link from ITV to the debt and claims management section where hopefully it will get a wider coverage of readership.

[Bill-K]

Re: Rankine

I don't know the fine details (and neither would I be able to understand them, I'm sure) - but if these idiots 'bought' the debts for £1, then they took responsibility for those debts by doing so. Who ended up as being responsible for them ?

So - if what the Rankines did was illegal, then how is it that a lender can sell a debt to any number of DCA's for £1 - without even having to tell the debtor that they have done so - and yet the debtor is then liable to those DCA's ?

Not that I am condoning the Rankine's fraud, of course. But why is the reciprocal of that not classed as fraud ?

No doubt you'll kick ma @$$ for asking that, Davy !!! I really should stick to b100dy spreadsheets !!!

[Curlyben]

Re: Rankine

Bill, it's all about liabilities.
You cannot purchase a debtors liabilities to a debt, only the creditor can sell the rights and duties to a DCA.
Slightly twisted, but that's the law.

It IS possible for a debtor to sell the liabilities, but the creditor must agree to the sale.

Basil is (in)famous for taking creditors to court to get debts rendered legally unenforceable.
He did succeed with about 120k worth and then cam seriously unstuck and shafted by a judge that took serious umbridge to his arrogance..

[Bill-K]

Re: Rankine

Cheers, Ben. No - I'm NOT condoning what the Rankine's were doing. I'm well aware that they stuffed up the pitch for a load of peeps who were legitimately reclaiming their charges, as well as directly stuffing their own 'customers.'

It's the fact that it has taken THIS long for them to be brought to justice - and THEN to see that the justice which was brought upon them does not seem to be reciprocally actionable upon similarly unscrupulous lenders. As the law currently stands, it seems that I can be lawfully pursued by ten or more DCA's for just the one debt, which was sold to each of them for £1. Not only that, but the OC doesn't even have to tell me they have sold it to them. So, in theory, I could find myself being chased by a whole BUNCH of scammers, and not know who is legally entitled to chase me.

The Rankines got off lightly, I reckon - but the law that was FINALLY applied seems flawed, to me, if it only has one sharp edge.

[Guest]

Re: Rankine

HI

The history of the £1 sale of liabilities comes from a misunderstood ruling in an earlier High court claim.

The judge in this case held that a section 78 (application for true copy) was not applicable because the agreement had already been terminated, (section 77-79 says under an agreement).

From this our Mr Rankine and other drew the conclusion that if an account was no longer regulated(under an agreement) it was just a commodity, and could be bought and sold the same as any other. Hence the debtor was free to sell his liability to anyone he liked.

The flaw in this logic is that it disregards ancient common law. Whilst it is true that section 77 and other requirements of the act would not apply to a terminated account, under common law the obligation to repay the debt to the creditor still exists and this cannot be transferred without consent.

Unfortunately creditors have rights and debtors have obligations, creditors can pretty well do what they like with a debt the debtor just has the obligation to repay. Not something that is very palatable to many of us but true nevertheless.

D

[Bill-K]

Re: Rankine

Unpalatable, as you say, Davy - but your explanation was most appreciated, thank you !!!

I guess the asinine nature of the Law annoys us all from time to time. But it is "Man's Law - not God's," so Man can change it.

It will take a much better man than I, alas !!!