UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[NYGman]

Funniest post I've read for about a week.

Give yourself a big pat on the back Gman.

But I am not wrong

[Tuco]

Funniest post I've read for about a week.

Give yourself a big pat on the back Gman.

But I am not wrong

Of course you're not Gman.

It was all a bluff because they hadn't done their work properly, or even a conflict with the specialist debt solicitor.

I'm kicking myself for not working this out.

[NYGman]

Of course you're not Gman.

It was all a bluff because they hadn't done their work properly, or even a conflict with the specialist debt solicitor.

I'm kicking myself for not working this out.

My brother is hired all the time to write a legal letter that includes the threat of a law suit, in order to get a result. The intent may never be to go to court. Perhaps this DCA strategy was to just file the paperwork, and hope for settlement. You called their bluff, good on you, You win a Prize, DING DING DING.

My point was you have no clue why they dropped the case, you have made assumptions about why they did, that align with your legal thinking. What we do know for sure is that you can not point to this dropping the case, as proof your legal theories have any merit at all. Their is also no way you can rely on repeating the result consistently.

[longdog]

Just for comparison...

In 2004 I had debts of over £10,000 and no assets or income to speak of.

None of my creditors followed through with any of their many legal threats and now they are all statute barred.

My cunning legal strategy?.. I ignored them.

WORSHIP ME!!!!

[Tuco]

Of course you're not Gman.

It was all a bluff because they hadn't done their work properly, or even a conflict with the specialist debt solicitor.

I'm kicking myself for not working this out.

My point was you have no clue why they dropped the case, you have made assumptions about why they did, that align with your legal thinking. What we do know for sure is that you can not point to this dropping the case, as proof your legal theories have any merit at all. Their is also no way you can rely on repeating the result consistently.

Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim

They then contacted me stating that my claim had no reasonable chance of success but they would accept 50% full and final settlement if we both dropped proceedings.

I wrote back and told them that their claim had no reasonable chance of success and that I would drop my claim, if they dropped theirs.

They agreed.

It looks like you are the one making assumptions Gman.

The trouble with you Gman as well as several other idiots on here, you just don't like what I'm saying so you come on here and try to disprove it at any lengths, posting absolute crap in the process.

[Gregg]

Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim

Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.

[NYGman]

I disagree, they used the legal action as a means to settle, you called their bluff, they caved after they totted up the numbers and decided ab legal fight wadnt worth their time.


I also don't buy that a lawyer would agree with you that they had no chance of success, more likely they agree that they will not successfully recover enough after fees and costs to make it worth while.

You really do think too highly of your argument.

[NYGman]

Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim

Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.

He does Assume an awful lot, and as they say...

[Tuco]

Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim

Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.

He does Assume an awful lot, and as they say...

Can you actually read Gman?

Greg clearly can't.

I stated clearly that after I counterclaimed, they contacted me offering to settle.

[Tuco]

Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim

Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.

True but they probably use that excuse as to where the missing agreement has gone.

[AndyK]

Words, words, words.

How about some verifiable proof to support your allegations?

Otherwise, drop it.

[Tuco]

Words, words, words.

How about some verifiable proof to support your allegations?

Otherwise, drop it.

Drop what?

How about some verifiable proof some of the other muppets to support the crap that they have come out with?

Please explain to me what my "allegations" are?

[rumpelstilzchen]

The trouble with you Gman as well as several other idiots on here, you just don't like what I'm saying so you come on here and try to disprove it at any lengths, posting absolute crap in the process.

I for one have not tried to disprove what you are saying. I have however asked you a few times to prove what you are saying. So far you have offered absolutely no proof. All you have offered up to this point is opinion and assumption.

[grixit]

I think it's time to give Tuco his own pigpen.

[ForumWars]

My brother is hired all the time to write a legal letter that includes the threat of a law suit, in order to get a result. The intent may never be to go to court.

Some go as far as to issue a claim which is never served.

[ForumWars]

Just for comparison...

In 2004 I had debts of over £10,000 and no assets or income to speak of.

None of my creditors followed through with any of their many legal threats and now they are all statute barred.

My cunning legal strategy?.. I ignored them.

WORSHIP ME!!!!

Creditor behaviour isn't logically explained, it's all rather random. For some, ignoring has worked wonders while for others, it has brought on claims.

Disputing the account also works sometimes, because they focus on the ones who are more likely to pay. In all honesty, if the three letter system had never worked, would anyone still be promoting or using it? There must have been a number of cases where it worked, or at least appeared to work. The reason why the creditor didn't take it further could well have been totally unrelated. It's a bit like the typical false logic argument that over 90% of cancer sufferers watch TV every day, or eat bread at least once a week.

[Tuco]

I think it's time to give Tuco his own pigpen.

Why not?

That's what usually happens when I mug your regulars off.

[Burnaby49]

I checked this discussion this afternoon to find it had increased another four pages since my last look at it. All to no purpose. This is all just going around in circles. Clearly any explanation any of you make will not get tuco to admit that he is wrong and you are right. Yesterday Wes took a flamethrower to much of the recent posting but to no visible effect. It's like trying to prune Kudzu. So what's the point? It's just giving extra work to the moderators who have to review this but it won't resolve anything if resolving means changing opinions as a result of argument and discussion.

[Hercule Parrot]

If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.

Yes, but that's really not the point. What's important is the seriousness and effect of the breach.

For example - My mortgage agreement might say that the bank will send me notice of interest rate changes by first class post. If some HQ bean-counter decides to send them out second class instead, what will be the likely effect if I challenge this as a breach :

A : The bank will have to delay the increase of interest rate on my account by 48hrs to allow for late notice?
B : The bank will have to re-serve the notice correctly before they can implement the increased rate?
C: The bank will be permanently unable to implement this interest rate increase on my mortgage?
D: The bank will be unable to implement any future interest rate increase on my mortgage?
E: The mortgage agreement is void, I can keep the house without paying back the loan?

I could imagine a court favouring the first couple of options, maybe even C with exceptional advocacy. But non-performance of a particular term does not automatically lead to fundamental or repudiatory breach. And nor should it, because if I'm a day late with my payment one time I don't want the bailiffs coming round.

[Tuco]

I checked this discussion this afternoon to find it had increased another four pages since my last look at it. All to no purpose. This is all just going around in circles. Clearly any explanation any of you make will not get tuco to admit that he is wrong and you are right. Yesterday Wes took a flamethrower to much of the recent posting but to no visible effect. It's like trying to prune Kudzu. So what's the point? It's just giving extra work to the moderators who have to review this but it won't resolve anything if resolving means changing opinions as a result of argument and discussion.

How in God's name can they be right? On what grounds? Half of the clowns don't even understand the point, they think I am challenging the assignment of a debt.

The few that do are tripping over themselves t try to cover up the reprehensible behaviour of the banks and they will post anything that means that there is no way of not paying them.

If these idiots continue to post crap, I will continue to answer them and correct them.

Agreements are traded. They are done so without the debtors knowledge, despite it being the borrowers signature that guarantees the instrument. Once that agreement disappears, the protection of the borrowers data goes with it.

What is so wrong with stating that?