UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Tuco]

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.

That is not true. I never EVER had an intention of not paying a loan back. I had ongoing loans over the years with Abbey, I had my mortgage with them at one point as well.

I just wanted a voice, I wanted to be heard. I withheld payments in order to be heard. I had recently just paid off my mortgage and had also built a house. I felt that my hard work placed me in a position whereby I could be a little more aggressive in my dealings with these people, whereby in the past, I felt that I had to concede to them.

I never once said my legal argument was "air tight". Indeed, at the time, I was still seeking help and advice from internet forums. regards my knowledge, I believe I know far more than you. Furthermore, I consider it highly unlikely indeed that you are legally qualified.

The bank didn't write the debt off btw-They sold it (or at least the DCA claimed to have bought it)

[Bones]

In just one sentance you have just blown your entire argument

The bank didn't write the debt off btw-They sold it (or at least the DCA claimed to have bought it)

When the debt is sold (via a legal assignement) all of the rights of the original creditor are transferred to the DCA

[Tuco]

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.

It is undoubtedly a breach-Of that there is no doubt. As others have alluded to, there is a question mark over whether it is a fundamental breach, which renders the contract voidable or whether the breach is not significant enough to kill the contract.

I have also mentioned that there was a failure to provide full disclosure, pursuant not only to the CCA but also basic contract law. This is a false misrepresentation. I believe that you are one of the few on here who accept and understand that the agreements are sold. It may be difficult to prove this if the bank deny it, I accept but a failure to be able to provide the original certainly asks questions and displays an inability to comply with the DPA.

Finally, matters get muddied further when a 3rd party is assigned the debt. They have problems as the bank will not be able to provide any supporting evidence that will help them. The 3rd party are faced with conducting a claim that hinges on actions carried out long before they had any connection to the case.

[Bones]

Throughout all your posts you have expressed nothing more than just your personal opinion.

You said you would provide cases to support your claims and then when asked to, you say you don't need too - How old are you ? 5?

You have not been able to provide any evidence - documentation, cases, etc to prove anything you have claimed.

With you it is just story time, tales of fantasy and imagination - no actual facts supported by evidence

By the way, you keep knocking requests for evidence, if you go to court, you will quickly find that is something that you need to do - stick to the forums, you are nothing but a keyboard warrior

[rumpelstilzchen]

It is undoubtedly a breach-Of that there is no doubt.

Tuco..........."It is undoubtedly" is not a cite.

It is your opinion.

Until the courts agree with you it will remain to be your opinion and nothing more.

Your premise is flawed.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco wrote:

I have also mentioned that there was a failure to provide full disclosure, pursuant not only to the CCA but also basic contract law.

Please direct me to where in "basic contract law" it is stated there must be "full disclosure".
Perhaps while you are at it you will define what you mean by "full disclosure".

[wserra]

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

This is an easy one: everyone stop the insults. If you know a particular member doesn't want PMs from you, don't send that member PMs. It is good to cite authority for legal claims - not a requirement, but you deserve what you get if you insist you're right on the law without any proof.

These are not propositions from Wittgenstein. It's called "maturity". We really don't like having to enforce maturity, but we will if we have to.

[daveBeeston]

Tuco if you are so confident that what you claim is correct then why don't you go a head and make legal history and take you argument to court, show everyone here and all over the world that what you claim is true and that when a lender sells on the loan/mortgage that it is a breach of contract and therefore you don't have to honour your side of the original agreement.

When you've done that i will happily say "i was wrong and Tuco was right"(and i suspect others here would aswell) until then put up or shut up.

[ForumWars]

Tuco wrote:

I have also mentioned that there was a failure to provide full disclosure, pursuant not only to the CCA but also basic contract law.

Please direct me to where in "basic contract law" it is stated there must be "full disclosure".
Perhaps while you are at it you will define what you mean by "full disclosure".

Disclosure is to do with civil court procedure, not contract law: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... les/part31

Nor is it on the CCA, the CCA says regulated agreements must contain certain terms and that creditors have a duty to provide account information upon request.

[ForumWars]

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.

That was a common idea going round the fora a few years ago. It holds no water but that's not the main point. Even if there was a DPA breach, that wouldn't render an agreement unenforceable. There is a connection between enforceability and CRA reporting as per Grace v Blackhorse but that goes the other way, it refers to reporting on agreements that have been ruled unenforceable.

While we are arguing about the DPA, what happens when an entire portfolio is sold to another company? Like A&L cards sold to MBNA, Eggs to Citi then Barclays, etc. In these case there may be both live and defaulted accounts. They can still be enforced by the new owner who is not in breach of the DPA for being in possession of all those personal details.

[TheNewSaint]

These are not propositions from Wittgenstein.

I go betting shop. I know nothing about the horse, Nitwit. (rest in peace, Andrew Sachs.)

[Henti]

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.

That was a common idea going round the fora a few years ago. It holds no water but that's not the main point. Even if there was a DPA breach, that wouldn't render an agreement unenforceable. There is a connection between enforceability and CRA reporting as per Grace v Blackhorse but that goes the other way, it refers to reporting on agreements that have been ruled unenforceable.

While we are arguing about the DPA, what happens when an entire portfolio is sold to another company? Like A&L cards sold to MBNA, Eggs to Citi then Barclays, etc. In these case there may be both live and defaulted accounts. They can still be enforced by the new owner who is not in breach of the DPA for being in possession of all those personal details.

In fact if you look at the FCA guide it advises the new DC on how to report data on the transferred account.

[ForumWars]

These are not propositions from Wittgenstein.

I go betting shop. I know nothing about the horse, Nitwit. (rest in piece, Andrew Sachs.)

Off topic, I know, but I LOVE Manuel to bits! So sad that he should have died.

[SoLongCeylon]

These are not propositions from Wittgenstein.

I go betting shop. I know nothing about the horse, Nitwit. (rest in piece, Andrew Sachs.)

The horse was called Dragonfly. It came in at 14/1

[Tuco]

Tuco if you are so confident that what you claim is correct then why don't you go a head and make legal history and take you argument to court, show everyone here and all over the world that what you claim is true and that when a lender sells on the loan/mortgage that it is a breach of contract and therefore you don't have to honour your side of the original agreement.

When you've done that i will happily say "i was wrong and Tuco was right"(and i suspect others here would aswell) until then put up or shut up.

Dave. If you'd actually afforded me the courtesy of bothering to read my posts, you would see that I invited two separate DCAs to sue me. The first one started proceedings but backed out when I issued a counterclaim. The second one agreed with me that it was for a court to decide. I never heard from them again.

I did put up Dave-Where it mattered, not on the internet. It seems neither DCA had the confidence in their claims that the so called experts on here have. Its easy to mouth off when you're not playing with real money isn't it?

[ForumWars]

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.

That was a common idea going round the fora a few years ago. It holds no water but that's not the main point. Even if there was a DPA breach, that wouldn't render an agreement unenforceable. There is a connection between enforceability and CRA reporting as per Grace v Blackhorse but that goes the other way, it refers to reporting on agreements that have been ruled unenforceable.

While we are arguing about the DPA, what happens when an entire portfolio is sold to another company? Like A&L cards sold to MBNA, Eggs to Citi then Barclays, etc. In these case there may be both live and defaulted accounts. They can still be enforced by the new owner who is not in breach of the DPA for being in possession of all those personal details.

In fact if you look at the FCA guide it advises the new DC on how to report data on the transferred account.

I think the argument here was not relating to the DCAs reporting on the account, which is also covered by the Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies, but to the fact that, by passing your data to a third party without your consent, the banks were in breach of the DPA and that could, somehow, be used to dispute the account. I would love that to be true, as I don't care much for the debt purchasing industry, but then I would also love it if Santa brought me a million quid for Christmas.

[Henti]

Really banks transfer accounts all the time some times in vast numbers.

They may for Instance securitize. Sometimes if they have a more profitable product, they will sell existing loans in order to capitalise their assets, and fund the expansion of that product

[Henti]

So good I said it twice.
Sorry duplicate post

[ForumWars]

Really banks transfer accounts all the time some times in vast numbers.

They may for Instance securitize. Sometimes if they have a more profitable product, they will sell existing loans in order to capitalise their assets, and fund the expansion of that product

Wasn't that behind the global financial cri$i$ of 2008? A.k.a. the credit crunch?

I was working for Bank of NY at the time, we did a few presentations about it.

[rumpelstilzchen]

. It is good to cite authority for legal claims - not a requirement, but you deserve what you get if you insist you're right on the law without any proof.

Tuco"s position is bizarre.
He claims he is right. He says he has many authorities that prove he is right. He refuses to reveal those authorities because he is right and being right is good enough.