Elizabeth buys any debts

[littleFred]

I like Greeks. All the Greeks I've known have been good people, skilful, kind and generous.

And on the generous front, we must surely include Elisabeth Nolson. Her FB page says it all: We buy any debt.

Yup, that's right. You send her your debts, and she takes on those debt and sends you a cheque in return. Honest. I know it sounds too good to be true.

What kinds of debt? All kinds. Utilities, Council Tax, banks, credit cards, CCJs, whatever. Just send her the bills, and she'll settle it.

... all you have to do is pay the post for the cheques and the original documents to be sent back to you

Well, that's fair enough. The least the debtor can do is pay such a small amount for her postage. How would debtors pay her? She doesn't say. I suspect a cheque drawn on a UK bank would do.

And Elisabeth's cheques to the ex-debtors are good, are they?

Hi you can send one to your bank with the nat west account details on for the treasury solicitor on and await their response and then we can prosecute them for breach of bill of change act and other definition while you make me to court... after all i created a liability you sold your asset and now the money you have accepted as legal tender in alignment with their own definitions have caused you a loss and therefore grounds for compensation and recourse. :) the whole package x

Oh right, so it's the usual process: deposit a cheque. When it bounces, prosecute the bank and Elisabeth. That's okay then.

She's been running the FB page since 2 Novenber 2016. I can't see any negative comments about her system. True, there are also no reviews from satisfied ex-debtors. Perhaps they are shy.

One person, who doesn't seem to have signed on, seems cynical:

If people go down this road - they will end up like Tom Crawfraud, Guy Taylor...and Michael of Narnia

Danny, how could you possibly say that?

She wants people's NI numbers. I don't know why, but I'm sure there's a charitable reason. She mentions date of birth, but I'm not sure if the wants that. She refers to a "ND", perhaps a non-disclosure agreement. I can't download her documents for some reason. This is probably good, because I'm sorely tempted to use her service.

So I send a total stranger all my bills and personal information, including bank details. In return, she sends me a (possibly duff) cheque. What could possibly go wrong???


For the sake of clarity, I should remove my sarcasm hat and say: a massive amount can go wrong. If this isn't a scam, I'll eat that hat.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Don't think it is a scam, I think she is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
However this could get Tom Crawford his house back. Just send her all the bills, costs etc. and old Tom can reset the clock back a few years and still be in number three. What could possibly go wrong?

[bmxninja357]

Can I send her my bar tab? It's truly a crippling sum.....

Peace
Ninj

[aesmith]

Surely only the creditor can sell a debt?

[AiusLocutius]

For the sake of clarity, I should remove my sarcasm hat and say: a massive amount can go wrong.

I tend to agree, though as Art says:

Don't think it is a scam, I think she is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Appears to be closer to reality. Another low IQ individual that has "woken up" and believes they have found the answer that the rest of us "sheeple" have been to stupid to see is my bet.

[Hercule Parrot]

Surely only the creditor can sell a debt?

Well, speaking pedantically a debtor could sell someone else the right to settle their debt. But the key point is that any such arrangements would not set aside the debtor's personal liability. They can only transfer that to another party if the creditor consents. So if Ms Molson "buys" a debt and then tries to settle it with FMOTL woo, the creditor will still lawfully come after the original debtor.

It's a rather silly scheme, and utterly ineffective in resisting liability. The debtor cannot unilaterally change their contractual obligations.

[notorial dissent]

This one is a bit barmier than others I've seen I have to admit. It relies on the victims not really knowing what debt means and I still don't get the fascination with the BOE Act. I'm still not sure what Elizabeth gets out of it other than identity information on what would most likely be a bunch of dead beats.

[norrha]

Well, speaking pedantically a debtor could sell someone else the right to settle their debt. But the key point is that any such arrangements would not set aside the debtor's personal liability.

Which is why a debtor usually signs a promise to pay the bearer of the instrument on demand, or simply a "banknote" or a "bill" (as in dollar bill), essentially turning it into a negotiable instrument, which could then be sold further.

[Arthur Rubin]

Well, speaking pedantically a debtor could sell someone else the right to settle their debt. But the key point is that any such arrangements would not set aside the debtor's personal liability.

Which is why a debtor usually signs a promise to pay the bearer of the instrument on demand, or simply a "banknote" or a "bill" (as in dollar bill), essentially turning it into a negotiable instrument, which could then be sold further.

Why is this relevant?

[Hercule Parrot]

Which is why a debtor usually signs a promise to pay the bearer of the instrument on demand, or simply a "banknote" or a "bill" (as in dollar bill), essentially turning it into a negotiable instrument, which could then be sold further.

My comment retracted, I had misread norrha's post.

[littleFred]

Which is why a debtor usually signs a promise to pay the bearer of the instrument on demand, ...

I assume this is joke, or something. Debtors rarely sign promises to pay, because creditors can't do much with promises. Creditors want to be actually paid. True, UK banknotes have the word "promise" on them, but they are also legal tender, so they can be spent in shops etc.

[morrand]

Which is why a debtor usually signs a promise to pay the bearer of the instrument on demand, ...

I assume this is joke, or something. Debtors rarely sign promises to pay, because creditors can't do much with promises. Creditors want to be actually paid. True, UK banknotes have the word "promise" on them, but they are also legal tender, so they can be spent in shops etc.

Certainly they can. They can enforce the promise, or they can (in some cases) sell it on to someone else, who then earns the right to enforce it. Of course, this is no comfort to the debtor, who likely does not have the right to sell their obligation to pay, and if they did, never would be able to do so in a sane market.

Bank notes are a special thing—but I think we've been around the block with that already.

[noblepa]

Which is why a debtor usually signs a promise to pay the bearer of the instrument on demand, ...

I assume this is joke, or something. Debtors rarely sign promises to pay, because creditors can't do much with promises. Creditors want to be actually paid. True, UK banknotes have the word "promise" on them, but they are also legal tender, so they can be spent in shops etc.

I live in the Colonies, but, when I refinanced my home mortgage, one of the prominent documents that my wife and I had to sign was a promissory note (a promise to pay). This was a separate document from the mortgage contract.

IIRC, all of my credit card agreements include words to the effect that I promise to pay the amounts I have legitimately charged.

I find it hard to believe that something similar isn't required in the UK. It doesn't have to be called a promissory note, but any credit contract MUST, it would seem to me, contain some words saying that the borrower promises to pay the lender. Otherwise it would be a unilateral contract, which with few exceptions, are illegal.

No lender (at least a business) would lend money without a promise to repay the loan. Even contracts that are not traditionally considered to be loans, such as, say, a contract to build a house, say that the customer will pay the builder for the house. That is a legally binding promise to pay.

[littleFred]

When you enter into an agreement, you promise to pay the amounts that will become due. Sure. That's before you become a debtor. But that's not what norrha claimed.

A debtor doesn't usually sign a promise to pay the debt, once the debt has started. Because creditors don't want another promise.

And, when wanting to borrow money, your promise isn't "to pay the bearer of the instrument on demand". At least, not in the UK.

As morrand says, a debtor can certainly promise to pay the debt as often as he wants. Outside of GOOFy circles (and large commercial transactions), this doesn't happen much because they've already promised.

[wanglepin]

I think this could be our gal?

Eco-warriors are ordered to leave site by court after council granted a possession order


A GROUP of eco-warriors who illegally set up camp in Poole have been ordered to leave the site.

Speaking on behalf of the group, Elisabeth Nolson, who referred to herself as the ‘Sheriff of Dorset’, said the land belonged to a trust, the Common Law Community, which the group were the beneficiaries of.

She also claimed that the documents produced by the council were inaccurate.

Dismissing her claims, Judge Willis said: “They say this land is part of some form of trust. They are putting it forward that the trustees are the persons named and listed in this document called the Title Deed. I can’t begin to discern the basis in which that document has any legal force.”

[notorial dissent]

I think this particular crazy has been mentioned in reference to this land trust fantasy. I think it has been almost a year or better since they've came up, but this all sounds real familiar.

And I was right, almost two years ago. viewtopic.php?p=204525#p204525

[norrha]

Why is this relevant [that a debtor usually signs a promissory note payable on demand]?

Because it rebuts Hercule Parrot's statement that "a debtor could sell someone else the right to settle their debt", instead turning it into "a creditor could sell someone else's debt". But perhaps my choice of "usually" was not so good.

A debtor doesn't usually sign a promise to pay the debt, once the debt has started. Because creditors don't want another promise.

It isn't another promise, just a promise that could be sold on, yielding flexibility in the market. But usually a creditor requires some kind of surety for the debt, implying another contract, to place a lien for example.

[notorial dissent]

Well, I don't really know of a reason why someone couldn't be stupid enough to buy, or takeover or assume, the responsibility to pay someone's debt, but I just don't really know why anyone would want to, unless there was some asset or something that would make it worth while.

[Footloose52]

Well, in law, someone can assume responsibility for anothers debt but only if the creditor has agreed it, usually at the start. And that person standing in the debtors shoes is known as a Guarantor in the UK, a Surety in some other legislatures. It still doesn't make this claim of buyings debts in the way suggested in this thread any more legitimate, it is still bs.

[Hercule Parrot]

Why is this relevant [that a debtor usually signs a promissory note payable on demand]?

Because it rebuts Hercule Parrot's statement that "a debtor could sell someone else the right to settle their debt"....

No, it doesn't. There's an important distinction between selling a right and selling an obligation.

If Arthur wanted to pay off my mortgage for some reason, then I could sell him a right to do that. However that arrangement would not make Arthur liable for my mortgage. I alone would still be the debtor, unless the creditor consented to Arthur being contractually substituted into that obligation.

Imagine that my adult daughter has married a deadbeat drug addict in a faraway country. She tells me that the power to their apartment has been shut off due to unpaid bills, and my grandchildren are shivering cold. I offer to pay the outstanding debt by credit card and get the power reinstated. The deadbeat grabs the phone and says that the first priority for any money they obtain will be to buy a new pair of sneakers for him. He won't tell me the name of the power company or their account details unless I firstly transfer $50 to his personal account so he can get his sneakers.

Frantic and desperate, I wire $50 to him and he gives me the power company account details. I have purchased a right to settle their debt. I may now do so, or I may reflect that I'm only making the situation worse and do nothing. If I do nothing, the power company has no recourse against me. My daughter and her husband are still the contractual debtors.