Q. Is this ethical? They lent money – trusted us right?

 

A. That’s the general understanding, but after much investigation of banking law and legislation, it states quite categorically that banks aren’t permitted to loan out money deposited by bank customers. With credit card companies, there are no depositors at all, so that situation cannot possibly happen. The truth of the matter, is that WE give the bank the money via our signed ‘cheque’ they call ‘the agreement’, and this becomes self-evident when you realise that absolutely nothing happens regarding loans and credit UNTIL we’ve given them that signature.

 

 

Q. What is unsecured debt exactly?

 

A. The legal definition of unsecured credit, is a type of credit or loan that is issued and supported only by the borrower’s creditworthiness, rather than by any type of collateral. It contrasts with secured credit, where the borrower must provide an asset as security for the loan.

Here are some key characteristics of unsecured credit:

1. No Collateral Required: The borrower is not required to pledge any asset (such as a house or car) to secure the loan.
2. Based on Creditworthiness: Approval for unsecured credit typically depends on the borrower’s credit history, credit score, income, and other factors indicating the borrower’s ability to repay the debt.
3. Higher Interest Rates: Because unsecured loans pose a higher risk to lenders, they often come with higher interest rates compared to secured loans.
4. Examples: Common forms of unsecured credit include credit cards, personal loans, and student loans.
5. Legal Recourse: If the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender may pursue legal action to recover the debt, but they cannot directly claim any specific asset of the borrower’s as repayment.

In legal terms, unsecured credit is governed by various consumer protection laws and regulations which may vary by jurisdiction but generally include provisions to ensure fair lending practices and protect borrowers from predatory lending.

 

 

Q. What makes you think the bank have been, shall we say, less than upstanding?

 

A. The truth of what the banks have been doing is at his point little known. However, many people of ‘standing’ as well as employees of banks have gone on record over many years stating exactly what they’re up to. This isn’t direct evidence in itself but as always, actions speak louder than words, and the astronomical profits made by banks as a result of trading securities (a bank’s primary business), begs the question “where does the bank get all those tradable securities from?”. This, and their preference for avoidance to move the failed accounts into a court for enforcement, are damning indictments that lend massive weight to the assertions. The smoking gun however, is the continual tacit failure of banks to rebut sworn Affidavits stating exactly what they’ve done – thereby producing a confession.

 

 

Q. I hold a bank account in addition to a credit card from the same bank, if I use the process to call them out on the card, will they take the money out of my bank account?

 

A. This varies from bank to bank. Some do – some don’t. In any case, it’s always better to have a backup account and move your money there before you begin the process.

 

 

Q. Enforcement agent claiming their letter is a liability order and threatening to add £235 if I don’t pay. Isn’t this fraud by false representation?

 

A. A letter NOT issued by a legitimate court and appropriately signed by a judge or magistrate that is claimed to be an official liability order / warrant / fine etc is fraud by false representation under the legal definition. It is also fraud by misrepresentation, extortion, malicious communications and, depending on where it originated, could also be malfeasance / misfeasance in public office, as well as abuse of position, forging official documentation, impersonation of government officials etc.

 

 

Q. How is our signature worth anything?

 

A. Our signature represents the living energy of a natural man or woman. It’s our Sign of Nature (Sig(n of) Nature. Corporations cannot create anything by themselves, being inanimate, and require human energy in order to do anything.

 

 

Q. What happens when the bank or debt collector fail to respond to the letter?

 

A. The bottom line when we send the letter to our adversary, is that they cannot respond appropriately without admitting what they do. They will never admit they’ve been caught, and to do anything even approaching that would be commercial suicide for them. So they either send out a pile of nonsense with a letter stating “there, we’ve given you what you asked for, now you must pay us” or they ignore us and continue sending reminders. The problem with any response they send, is that it never addresses our questions directly and only tries to confuse the matter.

 

 

Q. Should I send a follow-up letter when they write back to me?

 

A. When they fail to respond appropriately, they’ve dropped the ball. Technically it’s a non-response if it doesn’t address our questions specifically, so in the bigger picture, it’s as though they didn’t respond at all. This means that the ball is still in their court waiting for them to pick it up and hit it back over to us. We can send another letter but it’s really not necessary, as we made our point loud and clear the first time. They know our position, and also what they need to do in order for the arrangement to restart (to get paid basically).

 

 

Q. I’m in a situation where banks have long since sold accounts to DCAs, but i understand it is still possible to be back in honour. So, if i were to belatedly send the 1st bank template, the last paragraph has : “I am happy to settle and close this account for redemption of my Security Instrument once my questions have been answered to my satisfaction and the ‘loan’ verified.”

 

A. The short answer is Yes you can contact the bank (and should!) The template needs to be modified to reflect that this is now a retrospective action concerning a past event where the account is likely off-ledger or closed. The bank isn’t exonerated, because fraud will always be fraud, and has no limitation of time. The process of gaining their tacit confession via Affidavit is also required if you want to pursue the correction and remedy detailed in The Big Stick, and again, the paperwork needs to be modified to reflect retrospection.

 

 

Q. I have sent my first letter to Tymit, however, when I checked tracking it had been lost, so I got a refund for postage and sent it again. And now it’s been lost again. I just had a conversation with Royal Mail, and they said if the recipient refuses to sign for a letter then they just class it as lost – you never actually find out if they have refused to sign or not. RM have advised to send special delivery so I can find out if they are refusing to sign for it.

 

A. Any corporation that refuses mail to their registered business address is breaching the Companies Act and could be liable. They seem to believe that refusing mail gets them in the clear, but that’s not so – it just digs them a deeper hole. Try the special delivery and check online on the ‘delivered signature’ facility. Once you see the recipients scribble, you’ll know it was received. If that doesn’t work then you have a case against them for breach of legislation.

 

 

Q. Moorcroft are continuing to send me letters asking me to pay, do i continue to ignore them, as they have not answered any of the points from my first letter?

 

A. They’ve dropped the ball and you aren’t required to respond until they respond appropriately to you. You could send them the letter again and state that nothing will move past this point at your end, until they respond appropriately.

 

 

Q. What happens when they threaten court action?

 

A. This is presumably a debt collector as the banks rarely – if ever, threaten court action. A debt collector (or anyone for that matter) is not allowed to issue threats of any kind and you would have a claim against them if they did. Many DCA’s engage the services of a lawyer to issue threats of proceedings against you – and the same applies to them. The lawyer letter is designed to make them liable if they do, so that would be the next logical course of action.

 

 

Q. I have been served court papers by the Civil National Business Centre – what now?

 

A. The CNBC in Northampton is a suspicious entity. They are located at St Katherine’s House on St. Katherine’s street and no part of their name or address denotes that they are a legitimate court. They have no judges, or magistrates, and have no courtroom. This has been established from firsthand knowledge. What they do is ‘rubber stamp’ thousands of claims per day and it’s always on the back of a ‘no show’ or failure to return paperwork. The CNBC will process a claim without hearings, and, it would seem, without any evidence for the claim, if you fail to return their service. They produce a ‘judgement’ (allegedly) and yet, very few people, if any, have actually seen one. They do seem to be backed by the Ministry of Justice but only in an administrative capacity. They have no access to bailiffs to enforce the judgement – because credit debt is a civil matter and so can only go back onto the conveyor belt of debt collectors, at which point they then assume the moniker of ‘court enforcement agents’ who have about as much authority as Starbuck’s when it comes to ‘enforcement’. The CNBC is merely a paper-shuffling exercise for those that are fearful of ‘the court’ process. If you file an intent to defend (rigorously), they cannot process it in their usual way and must either refer the claim back to it’s originator, or to the county court. If it’s the latter, the court will inspect the claim and ascertain whether or not there’s a dispute to be reconciled (grounds for merit). They hit trouble once they’re in possession of your paperwork, as it states throughout that ‘there is no dispute in the matter’. At that point it is likely to be thrown back to the claimant to resolve in the private, with a potential warning from the court that clear agreement has been offered and they could be potentially wasting the court’s time.

This is their description on their website;
“CNBC is a service centre for money claims in England and Wales.” You can see very obviously that they there’s no mention of them being a court or part of the MOJ.

Not much can be done about them at this point, and they will proceed to find against you regardless of what you say if you fail to submit a defence.

 

 

Q. Why must our letters NOT be signed by hand?

 

A. We’ve given the banks enough of our signatures and it’s time it stopped until the point is reached where we benefit equally from our giving them our energy. They have proven time and again that they are not to be trusted – in any area, so let’s not give them anything else they can securitise. They also never wet-sign anything to us, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

 

Q. Should I use my new card before I default on payment on the old card?

 

A. Yes. The card companies are communicating much better with each other these days and will inform the new card company that you’ve missed payments, resulting in a very quickly reduced credit amount.

 

 

Q. If you default on an overdraft can this be treated the same as a card?

 

A. Evidence suggests that it can. This may change in the future but it’s always best to maintain good standing with your primary banking facility.

 

 

Q. How long does it usually take to have defaults removed by the banks and is there ever any push back. I know the banks can’t rebut the affidavit but I guess they can ignore them / drag their heels?

 

A. The repair process was always a rather hit & miss affair and the banks have proven that despite being bang to rights over their behaviour, they have no incentive to correct the record and are probably a little sore at being outed, hence not correcting the record. The Big Stick addresses this point and aims to force them to recant ALL of their actions with the credit file agencies, including instructing their 3rd party DCA’s to follow suit. The process to force the issue is currently being tested – watch this space!