Mark "Ceylon" Haining, Goofy GOODFer

[arayder]

I saw a comment from Ceylon that the famous three letter's weren't appropriate if you own a house.

The routine by which a guru claims some qualification to a previously thought to be universally applicable theory is getting really tiresome.

[TheNewSaint]

I saw a comment from Ceylon that the famous three letter's weren't appropriate if you own a house. That must surely be an admission that they don't work as claimed.

That doesn't even make any internal sense. The three letters (as described under Item #2 here) say that you are creating a strawman, creating a tacit agreement with the debt collector, then enforcing that agreement once 30 days have passed. If this were a real legal process, what would owning or not owning a home have to do with it? Do you forfeit your strawman when you buy a home, or something?

[NYGman]

Does he mean to say, it doesn't work for mortgages, a la Tom Crawford? If it did work, then all TC had to do was fire off the three letters, and he would still be living in Castle Crawford. I do not believe there was any evidence of TC using the three letters, although he may have asked about it at one point...

[NYGman]

I will also note that Item #1 here is great. Yes, you can print Address Unknown Stickers, with the GetOutOfDebtFree.com logo on the bottom. Using not know at this address stickers from a template offered by a get out of debt free website will let the debt collector know that they have the correct person. How genuinely stupid!

[TheNewSaint]

Does he mean to say, it doesn't work for mortgages, a la Tom Crawford?

Again, why would that be? The argument underpinning the three letter approach is that the debt is owed by your strawman, not you. Why would mortgages be any different in this regard?

I get what you're saying, I'm just pointing out how internally inconsistent it all is.

[NYGman]

Does he mean to say, it doesn't work for mortgages, a la Tom Crawford?

Again, why would that be? The argument underpinning the three letter approach is that the debt is owed by your strawman, not you. Why would mortgages be any different in this regard?

I get what you're saying, I'm just pointing out how internally inconsistent it all is.

None of what Ceylon posts is logical. If the 3-letter ploy worked, why did he not have TC do that, instead of going to court all those times? It has been explained and and pointed out to Ceylon, that the three-letter ploy doesn't actually work. And that wile a Debt collector may just choose to pass on follow up once they get one of these letters, knowing the type of people who send them, that is their call. The letters are not legally binding on anyone, and have no chance of success.

However, what confuses them is that some debts are eventually dropped as uncollectable, your credit takes a hit, and they move on. I guess you could say all being equal, an debtor that sends in the 1st letter to an unsecured creditor, may be more likely to see the case dropped, especially if the amounts are small. However, with larger debts, I don't think it has an impact, and if you have any assets, it would be worth their while to collect.

[arayder]

I have often wondered what goes on in the minds of gurus like Haining when their made up theories and methods turn out to be so unsuccessful. It seems to me that at the first hint of failure they start coming up with stories for the purpose of keeping their reputations intact.

[NYGman]

I have often wondered what goes on in the minds of gurus like Haining when their made up theories and methods turn out to be so unsuccessful. It seems to me that at the first hint of failure they start coming up with stories for the purpose of keeping their reputations intact.

It is never their fault. The TBTB, the Judges, the Police force all just don't understand the laws. Perhaps the next Judge, lawyer, policeman, etc will understand, until then, he will keep trying. If only they would listen to Ceylon explain it all, the world would be a better place for it...

[TheNewSaint]

They're sociopaths. Nothing is never their fault. Everyone else exists to serve them. They have no concern for anyone but themselves. They have no concept of empathy whatsoever. They view themselves as important and powerful people when they are anything but. Sociopathy is a central element to being a freedman, I have long felt.

[Pottapaug1938]

I have often wondered what goes on in the minds of gurus like Haining when their made up theories and methods turn out to be so unsuccessful. It seems to me that at the first hint of failure they start coming up with stories for the purpose of keeping their reputations intact.

It is never their fault. The TBTB, the Judges, the Police force all just don't understand the laws. Perhaps the next Judge, lawyer, policeman, etc will understand, until then, he will keep trying. If only they would listen to Ceylon explain it all, the world would be a better place for it...

All these Evil Entities understand the laws, all right; but they are so corrupt, and find that oppressing the masses is so lucrative for The Insiders, that they refuse to enforce them.

This makes me wonder -- if they are right and the courts are hopelessly corrupt, why do they bother trying to explain The Once Secret But Newly Revealed Truth to these people, when they know that they will be ignored?

[NYGman]

Perhaps they hold out hope that one day they will find an "Honest man"

[Firthy2002]

I guess you could say all being equal, an debtor that sends in the 1st letter to an unsecured creditor, may be more likely to see the case dropped, especially if the amounts are small. However, with larger debts, I don't think it has an impact, and if you have any assets, it would be worth their while to collect.

I believe you are correct, based on my own observations following the crowd from GOODF, BTBAB et al.
The majority of those that get zeroed following any hint of trouble seem to be unsecured, smaller balances of a few hundred quid whereas someone trying on the 3 letters with several grand owing usually feels the full force of the DCA, sometimes with a template response of "nice try, see you in court unless you pay up now".

[letissier14]

I've seen many debts written off in the 5/6k range with the biggest one I've seen at 14k

[ArthurWankspittle]

I've seen many debts written off in the 5/6k range with the biggest one I've seen at 14k

Any ideas if pre or post 2007 changes in the law? I can see some debts that looked enforceable turning into a waste of time where things like the debtor becomes long term sick, where you will be lucky to get a couple of quid a week out of them or rather their benefits money. If they owe 5k and you're going to collect 100-150 a year it's useless pursuing.

[letissier14]

The 14k one was last year. They simply had no chance on collecting anything from the person as they had nothing. Woukd have been a waste of time even making them bankrupt.

[PeanutGallery]

The 14k one was last year. They simply had no chance on collecting anything from the person as they had nothing. Woukd have been a waste of time even making them bankrupt.

It would also be an example of throwing good money after bad. Some debts simply cannot be collected on because of a lack of assets. While it is unfortunate for the creditor, realistically they should have been more careful as to who they extended that level of credit towards.

[Pox]

The 14k one was last year. They simply had no chance on collecting anything from the person as they had nothing. Woukd have been a waste of time even making them bankrupt.

I wonder whether the debt was written off totally or just put on the 'back boiler'?
Circumstances can change - someone could receive an inheritance, compensation for something?
I am owed some money by someone (money that I could really do with!) coming up to 4 years now. I have done nothing to try and recover it as,on paper,the debtor has nothing. But, the debtor will inherit a large amount - I just hope that it is before the 6 years run out but even if it is after 6 years, I am led to believe that all may not be lost.
Re 3 letters if a debtor has equity in a property and why they arent recommended - my view - they know they don't really work unless the debt is so small it isn't worth the hassle to a creditor. With equity in a property it's much simpler so the creditor will always take action.

[letissier14]

They were going to use the 3 letters before finding me on a group on Facebook. They explained they had nothing whatsoever, was on benefits and with serious health problems. I got them to write to the debt collector explains their situation, including an expenditure breakdown, and explain that their situation was never going to change and in line with the CSA and FCA guidelines, ask the debt collector to write the debt off. The debt collector replied a few weeks later confirming that a decision was made to write off the debt and that it was now closed.

[NYGman]

They were going to use the 3 letters before finding me on a group on Facebook. They explained they had nothing whatsoever, was on benefits and with serious health problems. I got them to write to the debt collector explains their situation, including an expenditure breakdown, and explain that their situation was never going to change and in line with the CSA and FCA guidelines, ask the debt collector to write the debt off. The debt collector replied a few weeks later confirming that a decision was made to write off the debt and that it was now closed.

And that is the right way to do it. I am sure many who have followed the GOOFY route, could have done the right thing and had the debt written off, with none of the Bailiff and court actions we keep seeing. But will the GOOFY folk do the right thing, what do you think?

[katiHWB]

I've seen many debts written off in the 5/6k range with the biggest one I've seen at 14k

Any ideas if pre or post 2007 changes in the law? I can see some debts that looked enforceable turning into a waste of time where things like the debtor becomes long term sick, where you will be lucky to get a couple of quid a week out of them or rather their benefits money. If they owe 5k and you're going to collect 100-150 a year it's useless pursuing.

pre-2007 they are meant to supply the original agreement in response to a CCA request ... post 2007 they can just send a re-con (mock up of what would have been sent at the time). Either would need a full copy of the T&Cs applicable at the time and also copies of any 'changes' that have been made since conception