Momentum Network / CCK

[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)

[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?

[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?

[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..

[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?

[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

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

[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.

[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?

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

To clarify the case posted in #59

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, why the contradiction?

Why admit it, and then deny it?

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

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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



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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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


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

I have a question for you.

Why would agreements need to be assessed?

Tell me. For what purpose.

I'm looking forward to your answer

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

Why don't CCK buy agreements up until present?

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

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

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

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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

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

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


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

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

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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

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

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


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


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

Why don't CCK buy agreements up until present?

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

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

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

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

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


In regards to your comment:

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

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

You mentioned prescribed terms missing arguments etc

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

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

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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

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


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

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

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

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