Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I've been wondering about some posts I've read that seem to imply there is a difference between what is lawful and what is illegal. Can someone explain what the difference is, or have I just mis-understood things?
In a web dictionary unlawful is given as:
Adj. 1. unlawful - not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention; "an unconventional marriage"; "improper banking practices"
improper, unconventional
irregular - contrary to rule or accepted order or general practice; "irregular hiring practices"
unlawful adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents (against the law).
Interesting that the above defintion includes "improper banking practices"
Whereas illegal is defined as:
illegal 1) adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity. Thus, an armed robbery is illegal, and so is an access road which is narrower than the county allows, but the violation is not criminal. 2) a person residing in a country of which he/she is not a citizen and who has no official permission to be there. (See: alien, illegal immigrant)
I just can't see the difference in relation to bank charges. I take it they are unlawful, but not illegal? Is that right? Can someone give me a way of getting my head round the difference. I just want to be better prepared in case I end up in court. Though still wating for the DPA stuff to arrive.
Unlawful:
1 : not lawful : not authorized or justified by law
2 : acting contrary to or in defiance of the law
Illegal:
Prohibited by law.
In real terms, these are pretty much synonyms, but in perception, the difference is an assumed willfulness.
It could be argued that the banks allegedly are not aware that they're going against the law by imposing penalty charges (not an acceptable defence in court, by the way!), and that they are therefore guilty of ignorance rather than intent. It doesn't deter from their guilt, it just might make it a bit morally more acceptable to some.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
My take is that if I was to charge you £100 for nothing, charging you £100 is not illegal.
However, if I tried to TAKE £100 from you (or as banks are doing, actually taking) then whilst the act may or may not be considered lawful at the time, to keep the £100 I would have to prove in court that the act of taking was lawful...and we all know that the banks cannot, and therefore will not, make this defence.
The only downside to the banks capitulation is that we will still be in the position whereby the charges have not been proved lawful.
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
It's only a term or art. They are actually synonymous. however, illegal sounds harsher and is more easliy asocuate with criminal wrongdoings. Unlawful is more easliy associated with wrongdoings which are less than criminal. However, it is up to you which you use.
Please don't pm me about specific questions unless you have posted and it has not been dealt with or unless the matter is confidential. Please include a link to the post you want me to look at. If you have received a defence, contact me.
Advice & opinions of BankFodder, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
I've always defined unlawfull as 'illegitimate', wheras illegal would be defined as 'forbidden'.
In other words, you can write up a contract which demands a payment of £50 if someone breaches your contract by bouncing a cheque, but you will not be able to enforce the contract, because it is unlawful. The thing to bear in mind of course, is that drawing up such a contract is not in itself 'illegal', or forbidden, it's just that the law will not support you if you try to enforce it.
If on the other hand you got your £50 by walking up the person and robbing them at gunpoint, then that would clearly be illegal, and therefore forbidden.
This is pure semantics, and completely irrlevant. The fact remains that, legal or lawful, the banks cannot, and therefore will not, defend this argument in a court of law.
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
It's only a term or art. They are actually synonymous. however, illegal sounds harsher and is more easliy asocuate with criminal wrongdoings. Unlawful is more easliy associated with wrongdoings which are less than criminal. However, it is up to you which you use.
Breaking the law = Unlawful.
Breaking a legislative rule = Illegal.
Statutes and parliamentary acts are not laws. Next time you watch a debate in the house of commons, just listen carefully. Language is very important in law.
Although the magistrates (who have no oath, and as a result, no power unless consented to) who have a vested interest, would rather you "didn't bother learning such silly stuff".
I had hoped people "moderating" such a site would know the difference.
But, yet again, the autodidacts seem to have more passion for the subject -_-
Originally Posted by Bookworm
Illegal:
Prohibited by law.
In real terms, these are pretty much synonyms, but in perception, the difference is an assumed willfulness.
It could be argued that the banks allegedly are not aware that they're going against the law by imposing penalty charges (not an acceptable defence in court, by the way!), and that they are therefore guilty of ignorance rather than intent. It doesn't deter from their guilt, it just might make it a bit morally more acceptable to some.
Where did you get that information?
"are pretty much synonyms" doesn't mean they are the same, does it?
Are you aware that the "penalty charges" of which you speak are termed as "notices" and therefore require consent to be acted upon.
unlawful or illegal defintions
"; "improper banking practices"
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by BankFodder
