Momentum Network / CCK

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Perhaps my vocabularly isn't the best & I apologise. My spelling is never the best either.

The rankine business model is not a concept. It has been tested in court as the rankine's only do for others what they have already done for themselves.

Case law does exist however it is part of Momentum Network's private business intellectual property. Every business needs to keep its intellectual property private to aviod competition.

Further up the posts CURLYBEN asked for relevant case law. When I provided case law details to back up my views in regards to the subject of a debtor being unable to issue a claim to seek a declaration of unenforceability CURLYBEN responded by saying:

QUOTE
"I am well aware what was written in the Rankine judgement as quoted and also some other mistakes of law that where also enforced."

Now how can someone on one hand ask for case law to back up a view & then on the other hand decide to pick and choose which rulings they perceive as correct within a High Court Judgement.

I've been reading threads on many forums in regards to many different subjects. The majority of people seem to think they now best without putting the time and effort in to experience the law. Forums concern themselves with what is right and what is law, laws are made by people winning and losing, what laws have forums ever made or changed or are likely to influence.

I'd like to urge everyone to get back to the essence of the debate which was in regards to the sale of debt & a debtors right to sell their debt. Nobody has come forward to challenge the legalities of what was explained above.

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Have just read all the way through this thread, and am trying to understand the legal complexities, CCA and so on. One thing I am puzzled about is the extract from post#15
below.

The Rankine concept is certainly not Novation.

The definition of "concept is as follows
concept

• noun 1 an abstract idea. 2 an idea to help sell or publicize a commodity.


— ORIGIN Latin conceptum ‘something conceived’.


So if the Rankine's system is only a concept then surely it has no legal precedent and needs to be tested in law first? Or if it has been tested, can you point me to the relevant ceses etc? Thanks

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Any chance you want to discuss the actual issues with regards to Momentum/CKK since the second article is about the Ministry of Justice computer database so is not about CMC authorisation that is required to run this type of company.

CMC authorization is not required to run a debt purchasing company although the MOJ are arguing to the contrary.
If debt purchase is a regulated activity then the MOJ would have to regulate every debt purchasing company in the country.

Could you pop along to the MOJ website and find one company trading under the MOJ's authorization and guidance in the debt purchase market in order to back up your statement please.

many thanks

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Curlyben is of course unbiased in this debate....funny how he's gone all quiet in this thread....wakey wakey, rise & shine

By the way, the OFT, FSA & MOJ are Saints:

Ministry of Justice officials were overpaid £1.5m in three years... and more than £900,000 will never be returned

Ministry of Justice slammed for £700m database ‘shambles’ - 03.11.09

OFT internal fraud causes £250,000 loss

The OFT obviously didn't have a great deal to say about this interesting use of taxpayers money

FSA forced to borrow £200M as it sinks into debt


Wake up time for someone in this thread??

Any chance you want to discuss the actual issues with regards to Momentum/CKK since the second article is about the Ministry of Justice computer database so is not about CMC authorisation that is required to run this type of company. The first one is an overpayment of wages, the third is a flaw in accounting procedures and the last one is about a shortage of funds by the FSA.
Not one of those artilces highlights the issues being discussed.
Not even I would say the OFT, FSA or the MOJ are perfect but what have the issues above got to do with Momentum/CKK.

Isn't it about time you discussed those specific issues rather than deflect attention away from it.

.....and a warm welcome to Legal Beagles

[amsfs]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst
Business Name:Momentum Network Ltd

Address:2nd Floor, Baskerville HoueCentenary Square, Birmingham

Town/City:
County: West MidlandsPostcode:B1 2ND

Trading Names:The Cardfather, The Rankines, Credit Card Killer


Sector:Financial products/services,

Status:Authorisation Cancelled

More trouble for CMCs - debt buyers threatened with prosecution - Legal Beagles


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tools
:jaw::high5::cheer2::okay::brick::tea:eace: :roll:

Bye bye Basil

Looks like Basil has a strop on.
This is from his site:

Quote:
We are not a Claims Management Company, therefore we are not regulated by the Ministry of Justice.
I wonder what the OFT will have to say about that

Curlyben is of course unbiased in this debate....funny how he's gone all quiet in this thread....wakey wakey, rise & shine

By the way, the OFT, FSA & MOJ are Saints:

Ministry of Justice officials were overpaid £1.5m in three years... and more than £900,000 will never be returned

Ministry of Justice slammed for £700m database ‘shambles’ - 03.11.09

OFT internal fraud causes £250,000 loss

The OFT obviously didn't have a great deal to say about this interesting use of taxpayers money

FSA forced to borrow £200M as it sinks into debt


Wake up time for someone in this thread??

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I am certainly not playing politician & I have answered almost every question that you've raised. Any impartial observer can see that I've addressed all of your questions.

Your one issue in regards to default whether true or not is inconsequential in regards to the Rankine business model. I have twice outlined this fact to you.

If as you say section 98 applies only to non-default cases that still does not prevent a debtor selling their debt which is the discussion here.

Let me accept your position that section 98 applies only to cases of non-default.
Now does that mean that a debtor thats in default cannot sell their debt?

Absolutley not......if you're in default you can still sell your debt to a third party as court action would require termination on the part of the lender therefore legally binding the contract between the debtor and the third party.

The subject of termination of a contract by a debtor in default would NEVER arise in court as for the case to reach court the agreement MUST have been succesfully terminated by either the debtor or the creditor.

Hey I'll accept your opinion.....can you quote me some case law to back up your assertion?

Either way it doesn't change the fact that you can sell your debt even if you're in default.

In regards to case law for the sale of debt I'm sure it will soon arrive as things progress. It is however in the hands of those that seek to challenge and not within the hands of those sitting and awaiting the outcome.

I have a question for you.

Quote "I am well aware what was written in the Rankine judgement as quoted and also some other mistakes of law that where also enforced."

What do you actually mean by the above statement? Are you saying that HH Judge Simon Brown QC made a mistake in his interpretation and that HH Justice Flaux in Mcguffik vs Bank of Scotland(06/10/2009) also made a mistake by ruling in line with HH simon Brown QC ?

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

You continually say that s98 gives the debtors rights to terminate the agreement, BUT where there is a default situation, I believe, that this section is invalidated. The whole section is concerned with non-default, also with agreements with a finite life.
So, as I have previously asked, where else within CCA does the debtor have this right ?

Also I was asking about case law concerning "selling" these terminated agreements to a third party, not the effects of termination !!

I am well aware what was written in the Rankine judgement as quoted and also some other mistakes of law that where also enforced.

Please, rather than playing politician, answer my questions.
If you don't know the actual answer then say so, rather than skirting around them or ignoring them.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Where within my post did I say that the debtor does not have a right to terminate ?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
The debtors rights to terminate are within the CCA in section 98 as outlined previously.

I said that The debtor does not have to rely upon any legislation to benefit from the effects of the termination of the contract at all. (I did not say that the right to terminate is not there)

The debtor (has another option) & can rely upon the lender to do this for him. (A lender cannot issue court proceedings without terminating the agreement.

In regards to case law and the proof of the effects of termination are there within Rankine vs Others Queens bench division Claims nos 8BM40009-13

Paragraph 16 of the judgement clarifies the effects of termination.
The Rankines argued that pursuant to section 78(6) of the Act the creditor while the default continues is not entitled to enforce the agreement.

This was dismissed on the basis that the agreement had been terminated.

HH Simon Brown QC
" First, the prohibition is against a creditor under an agreement. The agreement was at an end. Therefore there is no reason why there cannot be enforcement"

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I refer to your own post above:

A debtor has a right to terminate a consumer credit agreement....section 98 of the CCA.

Yet you are now saying that it doesn't ?!?!

Also, as I have cleary quoted.
s98 Duty to give notice of termination (non -default cases)

So in the case of any default of the agreement this WHOLE section is invalidated.

Where else within CCA does it set out the rights of the debtor to terminate the agreement ??

Also I note how, while you have indeed addressed my other points, you have completely avoided the final matter, namely: What case law is relied upon to confirm and enhance this premise ?

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks for your post curlyben

Section 98 is NOT intended to deal with the entitlement of a creditor or owner’s rights to terminate an agreement. Section 98 of the Act deals with the obligation of a creditor to provide a notice of termination to a debtor prior to termination of an agreement.

Within section 98 it is clear that the Act irrevocably permits either party to a regulated agreement to terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

You have quite rightly pointed out that the section deals with cases of non-default and you have set in bold the relevant subsection which reads:

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement.

with that in mind you have concluded that if a debtor is in breach of a contract (i.e. in arrears) then pursuant to Section 98(6) of the Act the debtor is not entitled to terminate the agreement.
This is wholly incorrect.
Subsection 1 outlines the fact that a creditor must give 7 days NOTICE of termination. Consequently the affect of section 98(b)(6) is that if the agreement is in arrears then it is NOT incumbent upon the creditor to provide 7 Days notice prior to termination.
Its foolhardy & wholly incorrect to attempt to claim that section 98(b) (6) diminishes a debtors right to terminate an agreement if the debtor is in arrears.
Section 98(b)(6) has only one effect. If the debtor is in arrears then pursuant to that section of the Act the creditor does not have to provide 7 days notice of termination.
As I mentioned earlier Section 98 is NOT intended to deal with the entitlement of a creditor or owner’s rights to terminate an agreement. Section 98 of the Act deals with the obligation of a creditor to provide a notice of termination to a debtor prior to termination of an agreement. The difference could be argued as trivial however in the context of application it is absolutely crucial.


Your final comments read as follows:
"You are basically referring to novation here.
The reliance on this single, extremely narrow, reference is certainly misguided, although legal.

What case law is relied upon to confirm and enhance this premise ?"

The Rankine concept is certainly not Novation. When carrying out my research I myself came to the initial conclusion of Novation. But this is not correct.

Novation is a mechanism whereby one party can transfer all its obligations under a contract and all its benefits arising from that contract to a third party. The third party effectively replaces the original party as a party to the contract.
For a contract to be novated all parties to the contract must be an agreement. Cleraly under novation you would need the consent of the creditor.

Novation is only applicable if the contract is live. Under the Rankine concept they Terminate the contract. Therefore the debtor is no longer under contract & is immediatley relieved of any contractual obligations.

Termination of the contract side steps contract law. The issue of termination is central to the sale of the debt. As soon as the contract is terminated the debtor can freely contract with whomever they so wish.

In regards to:

"The reliance on this single, extremely narrow, reference is certainly misguided, although legal.

What case law is relied upon to confirm and enhance this premise ?"

I disagree. The debtor does not have to rely upon any legislation to benefit from the effects of the termination of the contract at all. The debtor can rely upon the lender to do this for him.

Termination rights of the debtor are ultimately inconsequential as the lender is forbidden to seek redress in the courts in regards to the total balance and legal costs unless they terminate the contract. Thats a legal Fact.

Prior to any court action the lender must terminate the contract and any contract a debtor has with Momentum Network Ltd will become instantly legally binding. Failure for the lender to acknowledge and accept that a legally binding contract is then in place will be tantamount to repudiation.

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I see where you are coming from here, but on reading the whole section again I still believe it's misguided, especially in relation to credit cards as there is no formal duration of the agreement. Also this section SPECIFICALLY deals with NON-DEFAULT cases.
So ANY default would render this complete line of reasoning invalid.
Also there are other conditions are set out in s99

(1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to terminate a regulated agreement except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days' notice of the termination.
(2) Subsection (1) applies only where—

(a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, and
(b) that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in subsection (1),
but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

(3) A notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.
(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on any credit as restricted or deferred and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.
(5) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described
by the regulations.
(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement.

You are basically referring to novation here.
The reliance on this single, extremely narrow, reference is certainly misguided, although legal.

What case law is relied upon to confirm and enhance this premise ?

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you curlyben for your question in regards to section 98 of the CCA

You're quite right in stating that the section deals with Notice from the creditor prior to termination.

If you read section you'll find that within the section it reads

but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any
party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified

I hope this is sufficient evidence for you in regards to the termination right of a debtor.

Whether a bank argues to the contrary is inconsequential. It is incumbent upon every lender to terminate an agreement prior to court action.
As soon as the lender terminates which he must do any contract that the debtor has with a third party is intantly binding and is then law.

Lenders must terminate prior to court action. It is within the lacuna period (the time between termination & court action) that a debtor can sell his debt.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

at this very moment the MOJ are aiding and abetting in one of the biggest scams in legal history with relation to claims for unenforceability.

Thats a big statement to make. And one I don't agree with in this context.

The Ministry of Justice Claims Regulation may have erred in your opinion in the action they took against Momentum, however they were backed up by the Tribunal with some rather damning statements.

Unenforceability is not a new thing. Despite what the CMCs and press would have us believe. It has been the case since the CCA was drafted by Bennion in the 70's.

I am sure you have read in depth the very high profile cases, particularly those surrounding Mrs Wilson, and of course you will know the Rankines case.

The CMCs are pulling people in with false promises, and we all know that. The MOJ have a very difficult job monitoring and 'policing' (for want of a better word) the industry as many of the arguments being put forward are not yet tested in court. It is fact that certain agreements are iredeemably unenforceable and cannot be enforced either in or out of court, and that has been tested and proven, as much by the retraction of 127(3) as by high court judgments.

When the MOJ visit various CMCs to check compliance with the compensation act 2006, they are met, it seems, with a massive reluctance to provide evidence of concluded cases. Whether by negoitation with creditors to get a fairer deal for consumers (which is the route we tend to go on this site) or by declarations of unenforceability - which is the somewhat pie in the sky promise made by many CMCs to get the consumers to part with large upfront fees. We already know the Regulator work closely with one of the largest companies who offer to wipe debts for people and very very few judgments come back as evidence that they acheive what they set out to (actually I dont think any have in court as yet and hopefully this is what the test cases will sort out - but of course then there is certainty and business for such companies will drop off rapidly as people can take it on themselves)

The moral issues completely aside, we are dealing with the law when discussing these cases. We have to be realistic too.

CCK is no different. They have no evidence nor has their method of purchasing debt off a consumer been tested in court (as far as I am aware).

Now surely, if they were in this for the good of the people and to use the law to get fairness for consumers, they would have pushed a case into court to be tested.

Personally I havent seen any evidence of the issues the MOJ and Tribunal spoke of (people continuing to be chased)- I think the selling by debtors of debt to third parties needs looking at properly and the law clarifying - but in the meantime people like CCK are taking large upfront fees from vulnerable, struggling consumers with more pie in the sky promises which they, CCK, have not tested.

Basically to go back to the part of your post I quoted

at this very moment the MOJ are aiding and abetting in one of the biggest scams in legal history with relation to claims for unenforceability.

If they allowed CCK to continue unchallenged I am very sure they would be accused of the same in relation to debt purchasers by the unenforceability camp. And tbh the unenforceability camp has rather a lot more going for it.

Apologies for a bit of a ramble, please answer Curlys questions first as they are rather more concise, and then maybe we can discuss the actual legalities and whether this is kind of on the right lines,

Most contracts have in them a no transfer unless agreed by the creditor, and I presume that Rankine feels he can get this overturned as unfair (as in same contracts the banks have the right to transfer without any permission or even knowlege from the consumer).... so if he fights that term and succeeds then it would be possible to sell your debts to third partes.

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

A debtor has a right to terminate a consumer credit agreement....section 98 of the CCA.

Would you care to re-evaluate this statement ?

98. Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases).

Refers to the requirements of notice from the CREDITOR beofre termination of an agreement.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I retract my statement in regards to the all the previous opinions within the thread being purely formulated on the actions and statements of the MOJ.

I'm sure some of the opinions were based on their own research by the individuals.

Thank you Amethyst for the reference to clauses within the contracts. Its an extremely good & important fact that you cited.

In the post that I wrote I wanted to highlight the facts that at this very moment the MOJ are aiding and abetting in one of the biggest scams in legal history with relation to claims for unenforceability.

I also wanted to bring an educated well researched view on the Rankine's debt purhcase business model.
I hope I've managed to do that.