Desperate for some advice pleaseeee... I'm at my wits ends. I am in my second dmp since 2013 and was previously in one for 9 years. I requested a SAR to freeman jones, however cannot see whether they have bought the debt from creditors. And cannot see how much of the few hundred I pay a month actually pays for debt to the creditor... I finally have gained the courage to stand up for my rights. And My desperate questions are I know of someone who wrote to all her creditors and asked for the cca, most not being able to provide and they couldn't pursue the debt. 1: shouldn't the IVA company have copies of all credit agreements signed by me before they sacred on their behalf 2: shouldn't the IVA company provide me with the copies? 3: shouldn't they state in the SAR how much is being paid to the creditor? 4: can I leave the Iva and write to the creditors asking for the original agreements? 5: if they cannot provide a copy of the ca signed by me, am I able to claim monies back I have paid to the dumps over the last 15 years? Anyone who can help, I would be so so grateful. Leelee84

I apologise if this has already been reported here but I could not see mention of it. I thought it might be of interest. It is a newspaper article about the failure to get out of paying Council Tax by referring back to the Magna Carta. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/801648/boxer-jailed-magna-carta-avoid-council-tax-oliver-ringmaster-pinnock

Some lighthearted entertainment.

The background to this subject can be read on the following thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448461-Tom-Crawford-eviction-by-bailiffs-Freeman-on-the-Land-(FMoTL)-nonsense-has-no-place-in-the-courts. Today, Tom Crawford has attempted to 'reclaim' his former house. He is presently on the roof of the property. The following is an extract from a press article that has just been released: Evicted man Tom Crawford says he has 'reclaimed' his former Nottinghamshire home by locking himself inside. The 64-year-old, who was evicted from the house on Fearn Chase, Carlton last year following a lengthy battle over his mortgage, posted a video on YouTube on Monday, claiming he had taken back the house. Supporters of Mr Crawford turned up at the bungalow, offering warm clothes and food, while police were also called to the property. On Monday afternoon, several police cars were at the scene as Mr Crawford's wife Susan claimed her husband was inside the boarded-up house. Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Police-presence-Carlton-Tom-Crawford-says/story-29007353-detail/story.html#ixzz44DWAJPQI

Every daily newspaper is today reporting the dreadful events of yesterday when Tom Crawford's long running battle with his mortgage provider (Bradford & Bingley) came to an end when bailiffs eventually entered Tom & Sue's bungalow and repossessed it in accordance with the court order. Given the high profile and public interest in this case, over 70 police officers were in attendance and the cul de sac where Tom and his wife lived was closed off. Police also hand delivered letters to all his neighbours to advice them of the reason for their presence. http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news Sadly every year thousands of homeowners suffer the same fate as Tom Crawford when their home is repossessed but none of them get the press publicity that this one has. There is because, unlike other home owners, Tom Crawford is a support of the Freeman on the Land movement. A few months ago bailiffs attempted to repossess the bungalow and social media sites appealed for supporters to attend the address to halt the eviction. Over 500 protestors gathered at the property forcing the bailiffs and police to retreat. Following that days events, Tom attempted to stop any further action by appealing the possession order to the court. In doing so, he did not seek assistance from a solicitor. Instead, he sought the services of various individuals who are well known on the Freeman on the Land (FMoTL) and Sovereign Citizen circuit. Quite simply.....the court rejected their silly arguments.

At a Liability Order hearing at Chesterfield magistrates’ court on 4th March two debtors were led out of the court by ushers. One of the debtors was Mr Henry who refused to remove his woollen had and argued that to do so would be a breach of his rights and he began quoting from paperwork stating that: “This is my thought, consciousness and religion and you cannot deny me these rights.” The second debtor was Mr Trevor Hill but he provided the court with his 'strawman' name of "Trevor of the Hill family". He told the court that he would not consent with the proceedings and argued that the court could not proceed without his consent. Magistrates retired briefly and Mr Hill was then led out by security as he referred to the rights of the Freeman of the Land. Despite not 'consenting' with the proceedings, Liability Orders were nonetheless granted against both debtors. http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/crime/men-forced-to-leave-chesterfield-court-after-hat-and-phone-row-1-7157658#comments-area

I am not sure if this has been asked before as I have been off here for some time however I was watching a program on Sky last week and 2 guys from a site called **** were being interviewed. What they were stating during the interview pricked my interest as they were stating that there is an act from 1882 called the Bills Of Exchange Act that can be utilsed as an argument against DCA's who come at people with debts they have bought from the original lender. Very basically they are saying that a debt is extinguished through either sale or transer, in other words the debt is then void and that this law overules any T&Cs that you may agree to when you sign on the dotted line. It appears that they initially came across this information via Veronica Chapman. I would really like to see what people on here have to say about this.

This particular Form 4 Complaint was heard in court a few weeks ago and we are waiting for a copy of the Judgment but I can report that the District Judge has ordered the Complainant to pay an "interim payment" to the bailiff of £10,000 and I am advised that the likely cost payable by Mr Dragon (the complainant) will be in the region of £25,000 !!! This is a very worrying Form 4 Complaint indeed as Mr Dragon appears to have some involvement with the Freedom on the Land movement (which I will be writing more about later). With regards to bailiffs and debt, Freeman on the Land (FOTL) supporters will take as gospel the "advice" given on FOTL websites. These sites actively encourage debtors to display "Removal of Implied Right of Access" notices at the boundary of their homes in the "mistaken" belief that a bailiff will not come to the door and, that if they do so...the bailiff is committing trespass. I have just completed a Newsletter for the forum on this very subject following a recent court case where the judge dismissed the claim for trespass and ordered the claimant to pay the bailiff companies costs. Given the links with the Freeman on the Land movement, a company called Debt Free TV ( associated with the owners of Get out of Debt Free) got involved with Mr Dragon at an early stage and filmed some background to his complaint and representatives of Debt Free TV even went to court with Mr Dragon at his Form 4 hearing. Naturally they could not film events inside the court. There are MANY references to this particular complaint on various websites that support Freeman on the Land theories and there is even a You Tube video (just put the name of Mr Dragon....Corfe Castle ....and bailiffs into Google). What is noteworthy is that barely anywhere will you find any details at all of the OUTCOME of Mr & Mrs Dragon's Form 4 complaint. That is until now....... I will be providing a lot more information as soon a I get it.

Hi, was just wondering if anyone has sent a hardship letter to their creditor(s) asking for their outstanding debt to be written off and if so, have you been successful or unsuccessful? Are some creditors more than others likely to agree to write the debt off and is there a limit to how much they will write off?

I thought I would share my experience with these lecherous bottom feeders otherwise known as Parking Eye. In hindsight I should have ignored them from the start, but I was offered into commerce, and I thought it best to stay in honour and politely respond by rejecting their offer. Pictures paint a thousand words, so here is correspondence in chronological order. Your thoughts are most welcome. First notice from Parking Eye Reply 1 Parking Eye letter 2 Reply 2 Parking Eye letter 3 Parking Eye letter 4 Parking Eye letter 4 part 2 Last reply to Parking Eye Parking Eye letter 5 there is only part 1, I had problems loading images at start hence why I wrote part 1 in title