Jump to content


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


TFD123
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3573 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

Oh dear, I wasn't actually suggesting those particular cases be used directly in the current case. I was just using them as examples of where fraudsters can give title, because someone had posted that a fraudster can never give title. There's no point comparing the cases to this one because the facts are different. There's a much more recent case if anyone's interested - Shogun Finance v Hudson, but again different facts to these. Here's another example then. Hirer under a hire purchase agreement sells the vehicle to an innocent purchaser before he has paid the HP off. Innocent purchaser acquires title from a fraudster (who had no title at all, no voidable title, nothing) - the HP company owned the vehicle. Someone also posted about nemo dat being sacrosanct "you can never pass title you do not have"; well there's an example of when you can, and there are plenty of others. Here's another one - you ask me to sell your car for you, I do sell it to someone pretending I am the owner, but don't pay you the proceeds and disappear. Whoever I sold it to gets title, even though I had no title.

 

The problem with this thread is that nowhere is any indication given of what MM's position is, it's all one side of the story only. Maybe they think they are another example of an exception to nemo dat. Odd that the OP seems to have disappeared immediately after his meeting with MM. I asked twice what was happening with the injunction proceedings - no response. OP has only drip fed info so far, makes me wonder if there is something else to the story which explains why MM are so reluctant to return the vehicle.

 

I would be careful as you are sailing very close to the wind in defaming the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Defamation might be tricky when we all hide behind pseudonims. Vjohn from this site will tell you different. (Twice) And has a high court appearance, including press coverage, behind him to prove it.

 

Many people drip feed on CAG, which does make an accurate response tricky. Unfortunatley you are correct

 

I can GGs point though re the examples given.

The difference in every example given is that the legal owner is directly or indirectly involved - In the case of the OP - if he is telling the truth - is that he was never involved at any stage and everything was done without his knowledge or consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this thread is that nowhere is any indication given of what MM's position is, it's all one side of the story only. Maybe they think they are another example of an exception to nemo dat. Odd that the OP seems to have disappeared immediately after his meeting with MM. I asked twice what was happening with the injunction proceedings - no response. OP has only drip fed info so far, makes me wonder if there is something else to the story which explains why MM are so reluctant to return the vehicle. Gaston Grimsdyke user-offline.png

 

I am sorry but never felt that I "drip fed" information to the thread that I created, could not see the point of asking for help and then not giving the full account of the help I needed.

 

If you feel that I have drip fed info please believe me that I feel as though I gave as much info as possible, time allowing and being careful prior to court cases.

I repeat I came on here to ask advice and some great advice I received, but please understand it takes time to follow up on the advice and cant allways get on here until something has happened or I need more advice.

Anyway to update you all on my meeting with MM and police and solicitors and going to court, maybe some of the reasons that i seemed to have "Disappeared"

I went to the meeting as agreed, as they were aware that no criminal charges were to be taken they felt they had the upper hand and informed me that they had title and car and only a civil case would sort this out and they said they were confident that the court would side with them and I would never see my car again unless I paid £7,000.00 there and then.

Unknown to me until during the meeting ( Call from Brother in Law) they had issued civil precedings to the him to reclaim monies owed ( MM confirmed this to me when asked)( I thought the Mag Court had agreed he must repay them, I need to find out but hate to even look at him never mind speak with him). After I heard this i rang my solititor while in the office of MM and told him.

My solicitor informed me that by doing this they had admitted legally that they were in the belief that some one other than me owed them the money, so in effect an admission that I was an innocent victim.

I demanded my car back and informed them that it was my intension to issue a civil case for costs that same day.

They asked me to leave their office I refused and they called the police as they claimed I was causing a disturance. ( Which I suppose was not far wrong)

The police arrived and escorted me of the premises but asked me what the problem was, I explained.

One thing I over looked was that MM's head office was in a different county to the one were they committed the original offence, of which is now known as an unauthorised repossession, so I had a new audience, their local police, who have been dealing with previous complaints over a period of time regarding MM and they did not hold them in high esteem.

I was invited to come to the police station and speak with the duty Inspector who had different views to my local police, although agreeing that criminal proceedings were not a reality at this point in time as it would probly take a long time for a complaint to go through the birmingham police in respect of their decision not classifying it as criminal.

After looking at all the paper work and the fraudster file on his computer, he rang MM and ADVISED them that they should return my car to me until both civil cases (The one I was putting on them and the one they put on my X brother in law) had been dealt with as I was the only one who could prove undisputed title to the car at this time .

They agreed and delivered the car to their local police station where I collected it 3 hours later.

ROUND ONE Ding Ding:roll:

They still have their claim on the HPI.

Quite an understanding Inspector so it may help for others to speak with the local police in the local area of companies like these to get a feeling of their views as well.

The following morning I went to BCC and got a further emergency injunction to say that my car should remain in my care until my civil case against MM came to court as they agreed that at this time I was the only one who could prove Proper Title (I lodged my claim for monies and release of Title after the emergency hearing)

I had intended to issue a claim for Return of Goods which can be added to a financial claim but have now changed this to a Claim of over £5,000.00 (Details of which are to long to print here like lose of time on warranties and failure to respond to a recall by the manufactors) and instead of Return of Goods, it states to remove any claim to Tital.

I can wait for this.

Again they have made a mistake as they have issued a financial claim on my X brother in Law for the original amount he borrowed (seems they cant ask for interest as stated at the Magistrates court) and did not take into consideration my claim, (I Think they could have added this to the claim on Fraudster) which I have no doubt will go through even my solititor has agreed to a no win no fee as he is confidend that the court will have no choice to agree after the way MM have acted over this time.

when I hear more I will come on here and let you know.

In the mean time THANKS everyone for working with me, even those who thought that maybe I was not giving all the correct information LOL.

MM must monitor this site and the fact I have given soo much info they would know the case and somehow comment indirectly if I was running their name down without fact.

Again Thanks and any questions please ask and I WILL GET ON ASAP AND NOT DISAPPEAR:wink:

Edited by TFD123
Adding Info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done TFD - and glad to hear you got the car back.

 

I did mention in a very early thread to go through a Duty Inspector - have had experience before of the Police and have always found that it's the Duty inspector that gets things done.

 

So the MM meeting was basically to try and black mail you into coughing up £7K while at same time admitting they knew you was not liable, and having issued proceedings against another party?

 

Take them to the cleaners - and in the meantime report the whole thing to the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done TFD - and glad to hear you got the car back.

 

I did mention in a very early thread to go through a Duty Inspector - have had experience before of the Police and have always found that it's the Duty inspector that gets things done.

 

So the MM meeting was basically to try and black mail you into coughing up £7K while at same time admitting they knew you was not liable, and having issued proceedings against another party?

 

Take them to the cleaners - and in the meantime report the whole thing to the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards.

 

Yeah you were correct the Duty Inspector likes to show he is good.

I got the car which is a great help but now the war starts lol

Cant wait to get to court.

Done the OFT and others.

I think I am up to date at the min and again thanks everyone for your support.

The police could have done more but when a crime is commited and a family member,as such, is involved it causes doubt.

But MM made and are still making a mess of it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good read TFD verging on hilarious in parts. Well done!!

 

Three hours to get your vehicle back once the police express concerns about the behaviour of MM, that peristence paid dividends in the end. Are you going to thank Bournville Lane for their help and update them with the good news that Worcs. constabulary ordered the return of your vehicle so promptly?

That MM issued a claim against the malfeasor is undoubtedly an admittance that they knew they had no claim against you as your sol says, no wonder he's prepared to do a cfa, this is about as nailed on as it can get, I do hope he's a very expensive solicitor.

 

MM are likely to get away lightly though, a few thousand pounds in payout and costs when realistically somebody should be taking a very close look at this outfit with a view to revoking any trading licences they might hold. Don't hold your breath tho', right or wrong this sort of behaviour is just patently too much trouble for the various authorities to deal with, that's exactly why there's no precedent as quoted by the DCI. :|

 

Check the date of issue on the bil's court papers and don't forget to check your vehicle thoroughly, or better still get it into a dealer for a thorough checkover and bill MM for it.

 

Good luck you've still a way to go but you might even find part of it enjoyable. :-D

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all

Sorry it’s took a while to get back to you, but I have been to county court this week with MM.

I will give more detail soon but as I am short on time I will give you the edited version of this fiasco.

I went to court to get the HPI lifted and this was so clear cut.

When the evidence was produced the order of the court was quite simply to remove any claim by MM on my vehicle.

The court asked why, with all the knowledge MM had on the case, had they wasted so much time, (it was quite funny as their solicitor, prior to the court hearing had told me that MM had always believed that something fraudulent had been going on and that I could have been involved) he said in reply to the question in court that MM had to complete their investigations, then he was asked to explain and started by saying that they had to make sure that I was not involved, he got stopped here and was told that that this was no excuse as the police had long established the facts.

My solicitor was wasted really as he was only asked if he was prepared to accept £9,500.00 as compensation from MM plus costs and yes the order was put on them.:whoo:

We had asked for £5,000.00 for things like deprecation on the car, warranty, car hire and several other expenses that I had incurred but the reason we were awarded more was for the inconvenience caused with the fact I could not sell my car, so I was deprived of my rights with which she seemed to touch on a lot.

She did say she was surprised that the only criminal charges were on the fraudster and that MM retaining the vehicle, after the police informed MM of the facts, was classed as civil.

Although I got the feeling that she did not want to dwell on this point.

My solicitor said he would call me up on Friday and explain what happens next.

Done HPI and its now clean.

I don’t know what paperwork the solicitor gets from the court or if there is an appeal but I will find out tomorrow.

Again thanks for ALL your help and comments

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic very well done indeed. MM have been hit hard here and hopefully they will think very long and very hard before embarking upon ruining innocent peoples lives in future.

 

 

IMO MM would be well advised not to appeal but tbh I can't think of any grounds upon which an appeal could be formed.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good result and I hope that it was not too stressful.

May I give an overview of the saga based on the probability that everyone at least started with honest intentions.

The initial police investigation must have included an element of suspicion that TFD was involved because of the keys and driving licence. The successful prosection in which TFD was the principal withness would not have removed this suspicion entirely and they would have regarded MM as the sole victims of the fraud. No doubt they would have informed MM that this was now a civil matter for the recovery of the £7000 and they may have indicated that they were not entirely satisfied that TFD was not involved but there was no chance of taking action because of reasonable doubt.

The police were then unable to treat MM's theft of the vehicle as such as they would claim that the police had indicated TFD's alleged role. MM seized the vehicle on this basis and allowed TFD to initiate the civil claim.

Perhaps there should be a complaint to the IPCC that the original police investigation was flawed in that they failed to treat TFD as a victim. This led to their failure to warn MM against the seizure of the vehicle and subsequently fail to take action to recover the vehicle following his complaint. The evidence for this is that the Chief Constable has stated that MM did not act dishonestly i.e. that they had been advised of the suspicions and that another police force's investigation resulted in a different conclusion i.e. that MM had not title to the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But such information would have also been available to Worcestershire police force who viewed the matter very differently from their colleagues in the West Midlands.

 

For fear of causing problems for Cag I shall proffer my view that these two forces might have erm "different priorities" and "different policing methods" with Bournville Lane having had quite a well documented history of such stretching back a few decades, and leave it at that. :oops:

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent result. Just caught up with this - and have to say i am very pleased you got the correct result.

 

I still fail to see how others on this thread ever thought there would be a different outcome - and the Judge seemed to see it as a very clear cut case - correct in my view.

 

Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...