Momentum Network / CCK

[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.

[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

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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

[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)?

[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

"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?)

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks for your question Amethyst. I'll address it as best I can with the information I have gathered. Before doing so I'd like to respond to Curlyben post first.


Originally Posted by CCK
If a case is submitted and does not fit the underwriting criteria and has not been assigned, all fees paid will be returned within 60 days to the Seller.

Momentum Network Limited ("MN") does not offer a refund when a case has been assigned, accepted and transferred to MN.

Hunter, as ever picking and choosing what to comment on I see !!
Read what I highlighted in BOLD.



If that doesn't say that the agreements are assessed then what does it say !!!
There is NO guarantee that they will accept ALL agreements from what ever date..

Again Curlyben i reiterate exactly what I said before. CCK do not assess agreements prior to purchasing the debt. I have as i mentioned at the very begining of this thread investigated and researched the business model of cck for over 8 months. I have attended meetings with Mr Rankine and I've been present at a number of open Q & A sessions held by Mr Rankine in his offices in Birmingham. The gentleman is a man of genunine integrity as am I & believe you are aswell. However you lack of genuine research of the cck business model is the sole reason why your statements are incorrect thus rendering your opinions and assumptions void of accuracy. I'm confident that if you do spend some time actually researching the subject you'll quickly see that your opinions are erroneous.

The CCk statement reads ....If a case is submitted and does not fit the underwriting criteria and has not been assigned, all fees paid will be returned within 60 days to the Seller.

From this you've incorrectly assumed that the words "does not fit the underwriting criteria" means that agreements are assessed for unenforceabilty.

I can assure you that this is wholly incorrect. First of all CCK purchase and assign debt within approximately 2 weeks of a case being submitted. They do not require debtors to supply copies of agreements. I'm sure from your experience of requesting agreements you're fully aware that a lender will very rarely supply an agreement within such a small timescale. So agreements are not required to be submitted as CCK do not assess them.

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.

So in response to your question;

"If that doesn't say that the agreements are assessed then what does it say !!!"

I have told you what it says as explained above.

You would also notice, if you had read more threads that I have this view of ALL CMC's and it's not limited to CCK.
The use of the term resent, in this context, is incorrect as it implies that I actually have feels of anger, bitterness for Basil and his business.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have contempt for all money grabbing CMC's as I think the whole concept is simply feeding off peoples misery and disadvantage, especially in the current economic climate. The "new breed" of CMC has simple graduated from the Old "Ambulance Chasing" school of claims management.

If that is the case I accept your statement & apologise for forming the opinion that you specifically dislike Mr Rankine and his business. I had come to my initial conclusion when reading through another thread detailing cancellation of MOJ registrations for CMC's. A number of CMC's were listed by I believe Amethyst and within the thread your post read very simply:

"Darn No Basil"

thats the reason why I came to this conclusion.

I myself have a genuine dislike for CMC's trading under the umbrella of unenforceability as I believe that there is no valid cause of action to issue a claim against a lender to seek a declaration of unenforceability. I outlined this fact much earlier within this thread.

I must point out to you that CCK is not a CMC. They do not issue claims on behalf of debtors. So I agree that your animosity towards CMC's is justified and I stand beside you in agreement however CCK is not a CMC therefore including them within this box and harbouring a dislike towards them under this assumption is unjustifed.

As you have clearly demonstrated you are NOT impartial at all, in fact I must ask the direct question;
What connection do you actually have in all this ??
Are you a CCK agent or do you work (agent) for an opposition CMC and you're simply trying to gain information concerning CCK operating practices ??

TBH I don't actually expect a response as you have so far failed to answer anything that might show your lack of understanding or underlying objectives.

I am impartial. As mentioned previously I have researched this subject in great detail. I have had an interest in studying unenforceability for some time. I've looked through many forums and read hundreds of threads. After reading all the forums one thing was absolutley crystal clear. The large majority of people on the forums were providing others with lots of good info in regards to unenforceability and what to do in regards to requesting and assessing agreements etc. However on more or less every forum when it came to the stage that a lender had issued a claim against a debtor nobody had the expertise or knowledge to assist the person in defending a court claim.

The directors of CCK are one of a very small number of people with the expertise in regards to issuing and defending claims against lenders in relation to cases for consumer credit. That was the sole reason my journey in my research led me to the offices of Mr Rankine and CCK.
They were the first ones on the statuate books therefore in my opinion their knowledge and experience is invaluble.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

CCK do not assess agreements for enforceability prior to purchasing them. In fact they purchase agreements issued prior to January 2008 so they do and have purchased debt post April 07.

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 ?

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Hunter, as ever picking and choosing what to comment on I see !!
Read what I highlighted in BOLD.

If a case is submitted and does not fit the underwriting criteria and has not been assigned, all fees paid will be returned within 60 days to the Seller.

Momentum Network Limited ("MN") does not offer a refund when a case has been assigned, accepted and transferred to MN.

If that doesn't say that the agreements are assessed then what does it say !!!
There is NO guarantee that they will accept ALL agreements from what ever date..

Having read through the large majority of your threads its abundantly clear of your disliking for the the Rankine's.
You clearly resent them for whatever reason yet its unclear as to why you feel that way.

You would also notice, if you had read more threads that I have this view of ALL CMC's and it's not limited to CCK.
The use of the term resent, in this context, is incorrect as it implies that I actually have feels of anger, bitterness for Basil and his business.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have contempt for all money grabbing CMC's as I think the whole concept is simply feeding off peoples misery and disadvantage, especially in the current economic climate. The "new breed" of CMC has simple graduated from the Old "Ambulance Chasing" school of claims management.

We're all entitled to our opinion & i have no issues with that at all. Research, facts and knowledge backed up by comprehensive legal and documentary evidence are key when attempting to promote your opinion.

From your own first post on this threads, I think you should remember this.

I am an impartial observer and I have studied the Rankine's concept in great detail along with the current situation in regards to unenforceable credit agreements and ofcourse the actions of the regulators.

Again from your own first post.
As you have clearly demonstrated you are NOT impartial at all, in fact I must ask the direct question;
What connection do you actually have in all this ??
Are you a CCK agent or do you work (agent) for an opposition CMC and you're simply trying to gain information concerning CCK operating practices ??

TBH I don't actually expect a response as you have so far failed to answer anything that might show your lack of understanding or underlying objectives.

[michael]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

You pick and choose which case law you feel you'd like to accept according to what suits you and your beliefs.

We could, if only we had some case law to pick and choose from. You haven't posted any yet.

So it has been tested successfully in court according to the Rankines.

'According' to the Rankines, which implies you don't know for sure either

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thanks curlyben for putting your point forward in such an eloquent manner.

Having read through the large majority of your threads its abundantly clear of your disliking for the the Rankine's.
You clearly resent them for whatever reason yet its unclear as to why you feel that way.

In regards to your comment

"*cough*
Complete Bovine Excrement !!!"

I think you're going to be extremely extremely embarrased. Have you contacted CCK and asked them if they would purchase debt post April 07 and pre Jan 08 ?

I don't think you have. So you're a naughty boy for forming an opinion without checking the facts first.

Lets all call CCK on Monday and ask them the question shall we. Would you like to retract your cough and excrement now or on Monday morning? I think you'd better do that now and save yourself further embarrasment on Monday.

You pick and choose which case law you feel you'd like to accept according to what suits you and your beliefs. That is very clear as anyone can see from the earlier posts within this thread.

Furthermore can we keep this thread clean. It was certainly interesting and the discussion was stimulating until such awfull comments from curlyben