Momentum Network / CCK

[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

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

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

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 ?

[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??

[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

[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

[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

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.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

This clause is found in most personal loan cca regulated contracts

12. GENERAL

12.1 We may assign or transfer any of our rights or benefits and your liability under this agreement to any person and may disclose your personal information to any person to whom we may assign or transfer those rights or benefits and your liability. We may also arrange at any time for any other person to carry out our duties under this agreement. Your rights under this agreement and your legal rights (including under the Consumer Credit Act) will not be affected. You may not assign your rights or liabilities under this agreement to any other person.

Are you saying that by defaulting on the agreement and thus terminating it it is no longer under the CCA and thus that clause is invalid from the point of termination? Thus enabling consumers to sell their debt liability to a third party. (I'm asking because I'm trying to work out exactly what the argument is in simple terms for myself) I think I'm asking is the effect of the termination taking you out of the CCA or simply out of the terms of the agreement under standard contract law ?

I'd have thought the term highlighted is unbalanced and could be fought under unfair terms to enable the consumer to sell their liabilities to a third party?

I'm not an expert in the CCA or contract law at all and this is genuine request for you to put the argument in simple terms so I understand.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks for your question Amethyst. I'll do my best to simplify things in regards to your question.


A Consumer credit agreement is a contract and nothing more. The entire world is run by us contracting with each other and contracting with companies and corporations.
We make the law by contracting with each other.
Contract law is the umbrella beneath which all contracts such as consumer credit agreements are written.

If you and I signed a contract for you to wash my windows 3 times a week and you and I signed it and it was witnessed by a 3rd party then the contract would then be law. If you stopped washing my windows I could take you to court and seek redress. If however you wrote to me and terminated the contract would you then have to continue washing my windows?

Termination of a contract relieves both parties of any contractual obligations. Termination is exactly what it means. The contract has ended.


QUOTE
" I think I'm asking is the effect of the termination taking you out of the CCA or simply out of the terms of the agreement under standard contract law ?"

The effect of the termination takes you out of the terms of the agreement under contract law.

RIGHTS UNDER CONTRACT ARE NOT LEGAL PRIVLIGES VESTED IN STATUTE.

Going back to the clause that you've very kindly quoted its important to look at the reasons why the clause has been included within the contract.
i have mentioned this in my first post but there's no harm in going over this again.

WHY is that clause there? Why has the lender put the clause in there?

He's done it because he needs to do it. The lender would never do anything needlesly would he.

Lets for example consider the following.
Amethyst & I sign a contract. The contract states that Amethyst has to wash my car every day. I sign it, Amethyst signs it and its witnessed by a 3rd party. Its now law.
Within the contract I place the following clause:

"Amethyst whilst washing my car is forbidden to pick it up with his bear hands and fly to Liverpool with the car"

Now if you read such a clause in a contract you'd think that whomever wrote it was barking mad.....Why? .....because its not actually possible to for a human being to lift a car and fly so there is no need for the clause is there.

Now if a debtor could NOT sell/assign their debt then would the lender have included the clause preventing the debotor from doing so?

Answer: NO

the clause proves that the debtor can sell his debt thats why they've written in a clause preventing him or her from doing so.

Termination of the contract is absolute. The debtor is no longer bound by any clauses/rights under the contract. Yes the debtor is left with a post contractual liabilty to repay the debt but thats it.

QUOTE
"I'd have thought the term highlighted is unbalanced and could be fought under unfair terms to enable the consumer to sell their liabilities to a third party?"

Personaly I would agree with you.

[Tools]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Interesting debate, can I just check a few issues I have with this?

You say that if two parties agree and sign a contract witnessed by a third party, that contract becomes law. I would have to disagree here, maybe only with the wording though, surely it is "legally binding" and not "law".

Probably the best way to explain my point is to quote this, not my words but what I am trying to convey.

In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy.

the contract must not be either trifling, indeterminate, impossible or illegal

The above reference sums up your scenario of Amethyst doing a Wonderwoman with your BMW to the land where the shell-suit is the national costume. However, I am not disputing that the liability for the debt may not be impossible to transfer by the debtor.

My understanding is this, please correct me if I am wrong. You intend to rely on the fact that once the contract is terminated then the terms of that contract and Section 98 of the CCA( and indeed the whole CCA) do not apply. However, once the debt has been transferred to you, you then intend to rely on Section 127(3) of the CCA or indeed any term within the original contract which you now consider to be unfair to make the contract unenforceable and therefore "avoid the debt".

This seems to me to be contradictory, you want to void the contract to transfer it from the original debtor, then rely on the same contract to deem it unfair or unenforceable, this to me seems highly ambiguous. Could you explain further and cite any caselaw where this has been used or law/statute on which you rely. UTCA? UTCCR? CUPTR?

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hi tools, very nice of you to join in. It is as you say an interesting thread.

My understanding is this, please correct me if I am wrong. You intend to rely on the fact that once the contract is terminated then the terms of that contract and Section 98 of the CCA( and indeed the whole CCA) do not apply. However, once the debt has been transferred to you, you then intend to rely on Section 127(3) of the CCA or indeed any term within the original contract which you now consider to be unfair to make the contract unenforceable and therefore "avoid the debt".

This seems to me to be contradictory, you want to void the contract to transfer it from the original debtor, then rely on the same contract to deem it unfair or unenforceable, this to me seems highly ambiguous. Could you explain further and cite any caselaw where this has been used or law/statute on which you rely. UTCA? UTCCR? CUPTR?

I may be wrong but I believe you're attemting to clarify the same thing that Amethyst mentioned previously & I'll do my best to explain.

The contract has been terminated but that does not mean that the CCA 1974 has been thrown out of the window.
Lenders terminate agreements all the time and then sell the debt to debt collectors.
If the CCA 1974 is no longer applicable then why within this forum and all the others are debtors advised to send requests for agreements pursuant to section 77-79 of the CCA. Furthermore when agreements come back and are illegible why is everybody defending themselves using legislation within the Act?
The lenders the majority of the time have terminated the agreement and sold the debt on. Why are debt collectors under an obligation to abide by the legislation within the Act for terminated agreements ?

A lender can not issue a claim against a debtor and drag a debtor to court without first terminating the agreement. Its in court and only in court that a debtor can in certain cirumstances seek a declaration of unenforceability under section 142(1) of the CCA by way of an application to the court.

Termination of the contract relieves the debtor of any obligation to perform under the terms of the contract.
Any disputes that arise thereafter in regards to the agreement can be contested in accordance with the CCA.

I hope I've clarified things.

[amsfs]

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. 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.

I would agree that the articles are drawing attention away from this specific debate....so why post them?

Well, to highlight the incompetence of the regulators.

Some forum members seem to take great pride in regulatory actions being taken against certain individuals and firms. I wanted to bring some balance to the issue in order to show how shockingly incompetent the regulators themselves can be.

Relevance? Well it obviously has some relevance given your statement

"CMC authorisation that is required to run this type of company"

Since when did debt purchase become an activity regulated by the MOJ?

You have likely made the statement due to the press releases issued by the OFT/MOJ. So their incompetence does have an impact on the thought process of the general public.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

I would agree that the articles are drawing attention away from this specific debate....so why post them?

Well, to highlight the incompetence of the regulators.

Some forum members seem to take great pride in regulatory actions being taken against certain individuals and firms. I wanted to bring some balance to the issue in order to show how shockingly incompetent the regulators themselves can be.
It is like saying a bank error in an RBS Branch is because of Sir Fred's pension pot. They are related but not directly the issue.
Relevance? Well it obviously has some relevance given your statement

"CMC authorisation that is required to run this type of company"

Since when did debt purchase become an activity regulated by the MOJ?
And Hunter_01 has corrected my mistake.
You have likely made the statement due to the press releases issued by the OFT/MOJ. So their incompetence does have an impact on the thought process of the general public.

I haven't made any such statements as a consequence of anything else apart from
1) It was your first post
2) it was not exactly relevant in my opinion to the actual thread itself
3) probably cos there wasn't much else on the forum on that day for me to make any comment on.

I very rarely read the press releases from OFT/MOJ unless it relates to specifically Hardship Claims and bank charges so I assume you have given me more credit on this topic than is really warranted to be honest.