Momentum Network / CCK

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------

and your point is? Whether or not I do or not is irrelevant, I wasn't aware that my knowledge was in question. I was just pointing out, obviously not plainly enough, that I felt you were being rather patronising in just presuming that you are the only person who reads the case law and knows the technicalities.

You didn't answer my question - instead of extolling the virtues of Mr Rankine etc, why not put your considerable legal acumen to use in helping those unfortunate enough to find themeselves in debt and pursued through the courts to sort it out themselves without the need to use a CMC?

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Claims need to be assessed so that Basil isnt purchasing a huge bunch of debt that he couldnt defend as unenforceable, reclaim PPI / hidden commission etc etc etc. So he'd have to repay it, go bankrupt, or try for low repayments/F&F's using the money from fees/%'s/any reclaims he does manage to get. That doesnt make any business sense and relies on continuing purchasing debts and collecting fees to repay older ones.

I havent yet been convinced that the purchasing of CCA debt from debtors is legally possible and in the absence of case law / evidence / a decent argument that it is, I'm a tad stuck with that view.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

So:



Isn't a ner ner I know more than you, you couldn't possibly know this, you are always wrong. Blah Blah.

Nah, not insinuating thickness over the issues at hand are you.

The rest is repetative BS, why won't you answer the question:

The website says to assess.

You yourself have posted that they are assessed.

Why are you continuing this 'we don't assess' BS when you've already admitted it? What are you hoping to gain?

AND LMFAO -

Are you telling me therefore that the website used by, owned by, paid for by, Basil contains inaccurate, untruthful statements about how they conduct their business?

If the website can't be accurate on a simple point of whether or not an agreement is assessed, why should anything be believed from a phonecall that could be equally inaccurate?

There really is a problem if the website cannot accord with the claims made on the telephone. PMSL

Then again suppose I shouldn't be wasting my time unless I want to do it as a business like they have.

The Truth Is Out There - and I don't mean aliens.

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

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

So:

It will be news to them and to everyone else that a debtor can not obtain a declaration of unenforceability from the courts by way of a CLAIM and specifically due to breaches within the agreement.

Isn't a ner ner I know more than you, you couldn't possibly know this, you are always wrong. Blah Blah.

Nah, not insinuating thickness over the issues at hand are you.

The rest is repetative BS, why won't you answer the question:

The website says to assess.

You yourself have posted that they are assessed.

Why are you continuing this 'we don't assess' BS when you've already admitted it? What are you hoping to gain?

AND LMFAO -

Are you telling me therefore that the website used by, owned by, paid for by, Basil contains inaccurate, untruthful statements about how they conduct their business?

If the website can't be accurate on a simple point of whether or not an agreement is assessed, why should anything be believed from a phonecall that could be equally inaccurate?

There really is a problem if the website cannot accord with the claims made on the telephone. PMSL

Then again suppose I shouldn't be wasting my time unless I want to do it as a business like they have.

The Truth Is Out There - and I don't mean aliens.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Still doesn't change the fact the website says 'to assess' though doesn't it, which is still passing you by.

Without double checking wasn't it the eminant Simon Brown who pointed out the consumer protection given by the CCA was never meant to be used by folks like Rankine who simply wanted to make money off others by arguing the same.

His judgement in light of those who appeared before him is hard to fault, even if the interpretation he has given certain Sections isn't entirely favourable.

I do like the use of bold and caps lock to illustrate points we already know though. I presume you expect me now to crawl back under my rock with a 1970's copy of A Dummy's Guide To Law as obviously you can be the only one who has bothered to read the relevant caselaw.

But nonetheless, I admire your effort - I quite like it when people attempt to accuse me of being thick, but that said quite what in the same of Saint Nick your post has to do with assessing that you keep denying, despite admitting it and it saying so on the website, well....maybe I need to sober up, or get drunk.

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 -------------------------------

Any one else noticed that it took Hunter almost a MONTH to formulate his response.
Oh well, lets hope he crawls back under his rock..

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 have to put my two cents in here. I am not the best legal mind on this forum, nor probably the worst. I read and get my head round stuff as necessary. But I think (in fact I am sure) that we all already know that CCA and the unenforcability cannot be used to bring a claim, it can only be used as a defence. And I was aware of that long before you so graciously and patronisingly pointed it out, Hunter.
So, if Rankine cannot legitimately own the debts, how can he use unenforceabilty as a defence, as it would surely be the original owner of the debt who was persued and had claim issused against them, not Basil?
And if they don't assess the debts, why does it say on their website that they do?
Finally, why don't you put all your legal acumen to work helping the original debtors to sort it out for themselves, instead of pushing people towards a CMC? No matter how good the Rankine business model may or may not be, surely it would be better for people to be able to sort it themselves for free rathr than pay even a tiny amount to a third party if there was no need?

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 -------------------------------

Despite all this I still don't get what Basil will be doing with all the debts he has ''purchased''. I assume he won't be paying them. Waiting for lenders to take him to court (though it will be a long wait as the debts not actually legally owned by him so the poor people who think they have sold the debts to him will get claimed against and have to defend their own cases) then defending on grounds of unenforceability (maybe a tad harder considering the 23rd Dec Judgment) and asking companies to write off the debts ?

And yes we KNOW people are being ripped off left right and centre, thats kinda why we are against a lot of CMCs.

Also I dont think we have advised a single person to take a bank to court to get an agreement declared unenforceable - which is what you are saying the forums are saying, along with the CMCs. If there is a good case then it can be advised to stop paying and negotiate with the company for a F&F settlement or ask them to write the debt off, or use it as defence to a claim, but we havent advised anyone take the lenders to court based on unenforceability (that I have seen anyway)

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

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Any one else noticed that it took Hunter almost a MONTH to formulate his response.
Oh well, lets hope he crawls back under his rock..

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I'm not sure any forum I use Ame advises anybody to stop paying a debt without it being as a means of negotiating a settlement. Subtle difference between 'wipe out your debt' and 'put yourself in a better position to deal with them that actually involves a repayment' I always find.

Then again, maybe I'd feel differently or not care if I got a big fat advance for every thread I read or posted on?

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I have to put my two cents in here. I am not the best legal mind on this forum, nor probably the worst. I read and get my head round stuff as necessary. But I think (in fact I am sure) that we all already know that CCA and the unenforcability cannot be used to bring a claim, it can only be used as a defence. And I was aware of that long before you so graciously and patronisingly pointed it out, Hunter.
So, if Rankine cannot legitimately own the debts, how can he use unenforceabilty as a defence, as it would surely be the original owner of the debt who was persued and had claim issused against them, not Basil?
And if they don't assess the debts, why does it say on their website that they do?
Finally, why don't you put all your legal acumen to work helping the original debtors to sort it out for themselves, instead of pushing people towards a CMC? No matter how good the Rankine business model may or may not be, surely it would be better for people to be able to sort it themselves for free rathr than pay even a tiny amount to a third party if there was no need?

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Despite all this I still don't get what Basil will be doing with all the debts he has ''purchased''. I assume he won't be paying them. Waiting for lenders to take him to court (though it will be a long wait as the debts not actually legally owned by him so the poor people who think they have sold the debts to him will get claimed against and have to defend their own cases) then defending on grounds of unenforceability (maybe a tad harder considering the 23rd Dec Judgment) and asking companies to write off the debts ?

And yes we KNOW people are being ripped off left right and centre, thats kinda why we are against a lot of CMCs.

Also I dont think we have advised a single person to take a bank to court to get an agreement declared unenforceable - which is what you are saying the forums are saying, along with the CMCs. If there is a good case then it can be advised to stop paying and negotiate with the company for a F&F settlement or ask them to write the debt off, or use it as defence to a claim, but we havent advised anyone take the lenders to court based on unenforceability (that I have seen anyway)

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Still doesn't change the fact the website says 'to assess' though doesn't it, which is still passing you by.

Without double checking wasn't it the eminant Simon Brown who pointed out the consumer protection given by the CCA was never meant to be used by folks like Rankine who simply wanted to make money off others by arguing the same.

His judgement in light of those who appeared before him is hard to fault, even if the interpretation he has given certain Sections isn't entirely favourable.

I do like the use of bold and caps lock to illustrate points we already know though. I presume you expect me now to crawl back under my rock with a 1970's copy of A Dummy's Guide To Law as obviously you can be the only one who has bothered to read the relevant caselaw.

But nonetheless, I admire your effort - I quite like it when people attempt to accuse me of being thick, but that said quite what in the same of Saint Nick your post has to do with assessing that you keep denying, despite admitting it and it saying so on the website, well....maybe I need to sober up, or get drunk.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I’d like to make a few points in regards to the last couple of posts. Specifically the ones by Ed and dildobaggins in relation to the claim that CCK assess agreements prior to the purchase of debt.


As I mentioned before this is not the case.

I believe that both Ed, dildobaggins and Curlyben along with many other people on this forum believe that CCK must assess agreements to check whether they will be able to attain declarations of unenforceability prior to purchasing them.

The reason why they believe this to be true is because they INCORRECTLY believe that a debtor can seek a declaration of unenforceability under the CCA for breaches within the agreements.


It will be news to them and to everyone else that a debtor can not obtain a declaration of unenforceability from the courts by way of a CLAIM and specifically due to breaches within the agreement.


The above statement that I’ve made will be very hard for people to accept as it more or less completely torpedo’s any beliefs that they have in regards to this subject. For this reason I shall justify my statement using legal facts and if anyone disagrees then I’d be happy to hear from them.


The reasons as to why the industry in regards to issuing a CLAIM in relation to seeking a declaration of unenforceability is a scam is as follows:

The most important & leading case law in regards to unenforceability is HH Judge Simon Brown QC's judgement in Ra**** Vs Others.

HH Judge Simon Brown QC confirmed in paragraph 15 of the judgement that the power to issue a declaration under section 142(1) [unenforceability] exists ONLY in a case where the court could grant an enforcement order.


A debtor can only seek a declaration under section 142(1) of the Act if a lender has issued a claim against the debtor thus providing the court the power to grant an enforcement order.


Furthermore a debtor can only seek a declaration under section 142(1) by way of an APPLICATION to the court and not a claim.


A debtor therefore has no cause of action to issue a claim against the lender to seek a declaration under section 142(1).

UNENFORCEABILTY IS A LEGAL DEFENCE TO A CLAIM ISSUED BY THE LENDER

The court ruling above clarifies that no person has a cause of action for a claim in relation to seeking a declaration of unenforceability.


I hope you've managed to understand the simple point that unenforceability is a legal defence.

You cannot issue a claim against a lender and seek a declaration of unenforceability from the judge.


Unenforceability is like a debtor having a helmet to protect himself.
The lender is the one with the baseball bat.
If the lender swings his bat (Issues a claim against the debtor)....Its then and only then that a debtor can defend himself and put his helmet on (seek an application of unenforceability from the judge).


What you cannot do is to drag the lender into court yourself and attempt to get the judge to issue a declaration of unenforceability.
This is exactly what these companies are attempting to do. Its has no legal basis.


HH Judge Simon Brown QC has made this perfectly clear within a High Court Ruling. The MOJ are turning a blind eye and the public are being exploited.

Until there is an ammendment to the ruling above no one can issue a claim against the lender in an attempt to seek a declaration of unenforceability from the judge.


Millions of pounds have been taken by these companies fraudulently.

Why?......Because nobody's bothered to read the leading case law in any detail.

Unenforceability is a highly misunderstood area of law. I'll do my best to explain this to you.


The true legal interpretation of unenforceability was clarified in the High Court within the Rankine Judgement. Claims no: 8BM40009-13

I'll explain this step by step & you're welcome to read the court papers in order to confirm my statements.

The only way a debtor can get a declaration under section 142(1) [Unenforceability] of the CCA is if a claim by the lender is REFUSED by the court. (Not due to breaches in the Act)

Therefore the Judge has REFUSED to make a judgement.

It is then and only then that a debtor can seek an declaration of unenforceability under section 142(1) by way of an application to the court.
The debtor needs this as technically the agreement still remains enforceable as no judgement against the agreement has been made.

KEY POINT

The court has refused to make a judgement.


Now if you look at what all the CMC's are doing and also the information on the Forums its incorrect.

CMC's and their solicitors are and have been attempting to drag lenders into court citing breaches of the Act in an attempt to request that the Court makes a Judgement in realtion to the agreement.

They then believe that they will be able to get a declaration of unenforceability. The forums on the internet have also been promoting this myth.


Remember the only way a debtor can get a declaration under section 142(1) [Unenforceability] of the CCA is if a claim by the lender is REFUSED by the court.

Therefore the Judge has REFUSED to make a judgement.

A consumer is given the power to declare an agreement unenforceable not the courts.
If a claim is requesting for the court not to make a judgement then no claim for a judgement can be made.

The legal position is abundantly clear. The MOJ have failed to protect the consumers and millions of people have been ripped off by CMC's.


Everyone who has used or is using the services of a CMC has a right to get their money back.

A debtor has no cause of action to issue a claim against a lender in order to seek a declaration of unenforceability

I hope you've managed to follow what I've outlined above.

So going back to the point I was making at the start of this post CCK do not assess agreements.
Obtaining a declaration of unenforceability under section 142 of the CCA has nothing to do with breaches of the agreement.

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

All I am doing is stating what I believe CCK is doing.

Like I said before, the only thing which everyone has freely available to use is the actual 1974 CCA is itself to come up with arguments as to why their agreement has not met the prescribed terms.

To come up with such innuendo as "intellectual property" is simply avoiding the questions people are asking.

You can't have "intellectual property" on something that is public domain such as the CCA.

It's like me saying, I have "intellectual property" over section 127, even though every goddamn person in this country has the god given right to use it too.

There are things which you need to answer Hunter.

Why do Momentum, CCK take 14 days to assess whether the debt will be purchased?

Like you say, if the agreement is not assesed, then why do you need 14 days to confirm whether debt can be purchased or not?

What exactly is the "underwriting criteria".

I don't see any law which says contracts must take 14 days to be confirmed.

I'm no expert, but I'm willing to hear what's on offer.

Having said that though, I'm curious to know how CCK has come up with this unique £450 admin fee + 10% of the debt amount paid upfront.


Again, its simply my opinion, you don't have to agree with it or not.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I'd just like to point out a few things if I may. This is the first time that I've actually joined a forum and posted on one. I took these steps once I'd researched the subject in great detail. I did so to avoid posting inaccurate information as incorrect information is not just detrimental to the company and to the people to which it refers but its also unhelpful to those readers searching for factual information.

You have posted your opinion as you're entitled to do however I must point out to you that agreements are not assessed.
You clearly believe that agreements are assessed....Can you provide proof of claim that they are?

Anyone thats looking for the facts can ring CCK and ask them the question. Why don't you ring them yourself?
Tell them that you've got a debt to sell but you've not got the agreement to hand. Ask them if they need to see it before they can purchase the debt.
Any reader of these posts looking for the facts will do that and as soon as they establish the fact that agreements are not assessed you'll loose any credibility that you may have previously had. After that do you really believe that anyone would read your posts and take them seriously?

Everybody is entitled to an opinion & I accept that however if you can't even be bothered to pick up the phone and make a call to check something out then what on earth are you doing on this forum?
The biggest problem on the internet and on forums is factually incorrect information and opinions posted by people such as yourself.

I genuinely believe that I've managed to provide a balanced, accurate, detailed and well researched view of the CCK business model. I'm sure any impartial reader would agree.

I did ring CCK up actually.
They want you to pay up front, and sign lots of forms giving them authority.

If they don't need to see the agreement in the first place before purchasing, why would they need my authority to deal with my lender?

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter......I think if Tony Blair is ever impeached he'll want you on his team.

The website is clear, you say it's not assessed in that way, why doesn't the website differentiate then?

The website says 'in order to assess your agreement'. It does not qualify that statement.

But even then, does your own answer not nullify your previous statements on this thread (which for the record I've kept reading and then logging off to avoid saying something I wouldn't regret).

Dildo said:

Its pretty straight forward what Rankine is doing.
He always checks whether agreements will be unenforceable before "agreeing the sale", hence the 14 day time limit.

You said:

You have posted your opinion as you're entitled to do however I must point out to you that agreements are not assessed.

The website says:

'in order to assess your agreement'

You then say:

Again as I pointed out to Curlyben and to dildobaggins agreements are not assessed.

You then say:

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

To which I (ignoring Jan 08 unless you wish to mention - in case I missed it - why you didn't mean April 07) refer you back to Dildobaggins who said:

He always checks whether agreements will be unenforceable before "agreeing the sale", hence the 14 day time limit.

The question is not do people have a phobia about phonecalls.....it's do CCK have a phobia about producing accurate websites? The psychologist would say you are deflecting my friend.

Instead of answering questions, you reply with a question.

You say you're tired, I would be to defending the indefensible. You spent your time 'bigging up' their case where they got 60K + costs against them and had a Judge skew the law a little bit so he discussed S127(3) and S142 as not being designed to be used by 'such people' to make money out of uneducated consumers. Ergo - Court action is not enforcement.......do you really see that as a victory for Basil and Amanda who sold tickets to their own wedding?

Thanks to them, every consumer - who has their interests at heart - not a profit margin can now not claim being sued is enforcement under the act.....proud of that? I bet they are - got them column inches AGAIN didn't it.

As for ringing them, no thanks. I emailed the other year and was told categorically not to be interested in learning the law (despite my own claim being involved) unless I wanted to make money out of it.

I still have that email....that email has been supplied to every site I use previously.

And you wonder (are you not them or related, or financially involved) why they are treated with disdain?

Even your own arguments backing them up don't stand up.

Such a shame.....with a mind like yours unless you're names Basil, it could serve a far better purpose Hunter.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Withdraw the comment OR quickly edit the website?

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.

Can I ask you one question. Does everyone here have a phobia in regards to making a phone call?

Can someone for god's sake ring them and ask them if agreements MUST be submitted and assessed prior to acceptance.

I'm getting a little tired with all this & I'm wondering if I should bother to continue posting.

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

You have posted your opinion as you're entitled to do however I must point out to you that agreements are not assessed.

Withdraw the comment OR quickly edit the website?