Good evening all, Well I suppose someone has to start the ball rolling - so it's going to be me! Watch this space..... Kind regards to everyone Dougal

Good morning all, Doesn't S.32 of the Limitations Act alter the position though - see Cave -v - Robinson? 'Deliberate concealment' is mentioned - but I do recommend a read of the case. Does it apply to Bank Charges? If it does.......... Best wishes to everyone Dougal

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE Firstly I would like to say how extremely sorry I am at my very poor reaction to your phenomenal help, advice, assistance and guidance - my behaviour was indefensible, and for that I beg your forgiveness. I felt I was unable to deal with everything - and just 'closed down' for a day or two. That was until I had the kick up the a**e that I needed from you all and from a very, very good certain young barrister! The news: DJ Robinson at Eastbourne County Court heard my application at 10.45 today (Eviction due at 12 noon), and suspended the Warrant for 2 months with leave for me to apply to further extend. He veered towards a permanent suspension pending the sale of the property, I believe this was because, I said " This is a case where a sub-prime lender who purchased the mortgage from another lender by acquisition of their company (GE Money acquired the I Group), and has persistently failed to respond to correspondence". Copies of my correspondence were provided by myself to the Judge with proof of receipt by GE Money. He was not very happy with GE Money or my ex-wife (!!) - The reason for GE is their lack of response and failure to deal with my financial difficulties despite being on notice to that effect. He considered the possibility of 'rolling up' the arrears and adding them to the amount outstanding. He made no order for the arrears to be paid. Unfortunately for my ex-wife, this was the Judge who made the Order at the FDR, (which I am considering revisiting in the light of Myerson-v-Myerson, even though that is going to further Appeal), His view was that my ex should pay her half share of all bills, which he had ordered her to at the FDR, forthwith, and in any event he left the 'door open' for me to apply to him for an Order to that effect. To all those out there who think that there is no hope of Justice being on your side, I say there is and even when it seems hopeless don't give up!! (I almost did, and could have let down a great number of people - my motto will always be 'Remember it's YOUR money they're after!') To everyone - many.many thanks Especially to Jansus (you're a star), and Ell-enn (a very well-educated and and sensible lady, whose advice is priceless - make sure you read her posts!!) All the best (and watch this space.......) Dougal (aka Howard)

Good morning Jansus and Ell-enn, and everyone else - I just want to say my sincere thanks for everything. I am afraid that it has all been too much for me, and I do understand that my ex-wife may be making the application for the eviction to be suspended. Without going into too much detail, all I can say is that my ex-wife has done her level best to ruin my life completely. I have decided to let the past go (I shall be out of pocket by less than I thought) and look forward to the future. I have a new lady who has been in my life for the last 2 and a half years, and we are now living together. She has been wonderfully supportive, and as a result of her help and assistance, I am claiming monies from my ex-wife along another path. MY VERY BEST WISHES, THANKS AND KIND THOUGHTS TO ALL AT CAG, YOUR SUPPORT HAS BEEN EXCEPTIONAL. WITHOUT YOU ALL I WOULD NOT HAVE GOT THIS FAR. A certain young barrister has been absolutely brilliant, and hopefully he may have some news for me this week from the High Court - we shall see. As always Dougal (aka Howard)

Good evening Ell-enn I'll answer the questions in the same order.... 1.It will not be possible to get that sum paid on Monday and get a receipt, it may take a further day (maybe two - it depends on my ex-wife!!) 2. £50 3. Yes, offer letter from agents 4. 4-6 weeks perhaps, but in reality unknown 5. Yes 6. No 7. Yes, and suspended possession order granted

hello Ell-enn, I'm the fellow Jansus has been asking for help for! I've got the N244, but need to complete a statement to go with it. I am exempt fees, as currently getting working tax credit. Can take form to Court tomorrow so they've got it for Monday a.m. Any help you can give will be VERY welcome!!! Best wishes Dougal16T (real name Howard!)

Good evening all, There is a simple explanation (I think).....there is an offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 which is self explanatory when it is read. So all one has to do is ask the original creditor if they have asked the DCA (no matter who they are) to collect on their behalf. If the answer is no = offence complete, and ready for prosecution. I suggest however that a straight question along those lines might not bring the answer that was wanted. If however when no assignment has been produced or when no instructions have been received by the DCA then draw the attention of the DCA to S2 of the Fraud Act 2006. A letter informing the DCA that you are passing all of the details of their activities to the Financial Crime Unit will be sure to cause them great difficulty with their actions. In essence it stops them in their tracks! I know because I have done exactly that, with at least three of these 'collection agencies'. Hope this helps Best wishes as always Dougal

Good morning all, Just poking my nose in as usual.....I note that in post no 842 Adrian1972 says 'debt transferred'.....this has no legal status. There has to be an assigment of the debt, and you should have been provided with a copy of the assignment from the original creditor, and also from the new creditor to 'prove' they have the account from now on. It is vital for you to be supplied with these documents, otherwise how do you know that what you are being told by the new creditor is true? I have had first hand experience of this, with a new 'creditor' asking me to pay them, when they have NOT been assigned the loan!! Their rights of collection are therefore non-existent, and I consider them to be contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 - well worth a read, specially Section 3. Sorry to just 'but in' like this, but in this day and age you must be VERY careful!! Sincere good wishes to all as always Dougal

Good morning all, I am sorry to be so cynical......(old habits die hard....!), but have you ever tried to get the Police interested in something which they do not consider a prority? I rest my case...... BUT I do agree that something needs to be done! No, I'll modify that something MUST be done...any suggestions?? Best wishes everyone Dougal

Good morning Thanks for that.....but what is worrying is that the Police will not act if the amount of the Fraud is below a particular level (depending on Force area), and that fact is what these clowns rely on when issuing their tickets!!! Best wishes to all Dougal

Good morning all, Just a quick addition to the above - I work for Morrisons (not as a car park attendant!!) I have watched the 'attendant' employed by these clowns - he makes every effort to avoid being seen...... As far as I am aware there is no employment arrangement with Morrisons (i.e. : the 'attendant' is not paid by Morrisons, nor do Morrisons pay the company. I am not aware of any 'sharing' of the proceeds of the 'attendants' work - but I do know he is employed by the clowns who issue the requests for payment. It is possible that this may be an agreement between Morrisons and these clowns to the effect that the 'attendant' will keep the car park flowing (so to speak) and will be paid from the proceeds of his 'work', and in turn Morrisons will have the dubious benefit of good turnover by the frequent movement of vehicles in and out of the car park - the drivers having been misled into thinking they can only stay for a limited amount of time! As an ex-police officer I agree that the issuing of a ticket is an attempt at theft, and if the Fraud Act 2006 is read I believe that the issuing of a ticket in the circumstances described is a complete offence - and should be reported to the police - BUT I do not believe they would take any action because of the relatively small amount (less than £1,000) involved - even though the Act does not place financial limits, I am sure this would be a 'guidelines for prosecution' matter, and would not be proceeded with. The way around this could be to get a good number of people who have all had tickets in the same car park to complain. All the best to everyone, Dougal

Good afternoon everyone, Is it not time for these unscrupulous DCAs and the like to be finally dealt with? Their actions are all illegal - need I say more. Any such licence in connection with their so called 'industry', (see English Dictionary for proper definition of this word) MUST be revoked and prosecution action MUST be taken by the proper authorities against them - NOT NEXT WEEK, NOT TOMORROW, BUT NOW!!! Let's get the ball rolling.......pass the details of each and every one of these offences to every enforcement organisation we can.....and keep on doing so until finally justice is done for the consumer!! I for one have had enough of these bullying tactics and I say NO MORE! My sincere good wishes to all of my friends and colleagues Dougal

Hi pughats (great name!) There may be a template, but I think all you need to include in your request is to say: "Please also provide a correctly certified first generation copy of the original assigment notice to you, which you hold on this account, showing the date of the assignment and the details of the transferor of this account." That ought to do the trick I hope, and my best wishes to you. Kind regards Dougal

I think the best way to deal with this would be: (a) send a statutory request to Robinson Way for a copy of the original credit agreement. Please enclose the £1 fee or they'll probably write and ask for it! Use a PO and NOT a cheque. (see why below) (b)You should also ask for a copy of the assignment to them from the previous Debt Collection Agency. It s possible that no copy credit agreement will be produced - which means the debt is technically uneforceable - but beware these people have some sharp tactics and may try to apply for a charge on your property. Whatever you do DON'T sign the letter - PRINT YOUR NAME. This will stop any chance of someone 'cutting and pasting' your signature onto another document. If you still have problems, please send me a PM and I will provide details of similar problems and a letter I sent to Mackenzie Hall, which did the trick!! Best wishes Dougal

Good evening, Whilst I agree with the general principle, when dealing with DCAs and the like perhaps my method of dealing with Mackenzie Hall might help....? [it certainly sent them packing...!!] See below: Just a thought...why are we not looking at the problem from another angle....see The Fraud Act 2006.....!!:grin: Copy of letter sent to Mackenzie Hall.... Thomas Lloyd Mackenzie Hall 30 The Foregate Kilmarnock[ KA1 1JH 20th May 2008 First Class recorded delivery Re: M XXXXXX I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or any other person I have today received your unsigned letter dated 9/5/2008. I will not be making any payment to you. I will not be calling you. This is because I do not carry out any financial business on the telephone, all business between us must be in writing. It is necessary to draw your attention to my letter to you dated 9th May 2008, sent by recorded delivery first class mail. Royal Mail have confirmed receipt by you of this letter. This letter required certain information from you – that information is still outstanding. In the meantime, the contents of your letter dated 9th May 2008 constitute an offence under The Fraud Act 2006 . The appropriate sections read: Section 1. Subsection (3) sets out the penalties for the offence. The maximum custodial sentence of 10 years is the same as for the main existing deception offences and for the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud. This section makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4. Subsection (2) defines the meaning of "false" in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of "representation". A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person's state of mind. Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website. Subsection (5) provides that a representation may be regarded as being made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that fraud can be committed where a person makes a representation to a machine and a response can be produced without any need for human involvement. Section 3. makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29: "7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal). 7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it." Section 5. defines the meaning of "gain" and "loss" for the purposes of sections 2 to 4. The definitions are essentially the same as those in section 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 32(2)(b) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under these definitions, "gain" and "loss" are limited to gain and loss in money or other property. The definition of "property" which applies in this context is based on section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (read with section 34(1) of that Act) and section 4(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (read with section 32(1) of that Act). The definition of "property" covers all forms of property, including intellectual property, although in practice intellectual property is rarely "gained" or "lost". Section 6 makes it an offence for a person to possess or have under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. This wording draws on that of the existing law in section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 and section 24 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (These provisions make it an offence for a person to "go equipped" to commit a burglary, theft or cheat, although they apply only when the offender is not at his place of abode.) The intention is to attract the case law on section 25, which has established that proof is required that the defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with the offence, and that a general intention to commit fraud will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr. App. R. 7 (CA), the court said that: "In our view, to establish an offence under s 25(1) the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word 'any' in s 25(1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to prove that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else." Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this new offence is 5 years. Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. For example, a person makes devices which when attached to electricity meters cause the meter to malfunction. The actual amount of electricity used is concealed from the provider, who thus makes a loss. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offence is 10 years. In the Magistrates Court the sentence for a single offence may not exceed 12 months. However, Section 78 of Powers of Criminal Courts Act (Sentencing) Act 2000 imposes a maximum of six months. This was due to be changed in November 2006 and will change if Section 154 Criminal Justice Act 2003 is activated. As at 16 January 2007 it has not been activated so the maximum penalty is restricted to six months. Section 8: "Article" Section 8 extends the meaning of "article" for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form. Examples of cases where electronic programs or data could be used in fraud are: a computer program can generate credit card numbers; computer templates can be used for producing blank utility bills; computer files can contain lists of other peoples' credit card details or draft letters in connection with 'advance fee' frauds. Section 12 repeats the effect of section 18 of the Theft Act 1968. It provides that if persons who have a specified corporate role are party to the commission of an offence under the Act by their body corporate, they will be liable to be charged for the offence as well as the corporation. By virtue of subsection (2)(a) and (b) this offence applies to directors, managers, secretaries and other similar officers of companies and other bodies corporate. Subsection (3) provides that if the body corporate charged with an offence is managed by its members the members involved in management can be prosecuted too. Itis now too late to reverse your position, as a report has today been passed to the OFT.However, I am conscious of the possibility that their enquiries may be protracted and so therefore I have today made a formal complaint to the Police, providing a S.9 Witness Statement, together with first generation copies (taken by the Police) from the documents you sent to my address. My request for this matter to be investigated under the Fraud Act 2006 has been accepted and enquiries are today commencing. Sorry it's a bit lengthy...but if they call you on the phone, call at your property, send you any 'special settlement' offers these are all possibly offences under this Act, you do not need to rely on the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 to teach these ******rs a lesson. Does anyone have any comments? N.B.As at today's date (July 8th 2008) Mac Hall have not uttered another note! Better still GE Money have just agreed (today) to pay up without my even starting Court action.......!!!! Best wishes to you all Dougal:cool:

Good morning.... I do agree wholeheartedly with this comment from tbern....it is not as simple as it might sound. Having dealt with the law from all points of view for a good number of years....it is vital to have a 'watertight' case BEFORE commencing proceedings.....but it is also possible to indicate to your 'opponent' prior to issuing proceedings the basis on which you will be arguing your case - this sometimes produces an early 'guilty' plea and settlement mainly to avoid an adverse costs order! This whole financial structure against which we are all struggling seems very biased and one sided and does not have very much in way of 'customer care'. There is the question.....are we being denied the 'duty of care'...which is owed to us by these organisations? More food for thought?... Best wishes to all... Dougal

Good afternoon, I do sometimes wonder if we are all 'singing from the same hymn sheet' ?! The Ombudsman (of any genre) is there to ensure that the Bank/whoever have acted correctly, and where they have not done so to ensure that this situation is rectified. Their investigation is supposed to be impartial and they are concerned with the core question 'Has there been any breach of legislation or good practice in the case before us.' The CAG as far as I am aware is the 'Consumer Action Group' and founded (I believe) to protect and assist the consumer where there are/have been problems with transactions provided by suppliers. Without CAG I would be a lot worse off financially. Thanks to everyone for their help and encouragement Best wishes Dougal ps: remember it's YOUR money you're after!.

Good morning tifo, Have a look at my posts on the subject of refunds as I hope that there may be some help for you in relation to your last line. If I've confused you please feel free to PM me. Best wishes Dougal

Hello again! The act is clear as you have said : BUT think on this 'Permanently depriving'.....? The orginal creditor sells the debt. They are paid for this by the DCA. The original creditor is satisfied. The debtor asks the original creditor for a repayment of charges. The credtor agrees and sends the money to the DCA. No problem? Well actually there is, you see the money paid across by the original creditor to the DCA actually 'belongs' to the debtor. The reason : the original creditor has been paid (the debt is 'satisfied') and is no longer showing the debtor as owing them anything.......therefore any payment made by the original creditor comes from their own money and having been requested by the debtor and the refund of charges agreed to by the original provider, this money is the 'property' of the debtor. It is also important to remember that when the DCA buy the debt they buy all of the rights appertaining to that agreemnent, those of the original creditor and those of the debtor. This then becomes a completely separate matter, and as soon as the DCA write to the debtor and say they have purchased the debt and ask for 'proposals for payment' then there is a totally separate 'contract' between the DCA and the debtor. I take the (somewhat jaundiced) view that in the event of money being sent by the original provider to the DCA and the DCA accepting it - there is also an offence possibly committed by the DCA - that is to say : Theft Act 1968 Handling stolen goods 22.-(1) A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. It just shows you how my strange mind works - I think this when as soon as I suggest to the Solicitors acting for the original creditors that tese aoofences may/or have been perpetrated, within 48 hours they agree to pay the money to me - and recall it from the DCA! More food for thought? Best wishes as ever Dougal

Good morning, Well whilst I agree with the facts, the actual payment made regarding the refund should have been made to the account holder and not to the DCA. The fact that Tifo did not pay the charges to start with is perhaps at this point irrelevant. Needless to say if Tifo is happy with the result he has at this point, then no further action could be the answer - BUT my point is simple the law does not permit the original provider to forward refunds to the DCA. Any refund is due to the original account holder and NOT the DCA - the act by the original provider in forwarding the refund to the DCA is an act of theft - (See Theft Act 1968 as amended). Bear in mind this: Once a DCA s involved the debt has usually been sold to the DCA, (although I accept that sometimes the DCA may be acting on behalf of the original provider) - BUT generally speaking I have found this not to be the case. (Also a DCA acting for the provider will take a more pragmatic approach in most cases depending on the account history.) I am not trying to muddy the waters, merely to direct thinking along a slightly different track. I can say that I have had success with the original providers in several cases forwarding the refund to me and not the DCA because of this very point of law - they are aware that it is a fraudulent transfer' to do so, and therefore once this is pointed out to them they send the account holder the money. So the decison made by the FOS may well be flawed and I do accept that there is a great problem in getting this overturned. Would it be unresonable to suggest that the FOS may be helping the original providers somewhat? I say this and throw into the pot the 'Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure' legislation for further thought! Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure To assist another in the commission of a crime by words or conduct. It is an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure an indictable offence. This means assisting or encouraging the perpetration of a crime. The maximum sentence depends on what is the maximum for the principal offence which has been aided, abeted, councelled or procured. I do hope this helps - I think that is is vital to look at any problem from as many 'angles' as possible! Best regards to everyone. Dougal

Hi, You're not being dense at all...it takes a bit of research to see how this applies to individual cases - especially in the light of the information which you require being with held? Regards Dougal

Good evening all: Just a thought...why are we not looking at the problem from another angle....see The Fraud Act 2006.....!!:grin: Section 3 is the 'killer' section.... Makes Finance provider sending your money to DCA and not to you a Criminal offence - if you have any doubt I set out below text of the Act and a letter sent recently.....I must also say I have had numerous successes thanks to the Fraud Act 2006 - they (ALL FINANCE PROVIDERS) definitely do not want the Police to look into their behaviour!! Copy of letter sent today to Mackenzie Hall.... Thomas Lloyd Mackenzie Hall 30 The Foregate Kilmarnock[ KA1 1JH 20th May 2008 First Class recorded delivery Re: M XXXXXX I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or any other person I have today received your unsigned letter dated 9/5/2008. I will not be making any payment to you. I will not be calling you. This is because I do not carry out any financial business on the telephone, all business between us must be in writing. It is necessary to draw your attention to my letter to you dated 9th May 2008, sent by recorded delivery first class mail. Royal Mail have confirmed receipt by you of this letter. This letter required certain information from you – that information is still outstanding. In the meantime, the contents of your letter dated 9th May 2008 constitute an offence under The Fraud Act 2006 . The appropriate sections read: Section 1. Subsection (3) sets out the penalties for the offence. The maximum custodial sentence of 10 years is the same as for the main existing deception offences and for the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud. This section makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4. Subsection (2) defines the meaning of "false" in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of "representation". A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person's state of mind. Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website. Subsection (5) provides that a representation may be regarded as being made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that fraud can be committed where a person makes a representation to a machine and a response can be produced without any need for human involvement. Section 3. makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29: "7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal). 7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it." Section 5. defines the meaning of "gain" and "loss" for the purposes of sections 2 to 4. The definitions are essentially the same as those in section 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 32(2)(b) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under these definitions, "gain" and "loss" are limited to gain and loss in money or other property. The definition of "property" which applies in this context is based on section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (read with section 34(1) of that Act) and section 4(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (read with section 32(1) of that Act). The definition of "property" covers all forms of property, including intellectual property, although in practice intellectual property is rarely "gained" or "lost". Section 6 makes it an offence for a person to possess or have under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. This wording draws on that of the existing law in section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 and section 24 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (These provisions make it an offence for a person to "go equipped" to commit a burglary, theft or cheat, although they apply only when the offender is not at his place of abode.) The intention is to attract the case law on section 25, which has established that proof is required that the defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with the offence, and that a general intention to commit fraud will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr. App. R. 7 (CA), the court said that: "In our view, to establish an offence under s 25(1) the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word 'any' in s 25(1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to prove that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else." Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this new offence is 5 years. Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. For example, a person makes devices which when attached to electricity meters cause the meter to malfunction. The actual amount of electricity used is concealed from the provider, who thus makes a loss. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offence is 10 years. In the Magistrates Court the sentence for a single offence may not exceed 12 months. However, Section 78 of Powers of Criminal Courts Act (Sentencing) Act 2000 imposes a maximum of six months. This was due to be changed in November 2006 and will change if Section 154 Criminal Justice Act 2003 is activated. As at 16 January 2007 it has not been activated so the maximum penalty is restricted to six months. Section 8: "Article" Section 8 extends the meaning of "article" for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form. Examples of cases where electronic programs or data could be used in fraud are: a computer program can generate credit card numbers; computer templates can be used for producing blank utility bills; computer files can contain lists of other peoples' credit card details or draft letters in connection with 'advance fee' frauds. Section 12 repeats the effect of section 18 of the Theft Act 1968. It provides that if persons who have a specified corporate role are party to the commission of an offence under the Act by their body corporate, they will be liable to be charged for the offence as well as the corporation. By virtue of subsection (2)(a) and (b) this offence applies to directors, managers, secretaries and other similar officers of companies and other bodies corporate. Subsection (3) provides that if the body corporate charged with an offence is managed by its members the members involved in management can be prosecuted too. Itis now too late to reverse your position, as a report has today been passed to the OFT.However, I am conscious of the possibility that their enquiries may be protracted and so therefore I have today made a formal complaint to the Police, providing a S.9 Witness Statement, together with first generation copies (taken by the Police) from the documents you sent to my address. My request for this matter to be investigated under the Fraud Act 2006 has been accepted and enquiries are today commencing. Sorry it's a bit lengthy...but does anyone have any comments?[ Best wishes to you all Dougal:cool:

Whilst I agree in general with this advice from PI Guy (and obviously Bankfodder), it is (IMHO) imperative that these 'collectors' are aware that the public will no longer be a 'soft' target and that the consumer is finally fighting back against these cowboys. [Remember they are breaking the law - must they be allowed to carry on doing so?] However, each of us must choose his/her own path..... Sincere best wishes to everyone (and without CAG I would not have had the sucess I have had so far!) Dougal

Good evening everyone, Just reading the comments about MH....perhaps I might make so bold as to recommend my letter on page 34 of this thread!8) It has worked a treat...so far! But the important point is that they are breaking the law! Regards and best wishes Dougal

Good morning.... You are absolutely right - this company are just the 'bottom' end of the chain. They have no regard for the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, which makes clear the offences which can be (and are being) committed. I have had them trying to pressurise me! I suggest you write to them and invite their repsonse - you'll hear nothing -BUT it is important that you do so. If they persist or take any other action, you are entitled to know who they are acting on behalf of, how and when they received instructions to do so, and why that 'message' was on the OUTSIDE of the envelope! I suspect that this was a deliberate act.......see the Protection from Harrassment Act : Offence of Harassment - Section 2 The elements of the section 2 offences are: a course of conduct; which amounts to harassment of another; which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another. The defendant ought to know if his course of conduct amounts to harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other. Section 7 defines a course of conduct as involving conduct on at least two occasions. Harassment is not defined, but includes causing alarm or distress, and conduct is defined as including speech. Section 7(3)A provides that: Conduct by one person shall also be taken to be conduct by another if that other has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the conduct. The knowledge and purpose of the person who aids, abets, counsels or procures conduct are what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring and not when the conduct occurs. The amendment at (a) above makes it clear that a campaign of collective harassment by 2 or more people can amount to a “course of conduct”. It also confirms that one person can pursue a course of conduct by committing one act personally and arranging for another person to commit another act. The amendment at (b) above ensures that the knowledge and purpose of the person who aids, abets, counsels or procures conduct is judged at the time that the conduct was planned and not when it is carried out. This may assist a defendant to offer a defence of reasonableness if, at the time that he commissioned a subsequent act, he was unaware that the first act had caused distress to the complainant. Such a defence would not succeed if the defendant ought to have known that the act would cause distress at the time that the subsequent act was commissioned. This section extends the definition of “conduct” and “course of conduct” for the purposes of sections 1 to 5 of the Act. It was inserted by section 44 Criminal Justice Act 2001 and came into force on 1 August 2001. But the 'reasonableness test' must also be applied. Basically to paraphrase the Law Lords 'would a normal person (given all of the circumstances of the situation) consider the action(s) by others giving rise to the position of the person involved to be reasonable'. I think in this case the answer is no they would not. There is a defence in the Act, and to 'prove'the offence it would have to be shown that the company deliberately intended or acted negligently.' This could be quite simple if a lot (and I think there are) of other people were/found themselves 'in the same boat' as you! This could be introduced as evidence of behaviour by the company Enery Collection services. Hope this helps! Best wishes Dougal