Mobile Money (the Police claim it's a Civil matter) !!!

[seanamarts]

You bring up some good points Jasper, maybe the OP will come back and answer them, however I can understand if the OP wishes not to state how close a friend/family member was, due to the sensitivity of the matter.

[TFD123]

I wrote to MM and demanded my car returned within 7 days or I would issue a civil claim for theft on the director of MM.

I sent it recorded on 16th Dec and they recieved it on 19th they replied today stating that they were investigating the case and had written to the police but would need more time as it was the holiday period. In fact this is the only time they have written to me they also accepted my SAR they even mentioned the possibility of the car being returned.

I will scan thier edited letter and post soon.

I wrote to the Chief Constable same time and had a reply today also stating that it has been passed to a DCI and the accusation I made with regards the theft by MM will be investigated to see if it is criminal, again when I edit I will post.

The car is, according to MM being held in a secure compound until this case is resolved.

I have sent a bill with receipts to MM for £3,800.00 up to 14th Dec 2011 for expenses incurred including legal advice and replacement car hire.

I never considered stating that the person who pretended to be me was indeed my brother in law, I work abroad a lot and he had a key to the car incase of emergencies but should never had part of my driving licence which he oblivious stole from me, it appears that he falsified any other documents required as he is a bit of a wizard on the pc.

It seems obvious now that both the police and MM may have thought that I could have been involved as one of the first questions asked by the police was, would I go all the way if it went to court, which I did. So I am sure the police know I had no involvement but thinking back on the questions asked by MM over the phone they must have had this doubt as they were aware from both myself and the police that it was my X brother in law who committed the crime.

MM stated that they paid they money to my account I sent them statement of accussed from police showing it was paid to his account, a bank will accept money in any name by transfer if account details are ok.

I get the impression now Jasper after your querie that when MM are happy that I had no involvement they will have to change their views then I need to start civil action to recoup loses.

Ill post letters soon. Any other queries feel free to ask

 

I think things are looking up.

[Jasper1965]

"I have sent a bill with receipts to MM for £3,800.00 up to 14th Dec 2011 for expenses incurred including legal advice and replacement car hire."

 

Sterling work, keep it up!!

 

"I get the impression now Jasper after your querie that when MM are happy that I had no involvement they will have to change their views then I need to start civil action to recoup loses."

 

Not so sure happy is the correct word to use here, more like when it is clearly explained to them by the police that they have stolen your vehicle.......

 

Yes unfortunately it's highly likely that you will need to raise proceedings against MM to recover your provable losses and any compensation you seek, this will be aided considerably if the police ever do get around to deciding that taking someones vehicle without permission or lawful right constitutes the criminal offence of theft. Don't expect any convictions as I'm sure this all just some terrible administrative error but the wording of any police reports could considerably help any civil action you areforced to follow.

[dadofholly]

Sounds like things are begining to kove for you - though MM should be returning the car forthwith as they have no right to title. But thats is their look out and hope it costs them in the long run.

 

Well done so far.

Be ineresting to see what the DCI comes up with.

[TFD123]

How can I add attachments on here please I want to post a couple of letters I have had and scanned in?

[TFD123]

[TFD123]

[TFD123]

Very fast response from Chief Constable

[Jasper1965]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32448[/ATTACH]

Very fast response from Chief Constable

 

Did you write to Bournville Lane or Lloyd house?

 

Suggest you respond to that letter along the lines of:

 

Sir

 

Thank you for your prompt response dated 22nd December 2011.

 

I should just clarify that I have always asserted this to be a criminal matter, any assertion that this is a civil matter has not originated from and has at no time been perpetuated by me.

 

Mobile money took my vehicle from my property without my permission, without an order of the Court and without any other lawful claim to title.

Despite repeated demands Mobile Money have to date refused to return my vehicle.

Mobile Money originally intended to deprive me permanently of my vehicle.

I believe this to be a clear definition of theft.

That Mobile Money then offered to return my vehicle if I paid them the sum of £7,000 constitutes attempted extortion.

Mobile Money have done all this whilst undeniably in the knowledge that a third party was responsible for their loss and that they not only had no merititious claim in law against myself but that they also could not possibly have been passed true title to the vehicle as a result of the fraudulent transaction they entered into with the third party.

To prevent sale of my vehicle I have had to seek a civil injunction against mobile money at my own cost, that remains the entire extent of the civil aspect of this matter the rest is quite clearly criminal as described in statute.

Mobile Money are of course entitled to seek recompense from the perpetrator of the fraud through the civil courts, they are in no way entitled to seek or more appropriately seize such recompense from an innocent party.

 

I trust this clarifies matters as there still appears to be a slight misunderstanding over my reporting of this crime.

 

 

 

Just firmly nudge them in the right direction from the beginning it might save a game of merry go round in a few weeks when the DCI has had a look.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Jasper1965
Cheers CB!!

[TFD123]

Thanks for this, I will let things lie over the holiday and start again on Tuesday.

It was Lloyd House BTW but the original complaint was made at south Birmingham.

I will write to the DCI based on above and hopefully arrange a meeting and take a few notes from here with me.

Lets hope the New Year holds better times for all.

[dadofholly]

Will be interesting to see what MM come up with in response to the SAR - as technicaly they should not be holding any information on you at all.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

I should just clarify that I have always asserted this to be a criminal matter, any assertion that this is a civil matter has not originated from and has at no time been perpetuated by me.

 

Mobile money took my vehicle from my property without my permission, without an order of the Court and without any other lawful claim to title.

Despite repeated demands Mobile Money have to date refused to return my vehicle.

Mobile Money originally intended to deprive me permanently of my vehicle.

I believe this to be a clear definition of theft.

 

You forgot about the dishonesty element, which is of course somewhat crucial. No doubt the absence of any such evidence is the reason the police deemed it a civil matter.

[LaughingGirl]

I thought the OP stated that Mobile Money were aware of the fraud, and that therefore that they had no legal contract with the OP. Surely that ticks the box for dishonesty?

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

We don't know what MM told the police, from their letter to the OP it seems they thought that the OP was involved. If that belief was genuine, however unreasonable, they could not have been dishonest. Whilst someone at MM might have been aware of the conviction, what evidence is there that they actual person who ordered the repossession knew of it? Could simply be poor record keeping by MM. And furthermore, a criminal conviction is not conclusive evidence of fact in a civil case, especially if the conviction was based on a confession. So the mere fact the brother in law was convicted is not binding on MM as evidence of the fraud. And anyway, how does anyone prove an entire company thinks dishonestly? Has a company ever been convicted of theft? I just don't think the OP should be wasting their time - and the police's - trying to convince them MM are thieves rather than just incompetent when there is a strong civil case which will produce the desired result.

[Jasper1965]

I don't think I'd be very wide of the mark if I described the MM offices as approx 200 square foot comprising 3 desks, 2 employee, a photo copier and a drinks cooler. We're not talking Mobil Oil or BT here we're talking a very small franchise office and once again IMO it's beyond reasonable belief that the person sitting six feet away from the person involved didn't know what was happening/had happened.

 

FWIW I don't know where they're coming from saying they don't hold computerised records, they do, and I believe they scan documents, take photos etc as part of these records.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jasper1965

[TFD123]

We don't know what MM told the police, from their letter to the OP it seems they thought that the OP was involved. If that belief was genuine, however unreasonable, they could not have been dishonest. Whilst someone at MM might have been aware of the conviction, what evidence is there that they actual person who ordered the repossession knew of it? Could simply be poor record keeping by MM. And furthermore, a criminal conviction is not conclusive evidence of fact in a civil case, especially if the conviction was based on a confession. So the mere fact the brother in law was convicted is not binding on MM as evidence of the fraud. And anyway, how does anyone prove an entire company thinks dishonestly? Has a company ever been convicted of theft? I just don't think the OP should be wasting their time - and the police's - trying to convince them MM are thieves rather than just incompetent when there is a strong civil case which will produce the desired result.

How about you read the thread and you will see what I told MM on the 24th November 2011.

At this point they had ample opportunity to check out the facts.

As previously posted by myself It was based on the fact that I informed them of the fraud (and not only based on a confession which you state)and invited them to confirm this with the police, they ordered the theft of the vehicle from private land 2 days later.

You ask what evidence is there that the actual person who ordered the unauthorised repossession was aware and could it be bad record keeping, what world are you living in? if this was the case should MM not have informed me of the proposed unauthorised repocession and should a court order not have been obtained by mm before removing my property from private property. I never had a letter to say anything with regards this case until this week only threating phone calls and attemps by mm of extortion.

A criminal conviction is not always evidence in fact in a civil court but were does the civil matter come into this between mm and me?

After I informed them and the police of the fraud they should have went straight to the police and if necessary take both criminal charges and civil but they done nothing but steal the vehicle to try to ensure thier own interests as they belived they had some.

I now agree that they must have belived that my original email to them was untrue so took the car , although illegally at least the held as they thought the trump card, good bussiness sense or not but please dont be so naive to think it was a case of bad record keeping.

As far as wasting the time of the police, as you satated, is concerned, had they acted correctly in the first instance and looked at the evidence properly they would have seen that an act of theft had taken place, would you like the definition of theft?

It would be worth your while to look over some of the other cases on here about MM and let you then decide if it was

a case of bad record keeping.

You ask has a company ever been convicted of theft, answer yes, lots of times. I also intend to take criminal action against the four directors as they are ultimately responsable for their employees actions.

In deed there is a very good civil case here as I can prove that mm done everything wrong in the unauthorised repocession of my car, but there is also a very good criminal case here too as the simple fact that MM were aware that an act of fraud took place they still stole my car and i intend to pursue both and claim all my expences back along with money from mm for the stress and inconvenience they have caused.

Please remember that the Police need to act on a theft complaint until the DPP say different so never feel you are wasting their time if you strongly beleive that a criminal act has taken place.

[TFD123]

Will be interesting to see what MM come up with in response to the SAR - as technicaly they should not be holding any information on you at all.

Yes it would be interesting to see if they send me any documents from the original fraud as they are well aware now that it was not me. This would be against the data Protection Act

I believe they can only resond to the SAR from my email on the 24th November which should still show a lot, like when was the decision made to repocess the car as I am convinced it was made between the 24th Nov and 26th when they took it.

[TFD123]

I don't think I'd be very wide of the mark if I described the MM offices as approx 200 square foot comprising 3 desks, 2 employee, a photo copier and a drinks cooler. We're not talking Mobil Oil or BT here we're talking a very small franchise office and once again IMO it's beyond reasonable belief that the person sitting six feet away from the person involved didn't know what was happening/had happened.

 

FWIW I don't know where they're coming from saying they don't hold computerised records, they do, and I believe they scan documents, take photos etc as part of these records.

 

I know they hold electronic docs as well as recorded phone calls.

I believe the had to produce electronic scanned docs of the original fraud to the police to use at the Magistrates court recently so it will be interesting to see thier response.

[Jasper1965]

I believe the had to produce electronic scanned docs of the original fraud to the police to use at the Magistrates court recently so it will be interesting to see thier response.

 

So before they seized your vehicle they not only knew that it wasn't you who had taken out the fraudulent loan they had even supplied documentation to the Court to help prove it wasn't you?

 

At what point does any pleading that they weren't acting dishonestly when they took the vehicle, "they were simply seizing the security YOU had awarded them" fall flat on its face?

Edited December 31, 2011 by Jasper1965

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Yes it would be interesting to see if they send me any documents from the original fraud as they are well aware now that it was not me. This would be against the data Protection Act

I believe they can only resond to the SAR from my email on the 24th November which should still show a lot, like when was the decision made to repocess the car as I am convinced it was made between the 24th Nov and 26th when they took it.

 

They don't have to give you information relating to their decision to repossess the car if they don't want to. It's privileged so they are entitled to suppress it if they wish in response to an SAR, though whether they will or not is another matter. On the wider point of theft, if the police decide there is insufficient evidence to charge it will not even get as far as the CPS. If I were you I would concentrate on the civil aspect as there is no chance of a theft conviction but if you want to push it then crack on. You can always bring a private prosecution if you can't persuade the police. For my own education, can you post a link for a company being convicted of theft?

[TFD123]

I was MortgageWithSPML FYI I have changed my user name

 

Interesting the definition of a Company as far as criminal charges are concerned by the CPS

Definition of Company

 

4. A company is a legal person, capable of being prosecuted, and should not be treated differently from an individual because of its artificial personality.

5. A company normally means a company registered under the current Companies Act 2006; or one or more of its predecessors cited in the Act; or equivalent legislation in another jurisdiction.

6. Unincorporated bodies (for example, partnerships, and clubs) may also be prosecuted where criminal liability can be established (see Archbold [2009] paragraphs 1-78 and 1-81b).

Taking from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions/index.html

[Surfer01]

That is correct but taking a company to court is like taking a person to court.

[TFD123]

That is correct but taking a company to court is like taking a person to court.

Yes I am in the process of doing that and taking the Directors to court both for Criminal and civil.

I have given MM til Friday this week to make a decision before I procede.

[Surfer01]

Yes I am in the process of doing that and taking the Directors to court both for Criminal and civil.

I have given MM til Friday this week to make a decision before I procede.

Good stuff. Make them think about it twice before impounding cars. Hope you hit them very hard for compensation especially as your Xmas and New year were ruined! Don't forget to go after the police chief also.

[dadofholly]

They don't have to give you information relating to their decision to repossess the car if they don't want to. It's privileged so they are entitled to suppress it if they wish in response to an SAR, though whether they will or not is another matter. On the wider point of theft, if the police decide there is insufficient evidence to charge it will not even get as far as the CPS. If I were you I would concentrate on the civil aspect as there is no chance of a theft conviction but if you want to push it then crack on. You can always bring a private prosecution if you can't persuade the police. For my own education, can you post a link for a company being convicted of theft?

 

They took the vehicle in the full knowledge that it was not theirs to take - and for their own financial advantage - that is there motive - and that is theft. Whats wih all this dishonesty nonsense - they have acted dishonestly. They have shown their dishonesty by their actions.

 

And companies do get convicted all the time - but usally for fraud. Companies by their nature dont usually steal.