Their Nemesis Part II

Nemesis letters

Having seen some very interesting comments posted on the main Nemesis page, we now know the full history about his demise from CAG, down to the fact that the CAG site team ended up telling people not to use his templates. The Legal Beagles Team are obviously not bothered about it, as long as they have him around, always ready and willing. It looks like they are happy to let him draft stuff despite previous incidents where he drafted completely the wrong thing.

Lethal weapon

Soldiers and people in the armed forces are known for using lethal weapons, that’s what they’re trained for. In this case, we have a retired army character who uses a different kind of lethal weapon now he’s on civvy street: his letters! After the CAG site team advised all their members (and there’s hundreds of thousands of them), not to use his letters, the Beagles seem happy to let him draft away, even when there were some instances where his letters didn’t do the OPs much good.

I guess it just looks good to have someone on board nearly 24/7 offering to draft things left, right and centre for the poor punters who don’t know any better.

JD Williams and Lowell

Court claim received

53 Comments

  1. Jon says:

    Well it looks like someone has asked some appropriate questions such as how did you acknowledge the claim etc. the only reason I can see that shazza and co didn’t pull the stops out is because it was for a relatively small amount . No mention of tomlin or how to defend. Systers the lot of them

    • Outraged says:

      At last someone told this poor sod that they could have costs against him if he loses in the fast track: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?76434-Arrow-Global-Court-Action&p=613347#post613347 Tagging @nemesis is a sure way to get the kind of advice that will leave you in need of further help from a professional source. What sort of site are those people running there when they leave it all in the hands of someone like Nemesis? Makes you wonder whether they have a conscience at all, how do those people sleep at night, knowing someone can end up with a £12k CCJ + a £10k costs order thanks to the advice given on the site? Perhaps Nemesis is one of the seven investors, that would explain a lot of things that have happened on the site over the past year or so. Still doesn’t justify the way posters are left in his incapable hands, there’s just no excuse for that, none whatsoever.

  2. Legaleaglet says:

    Now it’s just a question of who many CCJs are there going to be this year, and how many costs orders thanks to Nemesis’ advice. Bets anyone?

  3. revenge says:

    Nemisis has told this person to phone Lovells, has he not learned anything that only ever put complaints in writing.

    With Kati thanking him the OP believes he is getting excellent advice.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      That is one of the most basic principles when dealing with debt: never ring them! Kati would thank anything Nemesis posts, even if he said Christmas Day is the Fourth of July, she’ll thank him for that information. The way he is allowed to post freely and authoritatively, very few people would question his advice even if they knew about law and court procedure (which most don’t). It’s a psychological effect: they are under stress and not thinking clearly, he comes along as an advisor on a site called LEGAL Beagles. Very dangerous!

  4. Jon says:

    I see nemesis is at it again not reading posts

    In the thread that is a claim for potentially over 10K , the OP had only said they had received paperwork that showed the loan was for 12030 with some insurance of about 2K . The poster who had warned of the potential for costs asked how much the actual claim was for

    nem wrote 12.03K — possible epic fail but was probably just trying to hide the fact he had screwed up AGAIN!

    • Legaleaglet says:

      Oddly the thread had not been posted on for several days. Once more, Nemesis is “replying to PM”. One has to wonder WHY he gets so many PMs from posters when most newbies on forums don’t think of sending PMs, off the top of their heads, not unless they had received PMs when they joined or started posting. My guess is, Nemesis PMs them welcoming aboard and tells them that he is an experienced debt advisor with 40 years experience and if they need any help, he’s the one to ask. How come COOP didn’t post since the 23rd yet Nemesis got a PM? And why him? If I was a newbie on a forum and saw the Site Owner on my thread, I’d probably contact HER in the first instance.

      He wrote 12.03k because he’s careless and partially illiterate and pre-programmed to spit out one of his pre-defined tracks. At no time did he address the issue of costs on the fast track. If I was replying, that would be the first thing that would cross my mind and if I went and posted up about having a claim, I’d expect a warning about costs to start with. It is their duty to tell people about that and extremely irresponsible of Nemesis not to mention it and of the Site Team not to raise the issue with him. If they fell under the jurisdiction of the SRA that would be totally against the basic client care principles but, because the posters are not paying for the advice, they are not clients and neither are forum advisors, regulated, hence the prevalence of people like Nemesis. I wonder whether he would be paying the OP’s costs order if he loses.

    • Fair Play says:

      I wonder what part of his career training qualifies him as a debt advisor. I didn’t think training in the armed forces included financial issues. Oh, I forget, he is also an employment, legal and family law expert. He could appear in that advert saying: “I was born in the Big Smoke but I was made in the armed forces and the Beagle kennels”.

  5. Interested Party says:

    Didn’t someone else set themselves up as a Debt Advisor/Charity ?

    • Legaleaglet says:

      They did, however, in that case they were authorised by the OFT and in possession of a Consumer Credit License.

  6. revenge says:

    I remember exactly who had a charity for debt advisory. I am positive they did not have a consumer credit licence or authorised by the OFT and Cel allowed him to post his charity details on LB.

    Does anyone one remember the Mojake saga………..Nikki and I questioned the Charity and we got our heads blown off and were made to apologise. In the end no one helped Mojake because Cel did not want the case and the Charity was unable to help.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      I know one LB poster who was running a small, free debt management service and he did have a consumer credit license, I had all the details and even looked it up on the OFT website. The license was later surrendered voluntarily a few months before the FCA was born, so it was never progressed to interim authorisation by the FCA. It wasn’t a registered charity though, the term “charity” was only used in terms of establishing that it was a not for profit service provided free of charge. I believe Cel was fully aware of the status of this operation which was a personal service run under a personal OFT CCL, not a company, and its scope in terms of the service provided and number of clients was rather limited.

      I remember the infamous Mojake case as one of the posters on the thread and also received information about the OP from both the “charity” and another party who had been asked to help. There was much more to this case than what was posted up on the thread.

  7. Bill-K says:

    Yes, I recall the Mojake debácle – although I was not involved. I thought that Cel forcing you and Nix to apologise for asking fair and legitimate questions – ie., “Please may we see your credentials if you are going to offer professional advice via LB” was quite disgusting.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      I don’t recall the apology incident. The problem was that Cel made secret appointments. If someone is authorised to run DMPs, there’s no reason to keep that fact a secret. Something similar occurred last year when a poster asked on a thread whether Nemesis was authorised, after he openly posted about all the cases he handles privately. If I remember correctly, the answer to his question was that message that pops up on your screen saying: “You have been banned, date ban will be lifted: Never”.

      • Fair Play says:

        They just can’t stand having their judgment questioned, probably because a lot of the time it’s not very sound. If they were positive about the poster’s credentials, they wouldn’t have a problem posting them up.

  8. John says:

    I’d have told her to stick her apology up her scrawny rear end.

  9. Jon says:

    I am also aware of a former member who did indeed have a CCL.

    I do wonder about the replying to PM issue and wonder if it is just another case of self promotion i.e ‘look at me, aren’t I important, people PM me’. I remember when he used to post with replied by PM until that was highlighted so he had to start posting on threads. I also noticed that coop was on-line yesterday , possibly just checking the thread update of maybe a pm

    I am afraidIi do not trust or believe a word that Nem says. If he was aware of all the cases he claims to be aware of he would never do anything else, funny though however that he was totally unaware of the awful arrow global v frost and was still blissfully saying that for a pre 2007 agreement they still needed the original. Luckily that was , hopefully, a one off.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      I am also aware of a former member who did indeed have a CCL.

      Consumer Credit Licensing under the OFT was very different from FCA authorisation and the member in question decided not to pursue debt management any further. Having seen this page from LB Compare: http://www.nullrefer.com/?http://lbcompare.co.uk/find-debt-management-companies/ I must say it’s very tempting to apply for authorisation to go into that bu$ine$$, having seen how much some of those companies charge!!!!!!!

      I do wonder about the replying to PM issue and wonder if it is just another case of self promotion i.e ‘look at me, aren’t I important, people PM me’. I remember when he used to post with replied by PM until that was highlighted so he had to start posting on threads. I also noticed that coop was on-line yesterday , possibly just checking the thread update of maybe a pm

      There’s no reason whatsoever to post “replying to PM”. When I have communicated with posters via PM I say that in my PM, i.e. I say: “I’ve posted on your thread” so they know to go and look there, what would be the point of doing it the other way round? If the OP is already reading the thread, they are reading the response! I think you may be right, he does it to big himself up, and it’s also an invitation to other posters to PM him.

      I am afraid I do not trust or believe a word that Nem says. If he was aware of all the cases he claims to be aware of he would never do anything else, funny though however that he was totally unaware of the awful arrow global v frost and was still blissfully saying that for a pre 2007 agreement they still needed the original. Luckily that was , hopefully, a one off.

      It’s a well known fact he only knows what he reads on the forums where he posts, he doesn’t read any legislation, case law or articles. Have you ever seen him post a link to a statute, article or judgment? Quote a paragraph from a case or a piece of legislation? I’ve never, ever seen him do that, not once!

  10. Big Al says:

    The person who set up the debt advice service – the blind leading the blind comes to mind.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      …and nothing much has changed, these days we have Nemesis who is so blind he can’t even read the thread before replying, leading the blind.

  11. Inciteful says:

    Sorry to resurect an old thread but..

    I see that Nem has been doing his old trick of repeating what others have said , by doing this he seems to have the last post of the thread which no doubt makes him feel all important

    I can see only two reasons for this neither of which show him as being very bright
    1) He just wants to inflate his own ego
    2) Anyone who has disagreed with him gets put on ignore and he therefore can not see what is written.

    Either of these two scenarios just show him up for being the less than helpful person he is. I always thought that the whole point of a forum was to help people and not inflate your own ego although I now know that is being idealistic.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      Sorry to resurect an old thread but..

      Old but not obsolete, unlike Nem…

      can see only two reasons for this neither of which show him as being very bright 1) He just wants to inflate his own ego –

      Most definitely, his ego is ravenous and needs constant feeding.

      2) Anyone who has disagreed with him gets put on ignore and he therefore can not see what is written.

      Either of these two scenarios just show him up for being the less than helpful person he is.

      The ignore feature isn’t really suitable for legal threads. Regardless of one’s feelings towards a particular poster, it is essential to see what has been posted.

      I always thought that the whole point of a forum was to help people and not inflate your own ego although I now know that is being idealistic.

      I’m afraid that’s not the case, more often than not, egos take over everything else.

  12. Jon says:

    Well it seems the penny has finally dropped regarding limitations and it not necessarily starting on the date of last payment. It’s only taken about 4 years.

    http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?81977-Urgent-advice-needed-Claim-form-Cabot-Financial&p=657556#post657556

    Here he finally admits that the date of last payment is not reliable as a standard for Statute Barred. Needless to say he makes it sound as if it’s something new but we have known it for a very long time with National Debt Line having been saying it for ages.

    Yes I know once the debt is defaulted and in a payment plan the last payment can be used but really he is slow on the uptake

    • Agent 99 says:

      It was often his take that the clock started to run from the date a default was recorded on your credit files, which was even worse than last payment date. He even drafted a letter saying as much which was admitted by the court as a SBd defence. Now he’s saying the opposite, but that’s after the same thing was posted time and again and again and again…

      He still didn’t get it 100% right:

      The Limitation Act 1980 (England & Wales ) provides for a period of 6 years after which no action can be started

      Action CAN be started, and judgment can be obtained, SBd is a procedural defence so you need to submit a defence stating the debt is SBd. The fact the OP has received a claim would seem to indicate that action can be started, wouldn’t it?

Leave a Reply to revenge Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *