Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An update to this case as I’ve not been on in a while.    I am still awaiting a charging decision in the case. The two police officers involved have said their personal belief is a section 47 ABH charge is the most likely outcome but this isn’t a sure thing of course.    The EA certificate from the issuing court has now lapsed. The court have refused to recertify him until they’ve had a hearing in to the case, and the district judge has issued orders to surrender all evidence, footage, photos etc.    I have done so promptly.    the EA, not so much . Equita have claimed they cannot provide his bodycam footage as the camera he was wearing is the EA personal one not one of theirs.   the EA has claimed he has asked Equita and the police for the footage as he claims he doesn’t have it.    the police have confirmed they didn’t seize his camera and they don’t have it.    so they are basically pointing the finger at each other all the while failing to comply with the district judges order to provide all evidence they intend to rely on at the rescheduled hearing.    The district judge has stated the hearing for his certification will NOT be the hearing for my complaint as there is no charge as of yet, and just as to whether he should be recertified or not.    I’m not 100% on why that can’t be done at the time, but I’m not about to question a judge…..      
    • Thanks FTMDave, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage. Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this   Regards
    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

I promise to pay the bearer.. oh yeah?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4998 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've often wondered what would happen if bank customers handed over their fivers (and higher denomination banknotes) and demanded that the bank fulfil the promise on every banknote, ie; the promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of (whatever) pounds. The word "pound" in terms of money refers to the weight 240 silver pennies. Banknotes are not actually money but a promisary note on behalf of the Bank of England. Banknotes were issued to enable merchants to exchange a convenient representation of actual sterling (ie; high grade) silver for goods or services. The banknotes could then be presented to any bank which, by law, was obliged to pay the bearer the banknote's value in sterling silver which did not necessarily have to be in the form of 240 silver pennies per pound but did have to be the equivalent weight in sterling silver.

 

Prior to 1528, the "pound" referred to the Tower Pound (equal to 5,400 grains and worth about £78.75 in the current market value of silver). In 1528, the standard was changed to the Troy Pound, which is a little heavier and valued in today's market at around £84.

 

Now, despite the fluctuations in the value of the pound as a unit of currency, I know of no law passed that voids the promise that is still printed on banknotes today. The word "pounds" still carry the same historical meaning as far as I have been able to ascertain.

 

Maybe there is a law that releives the banks of their obligation to hand over £420 worth of silver when I present my fiver and demand the bank fulfils the promise on the banknote. If anybody knows more about this, I'd be grateful for the info as I'm seriously thinking of doing this and want to be well-armed with information before attempting to screw the banks like they've been screwing us for so long.

 

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered what would happen if bank customers handed over their fivers (and higher denomination banknotes) and demanded that the bank fulfil the promise on every banknote, ie; the promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of (whatever) pounds. The word "pound" in terms of money refers to the weight 240 silver pennies. Banknotes are not actually money but a promisary note on behalf of the Bank of England. Banknotes were issued to enable merchants to exchange a convenient representation of actual sterling (ie; high grade) silver for goods or services. The banknotes could then be presented to any bank which, by law, was obliged to pay the bearer the banknote's value in sterling silver which did not necessarily have to be in the form of 240 silver pennies per pound but did have to be the equivalent weight in sterling silver.

 

Prior to 1528, the "pound" referred to the Tower Pound (equal to 5,400 grains and worth about £78.75 in the current market value of silver). In 1528, the standard was changed to the Troy Pound, which is a little heavier and valued in today's market at around £84.

 

Now, despite the fluctuations in the value of the pound as a unit of currency, I know of no law passed that voids the promise that is still printed on banknotes today. The word "pounds" still carry the same historical meaning as far as I have been able to ascertain.

 

Maybe there is a law that releives the banks of their obligation to hand over £420 worth of silver when I present my fiver and demand the bank fulfils the promise on the banknote. If anybody knows more about this, I'd be grateful for the info as I'm seriously thinking of doing this and want to be well-armed with information before attempting to screw the banks like they've been screwing us for so long.

 

Any ideas?

 

All I can say is whatever you are on, I would like some!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! would be great if you could, but surely there must be some kind of get out clause for the banks for this otherwise everyone would do it!

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! would be great if you could, but surely there must be some kind of get out clause for the banks for this otherwise everyone would do it!

 

Oh I don't doubt that there is! But wouldn't it be wonderful if there wasn't? There are numerous archaic laws that have become dormant because they no longer apply but are actually still legally enforceable. Just suppose this was one of them!?

 

By the way Monty 2007, I'm sorry but there are no dealers providing what I'm on. I'm afraid you actually have to go mad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol good idea!!

 

so many little laws that have gone unchanged from eons ago and yet nobody really has any idea about them for unknown reasons.

 

might be worth researching this one and having a go! but hurry do it before someone changes it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the original post.

 

You would get diddly-squat from your bank (or any other High Street bank). They have made no such promise to you; you have no case against them for failing to pay the bearer.

 

The promise to pay the bearer is one made by the Bank of England (the clue is that a banknote has the promise signed by the Chief Cashier of the BoE) - and they don't deal with individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notes issued by the Bank of England are legal tender and legal tender cannot be refused in payment of a debt. So, if you go to the Bank of England and present a five pound note and point to the promise you will be given...a five pound note. The promise is a vestige of the days when bank notes represented gold held by the banks, but now there is not enough gold to go round. The sole value of the promise is that if you take to the Bank of England an out-of date note you will be given legal tender in exchange.

 

Whether bank notes are or are not money depends on how you look at it. In practice they are accepted as money and what is accepted as money is money, but all money is an illusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 16th century the goldsmith-bankers began to accept deposits, make loans and transfer funds. They also gave receipts for cash, that is to say gold coins, deposited with them. These receipts, known as “running cash notes”, were made out in the name of the depositor and promised to pay him on demand.

Many also carried the words “or bearer” after the name of the depositor, which allow them to circulate in a limited way.

The link between gold and notes issue has been broken many times since their inseption but was finally severed in 1931 when Britain finally left the gold standard and the note issue became entirely fiduciary, that is wholly backed by securities instead of gold.

 

Bank of England|Banknotes|More About Banknotes|A brief history of banknotes

 

skb

Victory over Lloyds £890

Click!

Victory over Vodafone: default removal

click!

Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click!

Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06)

The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

patdavies wrote:

 

"The promise to pay the bearer is one made by the Bank of England (the clue is that a banknote has the promise signed by the Chief Cashier of the BoE) - and they don't deal with individuals."

 

Actually, Pat, they do deal with individuals...... er....... well, individuals that go in with reasonable requests, anyway.

 

Maybe it was the blue woad with which I'd painted my face or maybe it was the hand-woven hemp teeshirt bearing the slogan "DEATH TO THE MONETARY SYSTEM" or the bearskin jodpurs or the lime green wellies... Then again, the horned viking helmet (although I did remove it when entering the bank even though it didn't technically qualify as a motorcycle helmet) may have alerted them to the possibility that this was not a normal customer.

 

However, the cashier smiled politely when I slapped my rather grubby fiver on the counter and demanded 420 quid's worth of sterling silver.

He shrugged and counted out five one pound coins, saying "Best we can do, I'm afraid"

"I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!" I hollered but the cashier simply switched on a mike and announced "Sid! We've got another one!"

Just then, a security guard appeared, frogmarching a customer dressed as Ghengis Khan to the front door "With you in a minute, Tom" he said.

 

Now I admit that I didn't really expect them to hand over five Troy Pounds of sterling silver without an argument but hurling me out the front door head first is hardly the way I'd expected the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street to behave! "You've not heard the last of this!" I shouted...... but, actually, I think they have.... well, from me, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Notes issued by the Bank of England are legal tender and legal tender cannot be refused in payment of a debt. So, if you go to the Bank of England and present a five pound note and point to the promise you will be given...a five pound note.

 

I agree this is probably what would happen, however it 'should' not be possible. In UK law it is illegal to pay a debt with a debt; seeing as notes are essentially IOU's from the bank 'promising' to pay, you should be breaking the law any time you exchange them for goods or services.

 

By making the notes themselves legal tender, independant of any sterling silver to back them up, the government circumvents this illegality and puts us all in hock to the banks. Essentially they made an illegal practice legal, but only for themselves, you or I would be criminals for doing the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have you been for the past couple of years? There is no such thing as money, only confidence in certain things representing relative value. As soon as that value is questioned you get............. oh yes .......... the mess we're all in now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks want to withdraw cheques by 2015, some will cancel the cheque guarantee card from June next year, as a cheque is a promissory note along with money (both being negotiable instruments) I wonder what the banks intentions are going to be when it comes to cash?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Have been reading all the threads to this, some crap and others who have definately got the idea.

But dont forget this, there isnt any money only debt notes.

Because the private banksters have made the governments of this world bankrupt we only deal in debt notes and you cant pay a debt with a debt.

What they have cleverly done is to create us as the liability on all debt by the STRAWMAN system thro our birth certificate.

The real wheeze is that everything therefore is pre paid and so you should not even have to use notes to purchase goods and services.

 

Look into this as its huge and i cannot possibly go into more detail here, but as a heads up on the monetary system as it stands, get out of dodge and buy silver and gold and get rid of as much cash and shares you can.

Don't say I didn't warn you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...