Debt recovery company insider

[spacemonkeypg]

Ok tricky.

 

If they are named as a solicitors then they should be as such - i.e. qualified in the area of the law they convey/practice.

 

There is a defined difference between a DCA and a solicitor, or a solicitor working for a DCA. Many solicitors collect debts for their clients and charge them a different fee structure in effect working as a DCA. If a solicitor/solicitor company is dealing with a debt then in general they have more power than a DCA. Like in terms of taking the case to court on behalf of the DCA

[spacemonkeypg]

As If We Did Not Know Mortimer Clark Were Solicitors

 

Did I Realy Say That:D

 

Hence forth they are not a DCA therefore as stated they cannot represent the OC in a court room:rolleyes:

[postggj]

Well We All Know The Old Boy Network Of The Toothless Wonders

 

s.r.a.

[postggj]

Tell Me

 

Did You See Dispatches

 

The One With Marlin

 

The Old Boy On One Call Said Marlin Dca

 

5 Min Later, Low And Behold

 

A Solicitors Office

[spacemonkeypg]

I have not seen it no.

 

But i am well aware that many DCA have/did/do pretend to be DCA/Solicitors which is bouncing along a line that should by now have been rubbed out

[postggj]

Goodnignt Spacemonkey

 

Hope You Dont Get Your Fingers Burnt

[spacemonkeypg]

Good night pleasure discussing with you

[sickboy]

IMHO DCA's only fudge the issue of equitable assignment by using their in house solicitors to issue a claim under the name of the OC.

 

There are four categories of assignment of a thing or chose in action:

statutory assignment of legal choses;

statutory assignment of equitable choses;

equitable assignment of legal choses; and (equitable)

 

equitable assignment of equitable choses. (absolute)

 

 

Absolute:-

 

* equity has always permitted him to sue in his own name without joining the original creditor.

 

* it seems that an equitable assignee of an equitable thing in action must join the assignor where the assignor retains an interest in the thing in question.

 

Equitable:-

 

* neither the assignee nor the original creditor can sue without joining the other.

 

An equitable assignment of a right of action does not follow any particular form and as a general rule, does not even require a written document. There must, however, be some act by the assignor showing that he is passing the chose in action to the proposed assignee. In addition, the debtor party must be given notice

[spacemonkeypg]

Very true.

 

Also most DCA dont have in-house solicitors and merely a para or similar

[sickboy]

Oh! do you have access to boxes of pre-paid envelopes by chance?

[spacemonkeypg]

Oh! do you have access to boxes of pre-paid envelopes by chance?

 

Sorry you have lost me there

[Jasper1965]

They cannot act on behalf of the OC in the court room, they are not allowed to act on their behalf. As an advisor yes but not as legal council

 

Of course this only becomes apparent when the defendant has the knowledge, capacity and 'audacity' to erm defend and even then they have to get the judge to see through the smoke and mirrors to ascertain who actually does hold title.

It seems to be industry practice to plead that the deed of assignment is sensitive and not neccesary and many low level judges seem all to eager to accept this whilst ignoring the fact that the defendants financial and personal details are no more no less sensitive. A well argued defence should ensure that the deed and any contract attached to the deed must be presented, strangely the DCA's are often loathe to actually prove legally that they own the debt when pressed.

 

One wonders what would ever happen to the debt 'purchase' industry model in the event an HMRC commisioned investigative bureau were ever to trace the full and true path of the 'debt' from default stage and the quickly burgeoning fees which bloat the paper value of the debt through to writedown and eventual sale and then subsequent sales, collections, writeoffs.

 

I've a sneaky feeling more than one instance of double accounting would be found in many cases with written down debts reinflated and re-entering the balance sheets. Securitised debts are often sold caveat emptor then underperforming accounts quietly transferred back to the originator to keep the securitisation performing.

 

Your assertion that debt purchase is not as common as we would believe only bolsters my suspicions that regardless of the DCA's claims to the debtor, alleged debtor or even judge, often they are in fact collecting for the OC who desire to be distanced from an industry that was described in parliament as 'Rotten to the core'.

[charlie*]

I wonder what our DCA friend has to say about the truth..... the REAL truth?

 

Banks do not lend money, neither their own nor money depositedn by their clients.

 

Banks are money CHANGERS only, that is their trade and always has been.

 

However, and this is backed up in writing on their web sites by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank (System) in the United States.

 

If banks were to lend money, they would pretty soon run out and they would have no more to lend.... some people say 'oh, but they receive repayments from their clients so they lend that' ... Well okay, but where does it come from?

 

I'll tell our DCA friend....

 

The kind of money that we, the public use all comes from the banks.... Natv West, Lloyds, HSBC and other such people.... they hold the franchise one might say.

 

So where do they get the money they lend?

 

ALL money that we, the general public use did not exist until it was borrowed........ this is what happens.

 

Money is created when it is borrowed.

 

When you want a loan you go to the bank (credit card company, bldg Soc, HP etc...).

 

The bank asks you to sign a cheque payable to the bank (bear with me) and when you have put your signature on that piece of paper which is also known as an IOU, loan agreement, promissory note, the authorised office (the manager) waves his pen in the air (today, his fingers hover over the computer keyboard) and as if by magic, the agreed amount appears in your account ready for you to pay away to anyone of your choice by any means acceptable to the bank... cheque, cash, bankers draft, money order etcetera.

 

Absolute magic, you have got £xxxxx'x to spend and the bank did not put up a single penny...... they took NO risk.... all smoke and mirrors, made legal by governments all over the world..... at our level it's called fraud most serious and you would go to jail, pretty damned quick if you tried it. Of course the banks get away with it because the governments and those people who support the system knowing or, in most cases unknowingling are well paid to keep the system running.

 

In effect, what has actually happened is that you signed away your life, it was YOU who created the money and, unbeknown to you, you loaned it to the bank who then loaned it to you having you believe they'd loaned you their own money.

 

In turn, they sold off your 'paper' (traded in bundles as 'derivatives') to investors - the most recent undeniable example being the US sub-prime mortgage fraud that seems to have started this latest recession.

 

So, Mr DCA, as I created the money the bank loaned to me, WHO OWES WHAT TO WHOM?

 

Don't ridicule the above, there is too much hard evidence, indeed, it's all explained in a book published by the Federal Reserve Bank, Chicago Branch which explains money creation and the expansion of the money supply.

 

And why is this?.... well, money is issued and controlled by a) an international banking cartel - ALL private, NOT goverment and b) for the public, the banks that serve the population as mentioned above.

 

It is said that whoever lends money is the one to be repaid.... so why do banks and DCA's chase me for money I loaned to the bank in the first place?

 

As for the Bank of England proof, the link is posted in this forum.

 

charlie

[fuzzybobble]

Oh! do you have access to boxes of pre-paid envelopes by chance?

 

Make that 2 boxes. I also have some old paving slabs I need to get rid of.

[twofoot]

Just had a read thro this thread and am amazed at how some members treat the original poster. The OP gives his opinion or advice and gets shot down. Who says, apart from Pinky that a DCA is not allowed to ask for I&E. Show me where it says they cannot ask. If a person were on benefits it would be in there own interest to declare their income. Give this guy a break, he has been on the recieving end and knows the score. If you don't believe him then fine that's your choice but I do think some members are riding high horses by the tone of their replies.

[broken arrow]

So which DCA,s purchase and which don,t

HFO do, I have it in writing and they have their own in house solicitor or are they lying, but there again they do not do that

[Pinky69]

After what millions of people have been through at the hands of these thugs, including been hounded to death like Beryl Brazier and others, we are perfectly entitled to be on high horses and will remain so for as long as DCAs continue to lie, con, threaten, bully, abuse and breach consumer law at will to extract their pound of flesh, to which, in millions of cases, they are not legally entitled. DCAs have no lawful right to I&Es any more than I have, they do buy debts and they issue letters using solicitors letterheads like toilet paper - and those were just three lies the poster told to try to ingratiate himself into this forum so he can try to break down the defences of the naive - people like you Twofoot who cannot immediately see through him and whoever sent him in here. The motivation of anyone working for a DCA whose umbrella body detests CAG is highly dubious. We have had it all before, he isn't the first and he won't be the last - and like all threat monkeys he isn't terribly bright. He is either ignorant or isn't employed by a DCA at all - we don't even know who he is - and it is obvious he isn't in a position to help anyone on the site. You entertain him if you want but I for one will be standing up for the posters on this site who come in desperate for help because of people like him and finally get their life together again and their dignity returned to them.

[spacemonkeypg]

Of course this only becomes apparent when the defendant has the knowledge, capacity and 'audacity' to erm defend and even then they have to get the judge to see through the smoke and mirrors to ascertain who actually does hold title.

It seems to be industry practice to plead that the deed of assignment is sensitive and not neccesary and many low level judges seem all to eager to accept this whilst ignoring the fact that the defendants financial and personal details are no more no less sensitive. A well argued defence should ensure that the deed and any contract attached to the deed must be presented, strangely the DCA's are often loathe to actually prove legally that they own the debt when pressed.

 

One wonders what would ever happen to the debt 'purchase' industry model in the event an HMRC commisioned investigative bureau were ever to trace the full and true path of the 'debt' from default stage and the quickly burgeoning fees which bloat the paper value of the debt through to writedown and eventual sale and then subsequent sales, collections, writeoffs.

 

I've a sneaky feeling more than one instance of double accounting would be found in many cases with written down debts reinflated and re-entering the balance sheets. Securitised debts are often sold caveat emptor then underperforming accounts quietly transferred back to the originator to keep the securitisation performing.

 

Your assertion that debt purchase is not as common as we would believe only bolsters my suspicions that regardless of the DCA's claims to the debtor, alleged debtor or even judge, often they are in fact collecting for the OC who desire to be distanced from an industry that was described in parliament as 'Rotten to the core'.

 

Yes this is very true, very true indeed.

[spacemonkeypg]

I wonder what our DCA friend has to say about the truth..... the REAL truth?

 

Banks do not lend money, neither their own nor money depositedn by their clients.

 

Banks are money CHANGERS only, that is their trade and always has been.

 

However, and this is backed up in writing on their web sites by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank (System) in the United States.

 

If banks were to lend money, they would pretty soon run out and they would have no more to lend.... some people say 'oh, but they receive repayments from their clients so they lend that' ... Well okay, but where does it come from?

 

I'll tell our DCA friend....

 

The kind of money that we, the public use all comes from the banks.... Natv West, Lloyds, HSBC and other such people.... they hold the franchise one might say.

 

So where do they get the money they lend?

 

ALL money that we, the general public use did not exist until it was borrowed........ this is what happens.

 

Money is created when it is borrowed.

 

When you want a loan you go to the bank (credit card company, bldg Soc, HP etc...).

 

The bank asks you to sign a cheque payable to the bank (bear with me) and when you have put your signature on that piece of paper which is also known as an IOU, loan agreement, promissory note, the authorised office (the manager) waves his pen in the air (today, his fingers hover over the computer keyboard) and as if by magic, the agreed amount appears in your account ready for you to pay away to anyone of your choice by any means acceptable to the bank... cheque, cash, bankers draft, money order etcetera.

 

Absolute magic, you have got £xxxxx'x to spend and the bank did not put up a single penny...... they took NO risk.... all smoke and mirrors, made legal by governments all over the world..... at our level it's called fraud most serious and you would go to jail, pretty damned quick if you tried it. Of course the banks get away with it because the governments and those people who support the system knowing or, in most cases unknowingling are well paid to keep the system running.

 

In effect, what has actually happened is that you signed away your life, it was YOU who created the money and, unbeknown to you, you loaned it to the bank who then loaned it to you having you believe they'd loaned you their own money.

 

In turn, they sold off your 'paper' (traded in bundles as 'derivatives') to investors - the most recent undeniable example being the US sub-prime mortgage fraud that seems to have started this latest recession.

 

So, Mr DCA, as I created the money the bank loaned to me, WHO OWES WHAT TO WHOM?

 

Don't ridicule the above, there is too much hard evidence, indeed, it's all explained in a book published by the Federal Reserve Bank, Chicago Branch which explains money creation and the expansion of the money supply.

 

And why is this?.... well, money is issued and controlled by a) an international banking cartel - ALL private, NOT goverment and b) for the public, the banks that serve the population as mentioned above.

 

It is said that whoever lends money is the one to be repaid.... so why do banks and DCA's chase me for money I loaned to the bank in the first place?

 

As for the Bank of England proof, the link is posted in this forum.

 

charlie

 

I understand your point and your theory. I also agree with it, i think people seem to forget that i am not a floating item i also am i normal person who falls within these majic moves too.

 

But and once again i stress this in fact ill put in capitols and in red for those that dont seem to understand this

 

I AM NOT A FRIEND OF A DEFENDANT OF DCA'S I MERELY WORK FOR ONE AND NOT AS A COLLECTOR. MY ORIGINAL POST AND CONTINUED POSTS WHERE DESIGNED TO HELP PEOPLE ONLY

[spacemonkeypg]

Just had a read thro this thread and am amazed at how some members treat the original poster. The OP gives his opinion or advice and gets shot down. Who says, apart from Pinky that a DCA is not allowed to ask for I&E. Show me where it says they cannot ask. If a person were on benefits it would be in there own interest to declare their income. Give this guy a break, he has been on the recieving end and knows the score. If you don't believe him then fine that's your choice but I do think some members are riding high horses by the tone of their replies.

 

Thank you, i thought for a moment i was the only person who could see this!

[spacemonkeypg]

So which DCA,s purchase and which don,t

HFO do, I have it in writing and they have their own in house solicitor or are they lying, but there again they do not do that

 

I am sorry i do not know who buys, and who does not buy debts. What i do know is that the company i work within does not purchase their debts. They sell the debt collection service to the client.

[spacemonkeypg]

After what millions of people have been through at the hands of these thugs, including been hounded to death like Beryl Brazier and others, we are perfectly entitled to be on high horses and will remain so for as long as DCAs continue to lie, con, threaten, bully, abuse and breach consumer law at will to extract their pound of flesh, to which, in millions of cases, they are not legally entitled. DCAs have no lawful right to I&Es any more than I have, they do buy debts and they issue letters using solicitors letterheads like toilet paper - and those were just three lies the poster told to try to ingratiate himself into this forum so he can try to break down the defences of the naive - people like you Twofoot who cannot immediately see through him and whoever sent him in here. The motivation of anyone working for a DCA whose umbrella body detests CAG is highly dubious. We have had it all before, he isn't the first and he won't be the last - and like all threat monkeys he isn't terribly bright. He is either ignorant or isn't employed by a DCA at all - we don't even know who he is - and it is obvious he isn't in a position to help anyone on the site. You entertain him if you want but I for one will be standing up for the posters on this site who come in desperate for help because of people like him and finally get their life together again and their dignity returned to them.

 

You seem to be very much full of your own self importance on a web forum where everyone remains enon! Just as much as you accuse me of being a threat monkey i could accuse you of being a murderer or child rapist.

 

It seems that i have made my point and position very very clear. But some people, yourself included are either ignorant or do not understand written English. I AM NOT A DEBT COLLECTOR!

 

I do not deny that some DCA's work out side of the law, once again i have stated that in this thread. NUMEROUS TIMES!

 

At what point did i lie? did i agree that DCA's buy debts? Yes once again read the thread

 

I have clearly stated that some DCA's buy debts but it is uncommon in normal DCA's and this process is conducted with large financial institutions. Again NUMEROUS TIMES!

 

I cannot comment if the company i work for detest the CAG as i have never walked into the directors office and announced the existence of this site. It would be foolish of me to do so.

 

For someone who claims to be here in the interest of helping people, like i do myself and have done for those that have asked. You seem very very blind or pure ignorant to my postings and meaning within them. Surely someone who seems to detest DCA's would be happy to find that there is someone inside of a DCA who would like to communicate within this forum. I have already posted my intentions here if you wish to dismiss them then that is your own personal choice and issue.

 

Or are you like has been posted on your high horse and full of your own self importance?

[Pinky69]

[panther12]

Or are you like has been posted on your high horse and full of your own self importance?

 

Oh dear!! lol

[MONX]

Dear Spacemonkey

 

What you have to understand is, the majority of people who use this forum have been at the end of their rope because of the tactics of scurrilous DCA's. I for one have been so scared to answer the phone or pick up my post due to the underhand, unlawful and down right thuggish acts of two notorious DCA's who have had their knuckles rapped for their trouble (Ist Credit and Connaught Collections).

 

Ist Credit said that they were the "owner" of the debt and Connaught Collections were acting on their behalf. The alleged original creditor didnt even appear on the SD!

 

Because we are at the sharp end of the actions of DCA's we have experienced things that you say shouldnt happen.

 

Declaring you work for a DCA (I know, I know! not as a debt collector) and declaring that you want to help us was bound to stir suspicion, especially seeing as you offered to give me advice on a SB debt in private, you have to understand that some DCA's have printed out threads from the forum to use as evidence in court!

 

You said that you havent lied, well you may not have lied per se but you have been economical with the truth. I originally asked you how debts are aquired and if bought how were they bought - your answer was "Debts are not purchased this idea has been banded around for some time now" This was a catagorical statement, there were no adendums for your company or your experience this was blunt black and white statement. It was only when other posters took you to task on this you admitted that some debts were purchased.

 

As someone who works for an industry who is posting on a consumer forum in support against that industry it is only natural that we are going to question your motives, the authenticity of your desire to help will be in question and where, as I said before; do your loyalties lie?

 

Personally it doesnt affect me if you post on here and "help" people because I can learn little from you, you havent answered my questions or given me credible answers, I do however worry on behalf of members of the forum who will take your word for gospel or divulge something they shouldnt and jeaopordise their case.