TRACING AGENTS : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

In earlier postings, people seem to think that it is unlawfull for those initial postcards to be sent out telling you someone has a parcel to deliver to get you to phone them. Well the solicitors who are hounding me have just admitted in writing that they do indeed use agents to do this and get this, Yorkshire Trading Standards have told them it is quite legal to do so and give them their blessing to do it.

-- john james (, October 07, 2001


WEll, look at it from the other side of the coin - you have the right to go away without leaving notice of where you have gone, so surely your creditors have the right to use any means of finding you that is not prohibited by law.

Seems fair to me!

-- David Button (, October 07, 2001.

Well, I dont think I deserved the emails you sent me saying I am a coward etc. My correct email address is above which is why I got your responses.

Is it so upsetting to you that you have somebody put the other side of the argument to you? There are two sides to every story and I (hope) I have helped people on these pages and the debt UK pages many times and I am not sitting on either side of the fence.

Yes, it is bad to lose your home particularly if the reason, such as loss of job, is not your fault - and yes, it is bad when your creditors come after you years later through tracing agents - so are you going to bad mouth the police when they arrest you for say drunk driving - thereby stopping you from potentially killing somebody? Have you ever been in a situation where somebody else owes you money and you have had to fight for it? I can tell you from practical experience of both sides of the coin that it is a fact that courts are very lenient with debtors - but, and I speak as a landlord, when I have to pursue a tenant who has disappeared without paying hundreds of pounds of rent, I have to prove every step of the way or my case is chucked out.

Just because I see another point of view is no need to send me mildly threatening and abusive e-mails which I have not responded to personally and directly because this is a forum I am addressing, not your particular situation. But if you want help, I will give it to you gladly through these pages.

I have seen both sides of the coin, I have been sued, I have had money problems including near bankruptcy, and I have had people decamp owing me lots of money. I can speak with experience, and I try to use this to help others who are or may soon experience what I have been through.

I have never had my house repossessed, but I have come bloody close to it! So, does this pout your mind at rest vintagefrogman?

-- David Button (, October 07, 2001.

postings by david john button.

So you think my e mails to your are " abusive and mildly threatening" do you. Let me tell you, I have recently received e-mails from someone who has admitted hacking into my computer, and also sent me grossly abusive and wildly threatening e-mails. I have taken legal advice and Police advice and reliably informed by all parties that what I have sufferred has no civil or criminal recourse. So go ahead, do your worse, the communications were between to consenting adults. Check the law yourself before you post such abusive e mails yourself.

-- hahaha (, October 08, 2001.

david john button

David John Button in an e mail to me has admitted being a landlord, so he himself is guilty like the banks and building societies who are chasing us of 'USURY'.

An example of the Usury that David John Button is himself guilty of is this. He has admitted to me that he is a landlord. Therefore, lets say he had 40000.00 to invest. If he put it in a bank or building society at todays rates of interest he would earn approximately 1000.00 a year, wherears on the otherhand, if he invested this in a property to rent, he would charge a minimum rent of say 400.00 a month, therefore earning him 4800.00 a year as opposed to the trifling 1000.00 from investing in a bank or building society. USURY or not, decide for yourself.

-- hahaha (, October 08, 2001.

What on earth is wrong with maximisimg the use of the money you have - surely you do this every time you shop, i.e. beans at Tesco 9p a tin, 20p elsewhere - Tesco wins.

I never said that I was reporting vintagefrogman, mind you, I was a little upset that he said he had attempted to trace me and that he had my profile on his computer so that he would know when I was online - I find that mildly threatening but I am not a baby so as to run to the authorities when this sort of thing happens. I offered to help vintagewfrogman if he needed it through this forum - he is clearly, on the strength of his wild accusatins and referring me to the sayings of Deli Lama, very upset at what is happening to him.

Responding to people in the way you did to me vintagefrogman is unlikely to get you decent advice and if you are treating your creditors with likewise responses, you do not deserve much leniency.

Did you also accuse the solicitors and your building society of URSARY as well just out of interest?

-- David Button (, October 08, 2001.

Might I suggest this whole, sorry, thread is deleted. Quite WHAT it has to do with the home-repo site eludes me. As far as I can see it's a couple of children (sorry, adults !) having a temper tantrum because neither of them is mature enough to just let it go.

Eleanor ?

-- Chris (, October 08, 2001.

I agree with Eleanor, this is a self help group to give guidence and advise. Not to battle out the morality of various tactics legaly employed. Lets keep it focused, a lot of us have a great deal to loose if we get it wrong.

Jon S

-- Jon S (, October 08, 2001.


I too agree that their is childish behaviour going on, but davidjohnbuttons first posting shows he could not care less about the suffering of innocent people, he quite patently condones the unethical, immoral and sometimes downright illegal tactics used by the banks and building societies bully boys in their attempts to extort money from us when in many circumstances they know quite well that they do not have the original mortgage deeds or MIG policies to back up their claims.

All these banks and building societies that are making these unreasonable demands are guilty of USURY, please look up the oxford english dictionary definition of USURY, and see for yourselves that they are indeed guilty. Look up also what Chris and Allah have to say on the subject of USURY. In todays so called Christian society the type of USURY that these organisations are patently guilty of should not be tolerated.

-- therareaftermetoo. (, October 09, 2001.

I do hope we're not going to start dragging religion into this. The UK is a SECULAR society, not a religious one. I, for one, am glad I don't live in a Theocracy.

-- Chris (, October 09, 2001.


Eh mate, which one of the three definitions in the oxford english dictionary are you referring to.

-- makemineaXXX (, October 09, 2001.

Theocracy - a church-controlled state.

-- Chris (, October 10, 2001.

Lawdy Lawdy.

Back to the beginning. My understanding is that if you induce somebody to do something that costs them money on the premise that they have something to gain at the end - and then there isn't any gain - then what you have done is fraudulent. Yorkshire Trading are wrong. If I get a letter inviting me to ring and claim my parcel, and I ring, and there is no parcel, then I've been deceived and am entitled to recoup the cost of the call plus my time and inconvenience.

As somebody very familiar to Bradford I can confirm there's nowt so thick as a Yorkie.

-- (, October 11, 2001.

Perhaps the point to make here is that they've realised that appealing to peoples' baser instincts (ie greed...something for nothing) is the quickest way to get to it being illegal...if you feel it's worth claiming the cost of the 'phone call plus your time then by all means go ahead...

-- Chris (, October 11, 2001.

they havent broken the law becauce you did indeed receive a package in the form of a letter from the agents client(solicitor) your creditor. Which solicitor was it or even which "delivery company"

-- who knows (, February 13, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ