UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Tuco]

It is undoubtedly a breach-Of that there is no doubt.

Tuco..........."It is undoubtedly" is not a cite.

It is your opinion.

Until the courts agree with you it will remain to be your opinion and nothing more.

Your premise is flawed.

For once in your sorry life can you stop being so pathetically pedantic?

It is not my opinion, it is clear as daylight, in much the same way that punching someone on the nose is an assault.

If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.

[Tuco]

. It is good to cite authority for legal claims - not a requirement, but you deserve what you get if you insist you're right on the law without any proof.

Tuco"s position is bizarre.
He claims he is right. He says he has many authorities that prove he is right. He refuses to reveal those authorities because he is right and being right is good enough.

In addition to this accurate post, I would add that nobody has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary. The situation was there long before I joined the thread. All we had was video after video of Simon Goldberg and pathetic little comments that he's a freetard etc. No actual evidence or proof that what he was claiming is wrong. In fact, most didn't even understand what he was saying yet still chose to afford us their "expert" opinion.

Proof & evidence works both ways Rumps me old pal.

[longdog]

If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.

That part of your argument is correct.

The rest of your argument unfortunately is complete and utter bollocks.

[Tuco]

If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.

That part of your argument is correct.

The rest of your argument unfortunately is complete and utter bollocks.

Opinions are frowned upon on here mate.

You have to post evidence and/or proof. Given that you have no idea what we're discussing, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[Henti]

That was a common idea going round the fora a few years ago. It holds no water but that's not the main point. Even if there was a DPA breach, that wouldn't render an agreement unenforceable. There is a connection between enforceability and CRA reporting as per Grace v Blackhorse but that goes the other way, it refers to reporting on agreements that have been ruled unenforceable.

While we are arguing about the DPA, what happens when an entire portfolio is sold to another company? Like A&L cards sold to MBNA, Eggs to Citi then Barclays, etc. In these case there may be both live and defaulted accounts. They can still be enforced by the new owner who is not in breach of the DPA for being in possession of all those personal details.

In fact if you look at the FCA guide it advises the new DC on how to report data on the transferred account.

I think the argument here was not relating to the DCAs reporting on the account, which is also covered by the Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies, but to the fact that, by passing your data to a third party without your consent, the banks were in breach of the DPA and that could, somehow, be used to dispute the account. I would love that to be true, as I don't care much for the debt purchasing industry, but then I would also love it if Santa brought me a million quid for Christmas.

Really banks transfer accounts all the time some times in vast numbers.

They may for Instance securitize. Sometimes if they have a more profitable product, they will sell existing loans in order to capitalise their assets, and fund the expansion of that product

Wasn't that behind the global financial cri$i$ of 2008? A.k.a. the credit crunch?

I was working for Bank of NY at the time, we did a few presentations about it.

Yes it was, or it was them who got the blame,. Mostly sub private sub lenders I think starving banks of capital. Is that right ?

[daveBeeston]

If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.

That part of your argument is correct.

The rest of your argument unfortunately is complete and utter bollocks.

And the irony is that by not meeting his obligations to pay he is the only one breaching one of the terms of the contract, strange that he doesn't seem to bothered by that point.

Oh and Tuco your on my blocked list which mean i don't see your posts aimed at me so you may want to focus your efforts on others as replying to me won't achieve anything.

[Henti]

Forum wars
I think reporting data is the same thing , they still need the debtors details and they are supplied by the first creditor.
8n fact if you look at credit tagrements the provisionre sometimes combined.

The creditor has to right to share data for ......... and data reporting.

[Henti]

Forum wars
I think reporting data is the same thing , they still need the debtors details and they are supplied by the first creditor.
8n fact if you look at credit tagrements the provisionre sometimes combined.

The creditor has to right to share data for ......... and credit reporting.

[Henti]

Personally I have never seen a term in an agreement which says we will not share data.
It may say that they will comply with data protection principles, but that's not the same thing.

[rumpelstilzchen]

For once in your sorry life can you stop being so pathetically pedantic?

Law can be pedantic.

It is not my opinion,

Yes it is.

it is clear as daylight,

Yet the courts appear to disagree with you.

in much the same way that punching someone on the nose is an assault.

Not in every circumstance. But that's just me being pedantic eh?

If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.

Show us the contract so that we can read it in its entirety. You see there might be something else lurking in there.

[Henti]

In fact if you look at the FCA guide it advises the new DC on how to report data on the transferred account.

I think the argument here was not relating to the DCAs reporting on the account, which is also covered by the Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies, but to the fact that, by passing your data to a third party without your consent, the banks were in breach of the DPA and that could, somehow, be used to dispute the account. I would love that to be true, as I don't care much for the debt purchasing industry, but then I would also love it if Santa brought me a million quid for Christmas.

Really banks transfer accounts all the time some times in vast numbers.

They may for Instance securitize. Sometimes if they have a more profitable product, they will sell existing loans in order to capitalise their assets, and fund the expansion of that product

Wasn't that behind the global financial cri$i$ of 2008? A.k.a. the credit crunch?

I was working for Bank of NY at the time, we did a few presentations about it.

Yes it was, or it was them who got the blame,. Mostly sub prime lenders starving banks of capital. Is that right ?

[longdog]

If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.

That part of your argument is correct.

The rest of your argument unfortunately is complete and utter bollocks.

Opinions are frowned upon on here mate.

You have to post evidence and/or proof. Given that you have no idea what we're discussing, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Actually the burden of proof falls on you.

The crux of your claim is that the transfer of data to a third party (which you say is not allowed but the real world says otherwise) entitles you to renege on on your contractual obligation to pay your debts. That a breach of data protection means that you are no longer bound by ANY aspect of the loan agreement.

You have been told repeatedly by everybody and their dog that you are wrong and it has been explained to you repeatedly by everybody and their dog WHY you are wrong.

You have claimed you can prove your argument with solid evidence.

When you have been asked... Repeatedly... To produce this evidence you have refused to do so and then gone on to repeat your claim that you could produce evidence but that you just don't want to.

Conclusion... You couldn't carry an argument in a bucket.

[ForumWars]

In fact if you look at the FCA guide it advises the new DC on how to report data on the transferred account.

I think the argument here was not relating to the DCAs reporting on the account, which is also covered by the Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies, but to the fact that, by passing your data to a third party without your consent, the banks were in breach of the DPA and that could, somehow, be used to dispute the account. I would love that to be true, as I don't care much for the debt purchasing industry, but then I would also love it if Santa brought me a million quid for Christmas.

Really banks transfer accounts all the time some times in vast numbers.

They may for Instance securitize. Sometimes if they have a more profitable product, they will sell existing loans in order to capitalise their assets, and fund the expansion of that product

Wasn't that behind the global financial cri$i$ of 2008? A.k.a. the credit crunch?

I was working for Bank of NY at the time, we did a few presentations about it.

Yes it was, or it was them who got the blame,. Mostly sub private sub lenders I think starving banks of capital. Is that right ?

There are two government backed giants in the US set up to buy mortgages off the lenders: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I don't think there is a UK equivalent. They were set up to enable banks to lend more by securitizing their mortgages.

The big investment banks also got in on the game of mortgage securities and they were less risk averse than the giants above, because they were able to offload their securities, via the infamous credit default swaps. There were a lot of complex financial instruments doing the rounds, some only a handful of people were able to understand.

I wonder what those who argue against the sale of mortgages and debts would have to say about all this securitizing, which did not involve the mortgagees at all.

Let's not forget that the lovely Henry Paulson, Treasury Secretary at the time, was previously CEO of Goldman Sachs. I can smell a big, fat rat there.

[Arthur Rubin]

(Sorry to go further afield, but there is another of Tuco's false statements which he has not been called on.)

Tuco has stated that he has won in court. According to detailed statements later, none of the DCAs actually took him to court. I think it most probable that they dropped it because they would have to pay a solicitor to read his nonsense, which would cost considerably more than the £2,000 in question.

[Tuco]

(Sorry to go further afield, but there is another of Tuco's false statements which he has not been called on.)

Tuco has stated that he has won in court. According to detailed statements later, none of the DCAs actually took him to court. I think it most probable that they dropped it because they would have to pay a solicitor to read his nonsense, which would cost considerably more than the £2,000 in question.

Not good enough Arthur I'm afraid.

What you think "most probable" is irrelevant. You know the drill.

I find it strange that both bottled it don't you? Just think if you & the Quatools gang were around eh? These DCAs would be much more in pocket. You clearly all know better than they do.

In the first instance, the DCA issued proceedings, a solicitor was engaged. I then issued a counterclaim.

From memory, the sum in question was circa £8k. Now the DCA had already paid the solicitor for the preparation as well as the issuing fee. The only real costs left were the "on the day" fees. I'd say the hearing would have been set for 3 hours and that the fees incurred would have been less than £2k. I think that even you and your blinkered mates would be pushed to justify withdrawing at that stage. The mathematics show that it was commercially viable to proceed.

[longdog]

(Sorry to go further afield, but there is another of Tuco's false statements which he has not been called on.)

Tuco has stated that he has won in court. According to detailed statements later, none of the DCAs actually took him to court. I think it most probable that they dropped it because they would have to pay a solicitor to read his nonsense, which would cost considerably more than the £2,000 in question.

Not good enough Arthur I'm afraid.

What you think "most probable" is irrelevant. You know the drill.

I find it strange that both bottled it don't you? Just think if you & the Quatools gang were around eh? These DCAs would be much more in pocket. You clearly all know better than they do.

In the first instance, the DCA issued proceedings, a solicitor was engaged. I then issued a counterclaim.

From memory, the sum in question was circa £8k. Now the DCA had already paid the solicitor for the preparation as well as the issuing fee. The only real costs left were the "on the day" fees. I'd say the hearing would have been set for 3 hours and that the fees incurred would have been less than £2k. I think that even you and your blinkered mates would be pushed to justify withdrawing at that stage. The mathematics show that it was commercially viable to proceed.

And Tom Crawford won his case and the moon is made of cheese.

I call bullshit.

[NYGman]

I'd say the hearing would have been set for 3 hours and that the fees incurred would have been less than £2k. I think that even you and your blinkered mates would be pushed to justify withdrawing at that stage. The mathematics show that it was commercially viable to proceed.

That's the crux of it for you, isn't it?? You think why would they withdraw, if they had a case. You will entertain no other options as being viable, even though yours is supported by a Fantasy and other reasons could be bound in reality. The Lawyer may have had a conflict, perhaps it was a bluff, and they hadn't done all the work. Perhaps it was easier to cut their losses. Fact is there are a plethora of more viable, credible reasons for them not following through. What you think, isn't important, what we know is that you are wrong on the law. The fact you never got to test it was likely do to luck... I would not count on it working every time, and would not advise it to be a position to take by anyone.

[Tuco]

(Sorry to go further afield, but there is another of Tuco's false statements which he has not been called on.)

Tuco has stated that he has won in court. According to detailed statements later, none of the DCAs actually took him to court. I think it most probable that they dropped it because they would have to pay a solicitor to read his nonsense, which would cost considerably more than the £2,000 in question.

Not good enough Arthur I'm afraid.

What you think "most probable" is irrelevant. You know the drill.

I find it strange that both bottled it don't you? Just think if you & the Quatools gang were around eh? These DCAs would be much more in pocket. You clearly all know better than they do.

In the first instance, the DCA issued proceedings, a solicitor was engaged. I then issued a counterclaim.

From memory, the sum in question was circa £8k. Now the DCA had already paid the solicitor for the preparation as well as the issuing fee. The only real costs left were the "on the day" fees. I'd say the hearing would have been set for 3 hours and that the fees incurred would have been less than £2k. I think that even you and your blinkered mates would be pushed to justify withdrawing at that stage. The mathematics show that it was commercially viable to proceed.

And Tom Crawford won his case and the moon is made of cheese.

I call bullshit.

Oh really? Quelle surprise. here's one for you:

Arthur said:

Tuco has stated that he has won in court

What Tuco actually said:

11.43 am yesterday:

I can only tell you that in two cases involving myself, neither reached court

2.01 pm yesterday:

In one of my personal cases, the DCA engaged a solicitor and instigated proceedings. I believe that the amount allegedly owed was circa £8k at the time. Clearly it did make economical sense to them. I issued a counterclaim for monies that I had already paid to the DCA. They dropped their claim.

it seems to me that if you lot were to take your heads out of your backsides for 5 minutes and actually sit down and read what has been said, that you'd discover it is not me who is posting the bullshit and not me who is misconceived.

[Tuco]

I'd say the hearing would have been set for 3 hours and that the fees incurred would have been less than £2k. I think that even you and your blinkered mates would be pushed to justify withdrawing at that stage. The mathematics show that it was commercially viable to proceed.

That's the crux of it for you, isn't it?? You think why would they withdraw, if they had a case. You will entertain no other options as being viable, even though yours is supported by a Fantasy and other reasons could be bound in reality. The Lawyer may have had a conflict, perhaps it was a bluff, and they hadn't done all the work. Perhaps it was easier to cut their losses. Fact is there are a plethora of more viable, credible reasons for them not following through. What you think, isn't important, what we know is that you are wrong on the law. The fact you never got to test it was likely do to luck... I would not count on it working every time, and would not advise it to be a position to take by anyone.

Funniest post I've read for about a week.

Give yourself a big pat on the back Gman.

[JimUk1]

You are a fine example of the something for nothing culture.

That's my last say on the matter.