Interesting read

[mrs_m]

Hi all and Niddy too lol
Just wanted to post regarding something I seen about unenforcibility on lovemoney.com entitled You dont have to pay your bills....interesting read.Seems there are companies doing what Niddy does and charging a stupid amount of money for it .

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Interesting read

Mrs M,

Do you have a link to what you read please.

Thank you

Regards

[mrs_m]

Re: Interesting read

Sorry didnt put a link in as thought it may not be allowed lol
The ‘You don’t have to pay your bills’ scam
try that x

[mrs_m]

Re: Interesting read

sorry if you go to lovemoney.com - Live life richer with lovemoney.com
and look at blogs then scams then something thats says you dont have to pay your bills x

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Interesting read

The link does work.

[garlok]

Re: Interesting read

And they have the law wrong as well. I have no sympathy with CMCs at all but when a site like "Lovemoney" makes stupid ill informed comments as they have about the "Carey" case, they clearly cannot even read properly, let alone offer advice!

regards
Garlok

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Interesting read

And they have the law wrong as well. I have no sympathy with CMCs at all but when a site like "Lovemoney" makes stupid ill informed comments as they have about the "Carey" case, they clearly cannot even read properly, let alone offer advice!

It's not just the money lover that has mistaken the law - although his interpretation of wacky Waksman's judgement in Carey is quite commonplace and not difficult to make - but the CMCs also get the law completely wrong.

Their usual script seems to have been written by an idiot, though it might have been a by-product of the research project using a lot of chimpanzees bashing away at computer keyboards to reproduce Shakespeare's lost play, Love's Labours Won. The script monkey says the consumer can benefit from either "a little known piece of government legislation" or "a recent piece of government legislation", but they invariably fail when asked to clarify that.

The "little known piece of government legislation" was claimed to be "the Consumer Credit Act 1985", to which patent poppycock I replied that it was indeed "little known" as it seems to have eluded the compilers of the National Statute Database. The "recent piece of government legislation" was, apparently, "the Consumer Credit Act 2007" - and that also does not exist. When one asks them what sort of legislation there might be that was not the work of the government or, at least, presented to and passed by Parliament, the script monkeys either repeat the meaningless phrase or simply hang up, as they clearly cannot answer that question.

[charitynjw]

Re: Interesting read

Not only CMCs.

One DCA numpty quoted the Data Protection Act 1995 to me!

(Thinking about it, this may be the Act which gives them the right to play fast & loose with personal data - trouble is, I can't seem to find it on any legal/government websites!)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Interesting read

1995 is the EU Directive. Not the uk DPA. (Directive 95/46/EC)

Try looking for DPA 1995 EU Directive

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Interesting read

1995 is the EU Directive. Not the uk DPA. (Directive 95/46/EC)

Try looking for DPA 1995 EU Directive

Is that what the numpties call non-government legislation?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Interesting read

Is that what the numpties call non-government legislation?

Haha - if the bothered to read Directive 95/46/EC then they'd know, this simply told member states to conform by 1998 ergo we have the DPA 1998.

It's not rocket science; we're part of the EU; the EU, in Directive 95/46/EC, stipulates all member states should include provision to the directive within their own DPA.

Muppets

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Interesting read

This is a better read, as opposed to that shyte on love money ---> Data Protection Act 1998