Momentum Network / CCK

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Let me put things straight once and for all, now I am a forum member I can say what I like about anyone I like without having to prove a thing, I can make accusations and insult anyone I like and they can not do a thing about it.

Thats not actually true, (just so we all know that) but I'll take it with the intention it was presented.

Not sure exactly who you are addressing this at, but I assume David. We have all the way through this thread tried to get to the bottom of how CCK operates and the law used to complete the purchases and evidence of cases where this has worked. Things do get heated through frustration. I don't think any one has called anyone a criminal, but if you feel they have point me to it and I can review things.

David has made what two posts on here, so please don't direct everything you feel about him (which is understandable) at everyone on beagles. We are simply here to protect consumers and try and find out the best ways to ue the law for that purpose. If we don't understand something we will discuss it as candidly as possible until we DO. So far we have not been able to agree with what CCK are doing as we cannot see a way around the CCA to operate the sale of debts by debtors without the creditors agreement - so if you can explain that (from the horses mouth as it were) it would be useful.

If you will notice we have asked david for evidence of the case he says he is taking against cck, as well as asking hunter for evidence of cases he says have been successful. neither have answered in any depth.

You are quite welcome to post here but we are trying not to descend to the depths which occur on sites such as scam.com. It is a subject which gets heated understandably and we are only looking for answers.

If we are going to continue discussing this can we please stick to the law and the issues surrounding the cases, and not descend to personal name calling, I don't like moderating people but if I have to then I will.

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

So Rankine worte this did he? again all statement and no proof, why didnt he post it himself?

To quote 'Our head office has CCTV cameras I will try and get images of when DJ came to our office, I will not post his emails confirming the meetings or other forms he and his associated completed because they are private. All the private hurtful messages that have been sent he has made them up.'

Yes i have been to your offices twice, and challanged your business model and questioned things but never had satisfactory answers.

What documents? I have never signed anything with your company.... put your evidence where your mouth is, there isnt one single agreement between me and your scam company.... issue proceedings against me for libel why dont you?

And Credit Today did what?

See this email.....I was surprised to see the brief article on the Credit Card Killer website; they have simply copied and pasted our material without even asking us. We were not endorsing the product either; that article focused on Basil Rankine because of his impact on the credit industry – and that impact has come under criticism from the MoJ, FSA, MPs, banks, building societies, consumer advice groups, solicitors and a host of others.

It is somewhat surprising that they seemed to be pleased with being mentioned in our magazine: Credit Card Killer is constantly under heavy criticism in our articles for actually causing consumer detriment. I’d like to keep track of how you are challenging the businesses – the practices of firms like Credit Card killer are of great interest to our readership.

Not ment as an indorsement you idiot , you were voted as one of the top 100 reasons why people ended up in debt and had county court judgements laid against them as well as ruined credit files!!!!!!

Just like Judge HH Brown called you a dreamer, did he not rebuke you and say your legal arguements were fanciful at best and deluded and rambling, incoherant and had no baisis in law? Or is my understanding of written english and everyone elses understanding different to your own slant on it?

Publish your proof or sue me for calling you a scam artist of the highest proportions.

See you in court in the new year.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

This afternoon I received an email from Mr Rankine.

He requested that I put the following post on here for him. I shall duly oblige & i hope you enjoy reading it.

Let me put things straight once and for all, now I am a forum member I can say what I like about anyone I like without having to prove a thing, I can make accusations and insult anyone I like and they can not do a thing about it.

How dare anyone call me and my company a scam (this means we are carrying out illegal activity and committing a crime). CreditCardKiller buys debts from consumer’s yes I admit it, now you have my written confession. Cut and paste it, print it off and take it to the Police, OFT, MoJ and Trading Standards. Use the proper process and tell them to come and arrest me for committing a criminal offence that actually no one can quote me or give me details of anyone else that has ever been convicted of this offence. Will I be the first, funny I tend to be the first to do anything legal that is impossible?

We have been buying debt for 11 months look at our website, we have spoken and written to everyone who objected to us and they have no valid legal response. The MoJ say we are regulated, the OFT say they did not name us so the press release is nothing to do with us and if it does they will not say, Trading Standards say they are getting another legal opinion as they are not sure what we are doing.

If anyone wants to say we are a scam, 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. You have all been asking for proof and it is there, read it follow the links even thisismoney.co.uk understand what The MoJ are saying.

If you believe we are guilty of a criminal offence then the law allows us to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent or have I got that wrong as well. You have no respect for the law or our Human rights. How can you allow people to post statements that we are guilty and must prove our innocence? Remember people are saying we have committed a criminal offence would you like to be call a criminal online without been convicted on anything?. DJ talks about proving things in court, well as yet has has proved nothing, go to court prove your point and then post the results and no one can say you are wrong. To talk about what you are going to do is wrong. CreditCardKiller only talk about what we have done, we do not have to prove anything to anyone not even the regulators; they must prove we are wrong and no one has in the last 11 months.

It is always talk, show me some action, I can not understand why the Police would be interested in a county court claim even if DJ won, it is not proof of criminal activity as it is in a civil court, why are you allowing him to make a fool out of all of you. Why has the MoJ and OFT or TStandards not closed us down, they have the power to seize all computers with a court order, close bank accounts, they work with the Police to issues proceedings and make criminal charges, why has all this not been done, why?

No one can answer, before people said they were collecting evidence, then more evidence, then more evidence. What are they waiting for? Leave us alone hassle the regulators and Police do not say we are criminals when you are not in a position to do so. Our head office has CCTV cameras I will try and get images of when DJ came to our office, I will not post his emails confirming the meetings or other forms he and his associated completed because they are private. All the private hurtful messages that have been sent he has made them up.

What is the world coming to, that you spend all holiday writing rubbish about legally trading companies, write to any regulator and ask them to confirm that CCK has been convicted of any criminal offence or under investigation for committing a criminal offence, ask them to detail that offence and what and when they intend to do about it? Until they have done something about it, do not write posts second guessing the outcome. As no convictions are outstanding we are not guilty of anything, OK no one can disagree with that statement. As I stated earlier respect the law and treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty.

Why is it so hard to believe that debt purchase is possible, I will never understand the closed minded attitude of people. I have battled with regulators and lenders who have failed to prove to me all the points DJ and others are moaning about. Just one last thought if CCK can not legally take over the liabilities of others how can DJ be taking on the liabilities of so called CCK sellers. If debt sale is illegal then the sale contract is invalid and any claim based on the contract is invalid. The very fact that he claims he has a court case means the sale was valid and the contract is binding. Is he going to go to court with the seller and tell the judge the contract is invalid and void as his case will be thrown out with cost awarded to CCK. I can issue a court claim against anyone DJ obviously has no confidence in the claim as he can not even wait 1 month until he has his victory before he starts bragging.

What if he loses is it justice that he keeps on making incorrect comments forever and a day. I do not post on forums anymore as I get told I am wrong by everyone. I sit in court listening to judges tell me I am wrong, I take what a judges says and build a business and people say I am wrong along with the judge, funny that is. People have no idea of how many court cases I have been involved with and how many have been settled in our favour.

All is not what it seems and next year will change a lot of people’s thoughts on debt purchase. Credit Today the industry leading magazine voted myself and my wife in the top 100 influential people in the credit/debt industry in 2009. For what ever reason they understand the impact we have had and the contribution we are making to help consumer. We do not do it to be rich as for years we were on benefits, we are not millionaires but some like to say we are just in it to rip off consumers, read the post from two and a half years ago, we were supposedly ripping off consumers by offering claims management well before the MoJ started the CMU. We have help thousands of sellers, most are happy some are not, we buy debt we do not sell happiness.

Laugh and mock us all you want, not much at the moment I can do about it but one thing I know is that things always change and I know who will be the last person standing. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

CreditCardKiller

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks David appreciate it and look forward to hearing further details of your concerns.

Its interesting chatting with Hunter about this. I really just want explaining the laws surrounding sale of CCA debt by the debtor, and really what the motives behind the 'purchases' are, but this seems to be proving difficult. I'm sure if they did and could show it was above board, and proven in a court (precedent or no) then regardless of the opinion of the MOJ and OFT (who arent always right as we well know) then I'm sure it would assist them in gaining further business - so I'm not really sure of their reluctance to do so.

I was looking at using the UTCCR to deem the unilateral term that sale of debt can be made by the creditor at any time, but not the debtor, and that the term providing that, in most cases, doesnt even state with permission of both parties it is possible under the CCA.

Don't know if you have had any thoughts on that ?

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

No i wont be descending to those levels here i can assure you all of that, there was a reason i ran an abusive campaign on scam, the more abuse i gave them the more info they were sending me privately, i now have their full business model and all their 'interlectual property', not that its very consistant, useful of factual, but it will help in me continuing to expose the scam and those involved in it.

I will certainly keep everyone informed of the outcome of the case.

Like wise i am still awaiting a high court date for cartel, still no sign of a date.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hi David, nice to see you, we have spoken previously regarding these companies. I hope things are going okay

I have been reading the SCAM thread, and I trust this won't be descending in that direction here.

We'll look forward to seeing the evidence of the court proceedings - both from your side, and that which I asked Hunter about earlier.

Rise above it, act properly, and they will be exposed. Sink to their level and you get dragged down with them.

Ame
xx

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thisguy Hunter has been shilling up cck everywhere.

I launched a campaign at www.stokenorthlibdems.com against cck following several complaints from clients who had become embroiled in cck. Hunters defence of my allegations is to accuse me of being a former CCK agent and company who has been terminated and revoked, those of you who know me from the cartel issues will know very differently. I have neveer been a cck ageent, rep, introducer nor our company or any company i am associated with.

We have a court case coming up soon reference 9SQ04468... and we have put CCK into court to explain why they think they own the debt and why our client has continually been hassled by the lender and now faces county court judgement if the so called transfer of liability for the debt were legal.

Rankines defence is rambling and incoherant, i shall be putting copies of all the paperwork into web domains soon so will write a follow up on this case.

There is a huge thread running on http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=855843#post855843 and http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p...d=1#post855232 please accept my apologises in advance for some of the colourful language used by myself, but the whole issue has so made my blood boil, but the more i have been abusive to the cck guys the more they have supplied of their so called 'interlectual material' and so have given me all of their so called legal proof..... its gonna be a good day in January when we finally get the ruling from the judge that cck is nonesense, once we have that judgement west midlands police can then move in and close the whole operation down and prosecute those running and involved with this most horrid scam.

The funny thing is in all of this Basil Rankine could have done things so mucch differently and actualluy helped consumers really get justice against some the lenders and their shoddy practices, but his ego and greed got in the way.... now they have guys using blog names such as 'fighting for conssumer justice' and 'champion for consumers' who are actually doing nothing other than scamming people and lining their own pockets.

Anyone who wants to speak to me in confidence or private please feel free to do so on davidjack@stokenorthlibdems.com

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Actually given my previous questions have been ignored, shall we try - what is the success rate?

How many written off?

How many claims successfully defended?

How many claims reaching suitable compromise?

What would the average discount be via the 'system'?

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I don't take kindly to your last comment. If you're going to make such comments I shall disregard your posts. Behaving in a civilized manner is not too much to ask is it?

When a debtor is issued with a claim CCK instruct solicitors to defend on behalf of the original debtor. The solicitors can then serve a part 20 notice and bring in CCK as a co-defendant.


In regards to your comment:

"If CCK at any point during their "intellectual property" special plan, aren't going to use any of the prescribed terms missing arguments or invalid CCA's, then why not buy debts after Jan 08?"

CCK buy debt pre Jan 08. There is no real reason for the date apart from ensuring that people could not take out credit cards today , spend on them and submit them tomorrow.
A date needed to be set but the date is of no real significance.

You mentioned prescribed terms missing arguments etc

Succesfully obtaining a declaration of unenforecability under section 142 of the CCA due to breaches of the Act eg prescribed terms missing etc is not possible.

Can you provide me with one case law where a debtor has succesfully obtained a declaration of unenforecability under the CCA from the courts due to missing prescribed terms?

Ok, i apologise if you were offended by that last comment, it was not my intention to personally insult you, it was just a general remark on this whole claims business thing. Its just that most commision based agents i have come across have been found to be unhelpful.

You say that CCK instruct solicitors to defend the debtor in court.
But what will be the legal basis for CCK's argument?
That because the debtor has cancelled their contract, CCK's contract with them is now legally binding?

From what you've said before, CCK's entire argument is based on the termination of agreement allowing CCK to buy the debt.
But since you say that CCK have defended clients in court on their behalf, where are the examples of the court cases to prove this?

There should be court transcripts which show that this has actually been achieved.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

When a debtor is issued with a claim CCK instruct solicitors to defend on behalf of the original debtor. The solicitors can then serve a part 20 notice and bring in CCK as a co-defendant.

has this happened and gone to judgment at all ? what happened ?


I thought we'd already established you cant sue for unenforceability but it is a defence.

Anyhoo, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/27.html for lack of prescribed terms (if thats what you were asking for here

Can you provide me with one case law where a debtor has succesfully obtained a declaration of unenforecability under the CCA from the courts due to missing prescribed terms?

? }
''
(c) Order of the court
Section 65(1) provides that an improperly executed agreement shall be enforceable only "on an order of the court." Section 127 gives the court power to make orders for the enforcement of agreements that are, for various reasons, improperly executed. But subsection (3) provides that a court shall not make an enforcement order for an agreement that does not comply with section 61(1)(a) unless the debtor signed a document containing "all the prescribed terms." The hiring agreement in this case did not and is therefore irredeemably unenforceable. ''

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

ok, you say that CCK attend court to defend their right of the debt purchase.
But how exactly do CCK plan to do this when it is the debtor themselves who is being issued with a court claim by the lender?

Do CCK plan to storm the chamber and pull of a Jack Nicholson Tom Cruise A few good men scene? How will CCK interfere in the debtors court case?

Is it not up to the debtor to defend themselves? Or do CCK just turn up like the Merrymen of Sherwood forest and save the day?


Do CCK tell the banks that they can't handle the truth?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


if agreements don't need to be assessed. You need to answer the question why CCK only buy agreements upto January 08.

Why don't CCK buy agreements up until present?

If CCK at any point during their "intellectual property" special plan, aren't going to use any of the prescribed terms missing arguments or invalid CCA's, then why not buy debts after Jan 08?

And anyway, if you know so much about this and know everything abou the law, why don't you do it yourself then?

Or are you happy to be the whore of a pimp? Which is basically what a commision based agent is any case.

I don't take kindly to your last comment. If you're going to make such comments I shall disregard your posts. Behaving in a civilized manner is not too much to ask is it?

When a debtor is issued with a claim CCK instruct solicitors to defend on behalf of the original debtor. The solicitors can then serve a part 20 notice and bring in CCK as a co-defendant.


In regards to your comment:

"If CCK at any point during their "intellectual property" special plan, aren't going to use any of the prescribed terms missing arguments or invalid CCA's, then why not buy debts after Jan 08?"

CCK buy debt pre Jan 08. There is no real reason for the date apart from ensuring that people could not take out credit cards today , spend on them and submit them tomorrow.
A date needed to be set but the date is of no real significance.

You mentioned prescribed terms missing arguments etc

Succesfully obtaining a declaration of unenforecability under section 142 of the CCA due to breaches of the Act eg prescribed terms missing etc is not possible.

Can you provide me with one case law where a debtor has succesfully obtained a declaration of unenforecability under the CCA from the courts due to missing prescribed terms?

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

ok, you say that CCK attend court to defend their right of the debt purchase.
But how exactly do CCK plan to do this when it is the debtor themselves who is being issued with a court claim by the lender?

Do CCK plan to storm the chamber and pull of a Jack Nicholson Tom Cruise A few good men scene? How will CCK interfere in the debtors court case?

Is it not up to the debtor to defend themselves? Or do CCK just turn up like the Merrymen of Sherwood forest and save the day?


Do CCK tell the banks that they can't handle the truth?

DB I am so glad you asked the above question, as it's been nagging at me for ages. I have been thinking exactly the same thing but thought I must be missing something incredibly obvious so didn't ask it. I'm looking forward to the answer....

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I never acused you of being thick. I pointed out the correct interpretation of unenforceability under the CCA and the criteria for successfully obtaining such a declaration.
The very point that succesfuly obtaining a declaration of unenforceability under the CCA has nothing at all to do with the accuracy of credit agreements was the point I made and clearly you’ve not managed to understand that.
Thats the reason why agreements do not need to be assessed. Thats the reason why Basil does not assess them. For what reason would they need to assess them?
Read my post once again and you’ll understand. I’ll say it again. Successfully obtaining a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142 of the CCA has nothing to do with the credit agreement.
When a debtor sells his debt CCK own the debt. If a lender issues a claim against the debtor then the correct “ingredients” are present for a succesful application under section 142.
(a)The lender has isued a claim thus providing the court the potential power to grant an enforcement order
(b)The debtor does not legally own the debt as the debt has been sold
(c)CCK attend court and defend their right to own the debt
(d)The judge refuses to make a judgement against the debtor
(e)Debtor makes application under section 142
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



I left this site for a month because of the ridiculous posts that people were writing in regards to the assessment of agreements

Did anyone ring CCK then to verify that agreements were not assessed?

No , nobody did that because the thought of Hunter being correct would be horrible.

So no lets just keep quoting whats written on the website shall we
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



I suppose you also already knew that obtaining a declaration of unenforceability from the courts under the CCA has nothing whatsoever to do with the credit agreement.

Or do you have a different opinion?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



May I ask why you believe that Basil does not actually own the debts he's purchased?

ok, you say that CCK attend court to defend their right of the debt purchase.
But how exactly do CCK plan to do this when it is the debtor themselves who is being issued with a court claim by the lender?

Do CCK plan to storm the chamber and pull of a Jack Nicholson Tom Cruise A few good men scene? How will CCK interfere in the debtors court case?

Is it not up to the debtor to defend themselves? Or do CCK just turn up like the Merrymen of Sherwood forest and save the day?


Do CCK tell the banks that they can't handle the truth?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I have a question for you.

Why would agreements need to be assessed?

Tell me. For what purpose.

I'm looking forward to your answer

if agreements don't need to be assessed. You need to answer the question why CCK only buy agreements upto January 08.

Why don't CCK buy agreements up until present?

If CCK at any point during their "intellectual property" special plan, aren't going to use any of the prescribed terms missing arguments or invalid CCA's, then why not buy debts after Jan 08?

And anyway, if you know so much about this and know everything abou the law, why don't you do it yourself then?

Or are you happy to be the whore of a pimp? Which is basically what a commision based agent is any case.

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

No, no, no my dear Hunter....

The question, and has been for well over a month, most likely longer, and it this rate I'll be able to say 'has been since last year' is why do you keep denying (after admitting) that agreements would be need to be assessed.

What are you hoping to gain from peddling the belief that whether an agreement is enforceable or not isn't looked into and is obviously a non issue?

Is the self owned website contradictory to the telephone advice given?

So therefore, which is inaccurate, the website, or the verbal sales patter?

In any case, why the contradiction?

Why admit it, and then deny it?

You're playing the role of Rankine Salesman, act like it and answer questions instead of being spurious and retaliating with your own because sadly all you are doing other than giving some of us a good giggle, is looking daft and giving the impression that you desperately want to avoid certain questions because you might dig a hole for yourself.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

To clarify the case posted in #59