UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Bones]

What has happened to Simon - I have not heard anything from or about him in a while. Since he did that video and confessed to secretly paying his mortgage, he seems to have gone quiet

secretly paying his mortgage, lol is this the mortgage, he had annulled as the paperwork wasn't right (remember he use to be a banker) or the one he keeps disputing, so they cant do any thing why its in dispute

I believe that both mortgages were one in the same. He posted a video on youtube which he I presume by accident said that he pays the mortgage by cash monthly and he recorded himself on the phone to the banks collection department trying to arranging another repayment plan.

Strangely this video now appears to have been deleted and since then, he has been very quiet

[fat frank]

typical freeman then, do as I say, not as I do,

[mufc1959]

I remember Goldberg claiming in one of his videos about being assaulted in branch at Santander and them deliberately destroying the CCTV of it. This leads me to think that this decision from the ombudsman is about his case, particularly looking at all the other FOTL-type stuff in the complaint. The FOS anonymises decisions now they publish them, but I'm guessing from what Goldberg said about not wanting to put his other half through a court case (his excuse for resumption of his mortgage payments) that it's a joint mortgage, that he and his missus are the Mr A and Miss B referred to here.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... leID=58823

[littleFred]

That looks like our Si and his ex.

I enjoy the dry humour. Mr A can't complain to the FOS that he doesn't have a mortgage because only if he had a mortgage could he complain. Only a court, not the FOS, could rule whether he had a contract and:

Given the level of arrears on the account and the absence of payment proposals, it is likely Mr A and Miss B will have an opportunity to put their arguments before the court in the foreseeable future.

[Hercule Parrot]

It couldn't happen to a nicer man.

[Bones]

After going into hiding after slipping up and revealing that he had been paying his mortgage all along and allegations of working with some questionable companies, white rabbit is back with more questions. However, he shows that he has no understand how mortgages work, deeds / charges. He still thinks asking questions will void a mortgage, yet he only tries this with other people peoples, the guy is a sham and a fraud or for the benefit of the doubt a complete and utter idiot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0KJ5Q8H8L4

[littleFred]

Perhaps not directly associated with Mr Goldberg, but certainly on the topic of direct debits:

... due to some "incorrect" amounts taken as direct debits I have made numerous indemnity claims all of which were successful however everything has now gone wrong ...

This GOOFy bought a car on finance, paid it in full so the car was his, sold the car and clawed back 6 months of payments, £1526. Now the finance company want £3881.

He also clawed back from a previous landlord, who then started court proceedings against him.

[SteveUK]

This is going to be a hilarious train wreck of a failure.

[notorial dissent]

Since what they are doing constitutes fraud, is there not prosecution for this?

[SoLongCeylon]

Whiterabbit Goldberg is now producing drivel on a TY Channel called You and Your Cash ( which for him and most of his followers is an equation that equals £ZERO ).

Anyway, one of his most insightful videos is giving people advice on what to do with junk mail!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnZugT2Pe5g

Valuable information Simon, not even Lord Denning came up with this.

[Firthy2002]

That trick's an oldie. I don't get a lot and it's easier just to chuck it in the recycling bin (minus any personal info).

[IDIOT]

What's Simon on about in this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw-NURJefG8

The supposed guy that writes in admits he missed three car insurance payments then asks Simon if he has a claim because police seized his car.

Simon suggests the guy checks his insurance paper work. The simple answer is pay up or drive round with no insurance is it not? The police will probably have seized his car, the court given him 6 points on his driving licence and his next insurance premium will be higher because of such. All a little too late to go asking questions of the insurance people.

This Simon character is very fond of giving folk false hopes and I bet he wouldn't dare try any of this guff at his own risk.

[NYGman]

Interesting theory he has, i think he basically believes that the insurance policy is paid in full for the year when you agree to make monthly payments, by the financing party, and that the agreement to pay monthly is actually a financing agreement with that other company for which the insurance acts as collection Agent. Further, failing to pay on the financing will not result in no insurance, because as stated it is already paid for in full for the year.

How he knows this, is due to an accident he had several years ago, where the person had given him her insurance declaration, but told him she had not paid the policy for 2 months, and wanted to settle. He went to the insurance company and they paid up, 11k.

Well he has me sold. Makes perfect sense.

Couldn't she just not have wanted him to claim of her insurance, that is far more believable to me. So we can all pay 1 month premium, not pay again then be insured for 1/12th the cost? There would be no insurance companies or no more monthly payments. Absurd

[AndyPandy]

Interesting theory he has, i think he basically believes that the insurance policy is paid in full for the year when you agree to make monthly payments, by the financing party, and that the agreement to pay monthly is actually a financing agreement with that other company for which the insurance acts as collection Agent. Further, failing to pay on the financing will not result in no insurance, because as stated it is already paid for in full for the year.

How he knows this, is due to an accident he had several years ago, where the person had given him her insurance declaration, but told him she had not paid the policy for 2 months, and wanted to settle. He went to the insurance company and they paid up, 11k.

Well he has me sold. Makes perfect sense.

Couldn't she just not have wanted him to claim of her insurance, that is far more believable to me. So we can all pay 1 month premium, not pay again then be insured for 1/12th the cost? There would be no insurance companies or no more monthly payments. Absurd

But your insurance company will pay out if you're hit by an uninsured driver, as long as your premiums are upto date they'll pay.

[PeanutGallery]

Also all insurance companies have to make a contribution to a fund specifically for paying for damage and injury caused by uninsured drivers or drivers who subsequently flee the scene and refuse to give details. https://www.mib.org.uk/making-a-claim/c ... ed-driver/

The MIB would then take civil action against the uninsured driver, if identified, to recover as much of their losses as possible so driving without insurance is really idiotic and also a criminal offence. In the above scenario it would seem that the payments for the insurance premiums had lapsed, this could cause the policy to be cancelled (which is bad news for the at fault driver).

[hucknallred]

The youtube comments facility is there to enlighten viewers

[Bones]

Simon show what a complete fraud and fool he is

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

When you sign the credit agreement the bank owe the amount the credit agreement is for and should pay it.

Yes Simon, you idiot, that is actually what happens, when you apply for the loan, the bank give you the money to the person that signed the credit agreement (exceptions include mortgages and restricted credit agreements)

[Tuco]

Simon show what a complete fraud and fool he is

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

When you sign the credit agreement the bank owe the amount the credit agreement is for and should pay it.

Yes Simon, you idiot, that is actually what happens, when you apply for the loan, the bank give you the money to the person that signed the credit agreement (exceptions include mortgages and restricted credit agreements)

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

That's why you never see originals, only photocopies.

[Bones]

Simon show what a complete fraud and fool he is

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

When you sign the credit agreement the bank owe the amount the credit agreement is for and should pay it.

Yes Simon, you idiot, that is actually what happens, when you apply for the loan, the bank give you the money to the person that signed the credit agreement (exceptions include mortgages and restricted credit agreements)

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

That's why you never see originals, only photocopies.

So that I can understand you correctly, are you referring to the mortgage deed, being the security for the loan or are you refering to the agreement being the credit agreement ?

In your "expert opinion" what is it you are actually claiming has been sold and are you refering to a sale in equitable or at law ?

You might want to take a look at a mortgage sale agreement, before responding, if you would like a link to one, please let me know, I am also happy to oblige

[Tuco]

As Simon Goldberg states at the start of his video that the figure involved was "three and a half grand", my expert opinion determined that this was not a mortgage and more likely to be a bank loan or credit card agreement.

Thank you for the offer of a link to mortgage stuff but I don't think it is relevant to this debate. The video specifically refers to credit agreements, NOT mortgage deeds.

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