Loan agreement definition

Is a signed unsecured loan agreement a promissory note ?

No. But if you have something in mind we may be able to come up with something more constructive.

I believe it is;
A negotiable written promise to pay a specified sum of money on demand or at a particular time.
A document saying that someone owes a specific amount of money to someone else, often with the deadline and interest fees.
A promise to pay a specified amount on demand or at a certain time.

The reason I think not, is because a loan will be tightly regulated under the CCA or other consumer law. These will over-ride any generic PN procedures and formalities.

As stated if the OP has something in mind we can see whether we think his loan can be treated as a PN for his particular purpose.

Banks do not loan money, they create it;

you are getting into complicated territory here but i would say no it is not a promissory note

if banks create the money from the 'note' created by the loan ( which the bank who writes up the agreement cannot do )

then why would you promise to pay a sum that you actually created in the first place ?

i agree with flying fish that when you are 'at law' the 'agreement' will be governed by the law applicable upon creation, which is all that will interest the courts should you ever get to the stage.

I have been looking at this over several years.
People only percieve they have been loaned money because thats what they
have been led to believe.
When you deposit a signed loan agreement ,lets say for 10K .As soon as you
deposit it ,it at once becomes the property of the banker who enters into their
books as an asset.You are not handed any money ,instead you are told 'you will
find it in your account' .When you draw upon that 'loan' you are expected to
repay it back ,hence repay and not pay. re being defined as again.

Prof Werner is correct 'Banks do not lend money,their business is trading securities'
and what you have deposited with them is a security. Its a negotiable instrument.
Its traded to investors in traunches,usually after 3 months.
Why can they never produce the original ?
They only hold a lien over it and when payment in full be made ,it should be returned
to you,as it always was years ago ,even cheques. Why no return today?

Most of this is laid out in our NoCA ,as far as i am aware not one member has had
the contents of the notices addressed or even rebutted. In essence what we are
saying is 'Answer these very valid questions and supply the evidence and we will
pay your claim . It should be very simple for them to comply and get paid,job done,
but they dont .That i think says it all.


This went on YT 20 mins after i posted

The reason I asked is in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 Section 6
Exceptions.
(1)Section 1 confers no rights on a third party in the case of a contract on a bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument.

According to Professor Werner (and the law) a loan is a promissory note (jump to 6min 30 secs):

And no money is ever loaned to you (transferred to you).

(Moving to the ‘Debt’ section given that loans are an - alleged - debt)

waylander62 wrote:then why would you promise to pay a sum that you actually created in the first place ?

Agreed Waylander62. The point / question you are raising makes perfect sense.

BUT the banks twist this around (and the FCA let them get away with this, because they are all in bed together…). Professor Werner in the video I just posted goes onto say this.

The REAL crux of the issue here is that Dave is right and the likes of you are right. But the banks don’t play by the rules, and no one confronts them - not even governments (well, we know why) so the banks get away with it.

That’s what’s going on…

The reason I asked is in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 Section 6
Exceptions.
(1)Section 1 confers no rights on a third party in the case of a contract on a bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument.

Can this be used to stop the rights being passed to a debt purchaser ?

wakey wakey wrote:The reason I asked is in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 Section 6
Exceptions.
(1)Section 1 confers no rights on a third party in the case of a contract on a bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument.

Can this be used to stop the rights being passed to a debt purchaser ?  

A debt purchaser would not be a third party, assuming legal assignment. The right for the OC to make that assignment will probably be explicitly stated in the Terms and Conditions. But worth checking I guess.

As Simon said, Please prove me wrong.

This is actually a decent video, from what i have learnt and am still learning he is close to realising what is happening once any credit agreement is signed. This is also the case for mortgages but mortgages are slightly different.

I am not sure that all he says is actually what happens or is true ie insurance side and multiple people having an interest in the agreement but the CRUX of what he is saying is quite close to the mark.

It is difficult to explain but he is correct that the bank does not loan ANYTHING but i think he falls short as to what happens when the high street bank has possession of the 'NOTE', i also believe that he is correct when he states that the bank 'passes on' the signed 'agreement' but i believe that it is transferred to a commercial bank by way of assignment
the first 'deed of assignment' if you like.

Therefore the high street bank have no rights under the contract as they have assigned them elsewhere, so..... how can they then assign something they dont have any right to ? well we all know they do this selling to the likes of Lowell and Cabot etc etc

you see there is massive concealment going on here from the beginning but the CRUCIAL CRUCIAL thing is HOW do you obtain the evidence ? unless you can you will always end up in the lower courts thinking that the CCA governs the contract ( it doesn't ) and to be honest the Judges who will 'oversee' the hearing have no idea of what is really going on.

i wish i had more time to study all of this but what i have found out so far is.... that the whole system works in the same way utilities, council tax etc.

i hope soon to use myself as an experiment and use what i have learnt and believe is correct to gain success in court and prove concealment on a grand scale. Until i have had some form of success i would not be comfortable in giving out an opinion on what anyone else should or could do other than to keep watching, keep reading and don't be afraid to ask questions.

finally i will say to watch and listen to the last 10 minutes of this video as this, in my opinion is the single most important part.

Hi Waylander,
With regard to the insurance element ,the question is asked in our notices. As it is never denied ,we can use the maxim 'he who does not deny,admits'
in fact no questions in the notices are ever addressed or even answered .As i comprehend it ,under the rules of equity ,if asked 3 times and no answer is provided we can answer for them.
If anything asked is incorrect ,you would think they would jump straight in and deny .

Robert from Observation Deck asks the trust question in his notices,i did not put it in ours as i believe the questions we ask are enough to stop any action,but of course members are encouraged to create their own based on their own research,& ours cover all that is needed.

'the rules of equity'

this, as my studies so far have found, is the single most important thing in your tweet added to the last 10 minutes of simons video

you see all that we do and are doing and have been doing remains 'at law' where you will very rarely be successful if it went before the Courts what you have been doing with the notices is giving debt buyers and the like something to think long and hard about before involving the court, however members who dont do their own 'homework' and understand what they are sending will be 'found out' and find themselves in court.

you see the debt 'buyer' in almost all cases i see, are NOT the same companies that chase you, they may be part of a whole but many do not have authorisation to act as the lender , if you look at these 'buyers' in depth you will see they dont have any money or staff or anything and you can if you look at the accounting clearly see they have securitised their portfolios to lend the money to actually buy said portfolio !? so... when the matter comes before the court do they actually own the right title and interest ? or is that with their 'lender' ( whom the debt buyer borrowed the money from )

so much is concealed throughout the whole process it is untrue. it is about breaking it down and requesting the correct information which they do not like this will result in them backing off.

Thanks daveiron for the video. What Simon says is always facinating and we have no reason to not accept what he talks about.

It would be interesting to test the bank / lender (terms used lightly). Apply for a loan for £XXX. make repayments for say 6 months, then ask the bank / lender if they are still hold the 'original agreement' signed by you.

As Simon mentions, if they have already sold / invested the signed agreement, then surely they have no legal right to continue to receive any payment towards the debt (even though we already know that no debt was created in the first place).


No Fear

Miss Kermit wrote:Thanks daveiron for the video. What Simon says is always facinating and we have no reason to not accept what he talks about.

It would be interesting to test the bank / lender (terms used lightly). Apply for a loan for £XXX. make repayments for say 6 months, then ask the bank / lender if they are still hold the 'original agreement' signed by you.

As Simon mentions, if they have already sold / invested the signed agreement, then surely they have no legal right to continue to receive any payment towards the debt (even though we already know that no debt was created in the first place).


No Fear

i see your logic and thinking here but........ all i will say to you is PROVE IT, when you are sat before a judge he will see a copy of an agreement you signed and all the crap that goes with it you will be 'at law' in 'his' court.

ok... tell your story as to what happens with no actual evidence ..... see how this will end up ?

it is very very complicated and you need to actually find HOW to obtain the evidence you need then the world is yours.. including restitution on all the payments you have made

I know the system is set up against us but the way I was thinking is:

Send the Bank/lender a NoCA that you will continue to make payments, on condition that they prove they are still holders in due course.

If they dont/cant then it would be them who would you have to start preceedings against you for non payment. If it did get to pre court action, could you not ask for the Original signed agreement (as we do with DCA's) as part of your defence.

Just a thought

EDIT.

I know chances are the OC would just pass it onto a DCA before they would concider court action but it could be ammo against the DCA that the debt didnt exist before they were even assigned it. Rather than go down the Deed of Assignment route.
Maybe holding the OC's (banks/lenders) accountable rather than the DCA's. Yes it would take thousands of people to stand up to the banks to maybe make a difference.
The new 3 notice method partially does this approach.


No Fear

Miss Kermit wrote:I know the system is set up against us but the way I was thinking is:

Send the Bank/lender a NoCA that you will continue to make payments, on condition that they prove they are still holders in due course.

If they dont/cant then it would be them who would you have to start preceedings against you for non payment. If it did get to pre court action, could you not ask for the Original signed agreement (as we do with DCA's) as part of your defence.

Just a thought

EDIT.

I know chances are the OC would just pass it onto a DCA before they would concider court action but it could be ammo against the DCA that the debt didnt exist before they were even assigned it. Rather than go down the Deed of Assignment route.
Maybe holding the OC's (banks/lenders) accountable rather than the DCA's. Yes it would take thousands of people to stand up to the banks to maybe make a difference.
The new 3 notice method partially does this approach.


No Fear

i find it encouraging that you are giving this a lot of thought and asking questions so i will take the time to reply to you as i see it ( this is only my opinion of course )

you can and should of course always ask the question in respect of the agreement but.... i have seen it countless times where the OC or debt buyer will argue that there is no reason or law that says they must produce the original in court but there is quite a lot of case law which says they dont have to, a true copy will suffice and all Judges that i am aware of will agree with the claimant and dismiss your argument ( i am in no way saying this is right but it is what happens )

You see the OC CANNOT produce the original as they dont have it hence why the courts rally round to find an alternative, i believe i know where the original is but not certain.

proving the debt didn't exist would be hard to prove without evidence of why this is so, as the OC will have all the statements and where the 'money' went ( especially with CC )

you are correct in some ways as the OC is the one that you need to target ( even if they have 'sold' it on to your every day debt buyer ) to get the information you truly need to challenge the norm but it needs a very good understanding of what to ask for and how to ask for it. You see the office staff and likely those staff that hold your data will have no clue as to what has really happened along the way. It is very very unlikely that you will get what you are actually requesting as that will reveal part of the truth and open the door to some serious questions.

even if you were to obtain what you need i would place a bet that the lower courts would still find in favour of the claimant and you would need to go to appeal in a different jurisdiction as most lower level Judges have no idea of what the truth is.

My take on it is,due to the questions asked its unlikely to get to court if the OC can see that you comprehend how the system works. (as per the template thread).
We would be asking valid questions in court ,not making statements.
Most questions only require a yes or no answer initially . Given the laws on perjury, would the representative of the claimant be prepared to perjure themselves,given that contrary evidence could possibly be produced at a later date ?

The agreement is a surety ,a negotiable instrument, it remains your property,the banker only holds a lien over it until paid.As many will know in the not too distance past
loan agreements / cheques were always returned to the 'borrower' upon payment for that very reason.

The OC would also need to show cause why they have brought the matter to court,as at no time have we refused payment, we are only seeking clarification that we have an obligation,and we require evidence of full disclosure. It keeps us in honour.

They dont seem to like the suggestion that we should meet to exchange the note for full payment. (maxim) 'the deed found in possession of the debtor is presumed paid' after all what could be better for them ,payment in full in exchange with no hassell,job done, but instead threaten court. It makes no sense.

I do have a lot of case law and notes ,but as i am now in Australia i'm not sure how much i transferred onto flash drives.


I'm really pleased to see this is being debated here and others are joining in.