TO ALL LENDERS, INSURERS, SOLICITORS etc.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
N.B. This is aimed directly at all the lender, insurers, solicitors etc who read this site.
If a party has a legitimate claim against someone for a debt then there MUST be evidence to show this. If there is not then there is no debt.
If a party who is claiming the debt does not give this documentation when requested then why not? If you were to take the matter to court then you would have to prove your case. Therefore I fail to understand why you continue to write to people demanding money and using tactics that are designed purely to frighten people and do not supply any proof.
If there is no proof then there is no debt. There is no legal system, as far as I am aware, anywhere in the world who will order payment without any proof.
Therefore I say: Send out the proof of the debt to all those who ask. Send out the proof of the debt to all those you write to before they ask. Show them they are liable and that the amount is fair and just.
Then and only then should they be expected to negotiate settlement.
If you cannot do this then immediately write to all those people to apologise for the error in contacting them concerning an unsubstantiated debt and assure them that the matter is at a close and no further correspondence will be entered into.
The above is all perfectly reasonable and should go without saying in a democratic lawful society.
Unfortunately the lenders and insurers do not seem to understand this and it is for that reason that this text will be copied in a fully explanatory letter to all the major newspapers and publications as well as to all sitting MPís and Lordís in order to force the issue and to hopefully speed up legislative changes that will stop the disgusting behaviour of these companies.
-- Play Up (email@example.com), September 07, 2001
Totally agree with you.Another very pertinent point is HOW did the debt arise in the first place? Was it because the lenders allowed the property to be under-valued and therefore under-sold? If the debt has arisen because they did not comply with the requirement of the B.Soc. Act 1986 (to obtain the best price reasonably available)that is their 1st major mistake don't you think? There are those who might say that any alleged debt incurred in that way is self-induced by the lender, and further,has deprived you of your rightful possessions(HRA) i.e money that would have been acquired over and above the amount actually obtained as a result of that under-selling? Good luck and keep us posted.
-- Joy Harker (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 07, 2001.
If the Solicitors handling these cases were professionals they would provide all the necessary information from the outset, this is why they have to TRY and make money in this manner. Harrasing inocent victims with mysterious phone calls. Why ring my neighbour claiming to be Fed-Ex with a parcel and asking do I live next door and have you seen him lately? Don't they realise that the neighbour will say someone called from Fed-ex with a parcel for you have you received it yet? By the way Fed-ex are interested to know who is impersonating them. Once this is sorted out I will let them know.
-- Simon (email@example.com), September 09, 2001.
A ha..the Fed Ex trick. Add this to the Kays Catalogue delivery person calling ahead asking if a) I live there b) is there another adult and how many kids etc...lucky my old neighbour was as sharp as he was sweet and told them to $#%^ off. The one that got me was the goons sitting outside my house waiting for me to get home from work, without realising that there was a back lane from which I entered my house. I marched out there one night and started yelling at them like a woman possessed - they drove off. The same ones even had the audacity to knock on neighbours doors asking questions about me, my kids and whether I had any "blokes on the scene". The Lender denied using such tactics, even where employed through their use of a debt collection agency. Yup. Believe them don't we? NOT.
-- Too scared to say (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 09, 2001.
I believe its actually illegal to pose as a courier/postman/other delivery company. Perhaps the various solicitors/lenders/debt collectors should be reported to Trading Standards?
-- pendle (email@example.com), September 09, 2001.