Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

Money laundering and other serious issues


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3602 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

A female friend of mine sold a property back in Oct 2013.

 

She had no mortgage on that property so all the proceeds from the sale went

into her bank account as you would expect.

 

She then proceeded to buy a new property.

 

Everything was going well regarding the buying of the new property.

 

The conveyancing company accepted her bank money transfer to pay outright for the new property.

She was expecting to collect the keys to her new property.

 

However, the conveyancing company said that she had to prove that the money

she paid for the new property wasn't obtained by criminal means in order to prevent money laundering.

 

My lady friend was fuming angry and had to prove that she obtained the money

from the sale of her previous property.

 

She did that and all went through ok.

 

I was angry over this issue for two reasons.

 

Firstly, the conveyancing company accepted all her money into thier bank account

and then wanted her to prove that the money wasn't obtained by criminal means.

 

Secondly, I thought that it was up to the accuser to prove guilt rather

than the accused having to prove their innocence.

 

I therefore assume that the law has completely changed.

 

A person is now guilty until they prove themselves innocent even though

the accusing party has no evidence to to support their accusations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A female friend of mine sold a property back in Oct 2013.

She had no mortgage on that property so all the proceeds from the sale went

into her bank account as you would expect.

She then proceeded to buy a new property.

Everything was going well regarding the buying of the new property.

The conveyancing company accepted her bank money transfer to pay outright

for the new property. She was expecting to collect the keys to her new property.

However, the conveyancing company said that she had to prove that the money she paid for the new property wasn't obtained by criminal means in order to prevent money laundering. My lady friend was fuming angry and had to prove that she obtained the money from the sale of her previous property. She did that and all went through ok.

I was angry over this issue for two reasons. Firstly, the conveyancing company accepted all her money into thier bank account and then wanted her to prove that the money wasn't obtained by criminal means.

Secondly, I thought that it was up to the accuser to prove guilt rather than the accused having to prove their innocence.

I therefore assume that the law has completely changed.

A person is now guilty until they prove themselves innocent even though the accusing party has no evidence to to support their accusations.

 

They never accused her of a crime : however, due to the anti-money laundering regulations, they face strict penalties if they get caught having not checked they aren't being involved in money laundering.

 

However, they could smooth the task by explaining requirements in advance, so purchasers don't have unmet expectations and don't face unexpected delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conveyancers and similar professionals are now under a legal obligation to do money laundering checks as standard practice. This is now relevant whenever you open a bank account, buy a house or engage solicitors.

 

'innocent until proven guilty' thing applies when you are prosecuted for a criminal offence. It doesn't mean that you don't have to go through client acceptance procedures.

 

However the conveyancers should have sorted this out right at the start and not when she was waiting for the keys.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies chaps.

I suspect that the conveyancing company took her money before checking that it wasn't laundered so they could invest it for a few weeks to obtain some interest.

Now investing someone elses money without permission is embezzlement which should result in a prison sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies chaps.

I suspect that the conveyancing company took her money before checking that it wasn't laundered so they could invest it for a few weeks to obtain some interest.

Now investing someone elses money without permission is embezzlement which should result in a prison sentence.

No that is not embezzlement not even close.

 

The money would have been held in the solicitors client account and not invested anywhere.

 

The story in the OP is normal. When buying a house outright with cash you need to prove where that cash has come from. Your friend needs to be less sensitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Ganymede.

However, I still wonder why the conveyancing company didn't ask for proof of the cash source

before they took the money.

Regarding investing the funds, back in the 1980's there were some solicitors in the Bristol area who

were investing clients money without permission.

Thay all lost their licences to practice as solicitors and went to prison for embezzlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of suspected money laundering when buying property outright a thought has crossed my mind.

What would happen if you worked and saved hard for many years until you had enough cash to buy a property outright?

You would have to prove from where you obtained the cash.

You would say that you saved it up over many years, but how would you prove it?

I therefore assume that under these circumstances you would be convicted of money laundering and your hard earned money frozen even though you were innocent.

 

I save money and keep it in cash. Should I wish to eventually spend the cash, how do I prove that my cash hasn't been obtained by criminal means?

Does this mean that if I save up loads of money it will be frozen when I attempt to spend it until I can prove I saved it up? I therefore feel that any conveyancing company who suspects a client of money laundering should have to prove you have been money laundering. You should not have to prove that you haven't been money laundering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have difficulty in proving where the cash is from.

 

The individual solicitor could go to jail for many years if they don't follow the correct money laundering procedure so you can see why they are thorough.

 

The solicitor doesn't need to "prove" anything in fact they are not allowed to "tip off" the client that they are suspected of money laundering as again the individual could face jail.

 

All the solicitor does is carry on with the transaction but advises the firm's money laundering officer who in turn would report it to SOCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have difficulty in proving where the cash is from.

 

The individual solicitor could go to jail for many years if they don't follow the correct money laundering procedure so you can see why they are thorough.

 

The solicitor doesn't need to "prove" anything in fact they are not allowed to "tip off" the client that they are suspected of money laundering as again the individual could face jail.

 

All the solicitor does is carry on with the transaction but advises the firm's money laundering officer who in turn would report it to SOCA.

 

How would SOCA prove that cash that was saved over many years had been obtained by criminal means? Having no evidence of any criminal activity I assume they would have to accept that the money was saved honestly. I wonder what the threshold is for suspicion of money laundering. I recently bought a car with cash I had saved up. The seller didn't question the source of my cash and accepted my payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How should I know what SOCA would do? I'm not in the police.

 

All a solicitor has to do is report anything suspicious to SOCA and then that's where their obligations end

 

 

No offence to anyone on here but there's a bit of a difference between a used car salesman and a solicitor lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

chiefmegawatty, if a solicitor has reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering they must make a report to NCA (which recently replaced SOCA). Failure to make a report is a criminal offence.

 

Once a report has been made, the solicitor is required to hold onto the money until they get consent from the NCA to proceed with the transaction. Until they get consent the solicitor can't complete the transaction, can't return the money and can't tell the client that a report has been made to the NCA. This obviously puts the solicitor in a difficult position but that is what the law says. The same rules apply to regulated financial institutions.

 

In a situation where you have earned the money over many years, you don't have to account for every cent but you do basically have to account for where the funds have come from. This has to be basically consistent with your risk profile. Often the funds will have come from many years of work, which is fine. If you are interested the law society's guidance on this is here: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/articles/help-im-a-new-mlro-your-firms-compliance-culture/.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

chiefmegawatty, if a solicitor has reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering they must make a report to NCA (which recently replaced SOCA). Failure to make a report is a criminal offence.

 

Once a report has been made, the solicitor is required to hold onto the money until they get consent from the NCA to proceed with the transaction. Until they get consent the solicitor can't complete the transaction, can't return the money and can't tell the client that a report has been made to the NCA. This obviously puts the solicitor in a difficult position but that is what the law says. The same rules apply to regulated financial institutions.

 

In a situation where you have earned the money over many years, you don't have to account for every cent but you do basically have to account for where the funds have come from. This has to be basically consistent with your risk profile. Often the funds will have come from many years of work, which is fine. If you are interested the law society's guidance on this is here: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/articles/help-im-a-new-mlro-your-firms-compliance-culture/.

 

OK thanks for your reply. Regarding my lady friend who recently bought a property outright I say the following. There were no grounds whatsoever to suspect her of money laundering as she had sold a property two months previous which would have been recorded on the land registry. Therefore her conveyancing company had no reason to suspect money laundering. That's why I suspect something dodgy was going on with the conveyancing company. Now if her conveyancing company have no understanding of land registry records, then surely they shouldn't be in the conveyancing business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conveyancer is under a legal obligation to take steps to establish the source of the money whether or not it actually suspects money laundering. However I do understand why it sounded dodgy at first. The conveyancer should have informed your friend earlier that this would be necessary.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks for your reply. Regarding my lady friend who recently bought a property outright I say the following. There were no grounds whatsoever to suspect her of money laundering as she had sold a property two months previous which would have been recorded on the land registry. Therefore her conveyancing company had no reason to suspect money laundering. That's why I suspect something dodgy was going on with the conveyancing company. Now if her conveyancing company have no understanding of land registry records, then surely they shouldn't be in the conveyancing business.

 

A solicitor can't just ignore the fact that they've received hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash.

 

Unless they dealt with the sale of the previous house how would they know where the money had come from?

 

Sounds like your friend was asked to give evidence of where her funds came from, she did and everything was fine.

 

I don't see the problem here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A solicitor can't just ignore the fact that they've received hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash.

 

Unless they dealt with the sale of the previous house how would they know where the money had come from?

 

Sounds like your friend was asked to give evidence of where her funds came from, she did and everything was fine.

 

I don't see the problem here.

 

The conveyancing company would know where the money had come from by simply checking land registry records. The problem was that they took her money before checking it's source. This caused considerable delay with the completion. They should have asked for proof of the money source before taking the money in my opinion. The delay caused loss of rent income from the prospective tenant who was waiting to move in whilst this money laundering lark was sorted out.I remember at one point my lady friend was so cheesed off with waiting that she told the conveyancing company and the estate agent she was going to back out.

Amazingly things then went through like greased lightning. Therefore I smell a rat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what Land Registry records you think the solicitors could have checked that would have shown where the money came from?

 

How long were the delays?

 

I'm sure that as part of the initial pack of documents your friend received there would have been information on money laundering and the requirements.

 

I think you smell a rat where none exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what Land Registry records you think the solicitors could have checked that would have shown where the money came from?

 

How long were the delays?

 

I'm sure that as part of the initial pack of documents your friend received there would have been information on money laundering and the requirements.

 

I think you smell a rat where none exists.

 

Surely using simple logic the solicitors would check the land registry for recent property sales in the name of the client who is buying the new property.

Is that so complicated for them to carry out?

I would have thought it was obvious.

The delay was one month.

One month's rent lost due to unjustified suspicion based upon no evidence of money laundering. I don't know the conditions contained in the initial information pack. I am nearly 60 years old and from my experience I have found most solicitors to be money motivated professional liars. I am surprised that you don't seem to realise this. Tony Blair is a surperb example to prove my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it would be complicated for the solicitors to do seeing as though no such database exists!

 

I think you're letting your past experiences and preconceptions of solicitors cloud your judgment.

 

You need to get out if this mindset of "suspicion" and "accusation" of money laundering.

 

It's a legal requirement for the solicitor to check where hundreds of thousands of pounds of cash came from. They can't just ignore it when the individual solicitor himself/herself is the one that will potentially go to prison.

 

Oh and Tony Blair was a barrister, not a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parliament have decided that regulated financial institutions, legal professionals and coneyancers have to take steps to establish the identity of their clients and the source of their funds, in order to prevent criminals from using them to launder the proceeds of crime into the system.

 

Blame parliament if you disagree with it. Its not the choice of solicitors to have to spend time (which they usually can't charge for) checking this stuff. It would be much easier for them to just ask no questions.

 

In any event, it sounds like your friend instructed a coneyancing company and not a solicitor.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely using simple logic the solicitors would check the land registry for recent property sales in the name of the client who is buying the new property.

Is that so complicated for them to carry out?

I would have thought it was obvious.

The delay was one month.

One month's rent lost due to unjustified suspicion based upon no evidence of money laundering. I don't know the conditions contained in the initial information pack. I am nearly 60 years old and from my experience I have found most solicitors to be money motivated professional liars. I am surprised that you don't seem to realise this. Tony Blair is a surperb example to prove my point.

 

 

I don't think Blurr is/was a solicitor, failed barrister I think.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...