Momentum Network / CCK

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter_01, can I ask you to highlight amethyst's post cos point 5 and point 6 can be quite bad especially as amethyst hasn't numbered the points so pre-caffeine in the morning, I am unsure of which is point 5 and which is point 6.

Can you clarify what you mean by saying Basil only does what others can do themselves? If that is the case that others can do it for themselves why is Basil not regulated like a traditional CMC by the MOJ?

The loan transfer part of it: I think I have mentioned on another forum but we do a transcript of a case where borrower has sold the debt to lender and lender having sued borrower has been told to go away as debt is no longer owned by borrower. That is the problem for me at the moment. I have read all the threads on SCAM/CAG and here(even on this is money as well) but still have yet to see a live case in action. That is the current problem, until we do then the questions still remain as to the credibility of the business model itself rather than necessarily the company itself.

[charitynjw]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I am a relative newcomer to these forums, & I am enthralled by the reasoned debate & legalities which govern this issue.
I can't pretend to understand, but the posts are beginning to clarify things for me. (&, I suspect,for a good many other people)
It would be a pity, then, to descend into a slanging match.
A civilised, open & honest debate will benefit everybody

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter - I am fully aware of Davids links with CMCs, and his actions on other sites, it doesnt make his opinion any less valid than your own, and I take this into account when reading his posts or comments here or elsewhere.

David - I am fully aware of Hunters links with CCK, and that doesnt make his opinion any less valid either, and the rest of the above goes for him too.

You two are on opposite sides of a very small fence. I don't have trust in either of you, because I don't know you, however I am interested in the legal issues and the arguments you both put forward. Discussing these issues and the law, court process, and DCA's, can only help people understand and use the law positively against companies who do, on occassion, make peoples lives hell. And it probably helps you as well in your prospective fence positions.

Our only interest here is the consumer and the individual. If it means looking at the operations of some CMCs to inform people so they understand what they are actually getting in to, then so be it.

This thread has, so far, been kept on topic (barring maybe the last page), so can we keep it that way, and not make it into a battle ground of CMC's vs CCK.

Happy to answer your questions Amethyst. I'm also happy to answer anyone else's questions.

I will not respond to any posts written by David Jack.

I just like you have no issues with anyone having an opinion.

However when you've been subjected to the abuse that I have been subjected to you have every right to decline responding to the individual regardless of whether they hold a valid opinion or not.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

On that note; Hunter - can you tell me if this is correct for the CCK business model ?

Re: Momentum Network / CCK
You (the consumer) borrow money off a lender.
You spend said money.
You decide you can't pay it back, so you sell the debt on to Basil (paying him £450 plus 10% of the debt) to get it off your back
Basil doesn't repay the debt either and negotiates with bank for a reduced F&F settlement
Bank doesnt play ball or recognise Basil owns debt so sues YOU.
YOU defend saying Basil owns the debt. (then it goes hypothetical as its not yet been proven in court)
The court agrees and tells the lender to bog off and sue Basil.
Lender sues Basil instead.
Basil negotiates reduced F&F or claims loan unenforceable by virtue of CCA 1974, or pays up.


David - CMC business model - I know you have had your arguments with Cartel and the like and are working with Century21 et al now, so I wonder if you could do a PIL outline of the basic business model employed by ''traditional'' UCA CMC's ?

Point number 5 is incorrect. No F & F

The bank could potentially sue the original debtor.

Point number 6 about going hypothetical is incorrect as the Rankine's only do for others what they have already done for themselves.

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

As i have stated previously, there is a court case coming up soon in the Stoke on Trent county courts, we shall see whose legal arguements stack up and whose fall flat on their faces then. As to date, CCK have not provided one single shred of evidence of any successes, of any court cases or of any legal precedents. Indeed the OFT describe the activities as unlawful - and they have not retracted that statement as of 4pm this afternoon.

As for the comments that i defend unenforceability of contracts, that is for another thread and many precedents have been set for flawed and breeched contracts, anyone can read up on the law there.

(And before Hunter starts making acusations that i was rep for CCK, thats another lie and lawyers are working on a case as we speak for those comments on their website).

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

On that note; Hunter - can you tell me if this is correct for the CCK business model ?

Re: Momentum Network / CCK
You (the consumer) borrow money off a lender.
You spend said money.
You decide you can't pay it back, so you sell the debt on to Basil (paying him £450 plus 10% of the debt) to get it off your back
Basil doesn't repay the debt either and negotiates with bank for a reduced F&F settlement.
Bank doesnt play ball or recognise Basil owns debt so sues YOU.
YOU defend saying Basil owns the debt. (then it goes hypothetical as its not yet been proven in court)
The court agrees and tells the lender to bog off and sue Basil.
Lender sues Basil instead.
Basil negotiates reduced F&F or claims loan unenforceable by virtue of CCA 1974, or pays up.


David - CMC business model - I know you have had your arguments with Cartel and the like and are working with Century21 et al now, so I wonder if you could do a PIL outline of the basic business model employed by ''traditional'' UCA CMC's ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter - I am fully aware of Davids links with CMCs, and his actions on other sites, it doesnt make his opinion any less valid than your own, and I take this into account when reading his posts or comments here or elsewhere.

David - I am fully aware of Hunters links with CCK, and that doesnt make his opinion any less valid either, and the rest of the above goes for him too.

You two are on opposite sides of a very small fence. I don't have trust in either of you, because I don't know you, however I am interested in the legal issues and the arguments you both put forward. Discussing these issues and the law, court process, and DCA's, can only help people understand and use the law positively against companies who do, on occassion, make peoples lives hell. And it probably helps you as well in your prospective fence positions.

Our only interest here is the consumer and the individual. If it means looking at the operations of some CMCs to inform people so they understand what they are actually getting in to, then so be it.

This thread has, so far, been kept on topic (barring maybe the last page), so can we keep it that way, and not make it into a battle ground of CMC's vs CCK.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

its simple, they cant buy debt, your the borrower cannot just discharge your obligation like that - read section 94 of the consumer credit act, the agreement is regulated and therefore precedented in law and exempted from the so called 'arguements' they put forward.

Anyone who wants a copy of the ruling and decisions then please email me at davidjack@stokenorthlibdems.com and i will send you a full copy of the legal basis that you cannot discharge a regulated agreement in the manner cck claim. You can also view the document at http://www.stokenorthlibdems.com/fin...FT16102009.pdf

Further as i have previously stated....The text book "An Outline of the Law of Contract" by GH Treitel says " Assignment is the transfer of a right without the consent of the debtor. The Law does not recognise any converse process by which a liability can be transferred without the consent of the creditor" Treitel cites the House of Lords case of Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85 at 103 as authority for that proposition

CCK cannot piecemeal decide which bits of law they accept and which pieces they ignore.

There is not one single precedent case in which CCK have been ruled to own the liability for the debt, they very cleaverly submit a section 20 notice to be joined in the original borrowers case. If they owned the debt and the liability they would not need to be joined unsder section 20 but would rather be issued against by the lender in their own right.


I have challenged them to put me in court for libel if i am wrong, you will find no proceedings being brought or won against by cck, that much i am sure of.!!

The lenders dont, and will not make offers of 10% in full and final settlement to cck, why should they?

I’d just like to point out that this gentleman’s behaviour towards me and others on the thread on scam.com has been nothing short of disgusting.


The language he used and the obscenities he wrote in regards to me were unacceptable. Everyone on legal beagles is welcome to read the thread and I’m happy to provide a link if need be.


I’d like to mention and acknowledge the commendable manner in which all the legal beagle users have discussed the subject at hand and the legalities of the issue.

This was not possible on the other site as the discussion soon disintegrated into a farce and this was solely due to the aggressive, disgusting and wholly disgraceful behaviour of this gentleman.


Before I discuss his post I’d like to point out that he genuinely believes that it is possible and justifiable to attempt to obtain a declaration of unenforceability under the CCA by way of a claim.


I have outlined to him that unenforceability is a defence however he does not agree even though I’ve provided him with the evidence of this fact.

The sole reason for his need to hold this position is due to the fact that he has led so many people down the claims management path and this was undeniably and unquestionably revealed to the horror of some of his followers on the other site.


I do believe that we have already in this thread established that unenforceability is a defence and perhaps someone may want to explain this to this gentleman.
In regards to his post ...He’s wrong. You can buy debt.
We’ve already discussed that section 98 of the CCA provides a debtor with the right to terminate.
I’ve already pointed out that termination rights of the debtor are ultimately inconsequential as the lender must terminate prior to court action anyway.



In regards to his paragraph on Treitel on contracts the point is of absolutely no relevance. Any point made using arguments citing contract law are irrelevant as contractual rights are not being sold/assigned.


This man’s posts do not deserve the recognition to be responded to & I will not be responding to any further posts by him. The only details of debt sale that he does know have been given to him by me.
He has never had any understanding of the model except that which has been explained to him by me.
So any attempt that he makes to promote the illusion that he has any real understanding of the issue established through his own research it absolutely ridiculous.


If you disagree with this man he will not defend himself through legal arguments. What he will do is to unleash a tirade of abuse at you.


I have no need to say anymore. Everyone can read the other thread and make up their own minds about the integrity and behaviour of this man.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Can I ask you about case law Essar Steel v. The Argo Fund Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 241 re loan transfers(not sure if relevant to CCK to be honest but thought I would throw it into the mix)?

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Reading with great interest, but still cant get my head around how they
a) how they make money
b) can 'own' the debt
c) decide which cases to take or not
e) obtain clients in the first place
f) if they go for f&f settlement, then surely there are many cases that wouldn't settle for less than the 10% plus the fee they charge?

Sorry if I'm missing something, or going over old ground....

Reading with great interest, but still cant get my head around how they
a) how they make money
b) can 'own' the debt
c) decide which cases to take or not
e) obtain clients in the first place
f) if they go for f&f settlement, then surely there are many cases that wouldn't settle for less than the 10% plus the fee they charge?

Sorry if I'm missing something, or going over old ground....

its simple, they cant buy debt, your the borrower cannot just discharge your obligation like that - read section 94 of the consumer credit act, the agreement is regulated and therefore precedented in law and exempted from the so called 'arguements' they put forward.

Anyone who wants a copy of the ruling and decisions then please email me at davidjack@stokenorthlibdems.com and i will send you a full copy of the legal basis that you cannot discharge a regulated agreement in the manner cck claim. You can also view the document at http://www.stokenorthlibdems.com/fin...FT16102009.pdf

Further as i have previously stated....The text book "An Outline of the Law of Contract" by GH Treitel says " Assignment is the transfer of a right without the consent of the debtor. The Law does not recognise any converse process by which a liability can be transferred without the consent of the creditor" Treitel cites the House of Lords case of Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85 at 103 as authority for that proposition

CCK cannot piecemeal decide which bits of law they accept and which pieces they ignore.

There is not one single precedent case in which CCK have been ruled to own the liability for the debt, they very cleaverly submit a section 20 notice to be joined in the original borrowers case. If they owned the debt and the liability they would not need to be joined unsder section 20 but would rather be issued against by the lender in their own right.


I have challenged them to put me in court for libel if i am wrong, you will find no proceedings being brought or won against by cck, that much i am sure of.!!

The lenders dont, and will not make offers of 10% in full and final settlement to cck, why should they?

[BillandBen]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Reading with great interest, but still cant get my head around how they
a) how they make money
b) can 'own' the debt
c) decide which cases to take or not
e) obtain clients in the first place
f) if they go for f&f settlement, then surely there are many cases that wouldn't settle for less than the 10% plus the fee they charge?

Sorry if I'm missing something, or going over old ground....

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Regardless of who may or may not be modded where, Hunter can you read my PIL post further back and see if I have got the right idea (at last) on the business model pls. Thanks u. (post #102 I think)

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter I wouldn't bother hun, they are just really not worth the effort. Stay over here where you are being appreciated.

I know you'll say something like 'but I'm not doing it for them, I'm doing it for the good of the people etc' but don't worry a lot of us felt like that when we were first moderated or even banned, you'll get over it, we all did.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

You should have had an email explaining the moderation(I did when it happened to me last year---it has lapsed now).

They've not sent me an email.

Did they explain the reasons as to why you were moderated?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I was going to suggest that you ask a friend to register as a member and then they could post on your behalf - but then I'm sure you know the drill.

I think the IT guys look at your IP address so even if you were to create a new ID they'll catch you out.

I wonder if they will email me explaining as to why I'm forbidden from posting?

[EXC]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Sent them an email , no response.

Anybody got any ideas how I can find out why I was moderated?

There is no real info of what to do in such a situation,

If anyone can provide any help I'd be much obliged

I was going to suggest that you ask a friend to register as a member and then they could post on your behalf - but then I'm sure you know the drill.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

You should have had an email explaining the moderation(I did when it happened to me last year---it has lapsed now).