Momentum Network / CCK

[Main man]

Credit Card Killer could 'harm' borrowers

Alan O'Sullivan, This is Money
23 October 2009, 10:33am
Reader comments (4) | Chat | Vote

A tribunal has criticised the practices of 'debt buying' firm Credit Card Killer for potentially causing serious harm to indebted borrowers.
Stubborn: Basil and Amanda Rankine continue to trade against the regulator's wishes.





The Credit Card Killer business, set up by a couple featured in a BBC documentary last year, Basil and Amanda Rankine, aims to free customers of their debt by simply buying it off them and wriggling out of repaying the lender through legal challenges.

The parent company, Momentum Ltd, continues to trade despite having its authority to deal in the claims industry stripped by the industry regulator, the Ministry of Justice, earlier this year.
The Rankines are appealing this in November, but also claim they instead operate in the 'unregulated debt industry', not the 'claims industry'.
However, they failed in a Claims Management Services Tribunal court case in August to have their authorisation reinstated until the hearing takes place.
These tribunal papers, now available on the MoJ website, show how the presiding judge at the tribunal, Sir Stephen Oliver QC, criticised Credit Card Killer for having 'the potential to cause serious harm to a large number of consumers'.
He highlighted that customers may continue to be pursued by their creditors and suffer legal costs and bankruptcy despite parting with hundreds of pounds to avail of Credit Card Killer's services.
The Rankines had bought £3m worth of debt in the first two months of trading between February and April earlier this year, earning them in excess of £300,000 in fees, according to the papers. They also state debts purchased by the company could have risen to £10m by July.
They were defended in their legal challenge by Oliver Mishcon, grandson of Lord Mishcon, founder of the high profile law firm Mishcon de Reya.
Credit Card Killer charges clients a flat fee of £450 plus 10% of the outstanding debt for a loan agreement, in return for 'buying' it off them for a nominal payment of £1. There is a further charge of £350 plus 10% for additional agreements.
It says it will accept debts up to £75,000, which would earn the company almost £8,000 in fees if it all came from one agreement, such as a secured loan.
The business continues to trade despite having its website shut down by the MoJ, an act the Rankines labelled 'unlawful harassment' and 'terrorisation' in a letter to This is Money.
They have since set up a new website. They are also seeking £3.3m in damages from the regulator and threaten legal action if it is not paid this month.
The MoJ declined to comment on Credit Card Killer specifically.
Instead, it issued a general warning against claims management firms operating without authorisation. It said: 'Any business that is providing regulated claims management services without authorisation or exemption is committing a criminal offence under the Compensation Act 2006.
'The claims management regulator takes such offences very seriously and where there is clear evidence of unauthorised trading within the scope of the Act will seek to exercise its powers to take injunctive action and bring prosecutions.'

The Rankines argue their business is not engaged in a regulated activity and is therefore out of the scope of the regulator's authority. They argue controversially that contract law does not apply in their case, claiming anyone can allegedly get out of a contract by refusing to repay a loan: once out of contract, they can sell their debts to whomever they wish.
The tribunal says there is a 'prima facie case' for the MoJ's view that the firm is carrying on a 'claims management business' and falls under its auspices. The MOJ also argues the company's advertising is misleading.
The OFT warned consumers earlier this year not to be taken in by businesses claiming to help them become debt free by 'buying' or 'selling on' their debts.
It said this was due to '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.'
Do you think it is fair for people to escape repaying their debts? Let us know in the comment box below. Also read a lawyer's opinion on whether buying and selling debt is even possible...


http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/finance/...ntumOliver.pdf

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

........................................ just for ref

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/t...97319-31368425

A HUSBAND and wife netted £2 million by pledging to make desperate clients’ debts “disappear”, a court heard.
But Basil and Amanda Rankine were involved in a “blatant” scam which left their customers – who paid them up to £12,000 – out of pocket twice over, it was alleged.
Richard Barraclough QC, prosecuting, said clients were told their debts would be transferred to the couple’s company in return for a payment.

Read More http://www.birminghammail.net/news/t...#ixzz216SRa9PC

[ed.]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

What are the chances of this thread continuing without the involvement of idiots?

amsfs I include you there with your agenda given you can't read a press report.

Come on Basil, tiny victory over a very harsh critic that's still unproven in law, pretty much the same as your claims in law. Surely you can find questions to answer....such as mine. Hunter, Bebob, Janice, what ever name is used this week.

And yes I am the git who still has the email from you telling me if I won't do it for money, there's no point being interested. Answer the questions.

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

As the others have said innocent till proven guilty and this is not a thread about David jack personally, and we do not wish to have one. I do not condone his actions/posts on scam.com nor the alledged incident discussed in the press, however I would appreciate if we can keep this thread to the matters in hand - being the business model of debt purchasers and the feasibility of claims for declarations of unenforceability under the CCA.

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Yes actually I have read the scam forum. I was just making the point that he has not behaved in that way on this forum.

[amsfs]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

WendyB & charitynjw, I take it from your comments that neither of you have read the scam.com forum?

David can bleat on about being drunk / having his emails hacked....how is he going to explain his conduct on scam.com to the police; who, if they haven't been to see him yesterday, will certainly be taking up some of his time today.

15 years of political experience and he has not been able to grasp any sense of how to communicate on a public forum. As to why he conducted himself the way he did on scam.com and not on any other web site......he may have thought the fact it is hosted in the USA would exempt him from any repercussions.

His abusive email in combination with his consistently abusive posts on scam.com are the issue - like I said earlier the man must be permanently sloshed.

[charitynjw]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

In fairness (& as per Uk law) a person is innocent until proven guilty.

However, if your defense is "I was lashed at the time, Your Honour............"

Shame, it was a very interesting thread.

I would have thought that hunter_01 would have something to say,though!

[WendyB]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

On the C4 one it says he admits it came from his account, on the BBC report he says he is not acknowledging it came from his account at all. Innocent till proven guilty and all that, but nonetheless very damaging. If those comments were made, then they are completely reprehensible whoever made them, David Jack or anyone else. David Jack's behaviour on this forum has not been called into question and from what I can see has been okay, in the main.

However he may have to change his user name now as the current one is no longer relevant.

[amsfs]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

David Jack's consistently abusive language on the scam.com forum has resulted in:

Lib Dem candidate resigns over racist email - Ch4 News

Lib Dem candidate quits in e-mail race row - BBC

About time too, anyone using such abusive language and threatenig behaviour consistently on a public forum needs pulling to one side for a chat by the authorities.

His excuse.....I was "sloshed" - must have been sloshed every night in that case.

[Yoda]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you so much David, thats brilliant.

The only part I'm not sure on is CMCs taking non defaulted credit card debt companies to court for a declaration of unenforceability under 142 - . I presume if you threaten card companies with this they negotiate to write off the debt to stop a precedent. I don't recall any claims bought by a consumer solely for a declaration being successful in court - but happy to be corrected with case law

A declaration under s142 cannot be made by a debtor who is the claimant, only if they are the defendant,thus providing the court the power to grant an enforcement order.
From the Rankine case;

Section 142(1) of the Act provides as follows:

Where under any

provisionof this Act a thing can be done by a creditor or owner on

an enforcement order

only. and either —

(a) the court dismisses (except on technical grounds only) an application for an

enforcement order,

or

(b) where no Such application has been made or such an application has been dismissed on technical grounds only, an interested party applies to the court for a declaration under this subsection,
the court may if it thinks just make a declaration that the creditor or owner is not entitled to do that thing, and thereafter no application for an enforcement order in respect of it shall be entertained”

15. Thus the power to make a declaration under section 142(1) exists only in a case where the court could grant an enforcement order. The court cannot do so in a case where a

lender has failed to comply with a request made under section 78 and accordingly

there is no power to make a declaration in this regard even if the Court finds that the Defendant did not comply.

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
A declaration was successfully made in the HBOS v Mitchell case in June, but that was only because the debtor was the defendant and the lender withdrew their claim.

The thing that puzzles me is;
The agreement was devoid of any prescribed terms ( admitted by the lenders counsel) so this would make it unenforceable by virtue of s60 & s61.

S127 precludes the court from enforcing it, so how the hell did they allow a declaration under s142??

[Amethyst]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Thank you so much David, thats brilliant.

The only part I'm not sure on is CMCs taking non defaulted credit card debt companies to court for a declaration of unenforceability under 142 -

or alternatively a claim can be brought by a debtor for a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142(1)(b).

. I presume if you threaten card companies with this they negotiate to write off the debt to stop a precedent. I don't recall any claims bought by a consumer solely for a declaration being successful in court - but happy to be corrected with case law

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

In reply to Amesyt request for a PIL? omn claims management, check thi sout for substaantive law and opion....

(1) Improperly executed agreements to which section 127(3) applies.

(2) Improperly executed agreements to which section 127(3) does not apply.

(3) Breaches of the duty to give information under sections 77 and 78.

(4) Claims involving secret commissions.

(5) Claims involving PPI mis-selling.

Improperly executed agreements to which 127(3) applies

3. In relation to this category of claim, the considerations are as follows:

(1) Was the agreement made before 6 April 2007? If so, section 127(3) may apply; if not, it will not.

(2) Does the agreement comply with section 61(1)(a)? If it does not, section 127(3) prima facie applies; if it does, section 127(3) does not apply.

(3) Does the agreement fall within the proviso to section 127(3), namely, that there is a document signed by the debtor which contains all the prescribed terms. If not, section 127(3) will still apply; if so, it will not.

4. If the analysis of the claim concludes that section 127(3) applies, then the agreement will be unenforceable. This can be raised either as a defence to a claim by a creditor, or alternatively a claim can be brought by a debtor for a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142(1)(b).

5. In my view, claims (or defences, as the case may be) falling within this category would have a very good (90%) prospect of success – the only real risk being that an incorrect analysis of the matters set out in paragraph 3 above takes place.

Improperly executed agreements to which section 127(3) does not apply

6. In respect of improperly executed agreements to which for any reason section 127(3) does not apply, the court has the power to make an enforcement order “if it is just to do so having regard to” various matters including the “prejudice caused by the contravention in question”, the “degree of culpability” and the various powers open to the court.

7. Further, as stated previously, the general practice of the court will be to make such an enforcement order unless it can be shown that the breach in question has caused prejudice to the debtor: Goode’s Consumer Credit: Law and Practice (Volume 2), para 5.247.

8. Such cases would therefore involve a separate analysis of the underlying merits of the debtor’s position, together with the production of substantial and bespoke witness statement evidence. Further, given the highly discretionary nature of the jurisdiction, the outcome of any particular case would be far from predictable (save to say that in the absence of the debtor being able to establish prejudice an enforcement order is likely to be made).

9. This being the case, therefore, I suspect that such cases will not be attractive to instructing solicitors as part of the group scheme now being proposed. In other words, while such cases may have merit, such cases would have to be considered wholly separate to – and outside of – the proposed group actions.

Breaches of the duty to give information under sections 77 and 78


(a) defending claims brought by the creditor

10. As previously advised, section 77 applies to fixed sum credit agreements (such as a credit sale, a hire-purchase agreement, or an independent loan agreement), while section 78 applies to running-account credit agreements (such as a credit card or an overdraft facility). In each case, where the debtor makes the appropriate written request (accompanied by the appropriate fee), the creditor is obliged to provide the debtor with a copy of the executed agreement (together with certain other information) within the prescribed period of 12 days.

11. If then the creditor fails to comply with the above requirement, “he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement”: sections 77(4)(a), 78(6)(a). In short, therefore, where the creditor fails to comply, there is an unanswerable defence to a claim by a creditor. As stated previously, however, that defence is of a temporary nature only, in that if in due course compliance takes place, the creditor is once again entitled to enforce. This being the case, it would appear that the appropriate relief is not the dismissal of the creditor’s claim, but rather a stay: Rankine v American Express Services Europe Ltd (unreported, May 16, 2008), para 16. Of course, in practice, if a creditor is not able to comply prior to trial, it is likely that it will never be able to comply such that the stay is likely to be permanent. Nevertheless, the fact that the relief which would be ordered is likely to be a stay as opposed to a dismissal should be taken into account in the drafting of any conditional fee agreements: it is vital that the definition of success should include the granting of a stay.

12. With this in mind, in respect of claims brought by creditors where there has been a failure to comply with either sections 77 or 78, I am of the view that there is a very good (90%) prospect of successfully obtaining a stay (or some compromise beneficial to the debtor).

(b) claims by the debtor?

13. As stated above, where section 127(3) applies, it can be raised either as a defence to a claim by a creditor, or alternatively a claim can be brought by a debtor for a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142(1)(b). Importantly, however, this is not the case in respect of breaches of sections 77 or 78. Indeed, the power to make a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142 arises only where “a thing can be done by a creditor…on an enforcement order only”. However, whereas improperly executed agreements can only be enforced on such an enforcement order (sections 65(1), 127(1)(a)), there is no such provision in respect of non-compliance with sections 77 and 78; indeed, as stated above, the sanction for such non-compliance is an inability to enforce for so long as the default continues (sections 77(4), 78(6)). As was held in Rankine at paragraph 15[1]:

“Thus the power to make a declaration under section 142(1) exists only in a case where the court could grant an enforcement order. The court cannot do so in a case where a lender has failed to comply with a request made under section 78 and accordingly there is no power to make a declaration in this regard even if the court finds that the defendant did not comply.”

14. In short, therefore, where there has been non-compliance with sections 77 or 78 it will not be possible to issue a claim for a declaration of unenforceability. Accordingly, in the absence of the creditor bringing a claim against the debtor (to which there is, as stated above, an unanswerable defence in the form of a stay), instructing solicitors would need to negotiate a compromise with the creditor under which the creditor agrees to release the outstanding credit.

15. In terms of leverage for reaching such a compromise, there are 3 particular matters of note. First, as advised previously, a failure to comply with sections 77 and 78 for more than a month gives rise to a criminal offence: sections 77(4)(b), 78(6)(b). Second, creditors are required to be licensed under the 1974 Act and in exercising its licensing powers the OFT “may take account of any matter appearing to it to constitute a breach of a requirement made by or under this Act”: section 170(2)[2]. Third, a similar (albeit legally distinct) obligation to disclose is contained in section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and accordingly non-compliance with an appropriate request is likely to create further regulatory difficulties for creditors. In short, therefore, it is hoped that although defaults pursuant to sections 77 and 78 cannot give rise to a cause of action, the criminal and licensing sanctions for continued non-compliance are such as to encourage the creditor to bring the default to an end by release the debtor from his or her outstanding credit.

Claims involving secret commissions

16. While secret commissions undoubtedly give rise to a cause of action, the existence of such a commission will not in itself render the credit agreement unenforceable. In Wilson v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299, for example, the court reimbursed the secret commission itself but otherwise directed that the loan could be enforced.

17. In short, therefore, while where a secret commission can be identified the prospects of success are high (70%), it should be emphasised (for the purposes of both advising the client and also for the drafting of any conditional fee agreement) that such success will be limited to the recovery of the commission and (absent any other factor) will not affect the enforceability of the underlying credit agreement.

Claims involving PPI mis-selling

18. PPI mis-selling may give rise to a discrete cause of action within the consumer credit field. such mis-selling can arise in various different ways, each turning on its own particular facts. Importantly, however, such mis-selling is actionable under the usual principles relating to misrepresentation and negligent (or fraudulent) mis-statement such that, as with secret commissions, the likely relief will be the reimbursement of the PPI premium as opposed to the rendering of the credit agreement otherwise unenforceable. Again, therefore, the above needs to be taken into account both in terms of the advice given to clients and the drafting of any conditional fee agreement.

Questions from debt purchasers who say this cannnot done please put question sin writing stating why they think ethical claims management companies are scam

Now the question arises are all cmc's ethical.... i know the answer to be no.

Many dont have a legal process in place and simply gain the file documents and then hunt around for solicitors, who then have to hunt around for funding and then in turn identify ATE insurance.... many simply take the money, obtain a s78, pretend to audit and delay and delay and then eventually fold the limited liability company and pocket the loose change.

Such unethical practices are as abohrant to me as lenders who pester, hassle and intimidate borrwers for the pursuit of colection of mis sold credit and faulty contracts.

There is a proven and well tested process and over the next few weeks some very big news will be hitting the national press following some 70 cases the first couple of weeks in Feb in central london courts.

yes i do work for a CMC but we have spent 12 months cutting through all of the shill, spin and bull to arrive at the full package, we are not the biggest..... but we will become the most succesful of all very shortly.

It also has to be recognised that claims management is more than just unenforceable, we have instances of people being pursued by lenders and DCA's when the default and account is now statute barred, where interest rates have rocketted to 2330%! and where the client simply did not have the credit in the first place but due to fraud they are being pursued for the repayment. Ethical claims management is not about taking massive up front fees and hiding away for years claiming to be waiting for lenders docs, i get 99.9% of clients docs within the 12 days or 40 days on SAR, the only issues we normally have is where an agreement may have been taken out at a different address or a typo with the name, nothing more.

Thanks for clearing things up David, it makes much more sense now!
All these sub sections are quite immense!

[davidjack ppc]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

In reply to Amesyt request for a PIL? omn claims management, check thi sout for substaantive law and opion....

(1) Improperly executed agreements to which section 127(3) applies.

(2) Improperly executed agreements to which section 127(3) does not apply.

(3) Breaches of the duty to give information under sections 77 and 78.

(4) Claims involving secret commissions.

(5) Claims involving PPI mis-selling.

Improperly executed agreements to which 127(3) applies

3. In relation to this category of claim, the considerations are as follows:

(1) Was the agreement made before 6 April 2007? If so, section 127(3) may apply; if not, it will not.

(2) Does the agreement comply with section 61(1)(a)? If it does not, section 127(3) prima facie applies; if it does, section 127(3) does not apply.

(3) Does the agreement fall within the proviso to section 127(3), namely, that there is a document signed by the debtor which contains all the prescribed terms. If not, section 127(3) will still apply; if so, it will not.

4. If the analysis of the claim concludes that section 127(3) applies, then the agreement will be unenforceable. This can be raised either as a defence to a claim by a creditor, or alternatively a claim can be brought by a debtor for a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142(1)(b).

5. In my view, claims (or defences, as the case may be) falling within this category would have a very good (90%) prospect of success – the only real risk being that an incorrect analysis of the matters set out in paragraph 3 above takes place.

Improperly executed agreements to which section 127(3) does not apply

6. In respect of improperly executed agreements to which for any reason section 127(3) does not apply, the court has the power to make an enforcement order “if it is just to do so having regard to” various matters including the “prejudice caused by the contravention in question”, the “degree of culpability” and the various powers open to the court.

7. Further, as stated previously, the general practice of the court will be to make such an enforcement order unless it can be shown that the breach in question has caused prejudice to the debtor: Goode’s Consumer Credit: Law and Practice (Volume 2), para 5.247.

8. Such cases would therefore involve a separate analysis of the underlying merits of the debtor’s position, together with the production of substantial and bespoke witness statement evidence. Further, given the highly discretionary nature of the jurisdiction, the outcome of any particular case would be far from predictable (save to say that in the absence of the debtor being able to establish prejudice an enforcement order is likely to be made).

9. This being the case, therefore, I suspect that such cases will not be attractive to instructing solicitors as part of the group scheme now being proposed. In other words, while such cases may have merit, such cases would have to be considered wholly separate to – and outside of – the proposed group actions.

Breaches of the duty to give information under sections 77 and 78


(a) defending claims brought by the creditor

10. As previously advised, section 77 applies to fixed sum credit agreements (such as a credit sale, a hire-purchase agreement, or an independent loan agreement), while section 78 applies to running-account credit agreements (such as a credit card or an overdraft facility). In each case, where the debtor makes the appropriate written request (accompanied by the appropriate fee), the creditor is obliged to provide the debtor with a copy of the executed agreement (together with certain other information) within the prescribed period of 12 days.

11. If then the creditor fails to comply with the above requirement, “he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement”: sections 77(4)(a), 78(6)(a). In short, therefore, where the creditor fails to comply, there is an unanswerable defence to a claim by a creditor. As stated previously, however, that defence is of a temporary nature only, in that if in due course compliance takes place, the creditor is once again entitled to enforce. This being the case, it would appear that the appropriate relief is not the dismissal of the creditor’s claim, but rather a stay: Rankine v American Express Services Europe Ltd (unreported, May 16, 2008), para 16. Of course, in practice, if a creditor is not able to comply prior to trial, it is likely that it will never be able to comply such that the stay is likely to be permanent. Nevertheless, the fact that the relief which would be ordered is likely to be a stay as opposed to a dismissal should be taken into account in the drafting of any conditional fee agreements: it is vital that the definition of success should include the granting of a stay.

12. With this in mind, in respect of claims brought by creditors where there has been a failure to comply with either sections 77 or 78, I am of the view that there is a very good (90%) prospect of successfully obtaining a stay (or some compromise beneficial to the debtor).

(b) claims by the debtor?

13. As stated above, where section 127(3) applies, it can be raised either as a defence to a claim by a creditor, or alternatively a claim can be brought by a debtor for a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142(1)(b). Importantly, however, this is not the case in respect of breaches of sections 77 or 78. Indeed, the power to make a declaration of unenforceability pursuant to section 142 arises only where “a thing can be done by a creditor…on an enforcement order only”. However, whereas improperly executed agreements can only be enforced on such an enforcement order (sections 65(1), 127(1)(a)), there is no such provision in respect of non-compliance with sections 77 and 78; indeed, as stated above, the sanction for such non-compliance is an inability to enforce for so long as the default continues (sections 77(4), 78(6)). As was held in Rankine at paragraph 15[1]:

“Thus the power to make a declaration under section 142(1) exists only in a case where the court could grant an enforcement order. The court cannot do so in a case where a lender has failed to comply with a request made under section 78 and accordingly there is no power to make a declaration in this regard even if the court finds that the defendant did not comply.”

14. In short, therefore, where there has been non-compliance with sections 77 or 78 it will not be possible to issue a claim for a declaration of unenforceability. Accordingly, in the absence of the creditor bringing a claim against the debtor (to which there is, as stated above, an unanswerable defence in the form of a stay), instructing solicitors would need to negotiate a compromise with the creditor under which the creditor agrees to release the outstanding credit.

15. In terms of leverage for reaching such a compromise, there are 3 particular matters of note. First, as advised previously, a failure to comply with sections 77 and 78 for more than a month gives rise to a criminal offence: sections 77(4)(b), 78(6)(b). Second, creditors are required to be licensed under the 1974 Act and in exercising its licensing powers the OFT “may take account of any matter appearing to it to constitute a breach of a requirement made by or under this Act”: section 170(2)[2]. Third, a similar (albeit legally distinct) obligation to disclose is contained in section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and accordingly non-compliance with an appropriate request is likely to create further regulatory difficulties for creditors. In short, therefore, it is hoped that although defaults pursuant to sections 77 and 78 cannot give rise to a cause of action, the criminal and licensing sanctions for continued non-compliance are such as to encourage the creditor to bring the default to an end by release the debtor from his or her outstanding credit.

Claims involving secret commissions

16. While secret commissions undoubtedly give rise to a cause of action, the existence of such a commission will not in itself render the credit agreement unenforceable. In Wilson v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299, for example, the court reimbursed the secret commission itself but otherwise directed that the loan could be enforced.

17. In short, therefore, while where a secret commission can be identified the prospects of success are high (70%), it should be emphasised (for the purposes of both advising the client and also for the drafting of any conditional fee agreement) that such success will be limited to the recovery of the commission and (absent any other factor) will not affect the enforceability of the underlying credit agreement.

Claims involving PPI mis-selling

18. PPI mis-selling may give rise to a discrete cause of action within the consumer credit field. such mis-selling can arise in various different ways, each turning on its own particular facts. Importantly, however, such mis-selling is actionable under the usual principles relating to misrepresentation and negligent (or fraudulent) mis-statement such that, as with secret commissions, the likely relief will be the reimbursement of the PPI premium as opposed to the rendering of the credit agreement otherwise unenforceable. Again, therefore, the above needs to be taken into account both in terms of the advice given to clients and the drafting of any conditional fee agreement.

Questions from debt purchasers who say this cannnot done please put question sin writing stating why they think ethical claims management companies are scam

Now the question arises are all cmc's ethical.... i know the answer to be no.

Many dont have a legal process in place and simply gain the file documents and then hunt around for solicitors, who then have to hunt around for funding and then in turn identify ATE insurance.... many simply take the money, obtain a s78, pretend to audit and delay and delay and then eventually fold the limited liability company and pocket the loose change.

Such unethical practices are as abohrant to me as lenders who pester, hassle and intimidate borrwers for the pursuit of colection of mis sold credit and faulty contracts.

There is a proven and well tested process and over the next few weeks some very big news will be hitting the national press following some 70 cases the first couple of weeks in Feb in central london courts.

yes i do work for a CMC but we have spent 12 months cutting through all of the shill, spin and bull to arrive at the full package, we are not the biggest..... but we will become the most succesful of all very shortly.

It also has to be recognised that claims management is more than just unenforceable, we have instances of people being pursued by lenders and DCA's when the default and account is now statute barred, where interest rates have rocketted to 2330%! and where the client simply did not have the credit in the first place but due to fraud they are being pursued for the repayment. Ethical claims management is not about taking massive up front fees and hiding away for years claiming to be waiting for lenders docs, i get 99.9% of clients docs within the 12 days or 40 days on SAR, the only issues we normally have is where an agreement may have been taken out at a different address or a typo with the name, nothing more.

[dildobaggins]

Re: Momentum Network / CCK

Happy to answer your questions Amethyst. I'm also happy to answer anyone else's questions.

I will not respond to any posts written by David Jack.

I just like you have no issues with anyone having an opinion.

However when you've been subjected to the abuse that I have been subjected to you have every right to decline responding to the individual regardless of whether they hold a valid opinion or not.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



Point number 5 is incorrect. No F & F

The bank could potentially sue the original debtor.

Point number 6 about going hypothetical is incorrect as the Rankine's only do for others what they have already done for themselves.

What do you mean going hypothetical is incorrect?
If the bank doesn't agree that CCK own the debt, then when they sue the original debtor, what are CCK going to do then?
Do they turn up in court for the debtor and say "we own it", end of story?

If there is no F & F at any stage, then what the hell happens then?
everyone gets sued or what!

Is it a case of if Bank sues debtor, debtor sues bank, CCK sues bank and everyone just sues one another?