UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Bones]

There is no debate, you clearly don't understand the terminology, the process or the legalities involved

You refuse to listen to people that are correcting your lack of understanding - ignorance is your choice and the path you have chosen to follow

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco, this is the last time I am going to say this. Just because in your head you believe the DPA is being breached it does not necessarily make it so. That is your opinion and nothing more. But you refuse to accept that. You are behaving in the same way as a typical freetard would behave. You interpret the law yourself and then whatever result you come up with you declare that is the actual position of the law. I've told you this before, your opinion does not decide the law. I really do not think that you will ever understand that.

[Tuco]

Tuco, this is the last time I am going to say this. Just because in your head you believe the DPA is being breached it does not necessarily make it so. That is your opinion and nothing more. But you refuse to accept that. You are behaving in the same way as a typical freetard would behave. You interpret the law yourself and then whatever result you come up with you declare that is the actual position of the law. I've told you this before, your opinion does not decide the law. I really do not think that you will ever understand that.

Even taking the issue of the DPA out of the equation, there is an obligation to provide full disclosure. If the original lender fails to disclose the very important fact that the agreement (containing all personal, private data) is going to be traded then at best it is unethical.

When a borrower approaches a bank to borrow money (S)he does so by placing complete trust and faith in the lender-A bank, an institution that is supposed to act honorably and decently. (S)he certainly does not expect the bank to be so disrespectful and uncaring when it comes to his/her private data. There is a legal and a moral duty to safeguard this data.

In your early responses, not only did you ask "so what" but you also asked if I would still have borrowed the money. You appear to be defending this reprehensible behaviour by stating that it is OK for the bank to shit on people from a great height because even if they were given prior notice, they would not have objected.

You've acted like a scumbag throughout this thread. You complain when fmotl do certain things that are not right or moral yet you blindly defend the banks when they do the same.

I get it with air heads like Bones & Longdog but you know full well what has taken place. You ought to be ashamed of yourself pal.

[Arthur Rubin]

I guess Tuco's claim that he won in court was in one of the deleted messages. I can't find it, any more.

Still, I cannot imagine why the physical contracts be traded (as opposed to being assigned). [I'll trade you 5 Tucos for a Crawfraud.] If trading of contracts occurred, it would probably be in violation of the DPA, and provide no benefit to the recipient. The difference between the three categories of Quatloosians who believe you are making complaints without any credible damage to you may lie in which of your statements they find least unbelievable.

If you (Tuco) could provide evidence that the contracts were traded, or that there was some benefit to some party in trading the contracts, we could go on from there.

And: the RULE was misstated, above. If you claim something clearly contrary to established legal practise, and are called on it, you cannot continue to claim that without evidence. Whether what you are claiming is illegal is irrelevant.

[Chaos]

Did you know the world record for folding a piece of paper in half is just 12 times

YES! I did! I saw it on an episode of Mythbusters in which they got a paper sheet about the gauge of cigarette papers and the size of an airplane hanger and they folded it until it wouldn't fold anymore!

Pretty cool episode!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuG_CeEZV6w

[Tuco]

I guess Tuco's claim that he won in court was in one of the deleted messages. I can't find it, any more. No-The answer is far more simpler. It never existed in the first place. I never claimed to have won in court. Whatever possessed you to arrive at the conclusion that a claim was won in court?

Still, I cannot imagine why the physical contracts be traded (as opposed to being assigned). it falsified profit margins within the sector. it inflated the value of the banks [I'll trade you 5 Tucos for a Crawfraud.] If trading of contracts occurred, it would probably be in violation of the DPA, and provide no benefit to the recipient. Other than if the recipicant traded the document further, for an increased value. The difference between the three categories of Quatloosians who believe you are making complaints without any credible damage to you may lie in which of your statements they find least unbelievable. Yet several of the more informed Quatloosians fully accept that these agreements were traded, ironically, our mate Rumps is amongst this number

If you (Tuco) could provide evidence that the contracts were traded, or that there was some benefit to some party in trading the contracts, we could go on from there. Yet last time I provided the evidence asked of me (evidence that councils profiteered unlawfully out of the liability order process), you deleted it

And: the RULE was misstated, above. If you claim something clearly contrary to established legal practise, and are called on it, you cannot continue to claim that without evidence. Whether what you are claiming is illegal is irrelevant. Yet there are multiple other claims in this thread that have no substance. As usual, I am the only one who is required to provide evidence.

[Henti]

Creditors and commenters often say an account has been sold rather than assigned. In truth contracts cannot be sold, unless there is novation and to do this the debtor would have to agree.

The new ownere merely "stands in the shoes" of the orriginal, and exercises his aquired rights under the agreement. The duties remain with the orriginal parties.

As far as he requirements of the DPA is concerned the new "owner" is assigned only sufficient privileges to enable him to service the account.

As far as the orriginal making increase profit, this is untrue, as said he will loose, because the sum paid will be far less than he loaned.

The new creditor, even if he manages to gain the full balance of the amount owed, will have to subtract from that what he paid to the assignor. So the gross profit of both assignor and assignee will be the same as if nothing has happened.

[grixit]

I'm inclined to lock this topic, but higher ranking mods than me have participated. Instead, i move that Tuco be placed on moderation, with no posts accepted until he actually offers a citation.

[Tuco]

I'm inclined to lock this topic, but higher ranking mods than me have participated. Instead, i move that Tuco be placed on moderation, with no posts accepted until he actually offers a citation.

Can you please tell me what it is you require citation of?

It is accepted by some that the agreements are traded.

Arthur has now kindly confirmed that he agrees that if that were to be the case then the DPA will have been breached.

You people are no better than the gurus that you chastise. You hoodwink your followers into believing that anyone who questions you is a crazy fmotl. You ban challengers and delete anything they posted that opposes you. It happened several times to me in the past few months and I've no doubt it will happen again.

The majority of the "correcting" on this thread is actually by idiots who don't know what they are talking about. If they were to have done the decent thing and fucked off onto the Tom Crawford threads, then none of this page after page of drivel would have occurred.

[longdog]

Code: Select all

Do While (thread.Pages <100 AND moderator.IrritationLevel < .5)
     Tuco.SaySomethingStupid();
     Posters.AttemptToDebunkLogically();
Loop

moderator.CloseThread();

Here is what really happened:

Tuco said that agreements are sold NOT assigned (the assignment takes place much further on and is not in dispute)

A few understood, the vast majority didn't.

Posters attempted to debunk logically whilst at the same time, not understanding what it is they were supposed to be debunking. Hence, the vast majority of debunking was the debunking of a negative, ie, something that never existed or was claimed in the first place.

Moderator closes thread, Tuco gets the blame, despite the vast majority of Quatloosers not having the intelligence to read & understand what had been written. It was the Quatloosers themselves who dragged the thread down by posting utter garbage that was irrelevant to the matter being discussed. If these idiots had gone and posted some drivel about Tom Crawford elsewhere, the topic had legs for a worthwhile debate.

Yep... That makes sense... Nobody on this forum understands what the fuck you are talking about because they are all stupid.

Look at my Johnny... He's the only one marching in step.

[Bones]

I'm inclined to lock this topic, but higher ranking mods than me have participated. Instead, i move that Tuco be placed on moderation, with no posts accepted until he actually offers a citation.

That is a tough call, I suspect that he would very much like to be placed on moderation or even better have this thread closed. He showed great pleasure in BHF when other threads were locked here.

He has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't understand the topic in which he is posting about. He is unwilling to listen to reason and is unable to provide any evidence to support any of his claims, even though he said he could and would.

Given the circumstances that no one agrees with his view of the world, providing his disruption is confined only to this thread, I don't see the harm in, letting him freely continue.

The topic of this thread is DD clawbacks and SimonBerg. DD clawbacks have died to death and we could always start a new thread about Simon. In the alternative all of the posts made to this thread in regard to Tuco's claims could either be moved to their own dedicated thread (I could suggest a few name) or added to the existing 'Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread'

At the end of the day, I feel that Tuco and the claims he is unable to prove are pretty much harmless. He just craves attention and I am guilty of giving some to him. However, for me, he is nothing but a source of amusement.

I have even thanked him for his entertainment value.

Just my two cents

[Bones]

When a credit application is approved, it results in a debt being created. In banking terms, this results in an account being opened with a £0.00 balance. Then in terms of a mortgage or for that matter a personal loan, the capital balance borrowed is debited from that account by way of an example a personal loan would of £5,000, would leave the account when drawn down £5,000 over drawn. Monthly payments reduce the debt whereas interest installments increase the debt, until it is repaid.

An example of this can be seen in the statements for Tom Crawfords mortgage account.

Now this debt has value which can and is traded. The right to the debt (or rather the repayment of the debt) can be sold (assigned) in two main ways.

Firstly via an Equitable Assignment. This is when the borrower is not provided with a notice of assignment and is more than likely not aware that a sale has even taken place as the original lender, continues to administer the account with legal title remaining with the original lender, and from a customers point of view nothing has changed. In the UK, a prime example would be securitisation - when the benefit of an agreement is assigned (sold) to a third party.

Further information can be obtained from cases such as Paragon v Pender 2005
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... 5/760.html

This situation is covered within the T&C's in terms something along the lines of "we can assign our rights to a 3rd party", this does not result in a breach of the DPA, as when you sign the agreement it usually will also include a clause stating that information about you can also be passed to a third party. The agreement will not make a reference to a specific third party, just state a 3rd party (except to references to data being shared in a group)

Secondly the sale can also take place via a Legal Assignment. This is when a borrower is provided with a Notice of Assignment (Notice of the Sale) and the legal title (including the equitable/beneficial title) is transferred to a 3rd Party., as per s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
http://www.casebooks.eu/propertyLaw/Cha ... rptId=2570

Examples of this can include a sale of accounts from one lender to another, with the accounts being held and administered by the new lender - examples include Woolwich/Barclays etc. Another example being when a debt is sold to a DCA. The effect of a legal assignment is that the 3rd party can bring legal proceedings in its own name.

Again this is all covered by the T&C's that you agree to when you sign a credit agreement and does not result in any breach of the DPA.

The trading of the paper credit agreement, does not occur in the UK as Tuco would like it to. The real asset, is the debt that has been created by the agreement. The trading of the debt / right to repayment is perfectly legal in the UK and does not breach the DPA.

If I understand correctly in Tuco's world Bank A lend a customer £5,000 and then sells the orginal paper agreement (after photocopying it and placing it in a draw) to Bank B for £5,000. Bank B then sells the original paper agreement to Bank C for £5,000, Bank C sells it to Bank D for £5,000 and on and on and on.

This is a freetard myth, as except for a piece of paper, each bank would not actually receive anything for each of their £5,000 and at the end of the term of the loan, it would leave the last Bank in this imaginary chain with nothing but a credit agreement for a loan that had already been repaid.

The above is my attempt to explain why Tuco is unable to provide any evidence to support his understanding, for the reason being that his understanding is wrong and based on Freetard folk tales

[Bones]

Whilst Tuco has some kind of issue with references to assignment it is the legal process by which rights to the debt (being the real asset) are transferred to a 3rd party that was not one of the two original parties of the credit agreement

http://www.stevens-bolton.com/files/291 ... vables.pdf

An assignment can be effected with or without notice to the counterparty and does not
extinguish the contractual relationship between the assignor and the counterparty.
Note that a sale of receivables is also an assignment. An assignee takes “subject to
equities” that the counterparty could have raised against the assignor (e.g. rights of
counterclaim, set-off and damages claims) and the assignee can never recover more
than the assignor could have done had there been no assignment.

Legal (or statutory) assignment
Under section 136 of the LPA 1925:

“Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting
to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which
express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from
whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is
effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to
pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;
(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and
(c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence
of the assignor”

An absolute assignment can include an assignment by way of mortgage (but not an
assignment by way of charge) even though there is a right of redemption and re-
transfer, as long as the counterparty is left in no doubt that the assignee has the sole
right to the debt in question (at least for the time being). A notice providing that the
debt has been assigned ,but until further notice the counterparty should pay the
assignor, may still qualify as a legal assignment. An assignment of a debt must be for
the whole of the debt in order to qualify as a legal assignment. It must be of present,
existing right not a future right.

Equitable assignment

Any assignment not qualifying as a legal assignment will be an equitable assignment
(although note that financial collateral (i.e. security over cash, financial instruments
and claims under loans made by credit institutions) is subject to its own regime under
the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No 2) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3226).
An equitable assignment can be created simply by manifesting an intention to make
an irrevocable transfer of the contractual right. Giving notice to the counterparty is
important for many reasons (see Box) but failure to give notice will not invalidate the
assignment against the assignor.

5
Importance of the distinction
As Chitty comments [Chitty on Contracts 31st edition at [19-004], there is often little,
if any, advantage in a statutory assignment over an equitable assignment. But the
important procedural distinction is that a legal assignee can sue in his own name
without joining the assignor, whereas an equitable assignee must join the assignor in
any proceedings. However in other key respects, e.g. for validity and rules of priority,
there are no distinctions.

[Bones]

I hope that Tuco accepts the information provided in the way I have intended - being to help him understand and not to make him look like a complete idiot

[wserra]

Whatever value this thread may have had, there is none left.