Momentum Network / CCK

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I assume in some cases they'll defend on CCA issues, but otherwise yes it sounds that way.



Sales Docs and Terms for CCK - http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/cck/cckdm.nsf/62b7ae7747f383bd8025764000516d56/dae1f407ea4c3fba8025765700591d77/$FILE/AgentFormsConsumer.pdf

and commerical - http://agent-portal.co.uk/quick%20do...Commercial.pdf
and guidance - http://www.agent-portal.co.uk/quick%...ust%202009.pdf

Some nice terms

9. Save in connection with any judicial proceedings, the
Seller(s) will not, without prior written consent of the
Purchaser, disclose to third parties any information received
or obtained in connection with the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement.

10. The Seller(s) consent(s) that information concerning this
Agreement can be used in any announcement, press release,
statement or disclosure or other publicity.

12. The Purchaser retains the right to reassign this agreement to
the Seller(s) without cost, query or consequence to the
Purchaser in respect of any breach of this agreement.

13. The Purchaser retains the right to assign/sell this agreement
to a third party on any terms they deem fit without cost or
query to the Seller(s).

1. The Seller(s) hereby absolutely, unconditionally and
irrevocably assign/sell to the Purchaser all rights, liabilities,
benefits, data, title, interest, remedies or causes of and
other rights in action which I/we the Seller(s) may have
against any party related to or connected to the amount
owed in relation to the terminated consumer credit
agreement.
2. The Seller(s) hereby acknowledge(s) that the Purchaser has
the right to use the Seller(s)' personal details to the extent
necessary to effectively exercise all or any such rights,
remedies and causes of action, and that they will provide the
Purchaser with any assistance they may reasonably require
when exercising such rights, remedies and causes of action,
subject to the Purchaser indemnifying the Seller(s) against
liability for costs, charges and expenses arising out of and/or
in connection with any proceedings which they may take on
their behalf in the exercise of such rights, remedies and
causes of action.

Dear Customer Services Manager,
I/We hereby give notice that I/we am/are cancelling my/our agreement above with immediate effect.
From today, I/we am/are no longer responsible to you for any rights, liabilities nor the data in relation to the previous amount owing since this has
been sold to Momentum Network Limited, Floor 2, Baskerville House, Centenary Square, Birmingham B1 2ND.
Furthermore I/we withdraw my/our consent previously given to you for any additional data to be processed, recorded or for any information or data
to be held by any Credit Reference Agency or for any data to be passed to a third party in relation to the terminated credit agreement.
I/We give consent only for the entry relating to the previous amount owing being deleted from my/our credit file or marked as “Nil”.
Please note that cancellation of the said contract is not to be treated as having the effect of breaching the agreement as a whole

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Is that all they are doing, ie negotiating an amount less than the fee that they paid for the debt?

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Bilmey Nats, you explained that in a more confused way than Hunter did.

He was saying, that becuase the debts are defaulted and the lenders can't be bummed to chase Basil they'll make a F&F settlement offer of 10% of the debt, which is basically the fee the original debtor paid to basil plus their [£400].

The point is reached by allowing the OC to make F&F's and threatend court action, and in some cases take court action against the original Debtor. CCK come in as a third party, the Judge declares the debt unenforceable AGAINST the original Debtor BECAUSE the sale is valid, and the OC must take a NEW action in court in order to sue Basil for the debt (after going through preaction etc again so possibly making an F&F offer).

I don't know what happens if a OC won't accept a F&F of 10% tho, I assume they get judgement, or Basil defends on other CCA issues. And not a clue what Basil does if the Court rules that debt sale in this way is invalid - I think hunter was saying that Basil indemnifies the original debtor against that and pays the court costs and debt in full (as judgmented against the OC) Don't know what he does about the OC getting a CCJ, if Basil doesnt pay what about charge orders etc.

That a bit clearer ? (no idea if its right that just what I got from Hunters post)
And if that is the case then its bloody risky and the seller of the debt to Basil knows nothing about him relying on the OC taking the original debtor to court (which only comes after a stack of DCA hassle and Credit reference agency reporting)

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I am starting to understand the basic model, and it has taken a lot of reading around the waffle and intermittant nonsense that has been posted on all the threads.
This seems to be the process. The Creditor terminates the agreement, which gives the debtor the chance to sell their agreement since it has been terminated with a balance owing.
This is where it gets hazy, how long does the debtor have to sell the debt to CCK/Momentum?
Hunter_01, you have given figures of 10% taken to court. This part I still do not understand and I DO NEED a transcript for.
I need a live example when the creditor has sued the Original Debtor and they have claimed CCK/Momentum own the debt and it has been struck out.
The bank sues the debtor and the debtor states CCK/Momentum owns the debt or does CCK/Momentum defend the case on the debtor's behalf?
Furthermore, what proof or what receipt is legally sound for CCK/Momentum to own the debt or rather what proof is given to the debtor so that if the creditor contacts them that they can prove that their debt is sold to CCK/Momentum?

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

[quote=hunter_01;139473]Again as I pointed out to Curlyben and to dildobaggins agreements are not assessed.
The statement on the website relates to the agreement being assessed in relation to the following things:

No ccj
Unsecured
Debt Issued prior to jan 08

I've seen all the paperwork and spoken to many many sellers. I've spoken and met CCK agents & Mr Rankine. I've seen the whole process close up.

quote]


That again kind of flys in the facxe of what they are selling, or not as the case may be.

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

The appela was heard and they failed to get the cancellation overturned, i have seen the tribunial papers in passing, will try and get a copy to upload.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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.

I don't know if the appeal has taken place yet, but the above doesnt really scan with Basils comment posted by hunter that....

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.

4. The case for Momentum, presented by Mr Oliver Mishcon, is that it has not engaged in regulated activities to which the Decision Letter purports to relate, the matters are therefore outside the scope of the Regulator’s authority

so can you point me to where the

Tribunal has declared debt purchase as a regulated activity

Also in a letter to ThisisMoney in October you have stated

The MOJ does not regulate the debt industry, they cover the claims industry, correct or
remove this statement. We can and are operating legally within the unregulated debt
industry.
The appeal is yet to take place; the tribunal service can confirm this. We failed to have
the cancellation of our authorisation overturned until the full appeal is heard. Please
amend or remove this statement as the appeal hearing has not taken place yet. See
agent-port.co.uk for full details.

(from http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/cck/cckdm.nsf/plinksp/MADN-7X8DFQ/$File/LetterThisMoney2nd16102009.pdf and for info the correct webadress should be Download Centre but its all log in only )


The April Letter from MOJ to CCK - http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/cck/cckdm.nsf/plinksp/MADN-7X9G5G/$File/MOJ3.pdf - the letter on Page 8 from Claims Regulator alledges an offence. Page 22 and bottom of 23 - is Claims Regulation alledging unauthorise/criminal activity in an email to fasthosts to request the site is taken down.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter_01, can I ask you for the CCK MOJ authorisation number since you have stated that your are authorised by the MOJ yet that should be past tense, ie was authorised. Here is my evidence: Claims Management Regulation - Claims Management Regulation


Can you confirm if you have now been re regulated since proof is everything?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Can you be more specific on the Thisismoney link since that links forces me to read the Daily Mail(not exactly specific to CCK).

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Interesting, Rankine will probably say thats his proof that the BBC endorse him too, quite clearly they didnt!

[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

[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

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

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]

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 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.