Momentum Network / CCK

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

"Examles of some of The underwriting criteria are:

1) No CCJ attached to the debt
2) No evidence of irregular transactions issued on the credit card prior to submission
3) debt is unsecured
4) loan or the CC was issued prior to Jan 08."

Can I clarify a few bits from the above examples point by point.

Examles of some of The underwriting criteria are:

1) No CCJ attached to the debt(I think I know this one so no question on it)
2) No evidence of irregular transactions issued on the credit card prior to submission(what do you mean by "irregular transactions issued to the credit card"? Do you mean someone altering the details?)
3) debt is unsecured(again fairly straight forward)
4) loan or the CC was issued prior to Jan 08..(why is the date January 2008 important?)

If a customer has an available balance on their card and the card has not been used for many months they could potentially withdraw a few thousand pounds off the card and then submit it to cck. That would be tantamount to fraud so cck need to make sure that this does not happen. If they can clearly see that something looks iregular then they will reject the case immediatley.

The date is of no real significance however Its important to have a cut off date to prevent people from applying for credit today, spending the money and then submitting their case tomorrow.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

If a customer has an available balance on their card and the card has not been used for many months they could potentially withdraw a few thousand pounds off the card and then submit it to cck. That would be tantamount to fraud so cck need to make sure that this does not happen. If they can clearly see that something looks iregular then they will reject the case immediatley.

The date is of no real significance however Its important to have a cut off date to prevent people from applying for credit today, spending the money and then submitting their case tomorrow.

I may have missed a trick here but if the agreement has been terminated then why would someone do as suggested because by definition the financial institution would not allow that to happen anyway?
I still don't get the example either because if someone had taken out a cash advance and the agreement is later terminated then why would it be unusual since some people do tend to work that way(it is unusual but not unique)?

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Think you forgot to answer my question hunter ooo its like question time

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter, another question if I may, if basil isn't assessing the agreements before purchasing (well paying £1 and charging £399 or thereabouts) what is he going to do with all the thoroughly enforceable agreements he gives himself liability for (if debt buying in this way is possible as contended) he must be assessing in someway, either looking at the agreements to check enforceability first, which would be wise, or hedging bets on all pre 07 mbna all pre 06 Egg etc kind of thing, which would be foolish....or simply buying any and all debts, declaring himself bankrupt - which i guess would get his 'clients' the same end result - no debt - and flitting off somewhere ~ though thats kind of illegal anyway ( I'm joking on the last option not at all alledging he might be doing that just can';t see another option if no assessment is taking place as you contend) oooo orrrrrrrrrr hoping the unenforceable ones get refunded and uses that plus the fees collected to pay off those which are enforceable.....full of options me lol. Don't think I have the right one yet tho do I ?

Thanks for your question Amethyst. I'm pleased that we've managed to get to a position where the CCK Business model has been correctly presented & that we've managed to expel some myths and misconceptions.

Your question is the one that I've been waiting for as its the one question that I cannot answer with any degree of certainty. Now before I get mobbed with post upon post of people jumping on me I'd like to explain why.
The directors of Momentum Network Ltd have to protect their private business intellectual property. This is abundantly clear. If you give everyone the answers in regards to how to do a certain thing then you can rest assured that within minutes you'll have umpteen competitors copying what you do.

As I've mentioned before I've met Mr Rankine on numerous occassions and I've asked him a number of different questions. I accept that he cannot reveal all the secrets of Momentum Network's intellectual property.

I can only provide you with conjecture here and not fact. Granted Mr Rankine could potentially use unenforceability as a means of avoiding debt liability. Off setting is another potential meas of avoiding enforceable debt. If you have £5 million of pre april 07 MBNA debt and £3 million post April 07 MBNA debt then you could offsett. Again this is all conjecture and not fact.

The important thing in regards to debtors that sell their debts is that Momentum Network ltd fully indemnify a seller for any potential liability in regards to a court judgement costs order. This I believe should be sufficent assurance for any sellor to accept this and sell their debt.

I have been criticized on this thread from someone for allegedly not showing or accepting my lack of understanding on certain things. As you can see I do accept and openly admit to a lack of understanding but only when its warranted.
Good question Amethyst.....I was waiting for someone to ask it........Its just took so long for us to get here as I had to correct so many misconceptions in regards to CCK and their business model.
Perhaps you could put forward some ideas of your own in regards to how Mr Rankine will deal with the debts he's purchased.

Having met him on a number of occassions I can assure you of his sincerity and honesty. Of this there is no doubt whatsoever.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I may have missed a trick here but if the agreement has been terminated then why would someone do as suggested because by definition the financial institution would not allow that to happen anyway?
I still don't get the example either because if someone had taken out a cash advance and the agreement is later terminated then why would it be unusual since some people do tend to work that way(it is unusual but not unique)?

What I spoke about was drawing money off a credit card PRIOR to submitting the case to CCK and PRIOR to terminating the agreement.

When a case is submitted to CCK and assigned/sold it is at this point that the sellors original contract with the lender is terminated.

[Tools]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

The important thing in regards to debtors that sell their debts is that Momentum Network ltd fully indemnify a seller for any potential liability in regards to a court judgement costs order. This I believe should be sufficent assurance for any sellor to accept this and sell their debt.

A couple of related questions if I may.

The original debt , are you saying that at no point will the original creditor be able to ask for this to be repaid by the original debtor?

Will the original creditor still be able to submit markers on the subjects CRA?

Do you really think that the OC's and DCA's will stop harassing the OD, which is one reason why many people would wish to sell MN their debts.

[michael]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

The important thing in regards to debtors that sell their debts is that Momentum Network ltd fully indemnify a seller for any potential liability in regards to a court judgement costs order. This I believe should be sufficent assurance for any sellor to accept this and sell their debt.

Can you clarify the mechanism to ensure that clients are fully idemnified. Is this a separate fund held by a third party or some sort of insurance?

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

A couple of related questions if I may.

The original debt , are you saying that at no point will the original creditor be able to ask for this to be repaid by the original debtor?

Will the original creditor still be able to submit markers on the subjects CRA?

Do you really think that the OC's and DCA's will stop harassing the OD, which is one reason why many people would wish to sell MN their debts.

The Creditor may request that the original debtor repay the debt. You can't effectively control a lenders actions. All you can do is to defend in the event of such actions taking place. OC's and DCA's do still harrass sellers however As I understand it things have improved. The harrasment is expected. Would you harrass me if I failed to repay a loan I took out from you. In the event that legally I was in the right would you still scream and shout...I think you would.

If you don't repay lenders and DCA's they harrass you beyond what anyone would consider reasonable. If you've sold your debt and have no liability then the harrasment would be much easier to live with and ofcourse you'd have the law on your side.

In the event that a court claim was issued by the lender against the OD it would be CCK who would defend the case and attend court.

What would you rather have.....harrasment and ultimate liability or harrasment and no liability.

In regards to Credit reference files again its very difficult to stop lenders from putting adverse credit on a file. These are big financial institutions and they are very powerful. As far as I'm aware any entries on a consumers credit file can only be made on Live agreements. However as we all know lenders tend to run roughshod over most rules & regulations.

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

The Creditor may request that the original debtor repay the debt. You can't effectively control a lenders actions. All you can do is to defend in the event of such actions taking place. OC's and DCA's do still harrass sellers however As I understand it things have improved. The harrasment is expected. Would you harrass me if I failed to repay a loan I took out from you. In the event that legally I was in the right would you still scream and shout...I think you would.

If you don't repay lenders and DCA's they harrass you beyond what anyone would consider reasonable. If you've sold your debt and have no liability then the harrasment would be much easier to live with and ofcourse you'd have the law on your side.

In the event that a court claim was issued by the lender against the OD it would be CCK who would defend the case and attend court.

What would you rather have.....harrasment and ultimate liability or harrasment and no liability.

In regards to Credit reference files again its very difficult to stop lenders from putting adverse credit on a file. These are big financial institutions and they are very powerful. As far as I'm aware any entries on a consumers credit file can only be made on Live agreements. However as we all know lenders tend to run roughshod over most rules & regulations.

well pretty much what you have said confirms that this so called "intellectual property" you are banging on about is a load of woffle and made up dream. It's all hearsay to discourage others from copying him.

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.
And as someone else said before, he probably offsets using pre april 07 and post april 07 agreements.
There is no "intelectual property". Everything which can be argued is in the CCA itself, so don't try and come here by bull****ting.

Unless Rankine has magically created his own new Law, which as far as i know there isn't.
I've read all his cases that went to court, and there is no new law made for Rankine.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

well pretty much what you have said confirms that this so called "intellectual property" you are banging on about is a load of woffle and made up dream. It's all hearsay to discourage others from copying him.

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.
And as someone else said before, he probably offsets using pre april 07 and post april 07 agreements.
There is no "intelectual property". Everything which can be argued is in the CCA itself, so don't try and come here by bull****ting.

Unless Rankine has magically created his own new Law, which as far as i know there isn't.
I've read all his cases that went to court, and there is no new law made for Rankine.

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.

[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?

[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

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.