Barclaycard

Druid666 wrote:Forgot to add:- The letter I received purportedly from BC is, in fact, a photocopied BC letterhead, poorly done by RW. How do I know this? Because the return address on both envelopes was EXACTLY the same !! LOL

That doesn't matter, section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 says a Notice of Assignment has to be sent to you but it's silent on who exactly has to send it.

Druid666 wrote:So, do I write HP & RW a letter now, or should I wait until their next contact? I get the impression that these people have purchased a raft of debts, and have sent these letters out to see if anyone bites.

It well may be, as I've received letter from BC that they have assignment from BC.
"Total balance sold was £1xxx.x4 as at 13/07/17."  [this mean that BC sold it to HPH]

I've sent them letters requesting proof of contract between me and each of the companies HPH and Robbing Way [I like this 'real' version more than their official name].

Druid666 wrote:Forgot to add:- The letter I received purportedly from BC is, in fact, a photocopied BC letterhead, poorly done by RW. How do I know this? Because the return address on both envelopes was EXACTLY the same !! LOL

Would this not dictate they are pulling a fast one i.e it is my understating that both the original creditor then the new purchaser of the 'alleged' debt (new debt collector) both have to send Notice Of Assignment but the fact the new debt collector have sent both (in different envelopes) indicates fraud (yes I know all the alleged debt is fraud) but it does indicate Barclaycard have not sent you Notice Of Assignment but new collector have sent you a fraudulent notice.

Anyone enlighten on this?

Kestrel wrote:

Druid666 wrote:Forgot to add:- The letter I received purportedly from BC is, in fact, a photocopied BC letterhead, poorly done by RW. How do I know this? Because the return address on both envelopes was EXACTLY the same !! LOL

Would this not dictate they are pulling a fast one i.e it is my understating that both the original creditor then the new purchaser of the 'alleged' debt (new debt collector) both have to send Notice Of Assignment but the fact the new debt collector have sent both (in different envelopes) indicates fraud (yes I know all the alleged debt is fraud) but it does indicate Barclaycard have not sent you Notice Of Assignment but new collector have sent you a fraudulent notice.

Anyone enlighten on this?

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 says a notice of assignment has to be sent to the debtor, it doesn't say who has to send it.

Tiggy wrote:

Kestrel wrote:

Druid666 wrote:Forgot to add:- The letter I received purportedly from BC is, in fact, a photocopied BC letterhead, poorly done by RW. How do I know this? Because the return address on both envelopes was EXACTLY the same !! LOL

Would this not dictate they are pulling a fast one i.e it is my understating that both the original creditor then the new purchaser of the 'alleged' debt (new debt collector) both have to send Notice Of Assignment but the fact the new debt collector have sent both (in different envelopes) indicates fraud (yes I know all the alleged debt is fraud) but it does indicate Barclaycard have not sent you Notice Of Assignment but new collector have sent you a fraudulent notice.

Anyone enlighten on this?

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 says a notice of assignment has to be sent to the debtor, it doesn't say who has to send it.

Thanks Tiggy, however as I mentioned above if the new debt collector is sending out Notice of Assignment using photo shopped paper of original creditor is this not fraud?? i.e proclaiming that as original post Barclaycard have clearly not sent their notice as it came in an envelope from the new DCA.

You would need to prove that Barclaycard didn't authorise them to do this......

2Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention)

I would be careful making accusations like that without any proof to back it up, the case law states it doesn't matter who sends the NOA as long as the debtor receives one.

Waffle wrote:You would need to prove that Barclaycard didn't authorise them to do this......

Exactly, BC will have given them authority to do this, all original creditors do.

Tiggy wrote:

Waffle wrote:You would need to prove that Barclaycard didn't authorise them to do this......

Exactly, BC will have given them authority to do this, all original creditors do.

I would ask then for a copy of an official, valid letter of assignment signed by two authorized employees of BC that would authorized  debt collectors to act on behalf of BC in your case. I've requested this many times and even from Subject Data Request, they never provided me with any signed assignment or authorization. They are only on the list of suppliers of this kind of service. So again they don't have any legal stand to demand any payments from you. I also ask them to prove that the money exists and who was the original lender. Please read this document on Bank of England website:

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank
deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often
misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial
banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it
simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the
borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.

Money creation in the modern economy - Bank of England

Similarly The Guardian has an article about this:

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".

Money IOU Bank of England austerity

Enjoy it!  You are the lender! You gave your Promissory Note to the bank to lent you your own money!!!

Just had 2 letters from "ROBBING WAY", one asking me to fill out a financial statement with a view to setting up a payment plan. Letter 2 stating: "The letter sent to you, dated xx/xx/xxxx is a Notice Of Assignment (Remember, I asked for certified copies of the Deed Of Assignment (NOT the Notice Of Assignment) & Deed Of Novation), advising you that BC has assigned all respective rights, title and interest associated with this account to HPH2This notice is all that is reqired to fulfi the legal obligations, therefore you will not be provided with a Deed Of Assignment." ( Is this what people mean when they discribe a company as playing "fast and loose" with the law)? L.O.L.

"In response to your Section 10 request, pleas note that when the account was opened with the lender, you consented to the exchange of your information about you and your account with credit reference agencies. Thereafter, any processing carried out or further exchange of information with credit reference agencys is with a view to keeping data accurate and up to date. In these circumstances, we can see no legal basis for your request that we remove all information concerning your account from our systems and from your credit file"

Now this is the reply I received from BC when I sent them a Section 10 request: "All Barclaycard applications since November 1992 included notification of consent to share information, which is a condition of an account being opened. As your account was opened prior to November 1992, such consent was not required therefore you account are/is excluded from the information submitted each month."

Are these people (RW) actually based in UK, or are they running under the judicial system, or legal provisions of another country ??

So, NO Deed of Assignment, NO Deed Of Novation, NO certified copy of the origanal C.C.A., and no compliance with the Section 10 notice. If anyone has any ideas, or observations, they will be very gratefuly received. Oh yes forgot to add this bit (it REALLY made me laugh).

Quote: "Please note that the majority of your internet based template letter has no foundation or relevancy to this account or the amount you owe." So, its OK for them to use template letters, but not anybody else !! LOL. The reason I make this comment is that letter that contained this statement is almost a carbon-copy of the one received by SirusO. LOL

I just received the email from Robbing Way as well. It's related to my Barclay CC.

Thank you for your recent correspondence. Please note that the majority of your internet based template has no foundation or relevance to this account or the amount you owe.

As per your request, all further communications will be made to you in writing.

The letter sent to you dated 10th August 2017 is a Notice Of Assignment, advising you that Barclaycard has assigned all respective rights, title and interest associated with this account, to Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Ltd.  This notice is all that is required to fulfil the legal obligations, therefore you will not be provided with a Deed Of Assignment.  Robinson Way are the company appointed by HPH2 Ltd to manage the account ongoing. We trust that you do not require a duplicate copy of this notice. However, should you require a duplicate copy, please advise us and we can re-request a copy of this from our client.

Please note that we do not acknowledge your fee schedule and any further received by yourself will also not be acknowledged.

We can see that you have requested for a copy of your agreement. Please be advised that we will request this be sent to us from your original creditor and your account will be held whilst we await their response. Please note that you will be sent a copy of your agreement and not the original as this is all we are obligated to send to you under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006).

This is the alleged notice sent allegedly by HPH ltd but the correspondence address is for Rob Way, so it could be them who sent it. There is no signature or full name of the person who sent that letter - that's fraud.
When the letter from Agents carries the name of the company instead of a wet ink signature of a named and authorized officer of Agents is fraud by misrepresentation, which carries a term of incarceration of seven to ten years.




Quoting Bank of England website:

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.

I would say that our signature on application or contract creates this new money, so firstly they have to create deposit, and then they lend this money to us.
This is another line of defense for us: they have to prove that they had the money before lending it to us.

Hey sirus,

I think you'll find a wet ink sig has been over powered and by the electronic communications act. It's a minor detail that will most likely be over looked.

On the plus side robbing way are lying and you are entitled to see the deed of assignment but you'd need to know the case law, I will provide some for you when I get back to my lap top.

If your original agreement was pre 2007 they have to provide an original copy, reconstituated wont suffice.

As it goes there also is no agreement because it was terminated when you defaulted so they are lying again and pretending there is an agreement between yourself and the assignee.

As robbing way are agents they do not have any rights to enforce any benefits of this pretend agreement again I will pull up the case law for you later.

All in all they are lying buggers trying to create some sort of jointer with you, hold your horses on your response until I pull up more info for you to use if you choose to use it of course

In addition to your Bank of England quote yes you made the deposit when you assigned the promissory note (agreement) to the 'lender' they actually recorded it as a customer deposit you credited them and they are pretending they loaned you something. The signature, your signature creates the 'money'

Hi sirus0 ,Druid666

In addition to the obvious response to them I would add;

I require all future correspondence from you to be signed by a named man / woman who takes liability for its contents.

I require a statement from a named man / woman stating that you are in possession of the original signed agreement ,as i will require this to be brought to court should you wish start proceedings.

I also require a signed statement from a named man / woman from the OC that no insurance claim has or will be made in respect of this alleged account

Hey all

There are two ways to go about it.

First I would suggest learning what relationship is being construed against you.

They treat you as though your in a debtor creditor relationship, you should be operating in equity, which is a different world to the legislative one.

Option 1 Legal world

To request the 'deed of assignment' (you will never see one because there is no deed for property, your debts are property, choose in action), you should be asking for 'documents of title'.

To do this legally quote case law (look this up too) Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968. This judgment was by Lord Denning.

Further to this is the Webster v Ridgeway (2009) whereby a 'debtor' is entitled to see a redacted version.

Option 2 Equity

I hereby request disclosure of the true copy of the original documents of title Birch v Treasury Solicitor (1951), Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd (2003).


To tell a third party they are not entitled to enforce any benefit of an agreement.

"For a party to be eligible to enforce any condition of a covenant, agreement or contract there must be a term in it that confers a benefit on them"

Legally

Quote Contracts (rights of thirds parties) Act 1999 and if you want quote Woodar Investment Developments Ltd v Wimpy Construction (UK) Ltd (1980)

Equitably
Re: Cavendish-Browne (1916) which the principles of are endorsed into the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, Cannon v Hartley (1949)



To get a better understanding of Banking processes, how they accept your deposit and don't loan anything, try following some of Professor Richard Werners work. This thread by Landlubber is a good place to start

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t115-it-s-officialbanks-don-t-lend-money?highlight=banks+don+t+lend+money

Also I don't think I am stressing this enough at the moment.

When an assignment takes place the assignee is granted a right to the debt. There is NO  contract, ask them for a copy of the contract that is endorsed by them and you, they are enforcing a contract that doesn't exist. If there is a legal assignment with evidence, they have a right to the debt, that is all. If you operate in equity you are the original settlor and beneficiary and are fully entitled to re-write the terms of the trust!

Are we also on the cusp of proving that OC's are just third parties themselves if they have securitised the receivables............

Hi all

Waffle - nicely arranged, thanks.

Technically there IS a scenario in which the lone-a-ranger (bank) is the 3rd party. If you think about it there are 4 parties of interest in the loan contract, and it is only the 'real' party that is 'unseen'.....

The 'man' is the ('unseen') OC, the first party - P1.

P1 only gains a 'visible' presence in the commercial realm when he signs a negotiable instrument/PN under an assumed 'Mr Persona' alias name - the second party, P2.

P3 (the bank) secures a lien against the ESTATE name that P2 represents.

P3 then offers the now securitised bond to the market, and it is purchased by P4.

P4 pays P3 who credits P2 who funds P1.

P1 actually only 'owes' P2 but in ignorance 'pays' P3, who forwards it to P4.

When P2 misses a payment, P3 pays P4.

If P2 misses 3 consecutive payments P3 activates the lien against the P2 ESTATE , is paid the full amount of the loan, uses that to continue paying P4 to term and pursues P2 for a debt already extinguished by the P2 ESTATE.

Isn't that fraud......?

Cheers!

I ike your thinking,

P1 endorses the asset and credits P3 under the alias of P2, P3 accepts the deposit, thats debt settled straight away

P3 then converts the PN into bank deposits and records it as a customer deposit

P3 creates a trust unit and purchases the receivables with commercial paper, debt assigned to the trust unit and P2 liabilities settled but not recorded

P4 purchases the receivables from the trust unit, P1/2 liabilities are satisfied again but NOT recorded by P3

P2 defaults, P4 is secured and paid in full by the ESTATE, P2 liabilities settled again

P3 (agent/third party) pursues P2 for the already paid 4 times 'debt' because they need 5 payments

P5 purchases the debt from P3 as an assignment (debt settled again), P2 pays P5 because 5 payments were not enough

Its all in good faith    

Hi Waffle

Isn't a de-posit a negative-credit?

Cheers!

Hi Iamani

Credit = negative

Debit = positive

When we see credit in our bank accounts the banks are showing us their side of the ledger, they are showing us that they owe credit to us, its their liability to us, so a de-posit creates a negative in their books because they are in credit to us, its their liability to us. We view it as the other way around because of how we perceive our balance when we see the words CREDIT & DEBIT.

If we had our own accountancy books we would be writing their liability to us on the debit side as an unpaid asset.

Thats why if you have credit somewhere its good for you as a positive as you can collect and bad for them as a negative they have to pay.

So credit is negative for the deposit taker.

Just received this from Robbing Way, 4 days after I posted 3rd letter plus notice of estoppel. Return address on back of envelope is Burton On Trent (Robbers Way based in Manchester).

" Dear Mr XXXX (surnamr in capitals),
                                               Thank you for your recent correspondence, as previously advised the majority of your letter bears no relevance to this account or the amount you owe and no valid dispute has been sent to us to review.

Pleaserefer to our previous correspondence which responds to all valid points of your previous internet template.

We can see that you have requested for a copy of your agreement. Please be advised that we will request this be sent to us from your original creditor and your account will be held whilst we await their  response. Please note that you will be sent a copy of your agreement and not the original as this is all we are obliged to send you under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006).

We will not enter into repetitive communications with you and any further internet based templates will not be acknowledged by us unless you provide details of a valid query or dispute."

AGAIN, this letter arrived unsigned. How many times do I have to request these specific documents, and how many times are they going to ignore my requests? By what right are they able to ignore the law, whilst everyone else has to abide by it? Am I right in my course of action, by waiting 30 days and then send the Estoppel? The way I see it, they are now liable for breaking tacit agreement in letters 2 and 3, they are now liable for infringement of my trademadk and copyright. Three times I have asked for specific documents as proof of debt, and 3 times, all I've received from they is load after load of waffle. This will be 12 times I have asked for proof of debt, and nobody has been able to provide it. Any and all suggestions as to my next move will be gratefully appreciated and thankfully received.

Hi druid,

Have a look at these ,I know you have done the 3 letters ,but you may get some inspiration from these.

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t1131-new-3-letters-for-debt-purchasers

Thanks very much daveiron, much obliged. Just one more question. I haven't been signing the letters I sent, because Robber bastards haven't been signing theirs. Should I have signed them? The reason I ask is that DCA's have been known to photocopy signiatures in the past and paste them onto bogus CCA's. So, what advice can the forum offer. Again, all suggestions will be gratefully received. Thank you.

Hi druid,

I would sign all your letters , re the copies, make your signature a little different from normal & photo copy
all the letters you send to them .Should they then lift your signature you have the evidence .
Also write on your letters that you require they must be signed by a man / woman who takes liability for its contents
otherwise they will be returned . (without their signature its just a piece of paper)

hope that helps .