UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Bones]

Perhaps you may wish to refresh yourself with the contents of the video?

Sorry, I don't have the will power to bring myself to watch it again, I will just take your word for it.

I don't have as much time for ill informed irritating people as I used too.. Of course, I am talking about Simon and not you

*edited, wanted to correct a typo before tuco got her knickers in a twist over it

[Bones]

All jokes aside, if you are really interested in credit agreements and the real reason copies are sent (and not freetard claims), let me know, I offering a master class at reduced rates - just 2,000,000 Re

[Tuco]

All jokes aside, if you are really interested in credit agreements and the real reason copies are sent (and not freetard claims), let me know, I offering a master class at reduced rates - just 2,000,000 Re

I'm not. I've just batted a couple of big DCAs away for several thousands. I gladly offered to pay them if they produced the originals. They couldn't do so but chose not to sue me, can't think why, although at a guess, it would be because of my stunning good looks.

[Bones]

Sorry I think you will find Tuco's ego thread is on another forum

[Tuco]

My turn for jokes aside now Bones.

Why do you think that only copies are sent (we're not talking CCA here)?

Obviously only copies are sent on request but surely if it got to court then the originals would need to be produced?

It isn't much to ask for is it?

The banks and/or DCAs do have these originals don't they?

[Bones]

Come now Tuco, your posts reveal too much about yourself and what drives you.

Quatloos is not like GOODF, CAG or your beloved BHF.

Here you can kick back, relax and enjoy correcting the freetards. Which is fortunate, as after reading your posts, I can't take you seriously.

There just isn't the competiton between posters here as you have obviously and sadly grown used too on the forums that you usually frequent.

I am sad and sorry to say that you do remind me in many ways of Applecart. It is evident in yours posts on BHF about a great many topics, you allow your need to be right to cloud you from the truth and from reality.

Let go of your need to be right, set yourself free. Trust me, it will make you a much happier and less shall we say 'heated' individual.

Unfortunately, it is clear that you still hold onto some of the freetards beliefs and the ways of thinking.

I hope your time here, will help you to open your eyes to see things how they actually rather than how you think they are.

I think it would be best for this forum, if I refrain from responding to your future posts. As you have made your motives clear on BHF as to your presence here and to your intentions, I will elect not to play your little game.

I sincerely hope that you and of course Jason have a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year

[aesmith]

Obviously only copies are sent on request but surely if it got to court then the originals would need to be produced?

Here's an example where they were successful in court without original signed agreement ..
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/27.html

[rumpelstilzchen]

You do realize that the good old honest bank sells the agreement on and pockets the cash don't you?

So what?

[Tuco]

You do realize that the good old honest bank sells the agreement on and pockets the cash don't you?

So what?

That's exactly what I said to Abbey (or Abbey National as it was at the time) After I had £20k off them in loans, overdrafts and credit cards.

They said to me: "You were happy to take our money and spend it yet now you don't want to pay us"

I replied:

"So what"?

Now if only they had been honest and decent enough to disclose to me at the time that their intention was to trade the agreement, none of what followed would have happened.

[Tuco]

Obviously only copies are sent on request but surely if it got to court then the originals would need to be produced?

Here's an example where they were successful in court without original signed agreement ..
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/27.html

That case appears to centre around when the agreement was taken out, with the defendants claiming that the card never existed. I would use other arguments personally.

I can only tell you that in two cases involving myself, neither reached court. The first time, the DCA dropped their claim after I issued a counterclaim and the second time, the DCA didn't even issue proceedings. Actually that 2nd one is still on my credit file, I'll have to look at getting that removed. Thanks for reminding me.

[Henti]

Obviously only copies are sent on request but surely if it got to court then the originals would need to be produced?

Here's an example where they were successful in court without original signed agreement ..
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/27.html

That case appears to centre around when the agreement was taken out, with the defendants claiming that the card never existed. I would use other arguments personally.

I can only tell you that in two cases involving myself, neither reached court. The first time, the DCA dropped their claim after I issued a counterclaim and the second time, the DCA didn't even issue proceedings. Actually that 2nd one is still on my credit file, I'll have to look at getting that removed. Thanks for reminding me.

no

Frost was about section 127(3) of the consumer credit act.

Up untill April 7th 2007 there was a section which stated that , an enforcement order could not be issued unless the agreement was signed.
The judgement enforced the proposition, " an agreement was signed" does not mean that an agreement has to be produced in order to enforce.
This was first mentioned in Cary v HSBC here in manchester. This section was repealed by CCA 2006.

DCAs only take around 25%of their accounts to court, in the main they like default judgement. If the debtor raised a defence no matter how absurd they need to send a solicitor to the court.
This is an expense they have to consider along with other factors.

The idea that an assigned debt somehow reduces the sum owed under the contract is absurd.

The right to enforce "rights under a contract", has nothing to do with the contract itself. The debtor still has to repay sums advanced as per it's terms.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Now if only they had been honest and decent enough to disclose to me at the time that their intention was to trade the agreement, none of what followed would have happened.

None of it?
You would have changed your mind about borrowing the money?

[NYGman]

DCAs only take around 25%of their accounts to court, in the main they like default judgement. If the debtor raised a defence no matter how absurd they need to send a solicitor to the court.
This is an expense they have to consider along with other factors.

That's the point really, they have limited resources, and need to focus them where they can. They are by default, going to target the easy ones first, those that do not put up a fight. Think about it, DCA did buy the debt, but not Pound for Pound, Dollar for Dollar. They buy the debt for pennies on the Dollar/Pound/Euro/etc. So your theory of the debt being paid is not the case. The balance would be written off by the prior debt holder. Once they DCA has gone through the low hanging fruit, they start looking for large outstanding balances. These are then assessed, a cost is assigned, and the DCA can determine if to pursue. They may factor in to their process, increased work to deal with FMOTL, and it may tip the balance. They then may choose not to follow up, or to sell it on, to someone else, for further pennies, util it becomes time barred. If they are buying debt for .10 on the 1.00, then they really only need collect on 10% of the debts to cover the cost of the debt. Perhaps a further 10% for overhead, and the rest becomes proffit.

So yea Tuco, your debt was too small and you were to much of a pain, to make economical sense for that particular DCA to continue collections. They cut you loose. Doesn't mean you didn't owe the debt.

[Tuco]

Now if only they had been honest and decent enough to disclose to me at the time that their intention was to trade the agreement, none of what followed would have happened.

None of it?
You would have changed your mind about borrowing the money?

The honest answer is probably no (although I wouldn't have taken my credit cards to the limits nor gone into my overdraft)

My feeling is that if they want to play devious, dishonest underhanded and unethical games then I am more than happy to return the serve. They were quite happy to breach their own T&Cs so why shouldn't I?

Regardless of whether I would have still borrowed the money, they voided the contract. The question is hypothetical. At the point that they sold on the agreement, there was no contract and nothing was enforceable.

I disagreed with them and was quite happy to place my trust in the civil courts. Had it been determined that my arguments were unfounded, I would have been happy to repay whatever the court ordered me to. However, neither DCA in my case opted to pursue claims. I exercised my right to stand up to bullying, threats and intimidation. I would not be true to myself if I were ever to concede to this.

[Henti]

DCAs only take around 25%of their accounts to court, in the main they like default judgement. If the debtor raised a defence no matter how absurd they need to send a solicitor to the court.
This is an expense they have to consider along with other factors.

That's the point really, they have limited resources, and need to focus them where they can. They are by default, going to target the easy ones first, those that do not put up a fight. Think about it, DCA did buy the debt, but not Pound for Pound, Dollar for Dollar. They buy the debt for pennies on the Dollar/Pound/Euro/etc. So your theory of the debt being paid is not the case. The balance would be written off by the prior debt holder. Once they DCA has gone through the low hanging fruit, they start looking for large outstanding balances. These are then assessed, a cost is assigned, and the DCA can determine if to pursue. They may factor in to their process, increased work to deal with FMOTL, and it may tip the balance. They then may choose not to follow up, or to sell it on, to someone else, for further pennies, util it becomes time barred. If they are buying debt for .10 on the 1.00, then they really only need collect on 10% of the debts to cover the cost of the debt. Perhaps a further 10% for overhead, and the rest becomes proffit.

So yea Tuco, your debt was too small and you were to much of a pain, to make economical sense for that particular DCA to continue collections. They cut you loose. Doesn't mean you didn't owe the debt.

Yes CCAs will buy debts in blocks of hundreds or more. There will be a percentage figure which they know they will be able to see a return on, say 20%.

So they will pay 15% of the face value on the block. Giving them 5% profit overall.

[Tuco]

DCAs only take around 25%of their accounts to court, in the main they like default judgement. If the debtor raised a defence no matter how absurd they need to send a solicitor to the court.
This is an expense they have to consider along with other factors.

That's the point really, they have limited resources, and need to focus them where they can. They are by default, going to target the easy ones first, those that do not put up a fight. Think about it, DCA did buy the debt, but not Pound for Pound, Dollar for Dollar. They buy the debt for pennies on the Dollar/Pound/Euro/etc. So your theory of the debt being paid is not the case. The balance would be written off by the prior debt holder. Once they DCA has gone through the low hanging fruit, they start looking for large outstanding balances. These are then assessed, a cost is assigned, and the DCA can determine if to pursue. They may factor in to their process, increased work to deal with FMOTL, and it may tip the balance. They then may choose not to follow up, or to sell it on, to someone else, for further pennies, util it becomes time barred. If they are buying debt for .10 on the 1.00, then they really only need collect on 10% of the debts to cover the cost of the debt. Perhaps a further 10% for overhead, and the rest becomes proffit.

So yea Tuco, your debt was too small and you were to much of a pain, to make economical sense for that particular DCA to continue collections. They cut you loose. Doesn't mean you didn't owe the debt.

In one of my personal cases, the DCA engaged a solicitor and instigated proceedings. I believe that the amount allegedly owed was circa £8k at the time. Clearly it did make economical sense to them. I issued a counterclaim for monies that I had already paid to the DCA. They dropped their claim. In my eyes, the only thing that didn't make economical sense was the risk of losing in court. After all they had incurred solicitors costs and court fees at that point anyway.

It is wrong for you to suggest that I didn't owe the money. The DCA had an opportunity to prove that I did owe the money. Why would they not take it if they were so sure? It wouldn't have cost £8k to see the claim through would it? I'd wager that at that point, it would have cost under £2k to see the claim through. If I owed the money, they would certainly have seen the claim through.

Regarding Frost, these are the sections of the CCA that were covered in the judges conclusion:

It must follow, in my judgment, that the Claimant is entitled to judgment for £15,391.38, being the sum due under the agreement, for the following reasons:

1. The Claimant has complied with its statutory requirements under sections 61, 63, 78, 87 and 88.

2. The Claimant has validly terminated the contractual relationship by its letter of 18 June 2013, in accordance with section 98A.

3. There is no basis for finding that there was an unfair relationship and I do not make any determination under section 140A or any order under section 140B.

[Tuco]

DCAs only take around 25%of their accounts to court, in the main they like default judgement. If the debtor raised a defence no matter how absurd they need to send a solicitor to the court.
This is an expense they have to consider along with other factors.

That's the point really, they have limited resources, and need to focus them where they can. They are by default, going to target the easy ones first, those that do not put up a fight. Think about it, DCA did buy the debt, but not Pound for Pound, Dollar for Dollar. They buy the debt for pennies on the Dollar/Pound/Euro/etc. So your theory of the debt being paid is not the case. The balance would be written off by the prior debt holder. Once they DCA has gone through the low hanging fruit, they start looking for large outstanding balances. These are then assessed, a cost is assigned, and the DCA can determine if to pursue. They may factor in to their process, increased work to deal with FMOTL, and it may tip the balance. They then may choose not to follow up, or to sell it on, to someone else, for further pennies, util it becomes time barred. If they are buying debt for .10 on the 1.00, then they really only need collect on 10% of the debts to cover the cost of the debt. Perhaps a further 10% for overhead, and the rest becomes proffit.

So yea Tuco, your debt was too small and you were to much of a pain, to make economical sense for that particular DCA to continue collections. They cut you loose. Doesn't mean you didn't owe the debt.

Yes CCAs will buy debts in blocks of hundreds or more.

Is that where you got your infamous "on block" comment from? ie "DCAs buy debts on block"

[Henti]

DCAs only take around 25%of their accounts to court, in the main they like default judgement. If the debtor raised a defence no matter how absurd they need to send a solicitor to the court.
This is an expense they have to consider along with other factors.

That's the point really, they have limited resources, and need to focus them where they can. They are by default, going to target the easy ones first, those that do not put up a fight. Think about it, DCA did buy the debt, but not Pound for Pound, Dollar for Dollar. They buy the debt for pennies on the Dollar/Pound/Euro/etc. So your theory of the debt being paid is not the case. The balance would be written off by the prior debt holder. Once they DCA has gone through the low hanging fruit, they start looking for large outstanding balances. These are then assessed, a cost is assigned, and the DCA can determine if to pursue. They may factor in to their process, increased work to deal with FMOTL, and it may tip the balance. They then may choose not to follow up, or to sell it on, to someone else, for further pennies, util it becomes time barred. If they are buying debt for .10 on the 1.00, then they really only need collect on 10% of the debts to cover the cost of the debt. Perhaps a further 10% for overhead, and the rest becomes proffit.

So yea Tuco, your debt was too small and you were to much of a pain, to make economical sense for that particular DCA to continue collections. They cut you loose. Doesn't mean you didn't owe the debt.

In one of my personal cases, the DCA engaged a solicitor and instigated proceedings. I believe that the amount allegedly owed was circa £8k at the time. Clearly it did make economical sense to them. I issued a counterclaim for monies that I had already paid to the DCA. They dropped their claim. In my eyes, the only thing that didn't make economical sense was the risk of losing in court. After all they had incurred solicitors costs and court fees at that point anyway.

It is wrong for you to suggest that I didn't owe the money. The DCA had an opportunity to prove that I did owe the money. Why would they not take it if they were so sure? It wouldn't have cost £8k to see the claim through would it? I'd wager that at that point, it would have cost under £2k to see the claim through. If I owed the money, they would certainly have seen the claim through.

Regarding Frost, these are the sections of the CCA that were covered in the judges conclusion:

It must follow, in my judgment, that the Claimant is entitled to judgment for £15,391.38, being the sum due under the agreement, for the following reasons:

1. The Claimant has complied with its statutory requirements under sections 61, 63, 78, 87 and 88.

2. The Claimant has validly terminated the contractual relationship by its letter of 18 June 2013, in accordance with section 98A.

3. There is no basis for finding that there was an unfair relationship and I do not make any determination under section 140A or any order under section 140B.

Yes section 61 refers to signing of agreements. Judgement says

That is of course right, but it is in my view equally clear that where the creditor is unable to find the original, it can still make good its case that an application was indeed signed by the debtor by the use of other evidence. In other words, the absence of a signed form is not fatal to the creditor's case if it can otherwise prove that an application form was indeed signed

This relates to section127(3)as said ,(enforcement)

[Henti]

That's the point really, they have limited resources, and need to focus them where they can. They are by default, going to target the easy ones first, those that do not put up a fight. Think about it, DCA did buy the debt, but not Pound for Pound, Dollar for Dollar. They buy the debt for pennies on the Dollar/Pound/Euro/etc. So your theory of the debt being paid is not the case. The balance would be written off by the prior debt holder. Once they DCA has gone through the low hanging fruit, they start looking for large outstanding balances. These are then assessed, a cost is assigned, and the DCA can determine if to pursue. They may factor in to their process, increased work to deal with FMOTL, and it may tip the balance. They then may choose not to follow up, or to sell it on, to someone else, for further pennies, util it becomes time barred. If they are buying debt for .10 on the 1.00, then they really only need collect on 10% of the debts to cover the cost of the debt. Perhaps a further 10% for overhead, and the rest becomes proffit.

So yea Tuco, your debt was too small and you were to much of a pain, to make economical sense for that particular DCA to continue collections. They cut you loose. Doesn't mean you didn't owe the debt.

Yes CCAs will buy debts in blocks of hundreds or more.

Is that where you got your infamous "on block" comment from? ie "DCAs buy debts on block"

Sorry ?

If you say you had already paid some of the amount due to the CCA, that has nothing to do with assignment, it is a challenge to the sum claimed.

I am not sure what you are talking about now.

[Henti]

Yes CCAs will buy debts in blocks of hundreds or more.

Is that where you got your infamous "on block" comment from? ie "DCAs buy debts on block"

Sorry ?

If you say you had already paid some of the amount paid to the CCA, that has nothing to do Leigh assignment, it is a challenge to the sum claimed.

I am not sure what you are talking about now.

This is pure FMoTL thinking Tuco. Despite what you say. Basically you want to borrow money with no intention of repaying it.