Mark "Ceylon" Haining, Goofy GOODFer

[TheNewSaint]

the reason they had so much "success" using the 3 letters, was simply due to the fact that most agreements they were dealing with at the time were pre 6th April 2007 and many were found to be unenforceable in law.

Can someone explain what exactly happened on April 6, 2007 that changed things? Clearly there was a law or court ruling on that date, but I'm still fuzzy on the details.

[Bones]

I presume the Consumer Credit Act 2006 which made amendments to the original 1974 act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/14/contents

[AndyPandy]

the reason they had so much "success" using the 3 letters, was simply due to the fact that most agreements they were dealing with at the time were pre 6th April 2007 and many were found to be unenforceable in law.

Can someone explain what exactly happened on April 6, 2007 that changed things? Clearly there was a law or court ruling on that date, but I'm still fuzzy on the details.

That's when major amendments to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 were made, basically, it repealed Section 127(3).

3)The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

There was Case Law of Carey vs HSBC which said that reconstituted agreement (instead of the actual agreement) could be produced and enforced.

For pre April 2007 agreements they still have to produce the actual, signed agreement.

[TheNewSaint]

Good to know. Thank you.

[letissier14]

For pre April 2007 agreements they still have to produce the actual, signed agreement.

I have seen quite a few cases where the Judge simply ignored this and entered judgment against the debtor regardless. This is where lots of trouble stems from as there doesn't seem to be any kind of consistency is many hearings.

[aesmith]

I have seen quite a few cases where the Judge simply ignored this and entered judgment against the debtor regardless. This is where lots of trouble stems from as there doesn't seem to be any kind of consistency is many hearings.

I could see the justice in that if the debtor had been operating say a credit card for a number of years, then suddenly start defaulting. In that case I can't see how he could reasonably deny that an agreement of some form was entered into. Do you think that in those cases, if the creditor can't produce every scrap of paperwork requested, that the debtor should be able to walk free with all the benefits of the agreement and none of the liabilities?

[littleFred]

For pre April 2007 agreements they still have to produce the actual, signed agreement.

I have seen quite a few cases where the Judge simply ignored this and entered judgment against the debtor regardless. This is where lots of trouble stems from as there doesn't seem to be any kind of consistency is many hearings.

Well, the claimant doesn't need to produce the actual, signed agreement in court. Under CCA 974 s127(3), for pre-2007 agreements, the judge has to be satisfied (on the balance of probabilities) that an agreement was signed many years ago. The judge may be satisfied about this, even if he gave directions that the claimant should produce the agreement but the claimant failed to do so.

[Tuco]

The 3 letter process works if you are challenging a debt of say £300. DCAs will simply give in because it is not worth the trouble or expense. You might just as well write "I'm not paying" on it though as the content of the 3 letters is worthless.

If you owe 3, 4 or 5 grand, the DCA will not act on the 3 letters and will continue action regardless.

Haining doesn't really understand this. It is quite shocking how little he actually knows-He simply repeats what he has heard someone else say, or has read on some obscure fmotl message board.

[Bones]

From what I have read, the 3 letters only really tend to work when the debt has not been legally assigned (sold) to the DCA as per s.136 of the LPA 1925 and the DCA are merely acting as collection agents or have a mere equitable interest in the debt.

The DCA just concludes that it is not financially viable or cost effective to chase the debt and leave it in the hands of the original creditor. The DCA is happy as they get paid for attempting to collect the debt (just don't receive a percentage of the debt)

[notorial dissent]

Also really helps if the one they are chasing doesn't have a pot to piss in, which pretty well covers most of the fotl and goofy crowd. Turnip/stone analogy applies.

[longdog]

Also really helps if the one they are chasing doesn't have a pot to piss in, which pretty well covers most of the fotl and goofy crowd. Turnip/stone analogy applies.

That covers me as well and after studiously ignoring my creditors over the best part of a decade the debts are all now statute barred. No pseudo-legal woo required.

Admittedly my credit rating is probably lower than whale shit but about that I give not one single, solitary fuck.

[letissier14]

ARE THE CANAL & RIVER TRUST CHARITY A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION?

This story seems a little far fetched

£4k debt turned into £56k debt on a boat worth £1m plus

https://youtu.be/ovGfIqgl0Os

[Firthy2002]

ARE THE CANAL & RIVER TRUST CHARITY A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION?

This story seems a little far fetched

£4k debt turned into £56k debt

https://youtu.be/ovGfIqgl0Os

I think we are missing significant parts of the story.

[rumpelstilzchen]

If the cheque really did get lost why didn't he send another one?
That would have instantly solved the problem.

Definitely more to this than is being told but isn't that always the case with Colon's fairy tales?

[notorial dissent]

ARE THE CANAL & RIVER TRUST CHARITY A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION?

This story seems a little far fetched

£4k debt turned into £56k debt

https://youtu.be/ovGfIqgl0Os

I think we are missing significant parts of the story.

Ya think!!!!! Like maybe whole chapters....

[Bones]

I wonder what Leigh is planning to do, since his common law lawyer is dead

[Pox]

ARE THE CANAL & RIVER TRUST CHARITY A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION?

This story seems a little far fetched

£4k debt turned into £56k debt

https://youtu.be/ovGfIqgl0Os

I think we are missing significant parts of the story.

Ya think!!!!! Like maybe whole chapters....

It's not often a scoucer is stuck for words!

[Bones]

Colon did a few video's about helping the homeless.. Thinking about it, isn't it all in bad taste given that all he has done is help people to become homeless ?

[Pox]

Colon did a few video's about helping the homeless.. Thinking about it, isn't it all in bad taste given that all he has done is help people to become homeless ?

Of course it is bad taste, but that won't stop him (he is immune to any empathy and in my view, is just a leech).
Never met him (thank God) but can't stand him, even his voice grates like a dentists drill.

When I first looked at GOODF (in 2012) he was revered as some sort of a Messiah but over the last few months I notice he has been questioned and even debunked/ ridiculed at times.
I can only hope that his days are numbered on that site.

Scratch the surface of him and all you find is thin air.

[Firthy2002]

He seems to be disappearing into obscurity. Posting up random stuff and an unsubstantiated video alleging misdeeds by the Canal and River Trust.
Tom is practically finished now. Things have definitely gone quiet on the Mickey Summers front.
Dishing out advice on the GOODF forum is left to Fa(i)ljay and Tiggy to get people out of debt balls things up for hapless members.

He has nothing left to contribute.