Momentum Network / CCK

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

All of the opinions within this thread thus far have been based or formulated as a result of the actions and statements of the Ministry of Justice

I disagree entirely with that statement. If you have a read of some other threads relating to CCK and the Rankines you should see that we are as impartial as you are. Actually I think I mentioned the clauses about transferring debt earlier in this thread.

Actions speak louder than words.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

We're all entitled to our opinion & i have no issues with that at all. Research, facts and knowledge backed up by comprehensive legal and documentary evidence are key when attempting to promote your opinion.
I am an impartial observer and I have studied the Rankine's concept in great detail along with the current situation in regards to unenforceable credit agreements and ofcourse the actions of the regulators. I have also read the comments within this thread and I must say I disagree with the comments posted in regards to Momentum Network ltd and Mr & Mrs Rankine.

All of the opinions within this thread thus far have been based or formulated as a result of the actions and statements of the Ministry of Justice. I'd like to share my opinions with everyone If I may. Firstly I'd like to make it abundantly clear that the industry in regards to CLAIMS for unenforceable credit agreements is legally and fundamentaly flawed. As a consequence the Ministry of Justice will be and should be held accountable for regulating an industry for a cause of action that does not exist. The ministry of justice will have to answer some serious questions in regards to regualting an industry that is and has ripped off consumers for over two years. Hundreds of Thousands of people have handed over cash to these claims companies for them to pursue a cause of action that does not exist.
The legal facts are abundantly clear. You CANNOT issue a CLAIM against a lender in the courts in order to seek a declaration of unenforceabilty from the judge. The judge has no power to make such a declaration.
This was outlined by HH Judge Simon Brown QC in Rankine vs others in 2008.
Seeking a declaration of unenforceability is a legal DEFENCE to a claim issued by the lender !!
A debtor has no casue of action to issue a claim of unenforceability against a lender as the judge has no power to issue a declaration in these circumstances.
HH Judge Simon Brown QC confirmed how section 127 of the Act was to be applied. If a lender issues a claim against a debtor it is then and ONLY then that the debtor can seek a declaration of unenforcability by way of an APPLICATION to the court.(Not claim)
Claims in regards to unenforceability has been one of the biggest scams in legal history & the MOJ will be held responsible for regualting these companies & allowing this indusrty to trade. I genuinely hope I've managed to clarify the facts. The MOJ are an absolute disgrace. They have absolutely no understanding of the legalities in regards to unenforceability. They do however continue to regulate the industry and have not even bothered to read the appropriate case law. The general public may be forgiven for not researching the facts however the regulators cannot seek immunity from this.

So we've now managed to establish how incompetent the MOJ actually are. Lets now turn our attention towards Momentum Network Ltd and their debt buying concept.

The fundamental conecpt the Rankine's are using is contract law. Contrary to what one of the posts within this thread stated....Consumer credit agreements are regualted by the CCA however this is all under the umbrella of Contract Law. A consumer credit agreement is a contract and nothing more.

Its important to try and remove from your mind that money has changed hands. If you replaced the money with lets say oranges the same prinicples of contract law would still apply. Just because money has changed hands does not make any difference to the situation.

As one of our honourable freinds has pointed out in an earlier post ....there are often clauses written in to a consumer credit contract which read "you are not allowed to sell/assign any of your rights or obligations under this contract"

Question 1...Why is that clause there?
No bank or person with any common sense would include clauses needlesly. Clearly there must be a need for the clause.
Question 2....If the clause was not written in to the contract the would that not mean you could sell the debt?
Answer .....Well yes other wise whats the need for the clause if you can't sell it anyway?

By putting the clause within the contract the lender has given you a huge hint.
The fundamentals of contract law permit you as an individual to contract with whomever you wish. People create law by contracting with each other.

Rights under contract are not legal priviliges vested in statute.

The rankine's have uncovered a way out of debt. Termination of contract relieves both parties of any contractual obligations...again thats a fundamental priniciple of contact law....termination is absolute.
A debtor has a right to terminate a consumer credit agreement....section 98 of the CCA.
Once the agreement is terminated the debtor has a liabilty for the debt.
Its at this stage that a debtor can contract with any company to sell the debt and assign the liability over to them.
The transfer of liability is a well established legal practice employed by insurers and solicitors. Legal documents are drafted on a daily basis that include and openly state that if a specific event happens all or a specified liability will be covered, removed or fulfilled with the intention or effect of a contractual promise to take on that liability and remove it from the person it should fall upon. In most cases the liability would be a court judgement costs order.

The courts and the lenders have no choice but to accept that a legally vaild contract is then in place between the debtor and the Rankine's.
I have studied everything in great detail and I can not see how the banks could possibly challenge this. For me it is watertight.
The regulators can shout and scream all they want. They are regulating something that does not exist. On the other hand debt purchase is a legal and an established principle and debt purchasing companies do not need to be regulated by the MOJ.

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Shame, or NOT

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

16. We infer that in addition to the financial damage that members of the public may sustain if the cancellation is suspended, the individual clients concerned, many of whom may already be coping with significant debt, face the prospect of being pursued for payment by lenders concerned; and this may well result in legal costs, bankruptcy orders and damage to their credit ratings. For those reasons we think that the Credit Card Killer activity has the potential to cause serious harm to a large number of consumers.
17. We recognise that the cancellation of authorisation would effectively sterilise Momentum’s business so far as it relates to the Credit Card Killer activity. Does that consequence outweigh the need to protect consumers who might consider buying and using the Credit Card Killer “facility” offered by Momentum? We think not.
18. Momentum has provided us with no evidence that the effects of cancellation on it or its directors will be severe. Mr Rankine has asserted that the application is having “a catastrophic effect” on Momentum’s business but his witness statement does not expand on this. Nor does any documentation demonstrate that, apart from a standstill on the Credit Card Killer activity, hardship is being suffered by Momentum’s directors or staff. In this connection we note that Momentum has recently issued a number of releases in which it states that it is trading and continuing “business as usual”. Consequently it must still be earning substantial fees.
19. We think that the balance of considerations favours maintaining the cancellation pending the outcome of the substantive appeal. The damage that may be caused by cancelling the suspension pending the outcome of the appeal is, we think, far greater than the damage that might be caused by allowing it to remain in force.
5
20. For those reasons we dismiss Momentum’s application.

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/finance/...ntumOliver.pdf

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Understanding repudiatory breach | The In-House Lawyer

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Well you all know how I feel about this shady practice.

The whole site is massive false advertising and making promises they can't possibly keep.
I wonder where the initial £3m figure came from.
I just hope these are debts they have "bought" and they get royally shafted in court.
Would be even better if there own Amex action is used against them, would be pure irony or another metal

If only it was that easy.
They are trying to use repudiation, from commercial contracts, in this I believe, but CCA regulates these agreements, NOT normal contract law.

The sooner they fall, and hard, the better..

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

claiming anyone can allegedly get out of a contract by refusing to repay a loan: once out of contract, they can sell their debts to whomever they wish.

Doesnt that kind of ruin their s127(3) argument as well though?

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Yes I saw they had started putting their site back together while back. Most contracts have in them a no transfer unless agreed by the creditor, and I presume that Rankine feels he can get this overturned as unfair (as in same contracts the banks have the right to transfer without any permission or even knowlege from the consumer).... so if he fights that term and succeeds then it would be possible to sell your debts to third partes.

(my very basic unlearned thoughts anyway)

Otherwise I think there may be a trip to Brazil and a few thousand debt stricken consumers a few hundred quid down and some extra hassle and more arrears built up by the time this gets sorted out.

Hadnt seen tribunal transcripts so will have a nice nosey at them later