MMF calls but we have no debts

[GRJH]

Hi,

I've read a lot on this site about MMF and we have been receiving messages from them on answerphone since May.

 

I'm not entirely sure of the best way to proceed after having seen a lot of really useful information here.

 

They have never mentioned my name on the phone, and we have not received any emails or letters.

 

We also have no debts and never have.

 

I am presuming they are phishing for victims but I would like to stop these calls as we have young children

who I don't want answering the phone to them.

 

The message has gone on to the doorstep collection and that someone will be round soon.

 

However, they don't seem to know my name and presumably not my address so I would rather not give them any of this.

 

They have given me a reference number to phone back with.

 

Do I call them back?

 

I don't want to give them any info and don't really have the time to deal with this!

 

Any bright ideas would be really appreciated. Thank you!

[dx100uk]

moved to the MMF forum

 

dx

[mikeymack2002]

Hi stay off the fone till they are more forthcoming. Have you checked your credit file yet if no its worth looking try Noddle its free, then come back with more info

 

MM

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi,

I've read a lot on this site about MMF and we have been receiving messages from them on answerphone since May.

 

I'm not entirely sure of the best way to proceed after having seen a lot of really useful information here.

 

They have never mentioned my name on the phone, and we have not received any emails or letters.

 

We also have no debts and never have.

 

I am presuming they are phishing for victims but I would like to stop these calls as we have young children

who I don't want answering the phone to them.

 

The message has gone on to the doorstep collection and that someone will be round soon.

 

However, they don't seem to know my name and presumably not my address so I would rather not give them any of this.

 

They have given me a reference number to phone back with.

 

Do I call them back?

 

I don't want to give them any info and don't really have the time to deal with this!

 

Any bright ideas would be really appreciated. Thank you!

 

Hi welcome to CAG, is MMF contacting a landline or a mobile?

I have seen a couple of instances where MMF have been phoning a 'recycled' mobile number and/or a refurbished phone.?

 

What is the tone of these contacts?

[GRJH]

HI there - it's a landline and is now getting a little more aggressive saying they will be calling unannounced in the next few days.

 

I have checked my credit rating on Noddle (thanks for this link, MM) and it is completely clear - we don't have any unsettled loans etc. My mother-in-law, who does a lot of childcare for us at home is getting nervous about this and won't answer the phone or the door when she's at home with the kids.

 

Thanks for your support folks!

[dx100uk]

they never do

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

HI there - it's a landline and is now getting a little more aggressive saying they will be calling unannounced in the next few days.

 

I have checked my credit rating on Noddle (thanks for this link, MM) and it is completely clear - we don't have any unsettled loans etc. My mother-in-law, who does a lot of childcare for us at home is getting nervous about this and won't answer the phone or the door when she's at home with the kids.

 

Thanks for your support folks!

 

How do you want to deal with this?

Have you answered any calls at all?

 

I can draft a letter to MMF for you, all the identity it need have is the number they re calling.

 

MMF is breaching OFT Guidance by making calls this way, and given a recent Appeal Court decision their actions do amount to harassment.

[GRJH]

How do you want to deal with this?

Have you answered any calls at all?

 

I can draft a letter to MMF for you, all the identity it need have is the number they re calling.

 

MMF is breaching OFT Guidance by making calls this way, and given a recent Appeal Court decision their actions do amount to harassment.

 

Hi. I haven't spoken to them at all figuring they don't have any info about me and would give up, though having read about them I guess they won't! I'd like them to stop bothering us and if in the process we can help stop companies behaving like this that'd be great. I've kept the last 6 answerphone messages. Wasn't sure whether to write to them or speak to them...

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi. I haven't spoken to them at all figuring they don't have any info about me and would give up, though having read about them I guess they won't! I'd like them to stop bothering us and if in the process we can help stop companies behaving like this that'd be great. I've kept the last 6 answerphone messages. Wasn't sure whether to write to them or speak to them...

 

Just let me know if you want the letter.

[elliesname]

Hi, I have been paying MMF £40 a month for 9 year for what should have been a £900 debt, they got a court order out on me and placed the debt on credit report. They have Solicitors called Lee and Priestley who I have been paying. I received a letter from them in July saying I only owed a small amount and would I like to pay it off. I payed it straight away. I received a letter from MMF on Friday saying I owed them over £4500, I told them I had paid it off and had the receipt. The guy on the phone said he couldn't deal with and would get one of there finance guys to ring me. They haven't called me back at all. Maybe this could be a way of proving they are cheating people out of money. Ellie

Edited September 16, 2013 by elliesname
spelling mistake

[jamtoast]

Hi,

I don't want to hijack you're thread, but MMF recently started sending me emails claiming that I owe 'Cheque Centre Ltd' £102.78

I know I don't have any debt; I've never had a credit card, overdraft or store credit. I've certainly never had a payday loan.

 

I'm approaching this in a slightly different manner. Are you aware that as a MAN or a WOMAN; only the common law applies to you?

Have you ever noticed that you will always be addressed with a title in formal communication?

This is because a title (Mr, Mrs) is a legal status and represents a PERSON. Statutes and acts of parliament are only applicable to a PERSON.

If you do not agree to represent the PERSON, there is nothing they can do. However, providing your name or address enters you into a contract with other party and you then represent that PERSON.

By the way; this is all sound legal advice, have a read of Blacks Law Dictionary if you doubt me.

 

Anyway; while I'm not accepting to represent the person they're looking for, who can I complain to for fraud by this company?

Thanks

Chris

[renegadeimp]

Lets not get into fotl rubbish please. It has no basis in law and causes more trouble than anything else

[sequenci]

Lets not get into fotl rubbish please. It has no basis in law and causes more trouble than anything else

 

Thanks Mr.

[Conniff]

Oh look, the nutters are coming out of the woodwork again, it must be that time of the year.

 

while I'm not accepting to represent the person they're looking for, who can I complain to for fraud by this company?

 

Try David Icke

[jamtoast]

I see, it's that kind of forum.

Oh well, I'll watch what happens in the OP's case and deal with mine as I will.

I guess we'll see who gets it resolved.

[renegadeimp]

If by that kind of forum, you mean s forum that deals in facts and law and uses case law to back up what we say, then yes we are.

 

However we are not a forum that deals in fantasy and made up law that has absolutely no basis in reality.

[BazzaS]

I'm minded of the comments from the Canadian High Court judge, (O'Donnell J) in R vs. Duncan who noted that he didn't have to rule on a FOTL judgement as one of his colleagues had already done so, but he noted "“It has been said that, given enough time, ten thousand monkeys with typewriters would probably eventually replicate the collected works of William Shakespeare. Sadly, when human beings are let loose with computers and internet access, their work product does not necessarily compare favourably to the aforementioned monkeys with typewriters."

http://ablawg.ca/2013/04/08/what-has-meads-v-meads-wrought/

 

The judgement the O'Donnell J referred to is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

 

As for "read Blacks Law Dictionary", I'm sure there is an equivalent Medical Dictionary. Are you suggesting someone having a heart attack should call an ambulance, or rely on advice from somone who has read Black's Medical Dictionary?.

 

Funnily enough Rooke mentions Black's Law dictionary in the Meades judgement, as a marker of the spurious FOTL arguments and this is highlighted in http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

 

The Canadian High Court judgment is not (of course) binding on UK courts, but I suspect it will be highly persuasive if introduced in argument.

 

I could not recommend use of the FOTL argument other than as a very high risk strategy.

Edited September 17, 2013 by BazzaS

[sequenci]

I see, it's that kind of forum.

Oh well, I'll watch what happens in the OP's case and deal with mine as I will.

I guess we'll see who gets it resolved.

 

We're not *that* kind of forum at all. We're just not *that* kind of forum. You know, the ones which fill impressionable people full of inaccurate, damaging spurious BS. To be fair I've had plenty of entertaining conversations with leading academics about the whole FOTL arguments at Law School. The amout of delusion is outstanding, and also frightening.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is only one place for Blacks Law Dictionary & FOTL, and I'm told the sun don't shine there!

[sequenci]

I do find the whole FOTL thing absolutely fascinating, though, some of the forums are incredibly entertaining. It's car crash stuff some of it - but really sad that people take what they read at face value - which then often comes back to absolutely shaft them; I find that really difficult. I'm sure you would have seen stuff out there in 'real life' Brig when at court etc?

 

Oh and the readers' comments on this blog are GOLDEN:

 

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Laugh a minute, especially if tried on an elderly judge much stuck in tradit:madgrin:on

[renegadeimp]

I do find the whole FOTL thing absolutely fascinating, though, some of the forums are incredibly entertaining. It's car crash stuff some of it - but really sad that people take what they read at face value - which then often comes back to absolutely shaft them; I find that really difficult. I'm sure you would have seen stuff out there in 'real life' Brig when at court etc?

 

Oh and the readers' comments on this blog are GOLDEN:

 

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

 

The comments on that page are brilliant.

[BazzaS]

I do find the whole FOTL thing absolutely fascinating, though, some of the forums are incredibly entertaining. It's car crash stuff some of it - but really sad that people take what they read at face value - which then often comes back to absolutely shaft them; I find that really difficult. I'm sure you would have seen stuff out there in 'real life' Brig when at court etc?

 

Oh and the readers' comments on this blog are GOLDEN:

 

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

 

Do I get extra "street cred" for citing that page higher up the thread? (Points upwards on page).

 

Am I replying to sequenci, Mr (or Mrs?) sequenci, or sequenci of the CAG?

 

Being more serious, has anyone actually been brave (or foolish?) enough to try the FOTL argument in a UK court of record? Meads and Duncan were Canadian cases.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

'Bemused' is the word that described a judges look when this nonsense was put forward, stroppy, arrogant and downright abusive described the defendants attitude when their case was thrown out.

 

These beliefs imo are nothing more than delusional ploys to avoid responsibility!

 

F antacies Of T otal L unatics

[BazzaS]

'Bemused' is the word that described a judges look when this nonsense was put forward, stroppy, arrogant and downright abusive described the defendants attitude when their case was thrown out.

 

These beliefs imo are nothing more than delusional ploys to avoid responsibility!

 

F antacies Of T otal L unatics

 

Was this in E&W? The UK?

and in a court binding on lower courts?