Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[rumpelstilzchen]

Complaining about the letter is not going to make the debt go away.
IMO it's a good letter. It"s about time these freetards get put in their place.

[letissier14]

It is correct that an individual can't complain to the FCA.

However here is part of the actual reply from the FCA regarding that Letter ...

Although we cant intervene or investigate individual matters we are interested in cases where firms have broken our rules or demonstrated poor levels of conduct. As the information you have provided concerns me, I have now forwarded this information to the appropriate supervisory area for their consideration and action as appropriate.

A quick internet search of the company will show that this is not a one off.

As for the "FREETARDS" being put in their place, we don't actually know what their letter they sent contained. Also not everyone who sends the 3 letters is a "FREETARD" as many of these people find sites like GOODF as a last resort and are so desperate that they will try anything to get out of debt.

I found myself on GOODF all those years back because I was also in debt and was hounded into the ground by debt collectors who simply refused any offer I made them, and at one point made me feel suicidal. They were phoning family members and even my work at the time.

In my opinion, until such time that debt collection companies treat debtors like they are supposed to as under the rules and regulations of both the FCA and the CSA, people will continue to end up on sites like GOODF.

[rumpelstilzchen]

letissier 14 wrote:

As for the "FREETARDS" being put in their place, we don't actually know what their letter they sent contained

If you read the letter it is obvious that the freetard's letter(s) contained the typical freetard's belief they could implement a foisted unilateral contract making some kind of fee schedule enforceable. That's not how contract law works.

[Bones]

It is correct that an individual can't complain to the FCA.

However here is part of the actual reply from the FCA regarding that Letter ...

Although we cant intervene or investigate individual matters we are interested in cases where firms have broken our rules or demonstrated poor levels of conduct. As the information you have provided concerns me, I have now forwarded this information to the appropriate supervisory area for their consideration and action as appropriate.

A quick internet search of the company will show that this is not a one off.

As for the "FREETARDS" being put in their place, we don't actually know what their letter they sent contained. Also not everyone who sends the 3 letters is a "FREETARD" as many of these people find sites like GOODF as a last resort and are so desperate that they will try anything to get out of debt.

I found myself on GOODF all those years back because I was also in debt and was hounded into the ground by debt collectors who simply refused any offer I made them, and at one point made me feel suicidal. They were phoning family members and even my work at the time.

In my opinion, until such time that debt collection companies treat debtors like they are supposed to as under the rules and regulations of both the FCA and the CSA, people will continue to end up on sites like GOODF.

"I have now forwarded this information to the appropriate supervisory area for their consideration and action as appropriate" = It has been filed away in the bin or in a desk somewhere, never to be thought of again

Without wishing to disagree with you, people go to the Consumer Action Group because they have been unfairly treated. People usually (but I admit not always) go to GOODF to find ways of getting out of paying their debt.

Even if the lender acted perfectly, people would still go to Get Of Debt Free (the name says it all) to try and get out of paying a debt that they owe. Let's be honest here, on GOODF lender behaviour is used as an excuse not to pay the debt nothing more.

Just look at all the DD claims that were made

GOODF is now nothing more than a site to try and "help" people to not pay their debts and really just helps them lose their home and/or become bankrupt (Tom and Jimmy to name a few).

[letissier14]

letissier 14 wrote:

As for the "FREETARDS" being put in their place, we don't actually know what their letter they sent contained

If you read the letter it is obvious that the freetard's letter(s) contained the typical freetard's belief they could implement a foisted unilateral contract making some kind of fee schedule enforceable. That's not how contract law works.

I find it quote offensive that you can call someone a freetard because they sent a letter that contained a fee schedule.

Like I said until you have been in that position, you have no idea what people are going through.

I was in that position once and sent letters with a fee schedule, and at the time I had no idea if you could claim that or not, as all I was interested in was getting them off my back and getting my life back on track. I couldn't afford a solicitor at the time and was even having trouble getting an appointment with CAB.

It's not as clear cut as you think that anyone using the 3 letters is a "retard" - lots of these people are genuine and are down on their luck and just need a break.

I've noticed recently how this group is becoming increasingly judgmental on various issues.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I find it quote offensive that you can call someone a freetard because they sent a letter that contained a fee schedule.

Like I said until you have been in that position, you have no idea what people are going through.

I was in that position once and sent letters with a fee schedule, and at the time I had no idea if you could claim that or not, as all I was interested in was getting them off my back and getting my life back on track. I couldn't afford a solicitor at the time and was even having trouble getting an appointment with CAB.

It's not as clear cut as you think that anyone using the 3 letters is a "retard" - lots of these people are genuine and are down on their luck and just need a break.

I've noticed recently how this group is becoming increasingly judgmental on various issues.

First off, let me make one thing clear. I have been in that position. Eighteen years ago my business was failing. I had debts coming out of my ear'oles and my mortgage provider had been granted an Order for possession (Suspended). So I do know what it is like to be in that downward spiral. But, at no point did I attempt to claim that I did not owe what I owed. I accepted that those who were chasing me did have a valid claim. At no point did I try and get out of my obligations by claiming their claims were not valid. They were and I accepted that. So please do not make assumptions. I worked with everyone who I owed and slowly but surely I got myself out of the hole. The mortgage company agreed on a repayment plan, they agreed to freeze all interest on the arrears and in the end I got there. I worked with them. I did not tell them the "Fuck off, you created the money out of thin air" bullshit.
You complain about my use of the word "freetard". The freetard is not a case of "can't pay". Nothing wrong with "can't pay". Many of us have been there. The freetard believes he does not have to pay. He has taken the money and then decides he has no obligation to honour his agreement. "Can't pay but I will try my hardest" is not the same as "Go fuck yourself".
You have to ask yourself why would anyone take legal advice from one of life's losers such as Ceylon when it is obvious he has spunked his own life away?

[notorial dissent]

My take on the letter was that it was not the beginning of the chain, but more near the end after all the required niceties and boiler plate had been issued, and was after an ever escalating issuance of nonsense, non-cooperation, and general belligerence from the client.

[Hercule Parrot]

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.

Yes, a bit too much rhetoric and clumsy phrasing but good to see nonetheless. Would like to see more banks, energy suppliers & councils etc adopting this no-nonsense approach. There's no point in trying to explain or negotiate with a GOOFy debt-denier, so just tell them the truth :-

Crazy template letters and pretend-legal nonsense from the internet will not make this debt go away. If you won't pay, we can obtain court orders to recover it from your home or other property, your bank account, benefits, pension or wages. All the extra costs will be recovered from you, so we don't really mind either way. If you need sensible help with a debt problem, please go to Citizens Advice or National Debtline. Don't make this worse for yourself.

[letissier14]

And what do you say about the amount of debt collectors harassing debtors, refusing to deal with them fairly, chasing debts that they are clearly not entitled to?

[Burnaby49]

And what do you say about the amount of debt collectors harassing debtors, refusing to deal with them fairly, chasing debts that they are clearly not entitled to?

We're getting off topic and into flame-war territory so cut it out. This is not the place to discuss the generalized topic of harassment of debtors by rogue collectors.

[rumpelstilzchen]

There's no point in trying to explain or negotiate with a GOOFy debt-denier,

Exactly. Even if a collector successfully rebuts every point made by the GOOF it won't make any difference. The GOOF will ignore and just come back with more garbage. Best to nip it in the bud like this letter does.

[AndyPandy]

There's no point in trying to explain or negotiate with a GOOFy debt-denier,

Exactly. Even if a collector successfully rebuts every point made by the GOOF it won't make any difference. The GOOF will ignore and just come back with more garbage. Best to nip it in the bud like this letter does.

I think this may be too generalistic as it appears to me a lot of people who initially post on GOOF have no idea what a 'Freeman' is or what the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) are. They are on the whole, people who've got into debt and want easy solutions as to how to deal with the mess they've got themselves in.

There are of course, the hard core free loaders, but if you read some of the more general questions it's quite clear a lot are simply clueless about the '3 letter process' and will just follow it blindly without having the slightest clue why for instance you sign in red ink under the sovereign family signature nonsense.

[FatGambit]

And what do you say about the amount of debt collectors harassing debtors, refusing to deal with them fairly, chasing debts that they are clearly not entitled to?

We're getting off topic and into flame-war territory so cut it out. This is not the place to discuss the generalized topic of harassment of debtors by rogue collectors.

I don't see how this is flame war simple because you don't agree with one of the views being expressed. Like my discussion with Yiam about something a while ago, although we completely disagree, we remained civil, it only becomes a flame war when one or both sides start provoking the other with insults, I don't know about anybody else but I don't see that here.

In relation to what rumple said, he stated that he worked with his creditors and sorted stuff out, that's a bit different to dealing with an aggressive and intimidating debt collector harassing a person for money long after the original creditor has written off the debt, it is completely fair and understandable for someone to make these companies prove what they are claiming, after all I'm pretty sure if a big burly bloke walked up to you in the street and said 'I'm here to collect the £35 overdraft fee you owe to HSBC from 2008, you gotta pay £700 now with our charges on top' you would not take him at his word and hand over the money, even if you knew you did owe HSBC the money? Or would you?

That's all a lot of these people are doing, asking for proof, and whether they use a solicitor or a letter downloaded off the internet to do it, should not receive the response the person got in that letter. I'll admit some of the 'principles' employed by GOODF are a bit crazy, I've never felt the need to copyright my name or send a fee schedule out detailing £10000 an hour rates, but I have written to several debt collectors and told them until they provide me with the same proof they would need to provide a court, I will charge them £15 a hour for my time used every time I have to write a response.

It's not about trying to get out of paying ones debts, it's about the principle of actually paying the person you owe the money to, and not some cretin who bought the 'rights' to hassle you for payment for 1p in the £ of what you owed.

[Burnaby49]

I don't see how this is flame war simple because you don't agree with one of the views being expressed. Like my discussion with Yiam about something a while ago, although we completely disagree, we remained civil, it only becomes a flame war when one or both sides start provoking the other with insults, I don't know about anybody else but I don't see that here.

As you will note I didn't say we were in the middle of a flame war I said we were heading towards one. I prefer to cut it off early because when we get into one I tend to moderate with a very heavy hand.

The reason I see this going there is that the discussion is getting totally disconnected from the facts and is moving into personal conjecture. The only fact is a letter, we have absolutely no information on the backstory leading to it. So posters are filling in the blanks based on their own views. These can range from a timorous cowering debtor terrified of harassment by debt collectors and desperately trying what seem like possible remedies to the other end of the spectrum of worthless parasitic deadbeats trying to game the system with bullshit. Any point at either end or anything in between is equally pointless speculation.

You've just implied a scenario where a perfectly reasonable debtor is just asking for proof he owes money. You provided some irrelevant comparison to some thug approaching you on the street and demanding it. Perhaps this is the case, a debtor uncertain of the debt. But that, like all the other comments is just conjecture. As is this;

It's not about trying to get out of paying ones debts, it's about the principle of actually paying the person you owe the money to, and not some cretin who bought the 'rights' to hassle you for payment for 1p in the £ of what you owed.

If that "cretin" has bought the debt for a trivial amount then he is the "person you owe the money to". And if the debt has ended up being factored out there is no uncertainty in the debtor's mind that he owes it since the original creditor has already tried, and failed, to collect.

In any case I'm not going to allow argument based on pure speculation.

[FatGambit]

That's fair enough but in some cases debt collectors don't buy the debt, only the right to request repayment on it, this was confirmed to me by a very nice solicitor sitting across from me in Judge's chambers once, right before the Judge threw out the claim stating as they only had limited rights which did not include enforcing the contract in court.

Using the thug analogy was probably wrong, but I notice you didn't answer how you would respond to it, so I'll put it slightly differently, you got into strife with the bank a few years ago and left under acrimonious circumstances to take your banking businesses elsewhere, after a few half hearted attempts to collect the outstanding overdrawn charges, the bank seemingly gave up and you haven't heard from them since. Fast forward three years and there's a knock at your door from a stranger saying he works for XY Company and he is there to arrange repayment of the outstanding balance due to GQ Bank, do you immediately invite him in and settle up, or do you ask him to prove what he is saying?

Are you seriously saying it is totally wrong and unreasonable to ask a completely, unrelated stranger, to prove what they are saying before handing over money to them? Because that's the impression you are giving me.

[Burnaby49]

Are you seriously saying it is totally wrong and unreasonable to ask a completely, unrelated stranger, to prove what they are saying before handing over money to them? Because that's the impression you are giving me.

I wasn't commenting on whether or not your general comment was correct but that it had no context within the discussion. It's just your position on an issue that you've brought up. If you are going into opinion they need to be based on the facts of the discussion. As I've said there are no facts in this discussion except a letter with no backstory and I don't want posters using that as a blank canvas to make one up. If you can ascertain the actual story behind the letter feel free to share it.

[Skeleton]

I am with Rumpelstilzchen on this one, their is a world of difference between can't pay and won't pay, I to have been down a hole, not a deep one but it was bad enough, I was behind with my CT, my mortgage, and the utilities, I was up front, honest and explained my position to the Council, who were notorious for sending the Bailiffs straight in, my mortgage company, and the utility people, they gave me some breathing space, I kept to my word and things were soon back on track.

Not once did I consider using the services of sites such as GOODF or FB groups which promote methods to lose your debts for "free," I could not and never would try and get out of debt by what I consider to be deceitful methods and that is exactly what Ceylon and others are promoting. I agree their probably does need to be changes in the way DCA's operate, especially their apparent way of magically plucking a figure out of the air and adding it to the bill, but sites like GOODF and BTBATB need to be trod on firmly, like it or not it is apparent many are on their trying to avoid paying what they owe, that is bad enough, but sending someone a bill because you owe them money which they are trying to collect I find truly abhorrent.

As to the question of wether I would ask for proof before paying a DCA that had bought a debt, yes I would ask, but that is exactly what I would ask for. I would not be sending them letters full of meaningless goobledegook demanding to see this, that and the other, billing them for my time, or issuing them with notices to stop sending bills, or anything else to avoid paying.

[Burnaby49]

We had a lot of deny-the-debt schemes here in Canada. It was the flavour of the month where debtors would go to court on the basis that the creditor could not prove that there was a debt. They didn't deny that there was a debt nor deny that they'd borrowed the money, just that the bank or other debtor couldn't give sufficient proof to legally enforce on it. "Sufficient" was a flexible word in these cases. They wanted wet-ink signatures (whatever that was supposed to mean) and this and that and tried to convince the courts that if the bank couldn't meet all their demands for proof then the debt was gone. It died out after they kept losing. It might have even preceded the three-five letter scheme which was also very big in Vancouver. I have a pile of three-five letter documents "notarized" by Chief Rock Sino General and used to try and get cars out of hock, fines paid, extort money from restaurants, on and on. They too eventually died out when even the densest of the local freeman realized that they didn't work.

[Burnaby49]

Then, as if a deliberate rebuke to what I just said, I just ran across this;

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_1942 ... o-know_p5/

Check out number 2.

[FatGambit]

Are you seriously saying it is totally wrong and unreasonable to ask a completely, unrelated stranger, to prove what they are saying before handing over money to them? Because that's the impression you are giving me.

I wasn't commenting on whether or not your general comment was correct but that it had no context within the discussion. It's just your position on an issue that you've brought up. If you are going into opinion they need to be based on the facts of the discussion. As I've said there are no facts in this discussion except a letter with no backstory and I don't want posters using that as a blank canvas to make one up. If you can ascertain the actual story behind the letter feel free to share it.

Ever thought of running for office? You'd fit right in.

I don't see the point of continuing this since you obviously won't give a straight answer, it's a simple question, even Skeleton gave a yes/no, I'm not asking you to comment on the letter, but trying to establish why you seem to be giving me the impression that asking for proof is wrong. If you want factual stories then try this one for size, small credit card debt, offers of token payments while I got myself back on my feet to the credit card company were refused, eventually they stopped sending me letters. 8 years later one of the big debt collectors contacts me telling me to arrange repayment of the outstanding balance, as I owe it to them now, you tell me what I should have done, and i.'ll tell you what I did, and the result.

This has nothing to do with the letter, I'm asking your opinion on what you would have done in my situation.