Removal of 3rd Party (DCA) Defaults

BillJones

Having seen your other posts, I can see that you are indeed one of those expressing these pseudolegal arguments. May I ask, why do you always start with a specific, seemingly small technical point, and then, only when questioned, spread it out to make clear that you doubt the whole principle of the state having the right to govern your activities? It's such a common FOTL tactic that sometimes it seems that there are only three of you worldwide, spamming vast numbers of unrelated forums with the same weird claims.

Your previous posting that being on the electroral roll means that you have agreed to be governed, for example, it's ludicrous. This idea that you get to choose to say that despite occupying your house that you are not "the occupier", it is just not true. Your claim that you were never really lent money for a mortgage, as the bank paid it to the seller, not to you, that makes no sense.

Anyway, I've broken my own rule now of not engaging with libertarians, so I'll let you have the last word.

the_worm_that_turned

BillJones wrote: »

Having seen your other posts, I can see that you are indeed one of those expressing these pseudolegal arguments. May I ask, why do you always start with a specific, seemingly small technical point, and then, only when questioned, spread it out to make clear that you doubt the whole principle of the state having the right to govern your activities? It's such a common FOTL tactic that sometimes it seems that there are only three of you worldwide, spamming vast numbers of unrelated forums with the same weird claims.

Your previous posting that being on the electroral roll means that you have agreed to be governed, for example, it's ludicrous. This idea that you get to choose to say that despite occupying your house that you are not "the occupier", it is just not true. Your claim that you were never really lent money for a mortgage, as the bank paid it to the seller, not to you, that makes no sense.

Anyway, I've broken my own rule now of not engaging with libertarians, so I'll let you have the last word.

And you've determined all of that from reading a few posts on a forum?

Not sure where to start, without self-derailing my own thread!

In relation to this thread. I am not sure they are pseudo-legal as that term appears to be an oxymoron. The law is the law. It is a straight railroad. You may claim my interpretation of the law, or legal arguments, is incorrect and that is your choice.

But not to challenge the status quo is, again IMO, tantamount to submitting to being a slave to a master. Who is your master? I have none. I am free.

As for electoral roll argument being ludicrous, I challenge you to prove a) what does provide your consent to be governed (ruled over) and b) what the legal definition of an occupier is and how that applies to me. I do not occupy my house. I live in it, i.e. I am alive within it. An army occupies land without consent.

I feel it is you that is actually trolling here and attempting to derail the thread that I started! Happy to debate on a separate thread. Just post up the location but don't let it consume you. Spent far too long wasting time on semantics and pointless debate. Better to focus on facts and solutions. e.g. helping people get out of debt and enjoying life

meer53

Letters are quite often opened by a machine, not a human. Maybe your cheque was separated from your "offer" ?

I think you're bonkers.

Thrugelmir

the_worm_that_turned wrote: »

As both parties are already in a contract either party has the right to attempt to amend the contract or terms within to form a new or updated (effectively the same thing) contract.

The only rights are those that are laid in the original terms and conditions that you agreed to. Which will cover such games.

Much in the same way that the wheel was invented over 2,000 years ago. Yet no one has yet come up with an alternative solution.

the_worm_that_turned

meer53 wrote: »

Letters are quite often opened by a machine, not a human. Maybe your cheque was separated from your "offer" ?

I think you're bonkers.

I can guarantee my cheque was separated from my offer. However bear in mind that it was STAPLED to the offer. As were the other 4. It would take a huge leap of faith to believe that the letter was discarded or not read or that the person/machine knew which account to apply the cheque payment to!

I think you're living in fear.

the_worm_that_turned

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The only rights are those that are laid in the original terms and conditions that you agreed to. Which will cover such games.

Much in the same way that the wheel was invented over 2,000 years ago. Yet no one has yet come up with an alternative solution.

"such games" - I don't think messing with peoples' lives and their ability to gain credit is a game! Do you?

As for the only rights being those laid in the original terms and conditions, you are utterly wrong. Of course terms and conditions can change and IF these relate to RIGHTS then so can the rights. Have you never seen an amendment sent through to you from a bank? Does the original agreement (that creates a contract once accepted by both) state that you cannot amend the terms and conditions? The answer is no, because that would be unlawful.

As for relating that to the invention of a wheel, I'm afraid you've lost me there.

the_worm_that_turned

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You owed money under a contractual arrangement.

You cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of that agreement.

Sorry the law does not work in the way you describe.

Missed this earlier post from you Thrugelmir.

I didn't unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the agreement. I made an offer of full and final settlement that was accepted by the bank, as exhibited by their action of removing the stapled cheques and cashing them.

As for the general comment regarding unilateral changes, see my previous post.

fevlo

If your method of offering a Full and Final settlement to the bank stands up in law or not is not something I would know but it does appear to me that the way you have gone about this entire situation was never going to be anything but troublesome.
Had you engaged with the bank in the first instance using a process similar to that outlined by National Debt Line regarding F and F’s your outcome may have been the same (i.e. F and F accepted) but the balance of the debt may well have been written off and that would have been the end of it.
You’re going to have a rough time getting any DCA to accept that what you did constituted a legally binding contract with the Bank and the debt should not have been assigned.

the_worm_that_turned

fevlo wrote: »

If your method of offering a Full and Final settlement to the bank stands up in law or not is not something I would know but it does appear to me that the way you have gone about this entire situation was never going to be anything but troublesome.
Had you engaged with the bank in the first instance using a process similar to that outlined by National Debt Line regarding F and F’s your outcome may have been the same (i.e. F and F accepted) but the balance of the debt may well have been written off and that would have been the end of it.
You’re going to have a rough time getting any DCA to accept that what you did constituted a legally binding contract with the Bank and the debt should not have been assigned.

I will admit that my initial approach (the offer came much later) was not brilliantly thought through. I wanted to establish the validity of the alleged debt (as millions of people have) via a CCA Request. IMO I highlighted flaws in the initial agreement and queried them with the bank. They didn't want to know even after I put the account into dispute following their failure to act. They are just as much to blame as I. They were, and remain to be, extremely rude, threatening and ruthless.

I think all on here know that the banks aren't a compassionate bunch. So don't jump on me for trying to do the best for me and my family.

In 2008/9 the Government turned over close to a trillion pounds of tax payers money to the banks without consulting a single voter. Don't ever forget that. All parties agreed to it so Labour cannot be solely blamed.

This country is in debt to the tune of over a trillion pounds apparently (to who I am not sure!). The country is in debt and doing very little about it. So don't ever side with the banks and attack a living breathing man or woman over them.

We come first ALWAYS. It is me that has mouths to feed, children to school and clothe etc etc. Never forget that when you are getting angry at me for challenging the banks!

meer53

the_worm_that_turned wrote: »

I can guarantee my cheque was separated from my offer. However bear in mind that it was STAPLED to the offer. As were the other 4. It would take a huge leap of faith to believe that the letter was discarded or not read or that the person/machine knew which account to apply the cheque payment to!

I think you're living in fear.

Fear of what exactly ?

You do know it's against the T & C's of your account to issue post dated cheques ? Were they ? If not, why did you send 5 cheques ?

I still think you're bonkers.