Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
Bones wrote:As sad as this sounds, this has really made my day
I wonder if he has told the job centrePeanutGallery wrote:So Colon is now technically employed, in a voluntary capacity, by the debt management industry.
The post is from Sunday, but the video is dated Feb 16, 2014.letissier14 wrote:Ceylon posting about Quatloos over on goodf
https://youtu.be/YNMoUnUiDqg
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... HPGvfmLTcs
They certainly are jumping ship - one has just publically declared that he is off.Bones wrote:Rats starting to jump ship already
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 33#p497550
This is two and a half year old newsMark Ceylon
30 mins
got this messaged to me
The FCA wrote to banks and building societies warning that changing customers' mortgage terms could breach consumer protection laws, A group of landlords is currently suing West Bromwich Building Society, in a battle that could have big implications for thousands of property investors. Landlords Emma and David Hughes, pictured above with their children Martha and Gwen, are part of the group.
Clive Adamson, director of supervision at the FCA, said: “Consumers have a right to be treated fairly if their lender changes a term of their mortgage contract. It isn't always clear though to consumers how lenders and the FCA assess fairness in this area. This paper gives an opportunity for firms and consumers to give their views on what fairness means when changes are made in the terms of this very important financial product", so here is the basis for consumers to challenge mortgage lenders repossessing your home unlawfully
Consumers and firms are to be asked for their views on how fairness should be assessed when lenders make changes to the terms of mortgage contracts and whether the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) needs to make changes to its rules or guidance.
In a discussion paper published today, the FCA sets out some of the factors that are considered relevant when assessing changes to mortgages contracts and asks for views on its current approach to fairness.
Clive Adamson, director of supervision at the FCA, said:
'Consumers have a right to be treated fairly if their lender changes a term of their mortgage contract. It isn't always clear though to consumers how lenders and the FCA assess fairness in this area. This paper gives an opportunity for firms and consumers to give their views on what fairness means when changes are made in the terms of this very important financial product.'
As well as inviting discussion about the operation of the current regulatory framework, the FCA has also outlined three options for potential further action. These are:
taking no further action with the discussion paper and subsequent feedback statement providing clarity and transparency about the FCA approach to fairness;
providing further guidance on current rules but making no changes to the current regulatory framework;
introducing new rules for example around the information that firms must provide to a consumer or restricting the changes that a lender could apply to mortgage contracts.
This debate will also form part of the wider work the FCA is undertaking to understand consumer expectations and how the industry can better meet the information needs of consumers.
The FCA is keen to engage with both the mortgage industry and consumers during the discussion period. Interested parties can send their views directly to the FCA. The FCA intends to have face-to-face meetings with consumer groups, firms and trade bodies.
They are asking the first question now, but not the second! ( Give them time though - should we start a book?)Bones wrote:http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 33#p497541
If I was a goodf member, I would be asking two questions
1) What happend to this money
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/getoutofde ... expansion/?
2) As Colon was a 1/3 partner, how much was his share for selling out ?
now a bonafide 'shill' if you will.PeanutGallery wrote:So Colon is now technically employed, in a voluntary capacity, by the debt management industry.
enough to pay some bills undoubtedly.NYGman wrote:So they crowd funded money, and sold their site, I wonder how much of that, evil toxic, money they got?
Nothing sums up the Goofy crowd so much as the new owners not being able to spell.Bones wrote: <snip>
