UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[NYGman]

In laymens terms, Bank A takes out the agreement with the borrower and lends him £5,000.

Bank A then sells the bit of paper containing the agreement to Bank B for £5,000. Bank A keeps a photocopy of the agreement.

After 3 years, the borrower has repaid the loan. Bank A gets £5,000 back from the borrower plus £2,000 interest, meaning they make a profit of £2,000 on the deal. However, in addition, Bank A has also sold the piece of paper that the agreement is written on, adding another £5,000 profit to the deal.

Ah yes... In layman's terms... A layman who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about

In this parallel universe what's in it for Bank B? They buy the agreement from Bank A for £5000 and get what exactly in return?

Bank B then sell it on to Bank C. At some point no doubt, Bank B will also sell an instrument on to Bank A.

I had to refer to it as "a bit of paper" in a final effort to get people like you and the chimp to separate it from the actual loan.

You may also wish to know that on the rare occasions that these agreements do resurface, they contain several stamps or endorsements, each one indicating that a transaction/sale has taken place.

The more informed on this forum readily accept that this trading takes place. I'm sorry if its not what you want to hear but hey-Worse things have happened at sea eh?

But again your premise is wrong. There is a finite projected income stream, the interest. you can only sell it once. There is no duplication, or extra, look at my example above. An instrument can move between financial institutions, but no one will buy it if it doesn't give them some profit. A lot of it is done using PV and FPV calcs, and imputed interest rates.

Think of it like a bond with face value. If I buy a $100 bond, I pay less for it, based on when it will pay out. I may be able to buy a $100 bond for $50, that will pay $100 in 7 years. However I only pay $50 for it. The bank selling it gets $50 today on a promise to pay $100 in 7 years. they can invest to $50 they get and hope to exceed the imputed interest, they may do better, or they may do worse, but you will get your $100 in 7 years, and they will get the benefit of $50 for 7 years. The difference in value is the interest.

My bond example is essentially what the purchasing bank is doing. They are buying the debt today at a reduced price, and effectively giving Bank A the PV of the note, at some interest rate, that leaves rome for margin on both sides. The purchasing bank only expects the original terms to be honored. To the debtor, nothing has changed, but for access to the loan. Without these securities, and the trading of debt, banks would stop lending, as they would have loaned out all their capital. Financial markets allow them to offload it today, and recognize income earlier, for a price.

One last thing, if it didn't make financial sense, a bank would not do it. Unless there is the potential of a profit, why would I bother with a transaction. It is also true, banks can be both buyers and sellers, but not everything is as it seems. They may be managing a risk matrix, and all $5k loans are not the same. Credit risk, current status, etc, may impact the loan. buying and selling instruments allows banks to rebalance risk and reqard.

[daveBeeston]

It is your signature that guarantees the instrument yet you are never told this at disclosure stage. Nor are you told that the instrument may be traded many times throughout the industry. Nor are you told that your data could be exposed to God knows who.

No sane person would suggest that this course of action is ethical, moral or indeed lawful. Certainly, any contract entered into would not be able to be lawfully sold on. If a DCA get hold of the debt (and usually they do), you simply need to advise that the contract was breached by the original lender. I used to ask for sight of the original agreement, unstamped and unendorsed (to show that it hadn't been traded) and if they could not do this (which obviously they couldn't) then they would have to let a court decide if any money was outstanding.

I'm no expert on the trading side of things but I suspect this false creation of funds by adding digits to accounts (by trading these agreements) contributed heavily to the crisis the banking sector found itself in a few years back and the taxpayer had to bail them out because of it.

Tuco did you not write the bit i've highlighted in bold? If you didn't then who is replying using your username here?

The original document loophole was partially closed in 2010 a court in Manchester eached a decision, ruling that lenders only need to provide a ‘reconstituted’ copy of the original loan agreement. The decision means that the absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is not evidence that such an agreement was not made.

It did also rule that if a lender is not able to supply a copy of the loan agreement, then they cannot use the courts to chase a debt, it does not stop the lender employing a DCA to chase the debt.

A previous High Court ruling in London ruled that borrowers could still be held liable for their debts even if bank cannot produce a copy of the original agreement.

The judge decreed that claimants should not stop paying back their loans or credit cards while the claim was ongoing, as the loan may become fully enforceable in future.

Any non-payment could be recorded on the claimant’s credit files - which would not breach data protection law.

A bank does not have to disclose its intent to sell on the loan/mortgage as it may not happen and even if it does there is no change to the original agreement and no material harm to the borrower.
Not all transactions attract a fee or interest either most are sold at face value to free up capital so other mortgage/loans can be offered to other customers.

How is it now that you cannot cite any case law in regards to this when you earlier stated you could? and if it is now contract law then cite the relevant section.

[Bones]

I think TUCO is confusing the sale of receivables, with the freetard theories in regard to negotiable instrument


This is an example of what happens in the real world, rather than the fantasy world of Tuco and the other freetards

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19238.html

Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19238 (9 September 2005)

14. A credit card issuer, or any other institution wishing to do so (an "originator"), obtains capital by assigning the sums it is due to receive from its customers ("Receivables") to another legal entity which, directly or indirectly, borrows in the capital markets, using the assigned receivables as security, and paying the amount it borrows to the credit card company. The lender assumes the risk that the issuer's customers will fail to pay their debts, but it can measure the risk of that failure against the known historical experience and the substantially predictable behaviour of a large group of people. The risk is assessed by the rating agencies, which give the assigned receivables (or, perhaps more accurately, the negotiable instruments for which they constitute the security) an appropriate rating. In practice, we were told, the risk of default, beyond an assumed level of which account is taken when receivables are securitised, is very small and, typically, a portfolio of credit card receivables securitised in the manner in issue in this appeal will attract a credit rating of AA (again adopting Standard and Poor's rating system), equivalent to that of a UK clearing bank; potentially, credit card receivables, if subject to "term" securitisation (that is, securitisation for a fixed term), can achieve the highest possible rating, of AAA. Mr Ingram explained that achieving the highest practicable rating is the most important objective of a securitisation, to which all the others are subordinate. Large parts of the contracts, to which we shall come shortly, are devoted to ensuring that nothing is done which might adversely affect the rating agencies' assessment of the securitised assets. The advantage to the issuer is that, because of the higher rating, the cost to it of obtaining the funds it needs to conduct its business (that is, the interest it must pay) is lower than it would be if it were to borrow directly from the lender (commonly referred to, in the context of securitisations, as the "investor").

Hence it is all to do with assignment - Tuco just can't understand it though

Bank A lends customer funds - creating a debt, Bank B buys that debt and the debt is repaid by the customer via Bank A to Bank B via an administration agreement and an equitable assignment. Unless there is an express term in the agreement/contract, Bank A is free to assign/sell the debt to whoever wants to buy it.

His DPA argument is DOA, as credit agreements include a term to say that they will disclose information to 3rd parties and his understanding based upon the example he provided is based on freetard myths rather than the real world

Unlike in the states where the Receivables are traded over and over again which can cloud ownership, in the UK they are usually only sold once and via an equitable assignment, giving clear ownership. But Freetards have been watching too much Wolf of Wall Street and The Big Short to understand reality

[Henti]

In laymens terms, Bank A takes out the agreement with the borrower and lends him £5,000.

Bank A then sells the bit of paper containing the agreement to Bank B for £5,000. Bank A keeps a photocopy of the agreement.

After 3 years, the borrower has repaid the loan. Bank A gets £5,000 back from the borrower plus £2,000 interest, meaning they make a profit of £2,000 on the deal. However, in addition, Bank A has also sold the piece of paper that the agreement is written on, adding another £5,000 profit to the deal.

Ah yes... In layman's terms... A layman who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about

In this parallel universe what's in it for Bank B? They buy the agreement from Bank A for £5000 and get what exactly in return?

Bank B then sell it on to Bank C. At some point no doubt, Bank B will also sell an instrument on to Bank A.

I had to refer to it as "a bit of paper" in a final effort to get people like you and the chimp to separate it from the actual loan.

You may also wish to know that on the rare occasions that these agreements do resurface, they contain several stamps or endorsements, each one indicating that a transaction/sale has taken place.

The more informed on this forum readily accept that this trading takes place. I'm sorry if its not what you want to hear but hey-Worse things have happened at sea eh?

The agreement is the"actual loan", if you knew anything about contract law, you would recognise the loan as being consideration to the debtor and the repayment as mutual consideration to the creditor.
God why is it I always feel I am teaching remedial law when I talk to you.

As I have said many times
Trading in agreements does of course take place and not just for financial profit, sometimes it is just for house cleaning purposes.

[Tuco]

It is your signature that guarantees the instrument yet you are never told this at disclosure stage. Nor are you told that the instrument may be traded many times throughout the industry. Nor are you told that your data could be exposed to God knows who.

No sane person would suggest that this course of action is ethical, moral or indeed lawful. Certainly, any contract entered into would not be able to be lawfully sold on. If a DCA get hold of the debt (and usually they do), you simply need to advise that the contract was breached by the original lender. I used to ask for sight of the original agreement, unstamped and unendorsed (to show that it hadn't been traded) and if they could not do this (which obviously they couldn't) then they would have to let a court decide if any money was outstanding.

I'm no expert on the trading side of things but I suspect this false creation of funds by adding digits to accounts (by trading these agreements) contributed heavily to the crisis the banking sector found itself in a few years back and the taxpayer had to bail them out because of it.

Tuco did you not write the bit i've highlighted in bold? If you didn't then who is replying using your username here?

The original document loophole was partially closed in 2010 a court in Manchester eached a decision, ruling that lenders only need to provide a ‘reconstituted’ copy of the original loan agreement. The decision means that the absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is not evidence that such an agreement was not made.

It did also rule that if a lender is not able to supply a copy of the loan agreement, then they cannot use the courts to chase a debt, it does not stop the lender employing a DCA to chase the debt.

A previous High Court ruling in London ruled that borrowers could still be held liable for their debts even if bank cannot produce a copy of the original agreement.

The judge decreed that claimants should not stop paying back their loans or credit cards while the claim was ongoing, as the loan may become fully enforceable in future.

Any non-payment could be recorded on the claimant’s credit files - which would not breach data protection law.

A bank does not have to disclose its intent to sell on the loan/mortgage as it may not happen and even if it does there is no change to the original agreement and no material harm to the borrower.
Not all transactions attract a fee or interest either most are sold at face value to free up capital so other mortgage/loans can be offered to other customers.

How is it now that you cannot cite any case law in regards to this when you earlier stated you could? and if it is now contract law then cite the relevant section.

Yes Dave it was me who posted the highlighted bit. For transparency:

It is not unlawful to trade an instrument (the agreement) nor is it unlawful to assign rights.

It is unlawful to sell on an agreement (contract) if the contract has been breached, thus invalidating it.

I think that you are getting the two scenarios mixed up.

Whilst I accept that a photocopy may be acceptable in court these days, I am not trying to exploit a "document loophole" I think that it is perfectly reasonable to enquire as to the whereabouts of the original document, don't you?

How are you to know how many copies of this document have been made and where these copies are? What is to stop some other DCA contacting you in 6 or 12 months time, claiming that they have assigned rights of the debt.

The whole thing stinks and no matter how you dress it up, it is plain wrong.

[NYGman]

It is not unlawful to trade an instrument (the agreement) nor is it unlawful to assign rights.

It is unlawful to sell on an agreement (contract) if the contract has been breached, thus invalidating it.

I think that you are getting the two scenarios mixed up.

Whilst I accept that a photocopy may be acceptable in court these days, I am not trying to exploit a "document loophole" I think that it is perfectly reasonable to enquire as to the whereabouts of the original document, don't you?

How are you to know how many copies of this document have been made and where these copies are? What is to stop some other DCA contacting you in 6 or 12 months time, claiming that they have assigned rights of the debt.

The whole thing stinks and no matter how you dress it up, it is plain wrong.

First, why does it matter how many copies exist, it is irrelevant. You have a copy and a specific obligation under it. That is to pay back the principal and interest thereon.

You would have a suit if they were trying to get more than that out of you, under the contract. You are raising copies as if they mean something, they are just the embodiment of the agreement. You got the cash, you were paying it back with the stated interest, is there not an agreement in place. You know the terms, the bank does too, there is no doubt as to what you owe. You will not and can not be obligated to pay more, and they can not try to sell it multiple times, no one would buy it.

One last time, DPA violations will not invalidate a contract, they will get the company in to trouble, but contract stands, and besides most if not all, have provisions that allow for the sale and transfer of necessary information to a third party. so how do you get a contract breach, there isn't any. For the real mechanics, see my post several above, or my bond example. You examples are not realistic, and bear no resemblance to what actually goes on in the financial markets.

No one is going to sell the same debt over and over, and no one would ever pay or be liable for the same debt over and over, this is another FMOTL Fallacy.

[TheNewSaint]

How are you to know how many copies of this document have been made and where these copies are?

Prepare to have your mind blown:

[Henti]

The none production of a signed agreement, is not such a bar to enforcement these days in any case, a signature can just be a tick in an online form.

[daveBeeston]

Yes Dave it was me who posted the highlighted bit. For transparency:

It is not unlawful to trade an instrument (the agreement) nor is it unlawful to assign rights.

It is unlawful to sell on an agreement (contract) if the contract has been breached, thus invalidating it.

I think that you are getting the two scenarios mixed up.

Whilst I accept that a photocopy may be acceptable in court these days, I am not trying to exploit a "document loophole" I think that it is perfectly reasonable to enquire as to the whereabouts of the original document, don't you?

How are you to know how many copies of this document have been made and where these copies are? What is to stop some other DCA contacting you in 6 or 12 months time, claiming that they have assigned rights of the debt.

The whole thing stinks and no matter how you dress it up, it is plain wrong.

With all due respect Tuco im not mixing any scenario up, you are fixated on there being a breach of contract when none is actually taking place.
The selling on of the loan or mortgage is not the selling on of your contract, your contract remains with the original lender they in turn will have a contract with the party they sold the loan or mortgage onto.

You have every right to enquire as to the whereabouts of the original document, the lender however does not have to produce it they only have to produce a copy and if they don't it does not invalidate the agreement or absolve the borrower from having to pay back the amount owed at the original terms.
The lender can only instruct one DCA at any one time to chase a debt, if they instruct more than one then they may well be liable to a harassment complaint which could potentially have serious repercussions for the lender.

[ForumWars]

The none production of a signed agreement, is not such a bar to enforcement these days

In fact, after Carey v HSBC, there isn't even a need for a copy of the agreement, a reconstruction is all that's required.

in any case, a signature can just be a tick in an online form.

That's the case for online applications starting in Jan 2005 as per The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004 ... cle/4/made

[Tuco]

Yes Dave it was me who posted the highlighted bit. For transparency:

It is not unlawful to trade an instrument (the agreement) nor is it unlawful to assign rights.

It is unlawful to sell on an agreement (contract) if the contract has been breached, thus invalidating it.

I think that you are getting the two scenarios mixed up.

Whilst I accept that a photocopy may be acceptable in court these days, I am not trying to exploit a "document loophole" I think that it is perfectly reasonable to enquire as to the whereabouts of the original document, don't you?

How are you to know how many copies of this document have been made and where these copies are? What is to stop some other DCA contacting you in 6 or 12 months time, claiming that they have assigned rights of the debt.

The whole thing stinks and no matter how you dress it up, it is plain wrong.

With all due respect Tuco im not mixing any scenario up, you are fixated on there being a breach of contract when none is actually taking place.
The selling on of the loan or mortgage is not the selling on of your contract, your contract remains with the original lender they in turn will have a contract with the party they sold the loan or mortgage onto.

You have every right to enquire as to the whereabouts of the original document, the lender however does not have to produce it they only have to produce a copy and if they don't it does not invalidate the agreement or absolve the borrower from having to pay back the amount owed at the original terms.
The lender can only instruct one DCA at any one time to chase a debt, if they instruct more than one then they may well be liable to a harassment complaint which could potentially have serious repercussions for the lender.

I give in.

[Tuco]

The none production of a signed agreement, is not such a bar to enforcement these days

In fact, after Carey v HSBC, there isn't even a need for a copy of the agreement, a reconstruction is all that's required.

in any case, a signature can just be a tick in an online form.

That's the case for online applications starting in Jan 2005 as per The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004 ... cle/4/made

If the whole thing is done on line then there is no original document to be traded in the first place.

[ForumWars]

The original document loophole was partially closed in 2010 a court in Manchester eached a decision, ruling that lenders only need to provide a ‘reconstituted’ copy of the original loan agreement. The decision means that the absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is not evidence that such an agreement was not made.

You're probably referring to the Carey case. It had to be decided that way, in view of the numbers of people who had used CMCs to take their creditors to court to have their agreements ruled unenforceable as opposed to just waiting for the creditor to make the first move and then defend the claim if applicable.

There's always been a bit of confusion between the effects of s.78(6) and s.127(3) (repealed with effect from April 6 2007) of the CCA. The effect of s.78(6) is temporary and the breach can be remedied at any time, while s.127(3) renders the agreement irredeemably unenforceable. S.127(3) only applies to agreements entered into before the date when it was repealed, and only if there really wasn't a properly executed agreement to start with. That was more common than most think, as many banks thought sending the T&Cs with the card was enough. It is still possible to defend claims for old credit products using these arguments and I know someone who has used them more than once, as recently as last year, but you need to know what you're doing.

It did also rule that if a lender is not able to supply a copy of the loan agreement, then they cannot use the courts to chase a debt, it does not stop the lender employing a DCA to chase the debt.

The debtor can simply refer the DCA to the fact that the lender failed to comply with s.78(1).

A previous High Court ruling in London ruled that borrowers could still be held liable for their debts even if bank cannot produce a copy of the original agreement.

The judge decreed that claimants should not stop paying back their loans or credit cards while the claim was ongoing, as the loan may become fully enforceable in future.

If the original agreement is located or the lender can come up with a true recon, then yes, it may become enforceable, provided s.127(3) as above, didn't apply.

Any non-payment could be recorded on the claimant’s credit files - which would not breach data protection law.

That was decided on the McGuffick case simply because the court ruled that recording a default did not constitute enforcement, however, in a more recent case, Grace v Blackhorse, it was established that a default should not be recorded when the agreement is unenforceable. The problem with that argument is that only a court can decide whether an agreement is enforceable or not.

How is it now that you cannot cite any case law in regards to this when you earlier stated you could? and if it is now contract law then cite the relevant section.

Well, I could, and did...

[JimUk1]

Except if it's a signed .pdf document signed electronically and stored electronically.

That's it, right there!

The original.

Why do people try for technicalities when you've been given money?

If you don't like it; don't borrow.

[SoLongCeylon]

Tuco - PLEASE stop listening to what that idiot Goldberg says. I hope you haven't paid to watch any of his webinars he advertises. I watched a free one he did and it was 100% nonsense. You may ( or may not ) have got out of a few debts in the past but I would suggest that was for no other reason than the DCA deciding not to pursue you rather than any other mind blowing reason.

Looking through this thread your position has shifted from contracts being voidable ( and therefore the debt not repayble ) to " the whole thing stinks and is just no right " ( nearly as incisive as Tom Crawfords arguments ). Others on this thread have put you right.

Anyway, back to Goldberg..... how can you take him seriously when he continually repeats the Lord Denning line of " a Promisory Note is as good as cash for accounting purposes". He takes the quotation totally out of context and then leaps to a "Promisory Note ( or credit agreement ) actually being cash." His mode of operation is purely one of create confusion with the bank over an unsecured loan and then try to negotiate a discounted settlement. He has a video up about trying to do exactly that with Birmingham Midshires but he has never posted a video of how it ended up. I wonder if that was because I tracked down the person at BM Goldberg was dealing with and informed them of what Goldberg was all about, including his various websites?

Tuco, if you let Goldberg influence you then you will end up like him. Turn around before it is too late.

[longdog]

The none production of a signed agreement, is not such a bar to enforcement these days

In fact, after Carey v HSBC, there isn't even a need for a copy of the agreement, a reconstruction is all that's required.

in any case, a signature can just be a tick in an online form.

That's the case for online applications starting in Jan 2005 as per The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004 ... cle/4/made

If the whole thing is done on line then there is no original document to be traded in the first place.

Oh for fuck's sake. Are you being deliberately stupid or is it genetic?

It's not the document that's traded it's the debt.

Let's try to make this simple enough for you to grasp...

1) Say I lend you £100 and you sign an agreement to repay me in 12 monthly payments of £10, the extra two months being my interest at 20%... Clear so far?

2) I then sell the debt to my brother for £110 but continue to receive the monthly payments which I pass on to my brother.

3) My brother doesn't need the agreement because the contract is between me and him not me and you.

Alternatively...

1) Say I lend you £100 and you sign an agreement to repay me in 12 monthly payments of £10, the extra two months being my interest at 20%.

2) After six months you stop paying.

3) I contract with a debt collection agency to recoup the remaining £60 with them keeping 25% of anything they collect.

4) The DCA don't need the original agreement because they are acting as my agent and they will refer you to me for a copy.

In neither scenario is the agreement sold. In the first case the contract between me and you has not changed. What I do with the debt is none of your business. In the second case there's no selling of the debt anyway.

You seem to think the original agreement has some sort of talismanic power it just doesn't have.

[Tuco]

Just for clarity, I am not under the influence of Simon Goldberg and of course I haven't paid for any of his videos.

I happen to agree with him on the subject of agreements being traded.

Just looking back at an old thread I was involved in 3 years ago, I was saying the exact things then. The so called "experts" (including Henti) were all telling me that I would lose in court with my fmotl ideas. I didn;t-The other side didn't have the guts to see the claim through. It was financially viable to do so, so the only reason they gave in was because it wasn't worth the risk.

I don't care if it is/was fmotl rubbish or whatever. It could have been ISIS propaganda for all I care. All I was concerned about was winning and that is exactly what I did.

[Philistine]

Tuco i do get what your saying and i now know what your on about now and the selling on of loans and mortgages has been going on for years and is perfectly legal, a lot of banks and other institutions do so to free up capital and that is covered under this part of the agreements(which bones posted),
Can we transfer our rights under this agreement?
14. We may transfer our rights and our obligations under
this agreement to a third party, including information about
you and how you have managed the loan which the third
party needs to know.

The fact that they have sold on the loan/ mortgage does not constitute a breach of the agreement/contract and nor does it absolve the borrower from having to repay the loan/mortgage at the terms they originally agreed with the lender, if it did then pretty much every loan or mortgage would be voidable and the banking industry would cease to function.

I do think that due to our understanding and the understanding you have you really do need to cite the relevant case law to prove that what your saying is correct, that way we can see where we have it wrong(if we do).

Dave

Firstly, I have never said it is illegal. I have simply stated that it should be disclosed prior to the signing of a contract.

As usual, Bones posted nothing but worthless drivel. The bank does not assign the rights, it keeps them, selling literally just the bit of paper containing the agreement.

In laymens terms, Bank A takes out the agreement with the borrower and lends him £5,000.

Bank A then sells the bit of paper containing the agreement to Bank B for £5,000. Bank A keeps a photocopy of the agreement.

After 3 years, the borrower has repaid the loan. Bank A gets £5,000 back from the borrower plus £2,000 interest, meaning they make a profit of £2,000 on the deal. However, in addition, Bank A has also sold the piece of paper that the agreement is written on, adding another £5,000 profit to the deal.

Bank A DOES NOT sell the whole package, it simply sells the piece of paper that the agreement is written on.

The rights remain with Bank A and the borrower continues to repay installments to Bank A.

Everyone knows that there is no case law on this as no DCA has ever challenged it. There is only normal contract law which if someone needs to be shown, then they shouldn't be commenting on the subject.

Who in their right mind could ever believe this?
It's Menardian in it's gullibility.

[Tuco]

Except if it's a signed .pdf document signed electronically and stored electronically.

That's it, right there!

The original.

Why do people try for technicalities when you've been given money?

If you don't like it; don't borrow.

I tried for technicalities because I don't like being fcuked with.

I had a few disputes with various people in the 90s & early 2000s. Every time I threatened not to pay, they threatened my credit rating (which was important to me at the time).

In around 2005 or 2006, I had a dispute with Abbey National over the interest on 500 odd pounds on a credit card. They told me that as I was a new customer (to the credit card side of things), that I would have to wait 12 months until they would discus things with me-They said they didn't discus issues with new customers. It was the straw that broke the camels back. I took out a large loan with them, hiked up the credit card to the maximum and opened a new bank account with Halifax, driving my Abbey account into a 2k overdraft. I then told them to come back in 12 months and I would talk to them then.

I'd had enough of being pushed around by these people (not only Abbey but they were the last ones)

I'd always been a model borrower up until that point. I just kept the bank loan (£15k) in another savings account and used it as a war chest. I knew that if it ever came to a point whereby I was ordered by a court to pay them, I had the money saved. i was determined to fight them though.

Some may think I was right, others may think I was wrong. I don't care. As the song goes, I did it my way.

[Tuco]

Tuco i do get what your saying and i now know what your on about now and the selling on of loans and mortgages has been going on for years and is perfectly legal, a lot of banks and other institutions do so to free up capital and that is covered under this part of the agreements(which bones posted),
Can we transfer our rights under this agreement?
14. We may transfer our rights and our obligations under
this agreement to a third party, including information about
you and how you have managed the loan which the third
party needs to know.

The fact that they have sold on the loan/ mortgage does not constitute a breach of the agreement/contract and nor does it absolve the borrower from having to repay the loan/mortgage at the terms they originally agreed with the lender, if it did then pretty much every loan or mortgage would be voidable and the banking industry would cease to function.

I do think that due to our understanding and the understanding you have you really do need to cite the relevant case law to prove that what your saying is correct, that way we can see where we have it wrong(if we do).

Dave

Firstly, I have never said it is illegal. I have simply stated that it should be disclosed prior to the signing of a contract.

As usual, Bones posted nothing but worthless drivel. The bank does not assign the rights, it keeps them, selling literally just the bit of paper containing the agreement.

In laymens terms, Bank A takes out the agreement with the borrower and lends him £5,000.

Bank A then sells the bit of paper containing the agreement to Bank B for £5,000. Bank A keeps a photocopy of the agreement.

After 3 years, the borrower has repaid the loan. Bank A gets £5,000 back from the borrower plus £2,000 interest, meaning they make a profit of £2,000 on the deal. However, in addition, Bank A has also sold the piece of paper that the agreement is written on, adding another £5,000 profit to the deal.

Bank A DOES NOT sell the whole package, it simply sells the piece of paper that the agreement is written on.

The rights remain with Bank A and the borrower continues to repay installments to Bank A.

Everyone knows that there is no case law on this as no DCA has ever challenged it. There is only normal contract law which if someone needs to be shown, then they shouldn't be commenting on the subject.

Who in their right mind could ever believe this?
It's Menardian in it's gullibility.

A saner person than someone who thinks that a bank would go to the trouble of burning an original and saving a copy-What is the point of that? Why not just save the original? Its a lot less time consuming.