Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[NigelJK]

All viewing should be pay as you watch, regardless of the medium. The tariff should be set on how popular the program is. The BBC should still have a 'public broadcaster' remit and use it's most successful shows to subsidise those in the public interest. Not simple I know, but better than the mess we have now.

[YiamCross]

I don't know who this is but clearly their attempts to use something akin to the 3 letter system and threatening to charge the company millions for time, infringement of copyright or whatever, are not going down very well. Maybe a bit of an aggressive response from the company concerned but then I suppose their patience must have an end and this is what happens when it's reached.

[Burnaby49]

I'd call it tough love. The more polite, "we are unfortunately unable to accept your documents, please contact us to resolve this issue" approach just seems to encourage them. A jolt like this might not work either but it is a reality check and leaves no ambiguity.

[AndyPandy]

I don't know who this is but clearly their attempts to use something akin to the 3 letter system and threatening to charge the company millions for time, infringement of copyright or whatever, are not going down very well. Maybe a bit of an aggressive response from the company concerned but then I suppose their patience must have an end and this is what happens when it's reached.

That's brilliant Yiam, where did Ms Rickard post that, what's been the reaction and has her dog crapped on that letter ??

[YiamCross]

That's brilliant Yiam, where did Ms Rickard post that, what's been the reaction and has her dog crapped on that letter ??

No idea, someone posted it on my Eviction Fraud of the bank- NOT! page. I'll pass on any updates as and when but I don't think it's likely to get any better for Ms whatshername.

[notorial dissent]

Not even half subtle, but a flat out no nonsense smack up the side of the head. Wonder if it did any good?

[FatGambit]

Doubtful, it'll probably just egg the person on more.

Given George did not write without prejudice on the letter, it could be used in a defence to properly argue non-compliance, and if they happen to get a really clued up Judge, George could find himself on the wrong side of said Judge, but the likely hood of that hapenning is minimal as the person will probably write back with the usual wowo instead of tackling things directly.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Doubtful, it'll probably just egg the person on more.

I bloody well hope so!

[mufc1959]

Thank you, Yiam, for this, it provided all of us in my office with a big laugh at our morning meeting.

[morrand]

I don't know who this is but clearly their attempts to use something akin to the 3 letter system and threatening to charge the company millions for time, infringement of copyright or whatever, are not going down very well. Maybe a bit of an aggressive response from the company concerned but then I suppose their patience must have an end and this is what happens when it's reached.

A response that firm deserves to be transcribed into the record here:

GuardRec

Reference: GR-5151-2454.001
Da[ted:] February 2016

[address obscured by a wad of Silly Putty, or gum, or some such thing]

Dear Ms Rickard


VERY IMPORTANT—DO N [obscured]

Re: Anc[...haven Limited]
Amount Due: £631.03
Case Reference: GR-5151-2454.001


In reply to your letter of 10th February 2015: -

1. The courts and we take no notice of misguided attempts to avoid payment of legitimate sums owed by the use of standard letters that can be obtained from the Internet that have no basis in law or in fact.
2. You are not the first to try: the last person who tried is now losing his home because I have had the courts order his property to be sold at auction to pay his debt because he was too pig headed and stubborn to deal with the matter as it should have been and pay what is rightly owed. Do you want to be the next?
3. Your tactics may work with the uninitiated — they do not work with us.

Do not even think about trying to enforce spurious charges that have no basis in law or in fact against us or our client. Do not think that your letter to us forms some sort of binding contract in respect of your spurious claim of charges—it does not as has been proven in the High Court. I will use the full facilities available to me through the courts to both recover the debt you owe and dismiss any claims of charges made by you; while the latter may take longer to resolve and involve some expense (perhaps that is your reasoning and intent) I assure you that you will ultimately end up paying both the debt and any additional costs incurred.

Do not correspond further unless it is in respect of making settlement of your debt. Further nonsense correspondence of the type displayed in your letter of 10th February 2016 will be dismissed for the utter and complete drivel that it is.

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
George McKay
Recoveries Manager

[footer omitted]

[YiamCross]

I don't know if this bloke is serious or just putting out some satirical parody. You make your minds up.

https://www.facebook.com/daniel.o.bosto ... 650495924/

Sorry for all those who can't see facebook, there's no link to the actual video.

[AndyPandy]

I can't see this ending well, this is the first post, the 2nd post is a letter he's sending to the court which is just pure comedy gold and well worth a read just for the sniggering value, I'm predicting a visit from plod for contempt because he's 'not wasting a days holiday to attend Court'!!

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... sjQonrfWK0

Hi all human beings. My journey up to this point has been a mix of wonderful events rudely interrupted by the greedy hands of bankers and the enforced rules of society in the form of Acts of Parliament. I am a good honest soul and never intentionally caused another human being loss, harm or fraud. I am not an outgoing person and prefer to get on with life with as little fuss as possible. The reason I started on this road of freedom was because I had been the victim of bullying at work by one of my peers. This event made me very depressed at the time and made me look at who I really was and how I could bring this evil person to book. The upshot was, I was swept up in a disciplinary case at work, he got off lightly with more training and continues to bully to this day. I reluctantly quit my job, I learned some about "Freemen", "Strawmen" and the basic difference between Lawful and Legal !!
My problem if anyone can help, is with a fixed penalty fine. I was allegedly doing 58mph in a 50 zone policed by estimator cameras, I ignored all mail forthcoming as it was not signed for mail. Initially the charge was 3 points and £100. It was then escalated to Failure to Supply which carries 6 points and now £811.00 fine. I called the court and explained that I hadn't been aware of any charge in the first place. I had to write to the court and explain this. I got another hearing at magistrates court on Mon 22 Feb. I believe there is no evidence barring circumstantial ( I am the registered keeper) and/or ever having received any mail relating to any such charge. I have a string of printed signatures and no signatures at all on some mail and two police signatures serving as witnesses. It all looks like bullshit but they have already informed me that a chargeing order will be sent to my employer. I have spoken to my employer and he says they have to pay. My only option was to delay things by getting it back to court. My concern is if I go to court I will be rail-roaded, possibly like everyone else attending courts that day. I f I go to court I'm not sure how I should be approaching things...... any positive input will be very gratefully received.

[letissier14]

I don't know who this is but clearly their attempts to use something akin to the 3 letter system and threatening to charge the company millions for time, infringement of copyright or whatever, are not going down very well. Maybe a bit of an aggressive response from the company concerned but then I suppose their patience must have an end and this is what happens when it's reached.

A response that firm deserves to be transcribed into the record here:

GuardRec

Reference: GR-5151-2454.001
Da[ted:] February 2016

[address obscured by a wad of Silly Putty, or gum, or some such thing]

Dear Ms Rickard


VERY IMPORTANT—DO N [obscured]

Re: Anc[...haven Limited]
Amount Due: £631.03
Case Reference: GR-5151-2454.001


In reply to your letter of 10th February 2015: -

1. The courts and we take no notice of misguided attempts to avoid payment of legitimate sums owed by the use of standard letters that can be obtained from the Internet that have no basis in law or in fact.
2. You are not the first to try: the last person who tried is now losing his home because I have had the courts order his property to be sold at auction to pay his debt because he was too pig headed and stubborn to deal with the matter as it should have been and pay what is rightly owed. Do you want to be the next?
3. Your tactics may work with the uninitiated — they do not work with us.

Do not even think about trying to enforce spurious charges that have no basis in law or in fact against us or our client. Do not think that your letter to us forms some sort of binding contract in respect of your spurious claim of charges—it does not as has been proven in the High Court. I will use the full facilities available to me through the courts to both recover the debt you owe and dismiss any claims of charges made by you; while the latter may take longer to resolve and involve some expense (perhaps that is your reasoning and intent) I assure you that you will ultimately end up paying both the debt and any additional costs incurred.

Do not correspond further unless it is in respect of making settlement of your debt. Further nonsense correspondence of the type displayed in your letter of 10th February 2016 will be dismissed for the utter and complete drivel that it is.

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
George McKay
Recoveries Manager

[footer omitted]

For the record this firm is under investigation by the FCA for sending this letter out.

Regardless of using the 3 letters or not, the response from this firm was absolutely wrong

[Chaos]

I will laugh my ass off if it's proven to be a fake.

[notorial dissent]

So all of this whining and stupid is over a traffic fine he didn't pay and ignored, and then ignored the warnings, and now he's ignoring the magistrate's court and managed to turn a small fine in to a really big one, and I'm expecting it to turn in to jail time and a loss of license before all is said and done. You really have to work to accomplish stupid like that.

[notorial dissent]

While I am quite sure that the firm has been so reported, I fail to see that there is any valid grounds for complaint.

[letissier14]

While I am quite sure that the firm has been so reported, I fail to see that there is any valid grounds for complaint.

Because the content of the letter breaks the rules and regulations as set by the FCA in their Consumer Credit
sourcebook

[Skeleton]

Has to be fake, no way is any company going to be associated with a letter like that. Its good though.....

[longdog]

While I am quite sure that the firm has been so reported, I fail to see that there is any valid grounds for complaint.

Because the content of the letter breaks the rules and regulations as set by the FCA in their Consumer Credit
sourcebook

We don't know how many other letters there had been in each direction prior to that one.

It would be very unprofessional to send that letter out in response to a a polite if misguided letter asking for more information in the first instance but as a "We're fed up with your shit so get f**ked!" after months of freeman woo it seems perfectly good.

[Bones]

It would be most unusual for the FCA to investigate that firm based on that letter.

The FCA itself does not investigate consumer complaints about any regulated or authorised firms. That is the purpose of the FOS and not the FCA.

Whilst that letter is unprofessional, at most the most significant breach would be no referral rights to the FOS. However, that letter would appear to have been sent not in response to a complaint but an attempt to dispute the debt, so referral rights would not necessarily be required.

This may be of interest

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP.pdf

Whilst the letter is very poorly written, I don't really see an issue with what is said - pay or we will take you to court - that message is most likely accurate

Also, in my time, I have seen a lot worse than that, with no action taken