Momentum Network / CCK

[amsfs]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you natweststaffmember for your response.

Can I please take you back to the first post in this particular thread, it relates to a warning by the MOJ in a tribunal about the debt buying process conducted by CCK.

My attempt at trying to balance the debate (by showing the incompetency of the regulators themselves in various ways) was designed to show that when the regulator(s) make a mistake it has other repurcussions.

Lets focus on the debate at hand.....the MOJ is repeating it's line regarding debt purchase (as practised by CCK) as constituting a 'regulated activity'.....OK, so that is the MOJ's stance.

What does the OFT have to say about this....."it's a scam", as per their press release this Summer.

Back to my general point about regulator incompetency:

MOJ - CCK activity constitutes a regulated activity
OFT - CCK activity constitutes a scam

Who is right, CCK, MOJ or the OFT?

[michael]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Who is right, CCK, MOJ or the OFT?

Or a fourth choice: None of the above

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you natweststaffmember for your response.

Can I please take you back to the first post in this particular thread, it relates to a warning by the MOJ in a tribunal about the debt buying process conducted by CCK.

My attempt at trying to balance the debate (by showing the incompetency of the regulators themselves in various ways) was designed to show that when the regulator(s) make a mistake it has other repurcussions.

Lets focus on the debate at hand.....the MOJ is repeating it's line regarding debt purchase (as practised by CCK) as constituting a 'regulated activity'.....OK, so that is the MOJ's stance.

What does the OFT have to say about this....."it's a scam", as per their press release this Summer.

Back to my general point about regulator incompetency:

MOJ - CCK activity constitutes a regulated activity
OFT - CCK activity constitutes a scam

Who is right, CCK, MOJ or the OFT?

This is the OFT press release that you are referring to and I will quote it in full:

"OFT warns consumers about 'debt sale' scams

72/09 23 June 2009

The OFT is warning consumers not to be taken in by businesses claiming to help them become debt free by 'buying' or 'selling on' their debts.

The warning follows a significant increase in the number of adverts on the internet and in newspapers from debt and claims management companies that misleadingly state they can take over liability for debts or write off debts by purchasing consumers' credit agreements.

In fact the law does not allow the sale of debt without the lender's permission and so businesses that suggest otherwise are making clearly misleading claims. Brokers who introduce clients to debt and claims management companies that say that they can 'buy' and 'sell on' consumer debts are also misleading consumers.

Consumers need to be aware that if they 'sell' their debts to one of these businesses, either directly or through a broker, they will still be liable for their original repayment obligations as well as losing the money they paid for this false service.
Consumers will also still be subject to any debt collection activity and negative credit scoring associated with the original debt.

The principal regulator for claims management companies is the Ministry of Justice. Those businesses that operate in the credit/debt sector also need to be licensed by the OFT. Some of the firms offering these services do not have consumer credit licences and the OFT is working in partnership with local trading standards services to prosecute them for unlicensed trading. Formal licensing enforcement action has already been initiated against licensed companies whose advertising or websites are making these misleading claims.

Ray Watson, OFT Director of Credit, said:

'Like most scams, when something looks too good to be true, it usually is, and this is certainly the case here. You cannot simply sell on your debt and its liabilities, and businesses that make misleading claims to the contrary are just trying to take advantage of consumers' distress.'

'The OFT will not hesitate to take swift action against businesses which deliberately mislead consumers.'

'Consumers with debt problems should contact their creditor to arrange a repayment plan or their local Citizens Advice Bureau who will be able to provide free advice.'

NOTES

1. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is the principal regulator for claims management companies but businesses that operate in the credit/debt sector also need to be appropriately licensed by the OFT. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires most businesses that offer goods or services on credit or for hire, lend money to consumers, or offer debt purchase, debt counselling, debt adjusting services or credit information services to be licensed by the OFT. Even if a business does not offer credit itself, but introduces clients to sources of credit, that business may be engaging in credit brokerage activities for which a consumer credit licence is required.
2. It is a criminal offence under section 39(1) of the Act to carry out any activity that requires a consumer credit licence without such a licence. Under the Act, unlicensed trading is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.
3. Businesses providing claims management services regulated by the MoJ are required to follow strict rules of conduct including a ban on misleading marketing, high pressure selling and cold calling in person.
4. In August 2008 MoJ issued a joint consumer alert with OFT encouraging consumers to consider their position carefully and get independent advice and in February 2009 published fresh guidance on the type and content of marketing considered to be misleading. A number of businesses have been directed to change their marketing.
5. Today, MoJ has issued a further warning on marketing issues and the threat of enforcement action against any authorised businesses which fail to comply with the requirement that they must provide consumers with clear information about the options available for pursuing their claim, the realistic chances of success and the expected costs of doing so before any fees are charged or a contract is signed. For more information about the regulation of claims management businesses and general advice see the Ministry of Justice website.
6. Consumers can check whether a business holds an appropriate consumer credit licence by searching the OFT's online consumer credit register.
7. For advice on dealing with debt, see the Directgov website or visit your local Citizens Advice bureau."
Source: The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns consumers about scams

They were specifically talking about misleading claims so I am not sure necessarily that both were not singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Or a fourth choice: None of the above

I'm with the 4th choice.... and will make up my own opinion based on the facts as i understand them regardless of who presents what.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

The last few posts have been very interesting.

It is late on a friday evening but for the life of me I can't figure out what the 4th option actually is (mentioned by Michael & endorsed by Amethyst)??

Could anyone enlighten me?

Option 1) OFT says its a scam

Option 2) MOJ says its a regulated activity (therefore can not be a scam)

Option 3) Its not a scam and its not a regulated activity (exactly what CCK claim)

So what could option 4 actually be?

If anyone would like to agree with the OFT could they provide some evidence as to why they believe it to be a scam.
If anyone agrees with the MOJ then could they provide some evidence as to why they believe its a regulated activity.

If you don't agree with the OFT or the MOJ then you must surely believe option 3 to be correct.

If CCK issued proceedings against the OFT in regards to their claim that debt sale is a scam then CCK's cheif witness as a defence would be the MOJ !!

Now that is funny !!

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Yes, hilarious. When it happens I'll laugh.

Until then I reserve the right to make up my own mind based on how I undesrtand and percieve things. A point to remember is that just because a person, or government body, LLendorses something (or not)as the case may be, that doesn't make it right forever, these things are subject to review and change.Regulations change. Licences can be revoked, etc etc. So what is okay now might not necessarily be okay in the future (or have been in the past). However, one thing I am absolutely certain of, is that an opinion cannot be wrong, by virtue of the fact that an opinion is a person's thoughts on a certain situtiion, and opinions will always differ depending on points of view. Just because something is right, or law, or technicially wrong or right, doesn't mean you have to agree with it. That's the whole point of an opinion.
In my opinion, anyway.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

It isn't necessarily a scam, however it is untested and people are being asked to pay large upfront fees to Basil for him to take over their debts, without any guarantees that the 'sale' of the debt to him is legal - as it currently stands. Therefore CCK should not be purchasing debts for a fee without testing it in court first. The OFT have discussed people continuing to be chased and hassled AFTER the debt sale to CC - I havent seen any evidence of this and wish the OFT or CCK would give EVIDENCED examples of positive or negative cases.
Regarding regulation, if it is just a debt purchase service then no it wouldnt fall under the regulations - the part that does is that he takes the money upfront before looking at the agreement to see if its capable of being enforce before deciding whether to purchase, and only purchases unenforceable contracts. If that makes sense. I'm glad it is being tested in the appeal process.

So that doesnt fit in any of the options does it, so I'll stick with option 4, my own opinion.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

It isn't necessarily a scam, however it is untested and people are being asked to pay large upfront fees to Basil for him to take over their debts, without any guarantees that the 'sale' of the debt to him is legal - as it currently stands. Therefore CCK should not be purchasing debts for a fee without testing it in court first. The OFT have discussed people continuing to be chased and hassled AFTER the debt sale to CC - I havent seen any evidence of this and wish the OFT or CCK would give EVIDENCED examples of positive or negative cases.
Regarding regulation, if it is just a debt purchase service then no it wouldnt fall under the regulations - the part that does is that he takes the money upfront before looking at the agreement to see if its capable of being enforce before deciding whether to purchase, and only purchases unenforceable contracts. If that makes sense. I'm glad it is being tested in the appeal process.

So that doesnt fit in any of the options does it, so I'll stick with option 4, my own opinion.

So you've agreed that its not necrssarily a scam and that if its just debt purchase then its not a regulated activity.
You're almost a part of option 3. The only concerns you have is that according to you its not been tested in court.
According to Mr & Mrs Rankine they have tested this in court and its part of their private business intellectual property. I believe the only other people that are privy to their intellectual property are the barristers working with CCK under a confidentiality agreement.

So it has been tested successfully in court according to the Rankines.

Regarding regulation, if it is just a debt purchase service then no it wouldnt fall under the regulations - the part that does is that he takes the money upfront before looking at the agreement to see if its capable of being enforce before deciding whether to purchase, and only purchases unenforceable contracts. If that makes sense. I'm glad it is being tested in the appeal process.

CCK do not assess agreements for enforceability prior to purchasing them. In fact they purchase agreements issued prior to January 2008 so they do and have purchased debt post April 07.
I'm afraid you've been misguided in relation to the trading activities of CCK.

CCK for these very reasons do not require MOJ authorization. They are soley a debt purchasing company. They do not issue claims on behalf of sellers.

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

So it has been tested successfully in court according to the Rankines.

Yet AGAIN I ask for reliant CASE LAW !!
Hearsay and innuendo doesn't cut it.

CCK do not assess agreements for enforceability prior to purchasing them. In fact they purchase agreements issued prior to January 2008 so they do and have purchased debt post April 07.

*cough*
Complete Bovine Excrement !!!

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks curlyben for putting your point forward in such an eloquent manner.

Having read through the large majority of your threads its abundantly clear of your disliking for the the Rankine's.
You clearly resent them for whatever reason yet its unclear as to why you feel that way.

In regards to your comment

"*cough*
Complete Bovine Excrement !!!"

I think you're going to be extremely extremely embarrased. Have you contacted CCK and asked them if they would purchase debt post April 07 and pre Jan 08 ?

I don't think you have. So you're a naughty boy for forming an opinion without checking the facts first.

Lets all call CCK on Monday and ask them the question shall we. Would you like to retract your cough and excrement now or on Monday morning? I think you'd better do that now and save yourself further embarrasment on Monday.

You pick and choose which case law you feel you'd like to accept according to what suits you and your beliefs. That is very clear as anyone can see from the earlier posts within this thread.

Furthermore can we keep this thread clean. It was certainly interesting and the discussion was stimulating until such awfull comments from curlyben

[michael]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

You pick and choose which case law you feel you'd like to accept according to what suits you and your beliefs.

We could, if only we had some case law to pick and choose from. You haven't posted any yet.

So it has been tested successfully in court according to the Rankines.

'According' to the Rankines, which implies you don't know for sure either

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter, as ever picking and choosing what to comment on I see !!
Read what I highlighted in BOLD.

If a case is submitted and does not fit the underwriting criteria and has not been assigned, all fees paid will be returned within 60 days to the Seller.

Momentum Network Limited ("MN") does not offer a refund when a case has been assigned, accepted and transferred to MN.

If that doesn't say that the agreements are assessed then what does it say !!!
There is NO guarantee that they will accept ALL agreements from what ever date..

Having read through the large majority of your threads its abundantly clear of your disliking for the the Rankine's.
You clearly resent them for whatever reason yet its unclear as to why you feel that way.

You would also notice, if you had read more threads that I have this view of ALL CMC's and it's not limited to CCK.
The use of the term resent, in this context, is incorrect as it implies that I actually have feels of anger, bitterness for Basil and his business.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have contempt for all money grabbing CMC's as I think the whole concept is simply feeding off peoples misery and disadvantage, especially in the current economic climate. The "new breed" of CMC has simple graduated from the Old "Ambulance Chasing" school of claims management.

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.

From your own first post on this threads, I think you should remember this.

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.

Again from your own first post.
As you have clearly demonstrated you are NOT impartial at all, in fact I must ask the direct question;
What connection do you actually have in all this ??
Are you a CCK agent or do you work (agent) for an opposition CMC and you're simply trying to gain information concerning CCK operating practices ??

TBH I don't actually expect a response as you have so far failed to answer anything that might show your lack of understanding or underlying objectives.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

CCK do not assess agreements for enforceability prior to purchasing them. In fact they purchase agreements issued prior to January 2008 so they do and have purchased debt post April 07.

Hunter, another question if I may, if basil isn't assessing the agreements before purchasing (well paying £1 and charging £399 or thereabouts) what is he going to do with all the thoroughly enforceable agreements he gives himself liability for (if debt buying in this way is possible as contended) he must be assessing in someway, either looking at the agreements to check enforceability first, which would be wise, or hedging bets on all pre 07 mbna all pre 06 Egg etc kind of thing, which would be foolish....or simply buying any and all debts, declaring himself bankrupt - which i guess would get his 'clients' the same end result - no debt - and flitting off somewhere ~ though thats kind of illegal anyway ( I'm joking on the last option not at all alledging he might be doing that just can';t see another option if no assessment is taking place as you contend) oooo orrrrrrrrrr hoping the unenforceable ones get refunded and uses that plus the fees collected to pay off those which are enforceable.....full of options me lol. Don't think I have the right one yet tho do I ?

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks for your question Amethyst. I'll address it as best I can with the information I have gathered. Before doing so I'd like to respond to Curlyben post first.


Originally Posted by CCK
If a case is submitted and does not fit the underwriting criteria and has not been assigned, all fees paid will be returned within 60 days to the Seller.

Momentum Network Limited ("MN") does not offer a refund when a case has been assigned, accepted and transferred to MN.

Hunter, as ever picking and choosing what to comment on I see !!
Read what I highlighted in BOLD.



If that doesn't say that the agreements are assessed then what does it say !!!
There is NO guarantee that they will accept ALL agreements from what ever date..

Again Curlyben i reiterate exactly what I said before. CCK do not assess agreements prior to purchasing the debt. I have as i mentioned at the very begining of this thread investigated and researched the business model of cck for over 8 months. I have attended meetings with Mr Rankine and I've been present at a number of open Q & A sessions held by Mr Rankine in his offices in Birmingham. The gentleman is a man of genunine integrity as am I & believe you are aswell. However you lack of genuine research of the cck business model is the sole reason why your statements are incorrect thus rendering your opinions and assumptions void of accuracy. I'm confident that if you do spend some time actually researching the subject you'll quickly see that your opinions are erroneous.

The CCk statement reads ....If a case is submitted and does not fit the underwriting criteria and has not been assigned, all fees paid will be returned within 60 days to the Seller.

From this you've incorrectly assumed that the words "does not fit the underwriting criteria" means that agreements are assessed for unenforceabilty.

I can assure you that this is wholly incorrect. First of all CCK purchase and assign debt within approximately 2 weeks of a case being submitted. They do not require debtors to supply copies of agreements. I'm sure from your experience of requesting agreements you're fully aware that a lender will very rarely supply an agreement within such a small timescale. So agreements are not required to be submitted as CCK do not assess them.

Examles of some of The underwriting criteria are:

1) No CCJ attached to the debt
2) No evidence of irregular transactions issued on the credit card prior to submission
3) debt is unsecured
4) loan or the CC was issued prior to Jan 08.

So in response to your question;

"If that doesn't say that the agreements are assessed then what does it say !!!"

I have told you what it says as explained above.

You would also notice, if you had read more threads that I have this view of ALL CMC's and it's not limited to CCK.
The use of the term resent, in this context, is incorrect as it implies that I actually have feels of anger, bitterness for Basil and his business.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have contempt for all money grabbing CMC's as I think the whole concept is simply feeding off peoples misery and disadvantage, especially in the current economic climate. The "new breed" of CMC has simple graduated from the Old "Ambulance Chasing" school of claims management.

If that is the case I accept your statement & apologise for forming the opinion that you specifically dislike Mr Rankine and his business. I had come to my initial conclusion when reading through another thread detailing cancellation of MOJ registrations for CMC's. A number of CMC's were listed by I believe Amethyst and within the thread your post read very simply:

"Darn No Basil"

thats the reason why I came to this conclusion.

I myself have a genuine dislike for CMC's trading under the umbrella of unenforceability as I believe that there is no valid cause of action to issue a claim against a lender to seek a declaration of unenforceability. I outlined this fact much earlier within this thread.

I must point out to you that CCK is not a CMC. They do not issue claims on behalf of debtors. So I agree that your animosity towards CMC's is justified and I stand beside you in agreement however CCK is not a CMC therefore including them within this box and harbouring a dislike towards them under this assumption is unjustifed.

As you have clearly demonstrated you are NOT impartial at all, in fact I must ask the direct question;
What connection do you actually have in all this ??
Are you a CCK agent or do you work (agent) for an opposition CMC and you're simply trying to gain information concerning CCK operating practices ??

TBH I don't actually expect a response as you have so far failed to answer anything that might show your lack of understanding or underlying objectives.

I am impartial. As mentioned previously I have researched this subject in great detail. I have had an interest in studying unenforceability for some time. I've looked through many forums and read hundreds of threads. After reading all the forums one thing was absolutley crystal clear. The large majority of people on the forums were providing others with lots of good info in regards to unenforceability and what to do in regards to requesting and assessing agreements etc. However on more or less every forum when it came to the stage that a lender had issued a claim against a debtor nobody had the expertise or knowledge to assist the person in defending a court claim.

The directors of CCK are one of a very small number of people with the expertise in regards to issuing and defending claims against lenders in relation to cases for consumer credit. That was the sole reason my journey in my research led me to the offices of Mr Rankine and CCK.
They were the first ones on the statuate books therefore in my opinion their knowledge and experience is invaluble.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

"Examles of some of The underwriting criteria are:

1) No CCJ attached to the debt
2) No evidence of irregular transactions issued on the credit card prior to submission
3) debt is unsecured
4) loan or the CC was issued prior to Jan 08."

Can I clarify a few bits from the above examples point by point.

Examles of some of The underwriting criteria are:

1) No CCJ attached to the debt(I think I know this one so no question on it)
2) No evidence of irregular transactions issued on the credit card prior to submission(what do you mean by "irregular transactions issued to the credit card"? Do you mean someone altering the details?)
3) debt is unsecured(again fairly straight forward)
4) loan or the CC was issued prior to Jan 08..(why is the date January 2008 important?)