UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[NYGman]

So basically theft...

[Philistine]

A saner person than someone who thinks that a bank would go to the trouble of burning an original and saving a copy-What is the point of that? Why not just save the original? Its a lot less time consuming.

You must not work in business. Most businesses these days store thing in machines called computers and the cloud, electronically. Storage is also a problem as anyone with a half decent customer base would realize.
In my business, we store everything in a document management system called Docstar. Every bit of paper is scanned, and the originals shredded. All perfectly legal and time stamped.
I'm still gobsmacked that anyone actually buy into in the freeman nonsense that pieces of signed paper create money out of thin air. They handed you cash that you spent and didn't pay back, right? You got lucky if they didn't bother to pursue your debt.
Generally, people with that kind of cognitive bias are trying to get out of paying money they borrowed.
ie. they're deadbeats. There's no legal and ethical means to run away from their obligations so they grasp at idiotic theories with no basis in reality.

[Philistine]

Also Tuco, I do see people on this forum and others who seem quite proud that they got away without paying a debt they owed and who seem to do so without any contrition whatsoever. The fact is, these people aren't sticking it to the robber baron banks. They're sticking it to the rest of us who are trying to live in an ethical society. You leave the rest of us to pay your debts.

[Bungle]

Sadly for Tuco ten-year-olds don't decide court cases.

Don't feel too sorry for me sonny. I had a total of around £30k credit, paid back around £5k, the rest was written off.

Pity they didn't have you acting for them eh? You know best.

You state on page 6 that the debt was with Abbey National. Presumably, this is the same debt that you were posting about on the Get out of Debt Free forum in 2013 when you were posting as Butterfingers.

Re: Letter from Santander saying letters not legitimate

by butterfingers » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:46 pm

Hi all!!
Newcomer to the site-Some fascinating reading here guys,thanks & well done to all involved.

I'd like to give an update regarding an issue I have with an Abbey loan which is now in the hands of DLC.Appologies if I've posted this in the wrong place but I hope someone may find my comments helpful.

I took out a loan with Abbey back in 2007 for around £8500.It was sold onto DLC and the interest was added,making a total owed (allegedly) of £11,000.This figure is now at between the 5 & 6 thousand mark but over the past 12 months,DLC have been threatening me with charging orders against my house if I did not increase my repayments.

I have recently been disputing the legality of Abbey selling the loan on with projected interest when I was told about this site.

Last week I recieved a letter from DLC,enclosing a photo copy of an agreement whereby they bought a batch of "accounts" from Abbey of which they said mine was one.DLC claim they cannot provide "commercially sensitive documents" for the public to veiw in their entirity.This seems similar to computer generated letters on this thread so I'd guess that this is the excuse for not to provide the info required as set out in letter 1 (I have promptly despatched letter 1).

DLC also told me I need to raise any dispute with the complaints department of Santander which I find laughable seeing as it is DLC who are harrasing me for money and who claim to have bought the account.

Anyway-I've a couple of debt collecters that I've begun to lock horns with-I'll keep you all posted.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 49#p137049

[Tuco]

Also Tuco, I do see people on this forum and others who seem quite proud that they got away without paying a debt they owed and who seem to do so without any contrition whatsoever. The fact is, these people aren't sticking it to the robber baron banks. They're sticking it to the rest of us who are trying to live in an ethical society. You leave the rest of us to pay your debts.

Actually, I do pay my debts. I also reserve the right to contest something if it is not right. If someone is going to hold a gun to someones head, I like to make sure that I'm the one pointing, not the other way round. I tried to sort it out nicely, it isn't my fault they tried to be clever. I'm not the kind of person to roll over for them. If you think that makes me responsible for the global recession then great, it matters not one jot to me. Am I supposed to let them walk all over me because if I do anything about it, i'm "sticking it to the rest of society"?

They had the option to pursue the debt if they thought they were entitled to it, they chose not to. Not my problem pal.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Can we get back on topic please, this isn't the place for discussing Tuco's finances and attitude to lending.

[Tuco]

Just for clarity here, is there anyone else, other than this weapon who requires proof that if one party specifies a term in the contract that they will safeguard your data and then fails to do so, it is a breach of that contract?

It is exactly the same as me agreeing to repay and then deciding not to. Do you also require proof that that is a breach?

[littleFred]

If you want a serious answer, then read the contract. That will tell you what each party agrees to do (and is allowed to do).

[longdog]

Just for clarity here, is there anyone else, other than this weapon who requires proof that if one party specifies a term in the contract that they will safeguard your data and then fails to do so, it is a breach of that contract?

It is exactly the same as me agreeing to repay and then deciding not to. Do you also require proof that that is a breach?

Yes... I would like that proof please.

Now I don't for a minute think you are going to provide the proof so I'll try once again to get a few things into your thick head.

1) A business passing on your data to a debt collector / purchaser of the debt / lawyer / court is a PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE and PERFECTLY LEGAL use of that data which would not fall foul of the law and would not be a breach of a contract.

2) Every single credit agreement I have seen contains clauses which specifically state they will share your data for the purposes of debt collection, the legitimate needs of managing the debt (which would include selling it) and the prevention of fraud so if you have signed the agreement you have already contractually agreed to them doing exactly that.

3) Even if business had breached the Data Protection Act that would not void the contract to the extent of giving you an excuse not to repay the debt. They might come a cropper with the Information Commissioner and get fined for the breach but your legal obligation to repay the debt remains.

You seem to be playing that card which says "If party X breaches ONE part of a contract then party Y is not bound by ANY part of the contract"... The world and the law doesn't work like that.

Look at it this way... Lets say you go to a lender and they say... "Yes Mr Tuco we will lend you £10,000 and we will transfer the money into your account on the first day of next month". Now lets say that the money doesn't actually arrive in your account until the second day of the month... Do you get to keep the money and not have to repay it because it was a day late and therefore a breach of the 'contract' they have with you?

[Tuco]

If you want a serious answer, then read the contract. That will tell you what each party agrees to do (and is allowed to do).

Yes I agree.

Most agreements for loans are pretty similar. They cover themselves for passing the information on to anyone working for their group (this may stretch to agents engaged to act on their behalf), any guarantor of the loan, anyone the borrower gives authority to and of course, anyone who they transfer their rights to. The terms are not carte blanche to extend to passing the data on to any old Tom Dick or Harry.

There was a duty placed on the lender to safeguard the borrower's data. This is not best done by placing the original in a box and putting it in a loft or cupboard to gather dust, as has been claimed. There is also an obligation on the lender not to keep this data for longer than is necessary. If it is lying around gathering dust somewhere, then it could remain there for years, with God knows who having access to it. Of course, we know that what happens in reality is that the agreement is traded.

[Henti]

The argument is flawed in any case.

Firstly as said a contractual breach does not terminate it, no idea what is meant by voided n this context, it just enables the wronged party to seek damages incurred as a result of that breach.
To terminate a contract there needs to be repudiatory breach(breach of a core term, like failure to repay).

Whether it be a termination or having the contract voided the sums due under it do not disssapear all that happens is that they become immediately due, the ability to repay in Istallments is part of the contract.

[Henti]

As far as data sharing between two data controllers is concerned. This is permissable if it is required to maintain the contract.

Both DCs will be registered with the ICO, as part of that registration process they will have to state their business and how they intend to process the data. If it was not legal they would not register the business in question.

[Tuco]

In tat case, seeing as Dave is happy to post PMs, here is the "insulting" PM. I might add that I was actually responding to a PM that he sent me. He has since sent me another one. However, this will remain unopened, along with 2 that Bones sent me yesterday.

I can't believe these people think I am interested in what they have to say?

You understand nothing you prat.

You are a pathetic little sheep who craves acceptance from the masses, just like Bones. You couldn't hit a nerve if you tried.

You need proof that a contract has been breached AND misrepresented? You really shouldn't be posting son

Look at the insults that have been dished out to me on this thread.

Aww.... Diddums.

You still don't get it do you?

Do you think it bothers me what you people say? I love the insults, I love the giggling and ganging up like little schoolkids.

Do you think that being called a thick head on the internet by someone whom I've forgotten more about debt recovery, than he will ever know, bothers me?

I enjoy whole forums ganging up against me, whether it's CAG, GOODF or here. I thrive on it.

[Tuco]

The fact remains the terms and conditions include a clause, which when you sign the agreement you confirm that you have read, understood and agreed with that allows your personal data, as defined by the DPA to be disclosed to 3rd parties

Wrong again Bones-it is specific 3rd parties, not any old random 3rd party.

I'd work on your knowledge of debt before worrying about your insults love.

[Bones]

What he claims against actual evidence

Wrong again Bones-it is specific 3rd parties, not any old random 3rd party.

http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_esf-ca-app-c ... rd-tcs.pdf

k. We may provide information about you and the conduct of your account to any additional cardholder and to any person to whom we transfer our rights and obligations under this agreement.

https://bank.marksandspencer.com/pdf/CCTC.pdf

9.
Can we transfer our rights and obligations under this
agreement?

We may transfer our rights and our obligations under this agreement to a third party, including information about you
and how you have managed your account which the third party needs to know. We will tell you if we do this.

Come back when you have evidence and proof rather than just your own misunderstandings.

[Tuco]

Great. So which part of:

"any person to whom we transfer our rights and obligations2

Do you not understand?

Please, Bones, try to understand this. I've lost count of how many times I've posted it during the past 24 hours:

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT TRANSFERRING THE RIGHTS-i DON'T DENY THAT THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO THIS.

Now who need to Come back when you have evidence and proof rather than just your own misunderstandings?

[NYGman]

Tuco, face it, you entered into a Loan agreament with Abby with no intention of paying it back. You stop paying at some point on this, and you credit card, and then use fanciful legal theories to remove the debt? This is what you did, and from what I can gather, what you believe. What is clear is:

1) You had a debt with Abby
2) Abby Wrote off the debt

You are presuming it is because of your "Air tight legal argument" but you have no direct evidence of this, just speculation. you position does not agree with the law, as us legal folks understand it to be, you knowledge of the DPA how it works, along with you understanding of banking and contract law is completely incorrect.

The fact is, it is just as likely the bank wrote of the debt because the sun rose that morning, it rained that afternoon, or someone at abby drew lots to decide which to go after. You were not a part of their decision making process, do not know why thye chose to give up, all you do is speculate that your woo, and legal acumin did the trick. Here you are very much mistaken.

[Bones]

Good Afternoon Tuco

Ah now I understand why you are so confused, you don't understand the legalities of when debt is sold.

Your repeated misunderstandings all make sense now.

You should research the legalities and it will all become clear to you.

When a debt is sold to a DCA, it is done via a legal assignment - meaning that rights of the original creditor have been transferred (assigned) to the DCA. Naturally there is also equitable assignment - The main difference between the two is who can start a claim against you

Wow, I am sorry Tuco, I really thought you understood the basics. I apologise for my incorrect assumption

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco, your argument hinges on whether or not the lender contravenes the DPA when selling the debt.
You repeatedly say it is a breach and then continue with the rest of your argument as if it is an accepted fact that it is a breach. Your premise is flawed. You think it is a breach. Fair enough, that is your opinion. Unfortunately for you it is not you who decides whether the DPA has been breached or not. You don't get to decide what is or what is not a breach of a contract. You might think it is a breach, you might think it should be, you might think it would be impossible to argue otherwise. But all of that is irrelevant. Your opinion means nothing. My opinion means nothing. It is the courts who decide these matters. So, until you can provide case law that shows the courts have ruled that in the type of scenario you describe the DPA has been contravened, your claim about the DPA is just your opinion and nothing more.
Your opinion does not make the law.
When you have the evidence that proves the DPA has been breached then your argument might carry some weight. At the moment you have sweet Fanny Adams.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco, earlier in this thread you wrote this:

Seriously love-Do you really need case law to show you that terms are breached if someone promises to safeguard your data and then fails to do so?

It wasn't directed at me but I will answer it.
Not only do I need you to show that case law, I would say it is essential to your whole bloody argument.
You must show that the courts have ruled when a lender sells the debt they have contravened the DPA and the terms of the contract have been breached. Until you do you are just repeating your opinion over and over.
I am not interested in your opinion. I am only interested in what the courts have said.