UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[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.

Yes, but that's really not the point. What's important is the seriousness and effect of the breach.

For example - My mortgage agreement might say that the bank will send me notice of interest rate changes by first class post. If some HQ bean-counter decides to send them out second class instead, what will be the likely effect if I challenge this as a breach :

A : The bank will have to delay the increase of interest rate on my account by 48hrs to allow for late notice?
B : The bank will have to re-serve the notice correctly before they can implement the increased rate?
C: The bank will be permanently unable to implement this interest rate increase on my mortgage?
D: The bank will be unable to implement any future interest rate increase on my mortgage?
E: The mortgage agreement is void, I can keep the house without paying back the loan?

I could imagine a court favouring the first couple of options, maybe even C with exceptional advocacy. But non-performance of a particular term does not automatically lead to fundamental or repudiatory breach. And nor should it, because if I'm a day late with my payment one time I don't want the bailiffs coming round.

Yes, others have highlighted this and I accept that argument. Although I do not underestimate the seriousness in failing to protect a persons data, I also accept that it is not a pivotal term of the contract. Bear in mind that there is also misrepresentation by not informing the borrower that his signed agreement, containing all of his data is going to vanish off the face of the earth.

The problem really arises further on down the line when the new owner of the debt inherits this problem. The original lender can have no real input by this stage, making any claim very flimsy.

[longdog]

Agreements are traded.

True.

They are done so without the debtors knowledge,

False.

[Tuco]

Agreements are traded.

True.

They are done so without the debtors knowledge,

False.

This should be good ( ):

Can you please tell us (you can even provide proof if you like) where it says in a credit agreement that:
1. The agreement is going to be traded
2. It is the borrowers signature that guarantees the instrument
3. The instrument, containing all the borrowers private data is going to disappear into the dark echelons of the financeial sector.

[NYGman]

But non-performance of a particular term does not automatically lead to fundamental or repudiatory breach. And nor should it, because if I'm a day late with my payment one time I don't want the bailiffs coming round.

I should also point out, if the contract is breached, and is no longer valid as Tuco argues, then in essence isn't the loan recalled at that point, and bank would have an equitable claim for all the principal back, at a minimum. Courts will not look favorably on unjust enrichment, and while there may be some leeway granted to pay it back, it will still be a debt you owe. One parties breach should not enrich the other, unjustly. They should be put back in the position that they were prior to the contract.

[NYGman]

Can you please tell us (you can even provide proof if you like) where it says in a credit agreement that:
1. The agreement is going to be traded
2. It is the borrowers signature that guarantees the instrument
3. The instrument, containing all the borrowers private data is going to disappear into the dark echelons of the financeial sector.

WHy does this have to be in the agreement?

1. It usually is in the agreement, that they can sell, transfer, etc, an obligation, without consent, as you consent when signing.
2. How is this even relevant? Explain?
3. Why is this of any relevance. Your information is safeguarded and used according to the DPA, End of story. I will add, there is notice to this effect in the agreements.

[Tuco]

But non-performance of a particular term does not automatically lead to fundamental or repudiatory breach. And nor should it, because if I'm a day late with my payment one time I don't want the bailiffs coming round.

I should also point out, if the contract is breached, and is no longer valid as Tuco argues, then in essence isn't the loan recalled at that point, and bank would have an equitable claim for all the principal back, at a minimum. Courts will not look favorably on unjust enrichment, and while there may be some leeway granted to pay it back, it will still be a debt you owe. One parties breach should not enrich the other, unjustly. They should be put back in the position that they were prior to the contract.

Damages will be required to be paid for the failure to keep safe the data.

The balance of the loan should suffice.

[Tuco]

Can you please tell us (you can even provide proof if you like) where it says in a credit agreement that:
1. The agreement is going to be traded
2. It is the borrowers signature that guarantees the instrument
3. The instrument, containing all the borrowers private data is going to disappear into the dark echelons of the financeial sector.

WHy does this have to be in the agreement? Because full disclosure is required

1. It usually is in the agreement, that they can sell, transfer, etc, an obligation, without consent, as you consent when signing. Yes we know-Its been said many times already. that's not the point though-we're not talking about the debt being sold or transferred, we are talking about the original copy of the agreement
2. How is this even relevant? Explain?Because when the original copy is sold, the borrowers signature guarantees it, therefore (s)he has a right to know this
3. Why is this of any relevance. Your information is safeguarded and used according to the DPA, End of story. I will add, there is notice to this effect in the agreements.

Not if the original agreement is traded its not

[Bones]

As Tuco is unable to post any cases or legislation (or for that matter any other form of supporting evidence) - Lets talk about the White Rabbit

Found this on GOODF (yes it is, before any asks )

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... it#p365912





Evidence that Simon Goldberg, is nothing but a fraud and a snakeoil salesman.

Whilst telling people to challenge their own mortgage, like a good little boy, he reached an agreement with his bank and has been paying cash every month

So I would not be so quick to put any faith in anything claimed by the White Rabbit

[Burnaby49]

I checked this discussion this afternoon to find it had increased another four pages since my last look at it. All to no purpose. This is all just going around in circles. Clearly any explanation any of you make will not get tuco to admit that he is wrong and you are right. Yesterday Wes took a flamethrower to much of the recent posting but to no visible effect. It's like trying to prune Kudzu. So what's the point? It's just giving extra work to the moderators who have to review this but it won't resolve anything if resolving means changing opinions as a result of argument and discussion.

How in God's name can they be right? On what grounds? Half of the clowns don't even understand the point, they think I am challenging the assignment of a debt.

The few that do are tripping over themselves t try to cover up the reprehensible behaviour of the banks and they will post anything that means that there is no way of not paying them.

If these idiots continue to post crap, I will continue to answer them and correct them.

Agreements are traded. They are done so without the debtors knowledge, despite it being the borrowers signature that guarantees the instrument. Once that agreement disappears, the protection of the borrowers data goes with it.

What is so wrong with stating that?

As I said it's endless. So stop responding to him and he'll have no platform.

[Tuco]

You do realize that most of these clowns take themselves very seriously don't you?

It will be very hard for some to stop responding.

[NYGman]

I'm out. It is pointless. Obviously I don't have the Same level of legal skills as Tuco. I guess those years of law school were wasted. I will now adopt an "I am right, because! You prove me wrong" attitude in all my legal endeavors.

It is just pointless, we will never change his mind and he will continue to believe in his legal theories.

Facts are facts, and Tuco really doesn't know why they didn't go after him, he can only guess or speculate. Who knows what idiot he spoke too, could have been a PA for all we know.

So I am happy to say goodbye to this thread, it was beginning to look like the Python argument sketch.

Edit: needed to be added https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Hercule Parrot]

Yes CCAs will buy debts in blocks of hundreds or more.

Is that where you got your infamous "on block" comment from? ie "DCAs buy debts on block"

I am not sure what you are talking about now.

"in blocks of" and "en bloc" basically mean the same thing. Tuco is confused, or attempting to confuse others.

[Hercule Parrot]

It is just pointless, we will never change his mind and he will continue to believe in his legal theories.

I have now blocked Tuco's posts. He's just saying the same things again and again, needlessly provocative and impervious to reality.

[Dr. Caligari]

Agreements are traded.

What do you mean by that? You sound like you are talking about something other than an assignment. If so, you're wrong.

They are done so without the debtors knowledge,

Wrong.

despite it being the borrowers signature that guarantees the instrument.

Wrong.

Once that agreement disappears, the protection of the borrowers data goes with it.

What is so wrong with stating that?

Because not one bit of it is true.

[Tuco]

It is just pointless, we will never change his mind and he will continue to believe in his legal theories.

I have now blocked Tuco's posts. He's just saying the same things again and again, needlessly provocative and impervious to reality.

I do love it when these self opinionated people give us a running commentary on their internet activity.

They're that full of themselves and that deluded that they genuinely believe that people give a fcuk.

The funny thing is, they rarely do block people because they are that bothered about what is being said about them.

[littleFred]

Tuco's claim is (I think) that the piece of paper with the debtor's signature has some value, independent of the loan agreement. So the creditor sells the piece of paper.

I am curious about this theory, and I'd like to hear Tuco's opinion:

How much is the paper worth? Is it some proportion of the loan, or what?

Who pays the creditor for the piece of paper? What value is it to them? Where does the value come from? If they are merely paying money for a signature, why do they do this? Where do they get the money from to pay for these pieces of paper?

We've all heard these theories before, of course. But that's all we've heard, theories. Do you have any actual evidence?

Suppose it is true, and the piece of paper is sold. Does that make any difference to you? You agreed to pay the loan back, didn't you? If the paper is sold, how would that get you out of that agreement?

[aesmith]

Should we start a new thread to discuss DD clawbacks?

[Tuco]

Tuco's claim is (I think) that the piece of paper with the debtor's signature has some value, independent of the loan agreement. So the creditor sells the piece of paper.

I am curious about this theory, and I'd like to hear Tuco's opinion:

How much is the paper worth? Is it some proportion of the loan, or what?

Who pays the creditor for the piece of paper? What value is it to them? Where does the value come from? If they are merely paying money for a signature, why do they do this? Where do they get the money from to pay for these pieces of paper?

We've all heard these theories before, of course. But that's all we've heard, theories. Do you have any actual evidence?

Suppose it is true, and the piece of paper is sold. Does that make any difference to you? You agreed to pay the loan back, didn't you? If the paper is sold, how would that get you out of that agreement?

Thank you for at least making the effort to read what I have posted Fred.

Regarding my opinion, it appears that I am forbidden from holding one on this forum. It seems akin to some obscure cult, whereby only the regulars may furnish opinions (and boy do they do just that).

I have previously stated that I have no idea how much an individual paper is worth. The fact that it is traded several times suggests to me at least that there will be no set value of an individual instrument.

I think that we both know that the real value of the instrument is zero and I have previously stated that it is my opinion that this trading (that was carried out over many years) was a large contributory factor in the banking crash of a few years ago. I think we also know that no physical cash was paid and it was just figures entered onto a balance sheet somewhere but (on paper at least) this contributed into falsifying a banks profits.

The problem that I have Fred is I'm being asked for proof of this, that and the other. later on, someone will ask me for proof of something entirely different again. It is almost a template response from morons who don't understand what they are talking about and/or have lost an argument.

It of course affects me because my private data vanishes and is exposed to untold people. How do I know it has not been sold in order to make even more money? How do I know that part of my junk email is not from this data being exposed, when the person whom I placed my utmost trust in promised to safeguard it?

I ask you Fred-What other institution systematically gets rid of vital original documents and then replaces them with photocopies. One of the photocopies I personally received was broadly unintelligible, it was that bad. They can't all be lost behind filing cabinets as one bright spark claimed earlier, or be lying around in boxes in Bones loft. I have seen evidence of a handful of these agreements resurfacing and they were all either stamped or endorsed, signifying trading. Argue that they haven't done anything wrong by trading them, by all means but please don't insult my intelligence by attempting to claim that it never happened. You'll be in denial of the holocaust next.

The reason that this argument is frowned upon so fiercely on here is because it has been hijacked by fmotl (albeit in a misconceived fashion). I am not on the fmotl witch hunt. If something is wrong, I don't care who supports the idea or who opposes it. If it is wrong, it needs to be pointed out.

Sadly, it is a lost cause on here as many posters appear to possess the brains of a chaffinch.

[Gregg]

Words, words, words.

How about some verifiable proof to support your allegations?

Otherwise, drop it.

Drop what?

How about some verifiable proof some of the other muppets to support the crap that they have come out with?

Please explain to me what my "allegations" are?

You say they abandoned legal action because you convinced them your bullshit scared them off. And they told you that was the reason, you filed a counterclaim and they surrendered in fear of your legal prowess.
A copy of the letter would do.
This isn't something that they would call you on the phone and tell you. So, if you can't show us the letter, which should caption a court case that could be verified, I'm calling you a liar.

And because I and others in management are nigh fed up with you trying to compensate for your underlying self loathing by telling tales on our forum, I am hereby invoking a longstanding policy we have regarding people who brag about flouting the law. In the future, any claim you make in reference to breaking the law or beating your creditors should be accompanied by verifiable proof lest it be deleted. In short, if you claim it, prove it, and if you won't or can't prove it, ho;d your lying tongue.

[longdog]

I ask you Fred-What other institution systematically gets rid of vital original documents and then replaces them with photocopies.

What you are talking about are almost certainly not photocopies but either a computer printout of a scanned document stored on somebody's server or a printout from a microfilm. The original has either been destroyed or is in long-term storage at a document management facility. This is a very common method of reducing costs in many industries.

When I was in the document management industry up until 12 years ago it was moving from microfilm to scanning but the general M.O was this.

1 ) Company sends one week's / month's / year's / project's / production run's / whatever worth of documents to bureau.

2 ) Bureau sorts documents according to customer's requirements. (optional)

3 ) Bureau microfilms / scans documents.

4 ) Bureau indexes microfilm or scanned images. (optional)

5 ) Bureau delivers microfilm / data files with indexing data to customer.

or

5b ) Bureau adds microfilm to 'vault' and returns only indexing data to customer.

6 ) Bureau stores original documents for a period agreed with customer to allow time for customer to check all is OK with film / data.

7 ) After agreed period or on instruction from customer original documents are securely shredded and sent off to be recycled. A destruction certificate is sent to the customer.

8 ) If a copy of a destroyed document is needed it is looked up on the index and printed out either from the film or the computer file.

9 ) If a printout is amended / annotated and needs to be preserved it goes back to 1) and repeats the process. Hence the abysmal quality of some records.

This, or something similar, is a common system used by industries in pretty much every sector from financial to pharmaceutical and there's nothing suspicious, underhand or conspiratorial about any of it. It's done for the very obvious practical reason that it reduces costs associated with in-house storage to say nothing of the sheer volume. Costs for the above were around a penny a page for filming / scanning and about another penny per page for indexing although that could vary wildly from 0.1ppp to 20ppp depending on the work needed. In physical volume terms it was like putting the contents of one large van into a shoebox with microfilm or one medium sized truck into a DVD for scanning.

These days a great many organisations are skipping most of the above stages by not producing hard copy documents unnecessarily at all and scanning and then shredding other documents themselves as they go along.

So you can see that it's not a question of replacing the original with a photocopy so that the original can be sold for a profit or any other idiotic conspiracy. The original doesn't exist any more because we don't live in the Victorian era.

As I said before... You seem to be assigning to the original loan agreement with your precious signature some sort of talismanic power it doesn't have. If you experiment with living in the 21st century you might realise that.