KDL blames GOODF for fine

[mufc1959]

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... hFtRPlViko

I came to this website because i was desperate and needed help and advice. I was only following some of the "advice" (i know it isn't advice but i couldn't think of another word/term). If it turns out that this is now wrong and i get walloped in court for it i'll be fuming.

[letissier14]

They asked for help on Sat 3rd October

And then moaning about the advice on Sun 4th October

Don't sound right to me

[mufc1959]

They asked for help on Sat 3rd October

And then moaning about the advice on Sun 4th October

Don't sound right to me

I think the timeline is that he'd read the 'advice' and watched Ceylon's videos a while ago and, following Ceylon's assertions that you can ignore a summons because it's only an invitation, duly ignored it. Now he's been fined for ignoring it, and is unhappy about it.

From his other posts, it looks as if he's dipped his toe into the woo for a few months, as a result of which he now has CCJs and bailiffs turning up, not to mention this latest fine.

[notorial dissent]

Well, when you take advice from idiots, congenital or otherwise, you get what you deserve, and it would seem they did.

[Hercule Parrot]

Well it's entirely up to you, you can keep on ignoring it all and hope it goes away (doubtful, and they'll just keep adding on more and more costs and fines, meaning visits from bailiffs Court Officers, followed by warrants of arrest, threats of bankruptcy etc. Etc. ) or you can deal with it.

Not the first time I've seen sensible advice given by Tiggy over there. Can't imagine it's very welcome on GOOFY, quoting pretend Acts and recommending payment of liabilities etc. Perhaps Tiggy ought to come over to Team Q?

[FatGambit]

Tiggy, and for that matter Failjay, are diamonds in the rough over there. It would be good if they came here, but I doubt they will, say what you want about GOODF but there are some over there genuinely trying to make a difference, it's just a shame they are mostly drowned out by the likes of Zark ansd Jimmy etc. Dare I say it, but Q is not about helping people in that way, it's about picking holes in theories and generally ridiculing GOODF members (not that I'm saying some of them don't deserve it with their 'ignore it return it to sender' crap).

I remember one of the first times I tried to help someone over there who had received a ccj, I explained a few things and gave my experience of attending a redetermination hearing, you,d have thought I had eaten someone's first born by the reaction of some over there.

[Skeleton]

Tiggy, and for that matter Failjay, are diamonds in the rough over there. It would be good if they came here, but I doubt they will, say what you want about GOODF but there are some over there genuinely trying to make a difference, it's just a shame they are mostly drowned out by the likes of Zark ansd Jimmy etc. Dare I say it, but Q is not about helping people in that way, it's about picking holes in theories and generally ridiculing GOODF members (not that I'm saying some of them don't deserve it with their 'ignore it return it to sender' crap).

I remember one of the first times I tried to help someone over there who had received a ccj, I explained a few things and gave my experience of attending a redetermination hearing, you,d have thought I had eaten someone's first born by the reaction of some over there.

Well said, I dipped my toe in over Jimmy's mad mortgage strike idea, politely saying that deliberately not paying your mortgage was probably not the best idea and got the same type of reaction. I was a shill who was causing trouble and should be banned, funnily enough though the thread died about two posts later so maybe some listened.

[Hercule Parrot]

Tiggy, and for that matter Failjay, are diamonds in the rough over there. It would be good if they came here, but I doubt they will, say what you want about GOODF but there are some over there genuinely trying to make a difference, it's just a shame they are mostly drowned out by the likes of Zark ansd Jimmy etc. Dare I say it, but Q is not about helping people in that way, it's about picking holes in theories and generally ridiculing GOODF members (not that I'm saying some of them don't deserve it with their 'ignore it return it to sender' crap).

Fair point. But the decent members could go to CAG or Legal Beagles, where good advice is welcome.

[fortinbras]

They wanted to get out from their debts without actually paying them.

You can always find free cheese in a mousetrap.

[Jeffrey]

Remind me what was that court judgement that stated roughly "the common law remedy for unpayable debts is bankruptcy"?

We didn't attend the "Summons" as it was from the council and not the court, nor was it signed, nor stamped. We also thought that as it was the Council it was a private hearing i.e. they'd hired the room out for the day and paid the clerk? As this was the situation we also thought that it was unlawful as they had no authority to do this?

Should we go down the list of why this is all bullshit.

[*]From the council not the court
[*]not signed
[*]not stamped
[*]private hearing
[*]rented the room and paid the clerk
[*]unlawful

All these memes are misinformation promoted by Ceylon and GOODF.

[Skeleton]

Remind me what was that court judgement that stated roughly "the common law remedy for unpayable debts is bankruptcy"?

We didn't attend the "Summons" as it was from the council and not the court, nor was it signed, nor stamped. We also thought that as it was the Council it was a private hearing i.e. they'd hired the room out for the day and paid the clerk? As this was the situation we also thought that it was unlawful as they had no authority to do this?

Should we go down the list of why this is all bullshit.

[*]From the council not the court
[*]not signed
[*]not stamped
[*]private hearing
[*]rented the room and paid the clerk
[*]unlawful

All these memes are misinformation promoted by Ceylon and GOODF.

This is one of the many faults I find with GOODF and FMOTL in general. They never claim that something may be unlawful or claim the warrant may need to be signed etc, they state that it is unlawful and the warrant must be signed etc. Sadly people blindly accept their "facts" are true without checking.

[FatGambit]

Remind me what was that court judgement that stated roughly "the common law remedy for unpayable debts is bankruptcy"?

We didn't attend the "Summons" as it was from the council and not the court, nor was it signed, nor stamped. We also thought that as it was the Council it was a private hearing i.e. they'd hired the room out for the day and paid the clerk? As this was the situation we also thought that it was unlawful as they had no authority to do this?

Should we go down the list of why this is all bullshit.

[*]From the council not the court
[*]not signed
[*]not stamped
[*]private hearing
[*]rented the room and paid the clerk
[*]unlawful

All these memes are misinformation promoted by Ceylon and GOODF.

I wouldn't call it all bullshit, and if my experience is anything to go by even everyday Joe Public doesn't realise papers sent from Northampton are genuine Court papers. I won't bore you with the specifics other than to say we successfully had the claim withdrawn by the claimant and all our defence rested on was statute of limitations and law and properties act, this was for a neighbour with Carter/Lowell, but had she originally done what she intended before I got involved (chucking the paperwork in the bin i because people not in the remotest way associated with GOODF were telling her the Court isn't a real one), she would now have a ccj for several thousand pounds for a debt she ran up 15 yeas ago. Anyway I digress, my point is, this person is probably totally genuine in their belief, it doesn't necessarily come from GOODF (although I think it's safe to assume the likes of zark, Jimmy et all didn't help).

[FatGambit]

Tiggy, and for that matter Failjay, are diamonds in the rough over there. It would be good if they came here, but I doubt they will, say what you want about GOODF but there are some over there genuinely trying to make a difference, it's just a shame they are mostly drowned out by the likes of Zark ansd Jimmy etc. Dare I say it, but Q is not about helping people in that way, it's about picking holes in theories and generally ridiculing GOODF members (not that I'm saying some of them don't deserve it with their 'ignore it return it to sender' crap).

Fair point. But the decent members could go to CAG or Legal Beagles, where good advice is welcome.

I believe at least one came from one of those sites, don't know why though. I do know those sites are not too keen on the 'prove it' ethology, which for me is quiet ironic considering it was the exact advise given to me by a rather expensive solicitor several years ago, iirc unless thing has changed they both have the main ethos of negotiate not fight.

I'm not saying GOODF is the shining light of enlightenment, it would be such a better site if they turfed out the nutters and changed the name, but there is good advise and people hidden over there, personally I've given up on the place cos of the nutters and lies, I think the place has a good base, but has gone in the wrong direction away from it's core values of prove it and make them fight to everybody is corrupt so unless it's signed/stamped it's not genuine and you can just ignore it, or even create a court yourself and dismiss it crap....

[Hercule Parrot]

Fair point. But the decent members could go to CAG or Legal Beagles, where good advice is welcome.

I believe at least one came from one of those sites, don't know why though. I do know those sites are not too keen on the 'prove it' ethology, which for me is quiet ironic considering it was the exact advise given to me by a rather expensive solicitor several years ago, iirc unless thing has changed they both have the main ethos of negotiate not fight.

I'm not saying GOODF is the shining light of enlightenment, it would be such a better site if they turfed out the nutters and changed the name, but there is good advise and people hidden over there, personally I've given up on the place cos of the nutters and lies, I think the place has a good base, but has gone in the wrong direction away from it's core values of prove it and make them fight to everybody is corrupt so unless it's signed/stamped it's not genuine and you can just ignore it, or even create a court yourself and dismiss it crap....

I have no problem with the 'prove it' approach. If a large financial body can't satisfy a court that there is a debt to recover then they don't deserve to recover it (or to be in business at all). I understand desperate people will use any loophole or delaying tactic the law allows, and I would do the same in their shoes. The problem with GOOFY, as you say, is the layer beyond that. The OPCA idiots, who too often go unchallenged.

[PeanutGallery]

They wanted to get out from their debts without actually paying them.

You can always find free cheese in a mousetrap.

The trick to getting free cheese from a mousetrap of course is to make absolutely sure you aren't the first mouse to try it.

Which is what I think the majority of GOODF posters are trying to do, pushing someone else off the cliff to see if they survive the landing.

[PeanutGallery]

I have no problem with the 'prove it' approach. If a large financial body can't satisfy a court that there is a debt to recover then they don't deserve to recover it (or to be in business at all). I understand desperate people will use any loophole or delaying tactic the law allows, and I would do the same in their shoes. The problem with GOOFY, as you say, is the layer beyond that. The OPCA idiots, who too often go unchallenged.

The problem with the "prove it" approach adopted by GOODF is that they will always find a reason why the proof isn't valid to them. Sure they borrowed the money, but the thing was the money was created when they signed the contract agreeing to pay it back, therefore it was their money all along and since it was theirs, why should they pay it back.

The banks can prove it, but the idiots don't understand the proof, fortunately courts do.

[wanglepin]

[*]From the council not the court
[*]not signed
[*]not stamped
[*]private hearing
[*]rented the room and paid the clerk
[*]unlawful

All these memes are misinformation promoted by Ceylon and GOODF.

They are indeed and Ceylon Mark Haining does this with intent to mislead.

[mufc1959]

I have no problem with the 'prove it' approach. If a large financial body can't satisfy a court that there is a debt to recover then they don't deserve to recover it (or to be in business at all). I understand desperate people will use any loophole or delaying tactic the law allows, and I would do the same in their shoes. The problem with GOOFY, as you say, is the layer beyond that. The OPCA idiots, who too often go unchallenged.

I agree. I've had arguments with people at work about them taking a punt on trying to recover a debt that they know is statute-barred, but hoping that the borrower won't realise it. If you've done nothing to try to get your money back for six years, then you've lost the right to try to claim it, so don't try to bamboozle someone who's never heard of the Limitation Act 1980 to try to make them pay. That's not fair.

But on the other hand, we've seen a rise in the number of people who refuse to accept that they've entered into a valid, legally-binding agreement to pay back the money they've borrowed, for various Freetard reasons. No sympathy with them at all.

[Skeleton]

I have no problem with the 'prove it' approach. If a large financial body can't satisfy a court that there is a debt to recover then they don't deserve to recover it (or to be in business at all). I understand desperate people will use any loophole or delaying tactic the law allows, and I would do the same in their shoes. The problem with GOOFY, as you say, is the layer beyond that. The OPCA idiots, who too often go unchallenged.

I agree. I've had arguments with people at work about them taking a punt on trying to recover a debt that they know is statute-barred, but hoping that the borrower won't realise it. If you've done nothing to try to get your money back for six years, then you've lost the right to try to claim it, so don't try to bamboozle someone who's never heard of the Limitation Act 1980 to try to make them pay. That's not fair.

But on the other hand, we've seen a rise in the number of people who refuse to accept that they've entered into a valid, legally-binding agreement to pay back the money they've borrowed, for various Freetard reasons. No sympathy with them at all.

If you have chased someone for 6 years via baliffs etc and are still trying and but they have managed to avoid paying does the debt still become statute-barred?

[mufc1959]

If you have chased someone for 6 years via baliffs etc and are still trying and but they have managed to avoid paying does the debt still become statute-barred?

No.If bailiffs are involved, then there will have been a CCJ. Once a creditor has a CCJ the Limitation Act doesn't put any time limits on how long they have to enforce that judgment. If a CCJ is more than six years old, and the creditor wants to use enforcement action, they need permission of the court. But if they've been chasing it within the six years, they don't.