UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg
Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:02 pm
Greetings, fellow admirers of Fotls, SovCit and other crazies lunatics heroes.
I hail from the UK, and confess I may have played a small part in John Harris's decision to close the very entertaining TPUC forum. No names no pack-drill, so I won't say who I was over there. I do regret its passing, but the real nutters die-hards long ago moved to GOODF.
I would like to draw your attention to an impending car crash. It's like a cheap TV movie where we can spot the imminent disaster well before the dumb characters. We scream, "Don't go there! Don't do that!" But we know they will anyway.
The freeloaders I mean frugal folk at GOODF have identified an interesting aspect of Direct Debit in the UK. If the bank or the organisation claiming a Direct Debt from a consumer makes a mistake, the bank promises to refund the money. In the UK, the consumer doesn't need to prove the error. See http://www.directdebit.co.uk/directdebi ... antee.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_debit . A mere assertion seems sufficient. So what prevents a consumer claiming that all bills he has paid by DD have been in error, so please give me my money back, now? Nothing, it seems. Of course, if the bills turn out to be genuine, the consumer now owes the reclaimed money, but a court case might be required, then bailiffs, and all that hassle. But that's no real problem: the rabbit-holers at GOOF have infallible schemes against such actions, involving three letters and not having a name.
("GOOF" was a typo for "GOODF" but I prefer the typo so I'll stick with it.)
Big successes are claimed, such as murphy74 who says he got £26,000 of his mortgage back. Sure, in their deserved enthusiasm, GOOFers have been known to exagerate just a teensy-weensy bit, but I suspect that at least some banks have paid out some amounts. Perhaps only after ensuring they will get the money from the organisation's bank, so it becomes Someone Else's Bad Debt.
Some folk, such as chrisguy2010, sadly report less success in clawing back mere phone bills.
This method appears to stem from a 23 November 2013 video by the Spaniard, aka WhiteRabbitTrust, aka Simon Goldberg. "For entertainment and educational purposes only."
He relates two anecdotes: one little bunny (translation for sheeple: "one person") used DD clawback as leverage in a dispute, while another borrowed money to purchase a car, then paid the loan back through DD, then decided he had never been lent real money in the first place so clawed back the DD. Yes, he then had trouble from the lender, but some GOOFy letters sent them packing. The Spaniard is careful not to explicitly condone such actions. He has Manardian caution rather than Cliffordian recklessness.
That said, Simon is a reformed debt collector, bank manager, mortgage advisor and so forth who now bravely fights our corner. On 12 April 2013 he attempted to start a criminal prosecution against a load of banks and 89 of their staff, alleging fraud etc. Our plucky hero relates how the magistrate sadly declined to allow the prosecution. In the previous year, he had tried to duck out of paying the interest on an interest-only mortgage. (Reference: http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... hp?t=46125 )
Anyhow, back to the main story. The clawback idea gained momentum over the summer, in two threads now totalling 480 posts:
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 55&start=0 and http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 95&start=0 . Nataliedeakin says she got £3700 back for a phone bill.
Doubtless all these clawbacks stem from genuine errors by banks or organisations. But I fear a time may come when some spoilsport decides that maybe the GOOFers are claiming back money simply because they can, even though they did owe the money. Then there might be, not merely civil debt proceedings, but criminal. Perhaps an example will be made to discourage the others. Who knows? I'll get the popcorn.
PS. Sorry for the YouTube references. I've watched them so you don't have to. And remember, if it's on YouTube, it must be true! (Unless it is merely for entertainment and educational purposes.)
I hail from the UK, and confess I may have played a small part in John Harris's decision to close the very entertaining TPUC forum. No names no pack-drill, so I won't say who I was over there. I do regret its passing, but the real nutters die-hards long ago moved to GOODF.
I would like to draw your attention to an impending car crash. It's like a cheap TV movie where we can spot the imminent disaster well before the dumb characters. We scream, "Don't go there! Don't do that!" But we know they will anyway.
The freeloaders I mean frugal folk at GOODF have identified an interesting aspect of Direct Debit in the UK. If the bank or the organisation claiming a Direct Debt from a consumer makes a mistake, the bank promises to refund the money. In the UK, the consumer doesn't need to prove the error. See http://www.directdebit.co.uk/directdebi ... antee.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_debit . A mere assertion seems sufficient. So what prevents a consumer claiming that all bills he has paid by DD have been in error, so please give me my money back, now? Nothing, it seems. Of course, if the bills turn out to be genuine, the consumer now owes the reclaimed money, but a court case might be required, then bailiffs, and all that hassle. But that's no real problem: the rabbit-holers at GOOF have infallible schemes against such actions, involving three letters and not having a name.
("GOOF" was a typo for "GOODF" but I prefer the typo so I'll stick with it.)
Big successes are claimed, such as murphy74 who says he got £26,000 of his mortgage back. Sure, in their deserved enthusiasm, GOOFers have been known to exagerate just a teensy-weensy bit, but I suspect that at least some banks have paid out some amounts. Perhaps only after ensuring they will get the money from the organisation's bank, so it becomes Someone Else's Bad Debt.
Some folk, such as chrisguy2010, sadly report less success in clawing back mere phone bills.
This method appears to stem from a 23 November 2013 video by the Spaniard, aka WhiteRabbitTrust, aka Simon Goldberg. "For entertainment and educational purposes only."
He relates two anecdotes: one little bunny (translation for sheeple: "one person") used DD clawback as leverage in a dispute, while another borrowed money to purchase a car, then paid the loan back through DD, then decided he had never been lent real money in the first place so clawed back the DD. Yes, he then had trouble from the lender, but some GOOFy letters sent them packing. The Spaniard is careful not to explicitly condone such actions. He has Manardian caution rather than Cliffordian recklessness.
That said, Simon is a reformed debt collector, bank manager, mortgage advisor and so forth who now bravely fights our corner. On 12 April 2013 he attempted to start a criminal prosecution against a load of banks and 89 of their staff, alleging fraud etc. Our plucky hero relates how the magistrate sadly declined to allow the prosecution. In the previous year, he had tried to duck out of paying the interest on an interest-only mortgage. (Reference: http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... hp?t=46125 )
Anyhow, back to the main story. The clawback idea gained momentum over the summer, in two threads now totalling 480 posts:
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 55&start=0 and http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 95&start=0 . Nataliedeakin says she got £3700 back for a phone bill.
Doubtless all these clawbacks stem from genuine errors by banks or organisations. But I fear a time may come when some spoilsport decides that maybe the GOOFers are claiming back money simply because they can, even though they did owe the money. Then there might be, not merely civil debt proceedings, but criminal. Perhaps an example will be made to discourage the others. Who knows? I'll get the popcorn.
PS. Sorry for the YouTube references. I've watched them so you don't have to. And remember, if it's on YouTube, it must be true! (Unless it is merely for entertainment and educational purposes.)