talkmagic.co.uk

The problem I have is that it is getting increasingly clear that Gary is trying to get out of an obligation. He keeps talking about a 'legal financial instrument', which screams that it's not money.

Now, if he took out a credit card, used it and ran up a bill, offered them cash to pay it off and they refused then he has a case. I doubt this.

If he took out a credit card, used it and ran up a bill and then used some legalese to offer something other than cash to pay the bill then he's a freeloader trying to get out of his debt.

I think it's a tad hypocritical to blame the banks for charges when you have taken out a loan, or debt with them (and I can't see how overdrafts come into this). Given his obvious knowledge on the subject, I think it would also be hypocritical for Gary to suggest that he didn't know what he was getting into when he ran up the credit card bill.

I suspect Gary posted here so that people could go 'ooh, aren't you clever', but instead he's coming across as someone manipulating the system to avoid a loan he took out (and if you argue that a credit card is different to a loan, I would suggest you misunderstand the concept of being advanced something of monetary value).

The solution to this, and I know I'm in the minority, is not to use credit cards, take out loans or have an overdraft. It makes life much easier.

Ian

I am sorry that I am forced to use the language of the Law Society (Legalese) in describing legal processes, but as this is the language they use themselves I don't really have a choice.

I do not want to have a debate as to the right or wrong of my actions. I am convinced of the rightness of my actions. If I was not, I would not be doing it. When I started to find out about the deceptions perpetrated against us by corporations and governments I was furious. I was really very, very angry. Whether you find my behaviour "contemptible" or not is really not relevant. You don't have to agree with what I do, or like what I do.

However, I will not have slurs, or baseless accusations, made against me. Mr Kendall, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to accuse me of fraudulent behaviour, an accusation I take most seriously. To suggest that I knowingly entered into a credit agreement with the intention of using legal knowledge get out of that payment is accusing me of fraud. Please withdraw that statement immediately.

I will try and explain as clearly as I can what I am doing. Let's deal with conditional acceptance - I am saying to the bandit that I accept liability for the debt upon proof of claim. If they can show me that David owes them money, by providing the things they are lawfully required to have in order to enforce such a claim (such as the original agreement, the accounting, etc) then I will take steps to effect immediate payment. I really mean this, if they can show that they have a lawful right to enforce the claim against David then I will settle the account.

Does that sound unreasonable to you?

Right, Acceptance for Value. When you get a bill, normally there is a slip at the bottom. In Legalese this slip is called a remittance. Bouvier Law Dictionary 2nd Ed. says this about remittances:

"REMITTANCE, comm. law. Money sent by one merchant to another, either in specie, bill of exchange, draft or otherwise."

Take a moment to think about that. A remittance is money. Your assertion that it 'screams it's not money' is simply erroneous. If you have evidence to the contrary then please provide it.

When you pay a bill over the counter, using the slip, this is what happens. They take your cash and they take your remittance. The remittances are collected into bundles of £30,000 and sent to a company called Euroclear where they are monetarised and the funds deposited in the accounts of the bandits you've already paid! Your cash payment is recorded as a 'gift'. As dat8962 correctly stated, these corporations have been using these financial instruments to their advantage, to our detriment. There is nothing wrong in using these instruments to our advantage.

Now then, I'm really not interested in squabbling with any of you over this. I know in my heart that I am behaving with honour. If, at some point in the future, I come across information that shows me to be in error then I will amend my behaviour accordingly. It is extremely important to me that I behave ethically and my heart is telling me I am not being unethical.

I did not write these posts in order to foster another TM 'debate'. I just wanted to show people what sort of processes I am using to counter people I frankly consider to be criminals.

If you feel that you disagree with what I am writing strongly enough to post about it, then please do so. Disagree, state your case (prefereably with evidence to back up your claims) but please don't descend into accusations and insults. It belittles us all and I really, really don't want these threads to become locked.

EDIT:
Just reading through your post again, Mr Kendall, so I can be sure of certain facts when I saw this:

The solution to this, and I know I'm in the minority, is not to use credit cards, take out loans or have an overdraft. It makes life much easier.

I could not agree more. Although I would go further and say don't get a bank account. I didn't have one for years, but was forced to because my job at the time would not pay me in cash. [/quote]

I work in an accounts payable department and I am so not with you on this.

In a public forum you made baseless accusations against me. You accuse me of deliberate obfuscation of the facts, an accusation I most strenuously deny.

You then state that I made the post in order to garner acclaim, as if I was desparate for the approval of strangers on the internet. Again, an accusation I deny.

These I can let pass, and would not have mentioned were it not for the fact that you appear to be accusing me of fraudulent behaviour. Here is the quote:

"Given his obvious knowledge on the subject, I think it would also be hypocritical for Gary to suggest that he didn't know what he was getting into when he ran up the credit card bill. "

You seem to be suggesting that I knowingly entered into a credit agreement with the intention of using the Acceptance for Value method of payment. Were you fully cognizant of the facts, you would know that this would be perfectly legal. However based on your posts it is clear you do not have an understanding of the Bills of Exchange Act so the only inference I can draw is that you are accusing me of fraudulent behaviour with a view to defaming my character.

My knowledge on the subject has been acquired through study carried out in the last six months, whereas my credit card agreement was taken out two years ago.

Please withdraw your statement, fully and unconditionally. If you refuse to withdraw the statement I will have no choice but to litigate.

It is worth me pointing out (if only to remind myself) that I bear you no ill will and have no desire to enter into a disagreement with you.

Gary, I did not accuse you of fraud, and all the legalese in the world will not change that, but if it will make you happy, I withdraw any such accusation, fully and completely.

Having said that, you still have not answered any questions, and claiming that you need to speak in legalese further obfuscates the situation.

Wtihout prejudice, perhaps you could answer these questions, to clear things up:

You seem to be suggesting that I knowingly entered into a credit agreement with the intention of using the Acceptance for Value method of payment.

I said nothing of the sort. I suggested that you knew that you were getting monetary gain from the credit card agreement. In your earlier posts you seem to take the view that credit card debt it not enforceable. It also seems that you are using the law to avoid paying this debt.

Once again, can you confirm that you offered your credit card company cash in settlement of your bill?

You accuse me of deliberate obfuscation of the facts, an accusation I most strenuously deny.

This is a magic forum. The fact that you use legalese all the time, while not answering questions in plain language. I did not accuse you of obfuscation of the facts.

You then state that I made the post in order to garner acclaim, as if I was desparate for the approval of strangers on the internet. Again, an accusation I deny.

I stated an opinion. I did not make an accusation.

Gary, I'll say it again so you are happy. I did not, and do not in any way accuse you of fraud.

I do, however, have an _extremely_ low opinion of you, as is my right.

Ian

@ Ian: I must apologise to you. When I sent that PM it was late -I was tired and had had a couple of beers. In retrospect it was a foolish thing to do and I regret sending it now. In my defence, this is a subject that I find very emotive, and it seemed like I was being misunderstood and attacked without good reason.

I received a response from the credit bandit, again saying they could not accept the financial instrument, this time returning it to me.

So, I rang the Financial Ombudsman Service who gave me the number for the Financial Services Authority. I rang them and asked them to either confirm or deny that I was lawfully able to use the remittance itself to settle the account pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act. After a little confusion (I had to explain what info I was after in very, very simple terms and she went to talk to one of her superiors) she confirmed that I had acted entirely within the law and that I was able to settle the account using the remittance alone. She then asked if I wished to bring a complaint against the credit bandit. I refused, saying I'll keep that option open but that I would rather try and settle things with the bandit themselves.

If you want to check this yourself, the number for the FSA is 0845 606 1234. Their email address is: consumer.enquiries@fsa.gov.uk.

So, a body set up by the government to regulate the financial services sector has confirmed that I am lawfully able to use the remittance in the way that I have, and that that constitutes payment.

Hopefully, this should put to rest any arguments that suggest I have acted dishonourably regarding the remittance. I have had it confirmed by a government appointed body that the remittance is a form of money. As it is a form of money, there can be no argument that I have somehow defaulted on the payment or that I am not paying.

Now then, I have provided what I think is compelling evidence, in the form of confirmation from the regulator of the financial sector which you can verify yourselves. If any of you still think that I am acting with dishonour then please provide evidence of equal weight. Any opinions offered without such evidence will be considered irrelevant by myself.

An honourable man pays his debts. It does seem as if you are avoiding this.

I'll ask again, because this seems to be the crux of the situation; how did you offer to pay off your bill? In plain English, please.

For example - did you write 'IOU 5 grand' on the tear off pay slip? Did you offer goats in a barter? Did you try to pay with another credit card? Or did you offer them cash?

It seems strange to me that you would open an account grudgingly, yet applied for a credit card.

This is an emotive subject for most people, for me mainly because my country is bankrupt. This means that the school at which my wife teaches does not have budget to buy pencils, and the school my children attend has less money.

I have worked for both HBOS and RBS, and I am familiar with the mentality that got us into this mess. Society these days seems to have degenerated into a blame shifting, responsibility dodging mess, and the downside to this is the financial cluster truck we're in now.

No one is denying that you have found some loophole to get out of paying your credit card debt. Bully for you. But I reserve the right to find this behaviour reprehensible. You took out an agreement to obtain the card, and I think it's safe to assume (there's that word again) that you used it to procure goods or services. And now you are doing everything you can to get out of paying for those services.

If you were truely an honorable man, and not just a legal one, you would send the company a cheque to clear your balance.

To quote the Winslow Boy - it is not enough that the law was done, but that _right_ was done.

Sending threats of legal action based on assumptions when drunk is one thing, and I accept your apology for that. However, please don't expect me to think that you are acting honourably.

The law is an ass, after all.

Ian

Can I just clarify this, because it's making my head hurt...

What you're saying Gary is that a bank note (for instance, £10) is only "worth" anything because of the signature of the head of the bank of England or whoever, which promises to "pay the bearer £10" (of gold, presumably? Or costly spices or something?)

So your argument is that because a remittance slip has your signature on it, with a similar promise to pay a certain amount, it is effectively equal to cash, and that little piece of paper alone should be able to be used to pay the debt - is this correct?

What I don't understand is who gives "Euroclear" the money for these little slips of paper, if what you say is true about them moneterising the slips and giving the same payment again to the credit card companies. Because that slip is effectively an IOU that you signed, surely? So don't the companies therefore have the right to come back to you later and say "we have in our possession a slip from you promising to pay us £xyz... pay up please."

I just don't understand how the slip is turned into cash without someone paying. If what you're saying is entirely true with no omissions, then the credit companies are effectively printing money - I'm pretty sure that's not allowed?!

If it is true, I'm always going to pay my credit card online so they don't get my "remittance"!

Ian (or someone else with knowledge about this) - do you have anything to add to this by way of confirming or denying it? Ethical considerations about trying to get out of debts aside, surely there is also an ethical problem here if credit card companies are receiving double the repayment (minus Euroclear's fee, presumably) when someone makes their repayments with a giro slip?

Farlsborough wrote:the credit companies are effectively printing money - I'm pretty sure that's not allowed?!

Actually quite the opposite.

It is the basis of modern banking. Google "fractional banking" it is the cornerstone of modern ecomonics, the entire concept is laughable and it seems absurd that it is actually used, however it is.

IanKendall wrote:For example - did you write 'IOU 5 grand' on the tear off pay slip?
Ian

This is the question I am also wondering about... a remittance slip may well be a lawful financial instrument but I'm still at a loss as to where the money you were offering to pay them with was coming from.

I'm sure we won't get a straight answer - probably something along the lines of "you're looking at this too simply", "there is no money that's been offered or taken" or somesuch but it simply seems increasingly clear to me that you are not offering any of your own material wealth as a method of clearing the debt...

I wish I could stop coming back to this thread - it's like picking a scab!


Sean

Forgive me if this has been addressed.

If money doesn't exist then what do I get paid in?

If the money I get paid in doesn't exist then do the things I buy with the money that doesn't exist exist?

If the things I buy with the money that doesn't exist exists then do the credit cards I have exist?

If the credit cards that I have don't exist then does the credit exist?

If the credit doesn't exist then do I exist?

Russ

russpie wrote:Forgive me if this has been addressed.

If money doesn't exist then what do I get paid in?

If the money I get paid in doesn't exist then do the things I buy with the money that doesn't exist exist?

If the things I buy with the money that doesn't exist exists then do the credit cards I have exist?

If the credit cards that I have don't exist then does the credit exist?

If the credit doesn't exist then do I exist?

Russ

I think you should credit somebody in that post

IanKendall wrote:An honourable man pays his debts. It does seem as if you are avoiding this.

I'll ask again, because this seems to be the crux of the situation; how did you offer to pay off your bill? In plain English, please.

For example - did you write 'IOU 5 grand' on the tear off pay slip? Did you offer goats in a barter? Did you try to pay with another credit card? Or did you offer them cash?

It seems strange to me that you would open an account grudgingly, yet applied for a credit card.

This is an emotive subject for most people, for me mainly because my country is bankrupt. This means that the school at which my wife teaches does not have budget to buy pencils, and the school my children attend has less money.

I have worked for both HBOS and RBS, and I am familiar with the mentality that got us into this mess. Society these days seems to have degenerated into a blame shifting, responsibility dodging mess, and the downside to this is the financial cluster truck we're in now.

No one is denying that you have found some loophole to get out of paying your credit card debt. Bully for you. But I reserve the right to find this behaviour reprehensible. You took out an agreement to obtain the card, and I think it's safe to assume (there's that word again) that you used it to procure goods or services. And now you are doing everything you can to get out of paying for those services.

If you were truely an honorable man, and not just a legal one, you would send the company a cheque to clear your balance.

To quote the Winslow Boy - it is not enough that the law was done, but that _right_ was done.

Sending threats of legal action based on assumptions when drunk is one thing, and I accept your apology for that. However, please don't expect me to think that you are acting honourably.

The law is an ass, after all.

Ian

I paid the bill using the slip at the bottom of the page which has the words 'bank giro credit' on it. On this slip I drew a box in red ink, inside of which, also in red ink, I wrote this "Accepted for Value", followed by my NI number and signature. I then filled in the amount in the box and sent it to the CEO of the credit bandit with the Notice of Acceptance for Value.

Bearing in mind that the government have confirmed to me that the remittance is a lawful specie of money, I don't see how you can claim I'm trying to get out of paying. I have paid using a form of money that is just as valid as bank notes. There is no need for me to send them a cheque, because I have given them a legal form of currency.

Now, you might think I'm being dishonourable, but unless you can provide me with evidence that the remittance is not a form of money and that I have acted improperly I don't see how you can reasonably hold that view. If you can provide me with evidence that the remittance is not a lawful specie of money

[quote=Farlsborough]Can I just clarify this, because it's making my head hurt...

What you're saying Gary is that a bank note (for instance, £10) is only "worth" anything because of the signature of the head of the bank of England or whoever, which promises to "pay the bearer £10" (of gold, presumably? Or costly spices or something?)[/quote]

Yes, although our currency hasn't been based on the gold standard since the 30's

So your argument is that because a remittance slip has your signature on it, with a similar promise to pay a certain amount, it is effectively equal to cash, and that little piece of paper alone should be able to be used to pay the debt - is this correct?

In a bankrupt economy a promise to pay is the only payment there is. The thing that gives a bank note value is indeed the signature. With regards to the remittance, I'm not saying it is effectively equal to cash, I'm saying it is cash. Really, if you don't believe me contact the FSA. It is money.

It's worth bearing in mind that my knowledge in this area is fairly basic, I've only been studying it for six months or so and I am quite prepared to accept that my understanding is false provided someone can provide me with some evidence.

EDIT: While this process is ongoing I am still making my normal monthly payments to the credit bandit. These will continue until I serve my Notice of Cancellation of Payment. Once that has been served, then I will cease those payments.

I don't see how you can reasonably hold that view

Because I am a reasonable man.

Dress it up in all the legalese you want Gary. I've stated my case, and my opinion of your actions.

Ian

IanKendall wrote:

I don't see how you can reasonably hold that view

Because I am a reasonable man.

Dress it up in all the legalese you want Gary. I've stated my case, and my opinion of your actions.

Ian

But what you have not provided is any evidence to support your claims. If you can prove to me that the remittance is not a legal form of currency then I will accept everything you say. If you can't, your argument has no legs.

Klangster1971 wrote:

IanKendall wrote:For example - did you write 'IOU 5 grand' on the tear off pay slip?
Ian

This is the question I am also wondering about... a remittance slip may well be a lawful financial instrument but I'm still at a loss as to where the money you were offering to pay them with was coming from.

Where does any money come from? It is created out of thin air!