Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just circling back with a thanks and an apology.   Apologies because, I honestly thought I'd replied to thank everyone and update, but turns out I hadn't. Sorry. So first of all, a big big thanks to the Forum and all those that helped me on this thread, especially @dx100uk and @AndyOrch. The work you do is awesome and I'm sure I'm only one of many who are extremely grateful for your support. So, in terms of a belated update, Moriarty withdrew, well they said ADCB did. So that's a result. Whilst that was a few years back, I still get emails from odd 'agents' locally in UAE - usually at a weekend - or reminders from ADCB. The sums offered by the agents for a settlement are a fraction of the sums that were claimed - like 75% less - so one would presume if one wished to settle, dealing direct with ADCB may be even less. If it helps anyone, what I would say is this. 1) Listen to the advice from the trusted sources on here. They know their onions. 2) It can seem overwhelming to a layman with all this legal jargon, but don't let it scare you. Just take it a step at a time, listen and learn as much as you can from other threads, and trust the process. 3) I was surprised how shambolic Moriarty appeared to be in my case. Don't ever think the other party is above you in terms of knowledge, experience or how they will conduct themselves. Whilst it was during the pandemic, even on the remote calls with the court, in one instance Moriarty didn't even bother attending the call. In other instances, they didn't reply to certain requests I made via court process. Finally, they just give up the ghost, and a few years later I received confirmation of discontinuance. I'm not saying my experience is/was/may be typical, but what I took from it was it simply came down to brinksmanship and them playing the percentages on their part. Play the long game, take good advice, there's nothing to be scared off and if it's anything like my situation, you may well win the day. The longer things went on, the more you will feel you're on the right side. Especially once it gets into all the process, form submission and involvement of the court, stick to your guns and follow the advice.  It's nothing scientific, but if every case was like mine, it seems like these folks have the view that at some point, the defendant will crumble and give in, through fear or otherwise, so it's important to stay brave and keep pushing forward because the further you go, the more it will tilt in your favour. Play a straight bat and the long game. I've now come back to post due to another situation, different debt, and will start a new thread in due course.   So keep your chins up, fight the good fight and good luck to all, and sincere thanks for all the help.  
    • The NTK needs to be redacted, your VRN is still showing.
    • Hi, yes they swapped over after a brief period when the bank were sending something over.
    • Fair enough. But I don't understand why they send these letters. Do people really get scared and end up paying them?
    • That's a blessed relief. They would have been withdrawn because, as I said, they have no evidence that you were driving. That comes from the responses to the requests for driver's details which you failed to send. The important thing is that the speeding charges were laid. That makes life much easier (and far more likely to see a successful outcome). You need to make your SD and serve it on the court where you were convicted. The next you should hear is by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" laying the four charges against you again. You will have three options (for each charge): Plead Guilty and do not attend court Plead guilty and attend court Plead not guilty You must plead Not Guilty to all charges. In the section headed “reason for not guilty plea” you can state that you will offer to plead guilty to the speeding charging providing, and only providing, the FtP charges are dropped. This is a procedure well known to all court users (prosecutors, magistrates and their legal advisors) and is carried out up and down the land daily. I’ll refer to it as “the deal”. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to undertake this deal and speak to the prosecutor (the agreement of the prosecutor is required as the court cannot accept it without that agreement).  However, during the pandemic courts aimed to reduce the numbers of people required to attend to an absolute minimum and most courts accepted a written request to do the deal. Local police prosecutors made an agreement with their courts that the magistrates’ legal advisors could accept the deal. In some areas this arrangement has carried on. In others they have reverted to the old process where attendance was required. So your offer of the “deal” with either be accepted in writing and dealt with under the Single Justice procedure or you may have to attend court. In either event it is important to emphasise that you will plead guilty to speeding only if the FtP charges are dropped.  There may be slight variations to the process depending on how the individual area works but there is no reason why this should not be successful.    
  • 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

Application Form - Is it fraud?


Graham777
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5981 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

yer i know, my fater in law can speak 5 lanugages and will start speak to me in one. i just say in english please.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

A very interesting thread.

 

I have a situation where no CCA has been provided. A representative from a large law firm has told me if it goes to court they will still win based on transaction history.

 

I think the truth is, they are trying to gain money for their client by deciving me - even abusing their position.

 

Sounds like that is fraud, it's just proving it that could be a problem :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

seabro

 

next time they tell you this, simply ask them what section 127 CCA 1974 says

for your info its here Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

 

basically NO CCA = No court can issue an enforcement order under that section

 

also the case of Wilson v FCT House of Lords ruling confirms this toooooooo

 

they are taking the P!$$ mate and trying to get you to pay, they know the advice they have given you is wrong

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Just a thought,

 

Is any CCC or Bank passing off an Application Form as an agreement guilty of fraud?

 

I am sure they know the regulations inside and out and passing off something which is meant to 'deceive' is fraudulent, is it not?

 

Appreciate any constructive comments!

 

G

 

being an awkward... person... I've got to ask the logical question...

 

It is possible that an application form can BE a credit agreement in relation to the 1974 act? As far as I know, s 77-79 doesn't require that an agreement is properly executed, or even enforceable. Merely that a copy of the agreement is sent to the debtor.

 

If we look at definition in 189(1):

 

consumer credit agreement ” has the meaning given by section 8, and includes a consumer credit agreement which is cancelled under section 69(1), or becomes subject to section 69(2), so far as the agreement remains in force;

 

So we look s8:

 

8.

Consumer credit agreements.

— (1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual ( “the debtor ”) and any other person ( “the creditor ”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

 

(2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding [F1 £15,000].

 

(3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an “exempt agreement ”) specified in or under section 16.

 

Now, IMHO, if an application form sets out that the creditor will pay credit to the debtor, in my view, that application form must be an agreement within the meaning of the act, even if it is unenforceable by virtue of other sections of the act.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

being an awkward... person... I've got to ask the logical question...

 

It is possible that an application form can BE a credit agreement in relation to the 1974 act? As far as I know, s 77-79 doesn't require that an agreement is properly executed, or even enforceable. Merely that a copy of the agreement is sent to the debtor.

 

If we look at definition in 189(1):

 

consumer credit agreement ” has the meaning given by section 8, and includes a consumer credit agreement which is cancelled under section 69(1), or becomes subject to section 69(2), so far as the agreement remains in force;

 

So we look s8:

 

8.

Consumer credit agreements.

— (1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual ( “the debtor ”) and any other person ( “the creditor ”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

 

(2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding [F1 £15,000].

 

(3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an “exempt agreement ”) specified in or under section 16.

 

Now, IMHO, if an application form sets out that the creditor will pay credit to the debtor, in my view, that application form must be an agreement within the meaning of the act, even if it is unenforceable by virtue of other sections of the act.

 

Hi,

 

Tom is right, within the meaning of the Act and under the terms of a s77-79 request an application form, regardless of it being unenforcable, improperly executed etc still stands as an agreement between the creditor and debtor. Now as well an know if it lacks prescribed terms, debtors signature it is unenforcable and so creditor cannot chase you for payments, enforce in any way etc etc but thats getting away from the subject of this thread.

 

Getting back to the fraud aspect, my contention of these companies commiting a fraud was not based on them deceiving us of an app form being an agreement but that they knowingly attempt to enforce an agreement that they are well aware is unenforcable and gain financially when they should not be doing so and know it. Upon receiving countless letters from the debtor explaining in great detail why s127(3) is applicable and s59(1) acts to void the act and how they have failed to enact the correct from and content requirements as laid down in the Regs etc etc they still knowingly claim to have a satisfactory agreement in place and as a result with continue to enforce. Now we all know they have legal and compliance officers who are well aware of the requirements laid down in the Act and Regs. they are misleading debtors into paying debts that they know full well are unenforcable, surely that constitutes the thinking mind behind the action. Furthermore, by doing so and succedding in most cases, they are financially gaining from what they clearly and knowingly should not be.

 

Like everyone has said the problem is proving it and who is in fact accountable. I havent had a chance to properly reaearch this yet and plan on sitting down with some people far more qualified than I in the next few weeks when i get some spare time. Watch this space!!

 

regards,

shane

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Shane,

 

while i agree with your reasoned arguement, it is fair to say that if there were fraud being carried out by these major corperations as suggested there would have by now been prosecutions to that effect.

 

i would suggest that while it may be possible in theory to construe these actions as fraud the fact that we are not hearing of prosecutions speaks volumes.

 

i believe that it would be hard to prove to the standard required which would be beyond reasonable doubt being a criminal matter and it would be very costly to pursue such a case too

 

of course thats my opinion:D

 

 

i would be interested to here what you come up with

regards

paul

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Shane,

 

while i agree with your reasoned arguement, it is fair to say that if there were fraud being carried out by these major corperations as suggested there would have by now been prosecutions to that effect.

 

i would suggest that while it may be possible in theory to construe these actions as fraud the fact that we are not hearing of prosecutions speaks volumes.

 

i believe that it would be hard to prove to the standard required which would be beyond reasonable doubt being a criminal matter and it would be very costly to pursue such a case too

 

of course thats my opinion:D

 

 

i would be interested to here what you come up with

regards

paul

 

You've really got to look at the content of the letters they tipically send out:

 

1. The letter claims a debt.

2. States if payment isn't made within XXX days, legal action may be taken

3. States the consequences, if legal action is successful.

 

Now, until the court has declared the rights of the parties, legal action does lie under the CCA 1974. There is nothing dishonest in my view about sending such a letter. In fact, it is a requirement of the Civil procedure Rules to do so before legal action.

 

There is also no legal requirement for one party to give the other legal advice about the probability of winning such an action.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i give up, you win:D

 

only joking.

 

what is the discussion point here is if knowing that an application is uneforcable they still try to coerce a debtor into paying claiming the agreement is valid and enforcable

 

i dont think they are committing a fraud personally but there you go

 

anyway, i like the Elephant, very good:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take Clownells for example they through their muppets in Red Debt threaten to EITHER

 

Send a 'Licensed Home Visit Agent'

 

OR

 

Start Legal Proceedings with a view to gaining a County Court Judgement.

 

Now as most Caggers revoke the implied right of them to send a doorstepper this means that they WILL institute Legal Action to obtain a CCJ.

 

Now if they do not have an executed agreement and Nigel Beavons or Andrew Bartle send tis letter out then are they committing an offence of Fraud when the know that without an executed agreement they will not get a CCJ.

 

Likewise if they know a debt is Statute Barred and send this letter out when theyu know its impossible to enforce a Statute Barred Debt then do they commit an offence.

 

Not being argumentative or anything but just trying to see if we can prove the Mens Rea of the people whose name appears at the bottom of these letters.

 

Over to you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i give up, you win:D

 

...

i dont think they are committing a fraud personally but there you go

I agree with you on all points

 

anyway, i like the Elephant, very good:D

Unfortunaly , site helpers don't always get to chose out avatars... Gizmo, tut tut, abuse of privalege, but it is pretty good isn't it...:-D

 

I tend to agree with everything you've said in the thread. the proof of the pudding is there hasn't been a single conviction on these grounds that i am aware of...

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When yo consider its up to TS, the OFT and the FOS to prosecute are you really surprised.??

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Fraud Act comes under the heading of police enforcement, rather than TS, OFT and FOS.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well then maybe ppl should go to hte police reporting this fraud.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Fraud Act comes under the heading of police enforcement, rather than TS, OFT and FOS.

Of course you are right as usual. Fraud is a Criminal Offence and as such is a police matter. I was merely remarking on the lack of prosecutions the Statutory bodies have made against DCAs for ANYTHING.

 

If one person reports and action by a DCA which appears fraudulent then of course the good old DCA can always say it was a genuine mistake. However if 100 people report a similar experience it would be harder to pass off as a mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep. I vote that we report DCAs to the police for fraud, any one else?

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the circumstances though.

 

Take for instance a case reported on here of a cagger who informed a DCA that his debt was statute barred. They came back and said no it wasnt because they had put a default on it a few months earlier.

 

This is clearly an attempt to deceive because they as professionals should know the law. When further challenged thay admitted a 'mistake':rolleyes: and said the Cagger was right. My point is that if they continued to try this ploy on with everyone who claimed a debt was statute barred would they be guilty of Fraud. IMHO they would. That is what this thread is about. Im not saying I am right and someone else is wrong. Im only giving an opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but what about when DCAs obviously lie to you saying that a application form is a consumer credit agreement is that not fraud when they can see that it says applicantion form across the top in big bold letters?

 

how about when a DCA or OC send you a bodged cca which you can see is a bodge because it was not the rite signature for you or there is evidence of them copying and pasting the signature on to the cca. is that not fraud?

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ODC thats what i said.

 

'how about when a DCA or OC send you a bodged cca which you can see is a bodge because it was not the rite signature for you or there is evidence of them copying and pasting the signature on to the cca. is that not fraud?'

 

Sorry still cant work out how to mini quote posts.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread has raised a question. When you go to the police station and say I would like to report someone for fraud how do they know whether it is a legitimate fraud do they have a legal department I mean I know they investigate crimes but they're not legal bods. Or do they just pass it straight to the CPS if it is over thrier heads?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police would carry out an investigation and consider any appropriate charges they would then pass the file to the CPS, it would be for the CPS to consider the question of prosecution and there are many factors which the CPS would consider before prosecution.

 

the police are certainly aware of what would be required to constitute the offence of fraud

 

thats basically what happens

 

 

Regards

 

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police would carry out an investigation and consider any appropriate charges they would then pass the file to the CPS, it would be for the CPS to consider the question of prosecution and there are many factors which the CPS would consider before prosecution.

 

the police are certainly aware of what would be required to constitute the offence of fraud

 

thats basically what happens

 

 

Regards

 

paul

 

However, with current policy, the police are supposed to work with CPS during the investigation, in theory. probably not in practice.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...