Momentum Network / CCK

[Curlyben]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

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

Yet AGAIN I ask for reliant CASE LAW !!
Hearsay and innuendo doesn't cut it.

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.

*cough*
Complete Bovine Excrement !!!

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

It isn't necessarily a scam, however it is untested and people are being asked to pay large upfront fees to Basil for him to take over their debts, without any guarantees that the 'sale' of the debt to him is legal - as it currently stands. Therefore CCK should not be purchasing debts for a fee without testing it in court first. The OFT have discussed people continuing to be chased and hassled AFTER the debt sale to CC - I havent seen any evidence of this and wish the OFT or CCK would give EVIDENCED examples of positive or negative cases.
Regarding regulation, if it is just a debt purchase service then no it wouldnt fall under the regulations - the part that does is that he takes the money upfront before looking at the agreement to see if its capable of being enforce before deciding whether to purchase, and only purchases unenforceable contracts. If that makes sense. I'm glad it is being tested in the appeal process.

So that doesnt fit in any of the options does it, so I'll stick with option 4, my own opinion.

So you've agreed that its not necrssarily a scam and that if its just debt purchase then its not a regulated activity.
You're almost a part of option 3. The only concerns you have is that according to you its not been tested in court.
According to Mr & Mrs Rankine they have tested this in court and its part of their private business intellectual property. I believe the only other people that are privy to their intellectual property are the barristers working with CCK under a confidentiality agreement.

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

Regarding regulation, if it is just a debt purchase service then no it wouldnt fall under the regulations - the part that does is that he takes the money upfront before looking at the agreement to see if its capable of being enforce before deciding whether to purchase, and only purchases unenforceable contracts. If that makes sense. I'm glad it is being tested in the appeal process.

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.
I'm afraid you've been misguided in relation to the trading activities of CCK.

CCK for these very reasons do not require MOJ authorization. They are soley a debt purchasing company. They do not issue claims on behalf of sellers.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

It isn't necessarily a scam, however it is untested and people are being asked to pay large upfront fees to Basil for him to take over their debts, without any guarantees that the 'sale' of the debt to him is legal - as it currently stands. Therefore CCK should not be purchasing debts for a fee without testing it in court first. The OFT have discussed people continuing to be chased and hassled AFTER the debt sale to CC - I havent seen any evidence of this and wish the OFT or CCK would give EVIDENCED examples of positive or negative cases.
Regarding regulation, if it is just a debt purchase service then no it wouldnt fall under the regulations - the part that does is that he takes the money upfront before looking at the agreement to see if its capable of being enforce before deciding whether to purchase, and only purchases unenforceable contracts. If that makes sense. I'm glad it is being tested in the appeal process.

So that doesnt fit in any of the options does it, so I'll stick with option 4, my own opinion.

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Yes, hilarious. When it happens I'll laugh.

Until then I reserve the right to make up my own mind based on how I undesrtand and percieve things. A point to remember is that just because a person, or government body, LLendorses something (or not)as the case may be, that doesn't make it right forever, these things are subject to review and change.Regulations change. Licences can be revoked, etc etc. So what is okay now might not necessarily be okay in the future (or have been in the past). However, one thing I am absolutely certain of, is that an opinion cannot be wrong, by virtue of the fact that an opinion is a person's thoughts on a certain situtiion, and opinions will always differ depending on points of view. Just because something is right, or law, or technicially wrong or right, doesn't mean you have to agree with it. That's the whole point of an opinion.
In my opinion, anyway.

[hunter_01]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

The last few posts have been very interesting.

It is late on a friday evening but for the life of me I can't figure out what the 4th option actually is (mentioned by Michael & endorsed by Amethyst)??

Could anyone enlighten me?

Option 1) OFT says its a scam

Option 2) MOJ says its a regulated activity (therefore can not be a scam)

Option 3) Its not a scam and its not a regulated activity (exactly what CCK claim)

So what could option 4 actually be?

If anyone would like to agree with the OFT could they provide some evidence as to why they believe it to be a scam.
If anyone agrees with the MOJ then could they provide some evidence as to why they believe its a regulated activity.

If you don't agree with the OFT or the MOJ then you must surely believe option 3 to be correct.

If CCK issued proceedings against the OFT in regards to their claim that debt sale is a scam then CCK's cheif witness as a defence would be the MOJ !!

Now that is funny !!

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Or a fourth choice: None of the above

I'm with the 4th choice.... and will make up my own opinion based on the facts as i understand them regardless of who presents what.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you natweststaffmember for your response.

Can I please take you back to the first post in this particular thread, it relates to a warning by the MOJ in a tribunal about the debt buying process conducted by CCK.

My attempt at trying to balance the debate (by showing the incompetency of the regulators themselves in various ways) was designed to show that when the regulator(s) make a mistake it has other repurcussions.

Lets focus on the debate at hand.....the MOJ is repeating it's line regarding debt purchase (as practised by CCK) as constituting a 'regulated activity'.....OK, so that is the MOJ's stance.

What does the OFT have to say about this....."it's a scam", as per their press release this Summer.

Back to my general point about regulator incompetency:

MOJ - CCK activity constitutes a regulated activity
OFT - CCK activity constitutes a scam

Who is right, CCK, MOJ or the OFT?

This is the OFT press release that you are referring to and I will quote it in full:

"OFT warns consumers about 'debt sale' scams

72/09 23 June 2009

The OFT is warning consumers not to be taken in by businesses claiming to help them become debt free by 'buying' or 'selling on' their debts.

The warning follows a significant increase in the number of adverts on the internet and in newspapers from debt and claims management companies that misleadingly state they can take over liability for debts or write off debts by purchasing consumers' credit agreements.

In fact the law does not allow the sale of debt without the lender's permission and so businesses that suggest otherwise are making clearly misleading claims. Brokers who introduce clients to debt and claims management companies that say that they can 'buy' and 'sell on' consumer debts are also misleading consumers.

Consumers need to be aware that if they 'sell' their debts to one of these businesses, either directly or through a broker, they will still be liable for their original repayment obligations as well as losing the money they paid for this false service.
Consumers will also still be subject to any debt collection activity and negative credit scoring associated with the original debt.

The principal regulator for claims management companies is the Ministry of Justice. Those businesses that operate in the credit/debt sector also need to be licensed by the OFT. Some of the firms offering these services do not have consumer credit licences and the OFT is working in partnership with local trading standards services to prosecute them for unlicensed trading. Formal licensing enforcement action has already been initiated against licensed companies whose advertising or websites are making these misleading claims.

Ray Watson, OFT Director of Credit, said:

'Like most scams, when something looks too good to be true, it usually is, and this is certainly the case here. You cannot simply sell on your debt and its liabilities, and businesses that make misleading claims to the contrary are just trying to take advantage of consumers' distress.'

'The OFT will not hesitate to take swift action against businesses which deliberately mislead consumers.'

'Consumers with debt problems should contact their creditor to arrange a repayment plan or their local Citizens Advice Bureau who will be able to provide free advice.'

NOTES

1. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is the principal regulator for claims management companies but businesses that operate in the credit/debt sector also need to be appropriately licensed by the OFT. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires most businesses that offer goods or services on credit or for hire, lend money to consumers, or offer debt purchase, debt counselling, debt adjusting services or credit information services to be licensed by the OFT. Even if a business does not offer credit itself, but introduces clients to sources of credit, that business may be engaging in credit brokerage activities for which a consumer credit licence is required.
2. It is a criminal offence under section 39(1) of the Act to carry out any activity that requires a consumer credit licence without such a licence. Under the Act, unlicensed trading is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.
3. Businesses providing claims management services regulated by the MoJ are required to follow strict rules of conduct including a ban on misleading marketing, high pressure selling and cold calling in person.
4. In August 2008 MoJ issued a joint consumer alert with OFT encouraging consumers to consider their position carefully and get independent advice and in February 2009 published fresh guidance on the type and content of marketing considered to be misleading. A number of businesses have been directed to change their marketing.
5. Today, MoJ has issued a further warning on marketing issues and the threat of enforcement action against any authorised businesses which fail to comply with the requirement that they must provide consumers with clear information about the options available for pursuing their claim, the realistic chances of success and the expected costs of doing so before any fees are charged or a contract is signed. For more information about the regulation of claims management businesses and general advice see the Ministry of Justice website.
6. Consumers can check whether a business holds an appropriate consumer credit licence by searching the OFT's online consumer credit register.
7. For advice on dealing with debt, see the Directgov website or visit your local Citizens Advice bureau."
Source: The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns consumers about scams

They were specifically talking about misleading claims so I am not sure necessarily that both were not singing from the same hymn sheet.

[michael]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Who is right, CCK, MOJ or the OFT?

Or a fourth choice: None of the above

[amsfs]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you natweststaffmember for your response.

Can I please take you back to the first post in this particular thread, it relates to a warning by the MOJ in a tribunal about the debt buying process conducted by CCK.

My attempt at trying to balance the debate (by showing the incompetency of the regulators themselves in various ways) was designed to show that when the regulator(s) make a mistake it has other repurcussions.

Lets focus on the debate at hand.....the MOJ is repeating it's line regarding debt purchase (as practised by CCK) as constituting a 'regulated activity'.....OK, so that is the MOJ's stance.

What does the OFT have to say about this....."it's a scam", as per their press release this Summer.

Back to my general point about regulator incompetency:

MOJ - CCK activity constitutes a regulated activity
OFT - CCK activity constitutes a scam

Who is right, CCK, MOJ or the OFT?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.