Oh No Im in Debt!

[januspolanski]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article5297744.ece

Just found an interesting take on being in debt. Im thinking of doing this I think it would be hilarious.

[qasrose]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article5297744.ece

Just found an interesting take on being in debt. Im thinking of doing this I think it would be hilarious.

Thanks for sharing, I'm sure this will come in handy :)

be prepared to act on it and if this means balancing your plasma television on your head and saying it’s a hat, so be it.

Might just use this excuse if they come knocking on my door ha ha

[malvern]

Might just use this excuse if they come knocking on my door ha ha


all joking apart.... just ask them for a contract that they have with you... remind them they are a third party acting for ....??? , well go back to them that's who your contract is with..." NOT ME ". Deam them aggressive and also tell them they have no lawful rights and to leave you alone ... if after this they donot go.... which most will.....remind them the law that they are making you feel treated and you now have the right to protect yourself and your propaty..... alos under the bill of rights, ask, where by thier actions are they protect your ... freedom, libaty and propaty


if they do not have a contract with you...... They are not coming in .



freedom is the granchildren we are the caretakers

[sindakit]

from what mary croft says, everything is paid for in advance and by paying for it as we leave a store etc. we mess up the system that was put in place. is this how the baliff's have no real power?

does that make it, then, theoretically possible to take out finance on a house/car/motorcycle/computer/tv or whatever and then not aknowledge the payments?

[yozhik]

There is no money.
The debt is created by using US - you and me ... without our signature - the ONLY item of value - then the banks can not create anything.
They do not have the funds without us.
They do not "give" anything to the agreement.
They simply take your signature and exchange it for promissory notes; you are both the creditor and the debtor.
The bank is merely the "middle man".
Fractional banking allows them to turn your signature into promissory notes.
The promissory notes do not exist before your signature creates them.
So how can the bank be deemed the lender?
Think about it. Why is it called "your loan"?
Surely if it was lent to you, it would be called "your borrow".

You walk into a bank.
The bank has X amount of promissory notes available in its deposit accounts.
You apply for a loan.
You give your signature.
HEY PRESTO ... an account is opened with some zeroes and ones in it, representing the value of your signature.
None of the banks assets were utilised in the process.
If the bank used any of its assets, their would be a true bookkeeping entry - a transfer of assets to you.
Next time you communicate with the bank - ask them to see the bookkeeping entry, showing this transfer of assets, from them to you.
If the bank did not transfer anything to you - why do you owe them anything?
Possibly a small agent's fee, for handling the paperwork involved in turning your signature into promissory notes ... but nothing more.
You certainly do NOT owe them the principal ... the principal was created by realising the value of your signature. It is all an illusion.

You simply transferred value from you, to YOU.

If you are unsure of the significance of that sentence; go to the Freeman thread for explanation.


.

[themime]

Ask them by recorded delivery letter to produce a CCA.

You'd be surprised how often the paper work of older loans get lost in the system.

No CCA, no loan.

[yozhik]

Ask them by recorded delivery letter to produce a CCA.

You'd be surprised how often the paper work of older loans get lost in the system.

No CCA, no loan.

Not entirely true ...

No CCA means the loan contract is unenforceable; not that there is no loan.
The fact that there is documentation testifying to you making regular payments upon presentment of monthly statement will weigh heavily in favour of the claim that an acknowledged "debt" exists.
However, without a CCA, the other party can not prove that the conditions of the Consumer Protection Act were correctly adhered to and as the burden of proof is upon them, if they are unable to prove it, the contract is unenforceable.

There is a big difference, despite the common feature that no further payments can be demanded.

However, even if the loan is deemed unenforceable, technically it still exists and the banks can (and nearly always do) still place a default order against you, on your credit report.
Whilst it technically can not be placed there due to there being no dispute or provable default; the fact is once they have done it, it is a nightmare to have it removed.
There will be no CCJ, as no court can enforce a judgement on an unenforceable contract.
The likes of Experian do not require a CCJ to place a default flag on your credit report.
They should ... but they don't. When has Experian (government corporation) ever been moral or acted honourably?
Unenforceable means that the "debt" still exists and upon presentment of the CCA or a "true copy" of it, the clock starts ticking again.

Also, the section of the consumer credit act that this is being claimed under is also unclear as to exactly what a "true copy" is ... so the banks, on supplying a copy of your application and the terms and conditions, will "claim" that they have met the obligations of meeting the request for the appropriate paperwork and then start the clock running again, as well as default proceedings, or (as most do) they will onsell the "debt", to remove the burden from themselves, and so the paperwork battle commences with the new party.

The good news is that once an application for the CCA has been placed, the bank has 12 days +2 to provide the requested paperwork.
If it has not done so in this time, the account is suspended as is any interest calculation.
It remains suspended until the request has been satisfied.

I believe if it has not been satisfied after 6 years, then the statute of limitations may apply and upon offical request to have the "debt" written off due to no demands for a protracted (and legislated) period of time.
But don't take my word on any of this - I am merely sharing my research ... it is not advice !
The advice I will give you is; do your own due diligence.

:D


.

[themime]

The good news is that once an application for the CCA has been placed, the bank has 12 days +2 to provide the requested paperwork. If it has not done so in this time, the account is suspended as is any interest calculation. It remains suspended until the request has been satisfied.


30 working days after the first letter is recorded as arriving you send another to tell them they are in breach.

[yozhik]

30 working days after the first letter is recorded as arriving you send another to tell them they are in breach.

sure ... but the demands and the interest calculations are from 12 days + 2 ... which for most people travelling this route, is the "important bits"

:D


.

[themime]

sure ... but the demands and the interest calculations are from 12 days + 2 ... which for most people travelling this route, is the "important bits"

:D


.

:D:D You could just buy a canoe and a bus ticket to Hartlepool, far more fun.