Mate says he knows a company can wipe ny debts out? too good to be true?

[cymruambyth]

what does subbing mean???

thanks

means2anend

 

Subscribbing to thread.

[lilly white]

8. Agreements for running-account credit.

 

 

The credit limit expressed as:--

(a) a sum of money;

 

QUITE CLEAR £XXXXXX DOES THAT HAVE BE IN THE AGREEDMENT

 

(b) a statement that the credit limit will be

determined by the creditor from time to time

under the agreement and that notice of it will be

given by him to the debtor;

 

When and does it have to be confirmed

 

 

© a sum of money together with a statement that

the creditor may vary the credit limit to such sum

as he may from time to time determine under the

agreement and that notice of it will be given by

him to the debtor; or

(d) in a case not falling within head (a), (b) or ©

above, either a statement indicating the manner in

which the credit limit will be determined and that

notice of it will be given by the creditor to the

debtor or a statement indicating that there is no

credit

 

Does this have to be confirmed

 

FOR DEBATE

[means2anend]

Subscribbing to thread.

 

thanks cymruambyth

means2anend

[means2anend]

8. Agreements for running-account credit.

 

 

The credit limit expressed as:--

(a) a sum of money;

 

QUITE CLEAR £XXXXXX DOES THAT HAVE BE IN THE AGREEDMENT

 

(b) a statement that the credit limit will be

determined by the creditor from time to time

under the agreement and that notice of it will be

given by him to the debtor;

 

When and does it have to be confirmed

 

 

© a sum of money together with a statement that

the creditor may vary the credit limit to such sum

as he may from time to time determine under the

agreement and that notice of it will be given by

him to the debtor; or

(d) in a case not falling within head (a), (b) or ©

above, either a statement indicating the manner in

which the credit limit will be determined and that

notice of it will be given by the creditor to the

debtor or a statement indicating that there is no

credit

 

Does this have to be confirmed

 

FOR DEBATE

 

The audit that I am doing for a friend (a running account agreement-credit card s78 cca 1974) instead of using the word NOTICE has used the word ADVISE.

 

Surely the EFFECT of these two words are different.NOTICE is information in advance is it not,Advice can be given at ANY time can it not.

 

Lilly White

 

can you pls 'ADVISE' as to where I can obtain a copy of CCA regs 1983/1553 in its unamended form...because his agreement was dated 19/01/05 before 31st May 2005 which is when the amended form came into force and obviously the agreement would have not been regulated by a later law if that agreement was signed before it...

 

It should be much appreciated if you were able to satisfy this polite request..

 

Rgds & thanks

 

Means2anend

[exasperated]

Subbing

[means2anend]

hello all

 

pls advise where i can find copy of unamended cca 1983/1553 prior to amendment by cca 2004/1482...

 

thanks means2anend

[Axiom99]

There is a company named Credit Card Killer and they claim to be able to take on the responsibility for your debts for the payment of a fee so that when your creditors try and enforce their agreements somehow CCK will inform the lender that the debts no oonger belongs to the original borrower but them.There is of course a fee for this alleged service but what I would like to know is if this is possible as it does seem to be highly unlikely.

For what its worth I have cut and pasted below an explanation of why/how it works from another forum.

 

" CCK are certainly not a [problem]. Thankyou for confirming my statement that contracts are terminated prior to the sale of the debt. You are also correct in stating that liabilities arising from the contract cannot be terminated. Your final statement which reads :

 

"The debt and liability remains personal and cannot be transferred."

 

is not correct. I shall do my best to explain things to you. David below I have written some important points and as you read through its imperative that you do so as an impartial observer and put aside and preconceived ideas that CCK are running a [problem].

 

Its important to look at what the lenders do and to look at the contract itself.

Now within the contract often you'll find a clause which reads along the lines of:

 

"you are not allowed to sell/assign or transfer any of your rights or obligations under this contract "

 

The above clause is often referred to as a boiler plate clause. Now the question that must arise and that you must ask yourself is:

 

Why has the lender felt the need to write such a clause within the contract?

 

This is an extremely important question that needs to be investigated. If a debtor cannot sell his debt or transfer any liability over to a 3rd party then what would be the need for such a clause within his contract?

 

you and I would never do anything needlesly would we? The clause is there and its there for a reason.

 

If you and I signed a contract for you to wash my car everyday and within the contract I placed a clause that prevented you from picking up my car with your bear hands and flying to London with it what would be your reaction. your reaction would be one of amusement as picking up a car and flying with it is not humanly possible. Therefore you'd point out to me that there would be no need for such a clause to be inserted.

 

So the lender has placed a clause and he knows its crucial that the clause is there.

the lender is preventing the seller from selling the debt.So the second question that arises is:

If the clause was not there would that then mean that a debtor could then sell his debt?

 

Clearly the answer is Yes otherwise the lender would not have felt the need to place the clause within the contract.

 

I hope you've managed to follow this. Now termination of the contract relieves both parties of any obligation to perform under the terms of the contract. Any clauses within the contract are no longer applicable. Yes the debtor then has a post contractual liability/obligation to repay the debt but nothing more and he is free to contract with whomever he so wishes.

 

The second point that needs to be investigated in regards to the lenders action is the sale of debt by the lender.

When a lender sells the debt to a debt purchasing company any liability the lender had in regards to the debt is completely and totaly diminished.

Now under English law you cannot sell/assign the burden of a contract. You can only assign the benefits of a contract.

So the lender can assign the benefits only.

The question that then arises is that once a lender sells the debt why is a debtor unable to sue the original creditor for inaccuracies within the agreement. If only the benefits of the contract have and can be assigned/sold then surely the burden of ensuring the agreement was drawn up correctly must still stand with the original creditor.

 

This is not the case. Once the lender has sold the debt the lender has also passed on the burden of the contract.

 

I did say that under Engish law you cannot assign the burden of a contract. I'm pretty sure your barristers will mention this to you awell.

 

So how has the lender passed the burden of the contract on. Well in regards to the rule that the burden of a contract cannot be assingned there are two exceptions. One of which applies to debt.

 

When you speak to your barristers ask them to read the section within Treitel on contracts detailing the "conditional benefit principle"

Assignments of Contractual Rights

The burden of a contract cannot in principle be transferred so as to discharge the original contracting party without the consent of the other party. There are two exceptions. If the contractual rights have been assigned, those rights will be subject to the original contract. An instance of this, Britain & Overseas Trading Ltd v Brooks Wharf Ltd, an exemption clause in the original contract was binding on the assignee of the contract. Such cases are examples of the "conditional benefit" principle. This principle applies where the right which has been assigned is on the condition that certain restrictions are observed. These are an intrinsic part of the right, so that the burden is annexed to the benefit of the contract. Therefore, the person with the benefit must perform the burden, or otherwise forego the benefit. Whether a conditional benefit arises is dependent upon the proper construction of the contract.

 

Also the following is from Jeffery Jenkins vs Young Brothers Transport ltd

 r Williams’ submission reflects what according to Treitel is the "general rule", namely that the assignee of a benefit of a contract makes no promise to perform the obligation’s of the assignor and in such a case, the assignee does not become liable under the contract. (See Young v Kitchin [1878] 3EX.D.127).

 

 However, Treitel sets out exceptions to this general rule (see Treitel page 702). An example is where the obligation to perform a contract in place of the assignor is annexed to the assignment of the benefit of the contract. Where this is the case, the assignee must perform the burden of the contract or forego the benefit if he fails to do so. Treitel describes this as the "conditional benefit principle", which arises where the right assigned is conditional or qualified, the condition being that certain restrictions should be observed or certain burdens assumed (see Tito v Waddell (No.2) 290 et seq)

 

So the benefits of debt are intrinsically linked to the burden of the debt. Basil has bought the benefits and he can't profit from the benefits of the debt without also taking on the burden.

 

You can't assign the burden of a contract but Debt falls under the conditional benefit principle so the burden is part of the benefit.

Thats why banks have no liability once they sell the debt on. If banks could only sell the benefits of a contract then they would be open to court action from debtors for incorrectly drawn up agreements even after the sale of the debt.

 

 

When Debt purchasing companies/debt collectors buy debt from banks they take on the benefit of the contract and along with that the burden. If this is not the case then the question in regards to the complete and total diminished liability of a lender post sale of a debt still remains a mystery."

Any comments?

[kiptower]

if you follow the advise on CAG you can do it for free by yourself

[postggj]

dont touch

 

thats our friends the rankins

 

its a con

 

debt accounts are sold by deed of assignment

[gyos]

Credit Card Killer is this a [problem]?

 

YES.

 

OFT warns consumers about 'debt sale' scams - The Office of Fair Trading

 

 

The OFT is warning consumers not to be taken in by businesses claiming to help them become debt free by 'buying' or 'selling on' their debts.

 

The warning follows a significant increase in the number of adverts on the internet and in newspapers from debt and claims management companies that misleadingly state they can take over liability for debts or write off debts by purchasing consumers' credit agreements.

 

In fact the law does not allow the sale of debt without the lender's permission and so businesses that suggest otherwise are making clearly misleading claims. Brokers who introduce clients to debt and claims management companies that say that they can 'buy' and 'sell on' consumer debts are also misleading consumers.

 

Consumers need to be aware that if they 'sell' their debts to one of these businesses, either directly or through a broker, they will still be liable for their original repayment obligations as well as losing the money they paid for this false service.

 

Consumers will also still be subject to any debt collection activity and negative credit scoring associated with the original debt.

 

The principal regulator for claims management companies is the Ministry of Justice. Those businesses that operate in the credit/debt sector also need to be licensed by the OFT. Some of the firms offering these services do not have consumer credit licences and the OFT is working in partnership with local trading standards services to prosecute them for unlicensed trading. Formal licensing enforcement action has already been initiated against licensed companies whose advertising or websites are making these misleading claims.

 

Ray Watson, OFT Director of Credit, said:

 

'Like most scams, when something looks too good to be true, it usually is, and this is certainly the case here. You cannot simply sell on your debt and its liabilities, and businesses that make misleading claims to the contrary are just trying to take advantage of consumers' distress.'

 

'The OFT will not hesitate to take swift action against businesses which deliberately mislead consumers.'

[Bookworm]

I thought Basil and Amanda had had their site yanked from them? :-?

 

Remember when Basil tried to come on CAG and tried to convince us he had the key to the secret kingdom of CCA heaven?

[Axiom99]

dont touch

 

thats our friends the rankins

 

its a con

 

debt accounts are sold by deed of assignment

 

 

I know its the Rankines and that they have a dubious reputation but leaving that aside I was hoping someone could look at the legal principles they are quoting and assess/destroy their argument or is there something in what they are claiming to do?

[postggj]

A Sale Of A Debt Account Needs The Agreement On Both Sides

 

Its Your Account But It Belongs To The Creditor

 

The Only Way The Rankins Could Get Your Account Is If The Original Creditor Agreed To It

[postggj]

Where Was This Site Advertised

 

The Ministry Of Justice Has Banned All Adverts With This Company

[gyos]

I thought Basil and Amanda had had their site yanked from them? :-?

 

Remember when Basil tried to come on CAG and tried to convince us he had the key to the secret kingdom of CCA heaven?

 

It's now gone back up.

 

I think we all need to report them again for trying to fool people with this nonsense.

[pompeyfaith]

(Edit)

Edited December 29, 2009 by maroondevo52
Removed commercial link.

[pompeyfaith]

I cannot believe the bull**** the front page says

 

DEBT FREE IN 2 WEEKS

 

Ill be phoning the powers that be tommorrow

 

PF

[gyos]

(Edit)

 

CCK is not a Claims Management Company; therefore we are not regulated by the Ministry of Justice.

No 'Rankines'. Because they revoked your authorization for making misleading claims like these.

 

.

Edited December 29, 2009 by maroondevo52
Removed link

[postggj]

I know its the Rankines and that they have a dubious reputation but leaving that aside I was hoping someone could look at the legal principles they are quoting and assess/destroy their argument or is there something in what they are claiming to do?

 

 

 

I LIKE YOUR QUOYE

 

 

I KNOW THE RANKINS HAVE A DUBIOUSE REPUTATION

 

HAVE THEY BEEN MADE BANKRUPT YET

 

THERE LAST ESCAPADE COST THEM 100 K IN COURT COSTS

[sully123]

Does 173 Church road Even Exist.

 

Pretty sure it does not.

 

Post code goes to Bunbury Rd

[pompeyfaith]

may be worth checking the registers

 

PF

[gyos]

Does 173 Church road Even Exist.

 

Pretty sure it does not.

 

According to Google maps & street view, that address is a Pub & Church car park.

 

B31 2LX. - Google Maps

 

Edited December 29, 2009 by gyos

[silverfox1961]

I have just been reading a selection of letters on their "news" link within their site and it does them no favours.

Any individual who reads them will be instantly put off.

From what I read, it seems that the Rankines see any news stories that say "[problem]" are being directed at them.

 

The OFT have confirmed that you cannot sell your debt without the lenders permission so the Rankines claim is misleading.

[pompeyfaith]

Just how can they get there site back up and running though if it has been shutdown.

 

Obviously they are taking advantage of the xmas seasons hoping no one will notice.

 

Surely the MoJ must have instructed that the website code be destroyed or is that too simple ?

 

PF

[Peterbard]

I have just been reading a selection of letters on their "news" link within their site and it does them no favours.

Any individual who reads them will be instantly put off.

From what I read, it seems that the Rankines see any news stories that say "[problem]" are being directed at them.

 

The OFT have confirmed that you cannot sell your debt without the lenders permission so the Rankines claim is misleading.

 

Hi

Yes toal [problem] MOJ have issued instructions that creditors ignore the defence that the debt has been sold no such transaction is possible.

 

Cheers

peter