GE selling mortgages to another company

[jacqui_o]

.Sorry I dont really follow. this is not for "legalities" of contracural terms........ they gave false figures to the court in a repossesion hearing...... added an amount for fees and charges to the normal monthly payment which they submitted to the court as the normal monthly payment figure.......

 

So my reason for asking has nothing to do with contractural terms.......it has ot do with giving false figures to the courts......

[jacqui_o]

I really would appreciate some thoughts ont his issue, and strees the fraud is in connection with submitting false figures to the court........ and givng false figures..........

[jacqui_o]

Anyone got any ideas if this is possible?

[Surfer01]

Need some more info. Was it a HP or loan agreement? How much was the original amount loaned and what was the outstanding balance at time of repossession including arrears? How much did the charges amount to? What was the amount stated on the agreement enabling you to do a VT? I assume that the vehicle has now gone.

[jacqui_o]

Sorry Surfer I am totally confused what vehicle?

[Surfer01]

GE finance vehicles and you mentioned repossession therefore I obvioously incorrectedly assumed that it was a vehicle. Perhaps a bit more detail would help evaluate the issue more efficiently.

[jacqui_o]

Sorry I thought it was clear ity was a mortage I was refering to, given sillygirls answer....but gave her answer as to fraud not being the route for charges and fees........

 

I was not meaning for charges and fees........

 

I was and am asking in connection with giving the court the wrong arrears figure, they were well aware it was half what they claimed. and also adding fees and charges to the normal monthly payment for the mortage....

 

I thougth fees and charges were totally seperate ..hence why I am asking about the fraud angle....

 

giving false figures surely falls under this. it was a clear and deliberate attempt by GE to gain a legal route to try and reclaime fees an charges...... and by giving the court the wrong arrears figure was also a deliberate ploy to ensure getting an order.....

 

hope this is clearer.

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all

 

The Fraud Act 2006 is very specific:

1 Fraud

 

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in

subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are—

 

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

 

© section 4 (fraud by abuse of position)

 

 

(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12

months were a reference to 6 months.

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a

representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as 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).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

4 Fraud by abuse of position

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act

against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

© intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his

conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

5 “Gain” and “loss”

(1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance

with this section.

(2) “Gain” and “loss”—

(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;

(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;

and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things

in action and other intangible property).

(3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting

what onedoes not have.

Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 3

(4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by

parting with what one has.

6 Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control

any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

5 years or to a fine (or to both).

(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12

months were a reference to 6 months.

7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply

any article—

(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in

connection with fraud, or

(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12

months were a reference to 6 months.

8 “Article”

(1) For the purposes of—

(a) sections 6 and 7, and

(b) the provisions listed in subsection (2), so far as they relate to articles for

use in the course of or in connection with fraud,

“article” includes any program or data held in electronic form.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) section 1(7)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60),

(b) section 2(8)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19), and

© Article 3(7)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)

Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12));

(meaning of “prohibited articles” for the purposes of stop and search powers).

9 Participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he is knowingly a party to the carrying on of

a businessto which this section applies.

4 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)

(2) This section applies to a business which is carried on—

(a) by a person who is outside the reach of section 458 of the Companies

Act 1985 (c. 6) or Article 451 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order

1986 (S.I. 1986/1032) (N.I. 6)) (offence of fraudulent trading), and

(b) with intent to defraud creditors of any person or for any other

fraudulent purpose.

(3) The following are within the reach of section 458 of the 1985 Act—

(a) a company (within the meaning of that Act);

(b) a person to whom that section applies (with or without adaptations or

modifications) as if the person were a company;

© a person exempted from the application of that section.

(4) The following are within the reach of Article 451 of the 1986 Order—

(a) a company (within the meaning of that Order);

(b) a person to whom that Article applies (with or without adaptations or

modifications) as if the person were a company;

© a person exempted from the application of that Article.

(5) “Fraudulent purpose” has the same meaning as in section 458 of the 1985 Act

or Article 451 of the 1986 Order.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(7) Subsection (6)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12

months were a reference to 6 months.

10 Participating in fraudulent business carried on by company etc.: penalty

(1) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), in column

4 of the entry relating to section 458 of that Act, for “7 years” substitute “10

years”.

(2) In Schedule 23 to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (punishment

of offences), in column 4 of the entry relating to Article 451 of that Order, for “7

years” substitute “10 years”.

Obtaining services dishonestly

11 Obtaining services dishonestly

(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for

himself or another—

(a) by a dishonest act, and

(b) in breach of subsection (2).

(2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—

(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or

will be made for or in respect of them,

Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 5

(b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in

respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and

© when he obtains them, he knows—

(i) that they are being made available on the basis described in

paragraph (a), or

(ii) that they might be,

but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

5 years or to a fine (or to both).

(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference

(2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—

(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or

will be (2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—

(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or

will be made for or in respect of them,

Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 5

(b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in

respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and

© when he obtains them, he knows—

(i) that they are being made available on the basis described in

paragraph (a), or

(ii) that they might be,

but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12

months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

5 years or to a fine (or to both).

(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference

to 12

months were a reference to 6 months.

Supplementary

12 Liability of company officers for offences by company

(1) Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body

corporate.

(2) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance

of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body

corporate, or

(b) a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be

proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(3) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2)

applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his

functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

13 Evidence

(1) A person is not to be excused from—

(a) answering any question put to him in proceedings relating to property,

or

(b) complying with any order made in proceedings relating to property,

on the ground that doing so may incriminate him or his spouse or civil partner

of an offence under this Act or a related offence.

(2) But, in proceedings for an offence under this Act or a related offence, a

statement or admission made by the person in—

(a) answering such a question, or

(b)complying with such an order,

is not admissible in evidence against him or (unless they married or became

civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) his spouse or

civil partner.

(3) “Proceedings relating to property” means any proceedings for—

6 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)

(a) the recovery or administration of any property,

(b) the execution of a trust, or

© an account of any property or dealings with property,

and “property” means money or other property whether real or personal

(including things in action and other intangible property).

(4) “Related offence” means—

(a) conspiracy to defraud;

(b) any other offence involving any form of fraudulent conduct or purpose.

14 Minor and consequential amendments etc.

(1) Schedule 1 contains minor and consequential amendments.

(2) Schedule 2 contains transitional provisions and savings.

(3) Schedule 3 contains repeals and revocations.

15 Commencement and extent

(1) This Act (except this section and section 16) comes into force on such day as the

Secretary of State may appoint by an order made by statutory instrument; and

different days may be appointed for different purposes.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), sections 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 extend to England and

Wales and Northern Ireland only.

(3) Section 8, so far as it relates to the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19), extends to any

place to which that Act extends.

(4) Any amendment in section 10 or Schedule 1, and any related provision in

section 14 or Schedule 2 or 3, extends to any place to which the provision which

is the subject of the amendment extends.

 

Now tell me there is nothing that can be done...I personally have instigated a Criminal investigation into a major Sub prime lender with the aid of the Police and enquiries are extensive and ongoing. Therefore no more can be disclosed at this stage.

 

Have a good read of this Act - it is for us to use!!!!

 

Best wishes to all

 

 

Dougal

 

ps: I may be using this Act against GE shortly watch the space.......!!

[jacqui_o]

I am just about to use this against them as well Dougal..................and very possibly against another company:):)

 

thank you for posting all that........ I printed of the 1st 4 sections........ as I thoght they might be the most appropriate. but will leave it to the Police to decide........

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all,

 

I just wanted to set the record straight:

 

These are the points you will need to deal with to establish that an offence has been committed under the Fraud Act:

 

1.Has a crime been committed? Do I know the offenders(s)?

 

2. Have I suffered any loss as a result of this crime?

 

3. Where is the evidence of this crime? What form does it take? (paper, physical, actual or medical)

 

4. How do I make a complaint? What happens if the Police say it is a 'Civil Matter'?

 

 

The answers you need are :

 

1. Yes as the Law has been broken. Yes as I have knowledge of their address, and activities.

 

2. Yes I have lost something (property - note: Money is held in Law to be'property)'. which the offender has taken from me without my consent.

 

3. The evidence is contained in the documents between myself and the offender, and copy documents received from other sources relating to this complaint. (Court papers. Legal advice letters, Bank statements)

 

4. You must physically go in person to your local Police Station and ask to see a member of the CID (Criminal Investigation Department– NOT a uniformed officer. DO NOT leave details of yourself or the complaint with the Counter Clerk or anyone else. Counter Clerks are NOT police officers. In the event that the Police say it is a ‘Civil Matter’ – then it is time for a FORMAL complaint to the Chief Constable – DO NOT BE PUT OFF – a crime has been committed and the offender(s) must be dealt with by the Police.There are no costs involved to you whatsoever, just some of your time in making the effort to put a stop to this criminal activity.

 

Fraud carries a very severe custodial sentence, it is not a minor crime. There are people who will advise you differently. As an ex-PC I can assure you they are wrong.

 

Also remember this if you do not make a complaint then these criminal acts will keep on happening - DON'T let them get away with it!

 

OK enough preaching - the philosophy is simple, if the Civil Courts can't/won't deal with these matters satisfactorily then it is time for the Criminal Courts to take action. REMEMBER ANYONE CAN COMMENCE A CASE FOR A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION - BUT IT MAY BE 'TAKEN OFF' BY THE CPS (If they want to risk the publicity!!!) TELL MAJOR NEWSPAPERS IF YOU ARE OBSTRUCTED IN THIS FASHION - IT CAN WORK WONDERS!!!

 

CONFUCIUS SAID 'TO SUCCEED YO HAVE ONLY TO TRY'.

 

Any thoughts anyone.......all comments are welcome!

As always best wishes to all,

 

 

Dougal

Edited January 7, 2011 by Dougal16T
poor spelllling as usual....!!! Another detention looms.....!! Poor grammar as well!!

[jacqui_o]

Thanks for this Dougal............so it could be veiwed that by adding money to you monthly mortgage payments to cover fees and charges, in a repossesion hearing is an actual loss....

 

They are using the court order to recover money......

[PaulW922]

I do not believe the Fraud Act is appropriate. It is principally a criminal measure as you know, and the prosecutor would need to prove the case beyond doubt. Furthermore, undertaking a criminal prosecution as a private individual which has also been suggested, is a significant undertaking. As an alternative, have you considered the possibility that, in submitting evidence which they knew or suspected of being false, and did not take steps to bring this matter to the court's attention when they became aware, GE Money have in effect committed purgery? That can be a criminal matter and you could make a complaint to the court and/or the police.

[jacqui_o]

sorry paul you will need to explain that much clearer for me to understand it.....

 

they had received a payment substiantial prior to the hearing.... plenty of time to inform the court and they're legal team so do nto uinderstand the point you are making...........

[PaulW922]

On the basis that the inaccurate data submitted occurred principally because GE Money did not update their figures to reflect your payment; I don't think this is the kind of thing The Fraud Act 2006 was intended to address. You should always look for the most appropriate route or to put it another way, the most relevant legislation or potential offence for the matter in hand. In this circumstance, based on my understanding of what you have said, the applicant submitted evidence that was not correct and did not bring this to courts attention when they could have. Say if I'm wrong, but the implication of your post is not that they do not have a case, but that they are mis-stating it.

 

To give you an example of what i am getting at, It would technically be possible to bring a criminal case against someone who broke into a car and stole the stereo for money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - but you wouldn't do that because it would not be the most appropriate route. Whereas technically the person would be involved in the acquisition use and possession of criminal property, there is also the more straight forward Theft Act provision which si what would be used. Same principal.

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all,

Sorry Paul, but this is exactly what I was referring to - people trying to put people 'off' when considering the use of the Criminal Law. We must at least try to have these matters dealt with by the Police.

 

It is a Criminal offence, and for the prosecutor to prove the matter the standard is beyond reasonable doubt.I agree that a private prosecution is a considerable undertaking, and this ONLY be considered as a last resort - but it is available for use.

 

Perjury is again a Criminal measure, and is difficult to prove in a Civil Court where the Judge may favour the Defendant, especially if they are a large organisation. As a Criminal offence, I went to the Police and they p[prosecuted my ex-wife for Perjury during our Divorce (the Divorce was heard in the Civil Court as usual,but the evidence my wife gave to the District Judge during the divorce hearings was false!

 

However, I am proceeding against GE in the Civil Court, and a Criminal prosecution will follow.

 

As always best wishes to all.

 

Dougal

Edited January 9, 2011 by Dougal16T
Missed out vital line!!

[PaulW922]

I never suggested being put off - I just said that perjury was more appropriate than the Fraud Act. In fact, what you have just posted more or less puts us in agreement, as I was referring more to Jacqui_o's post

[Dougal16T]

Hello everyone,

 

I should have said in post 14 that when you go to te Police Station and see the CID person GET ALL OF THEIR DETAILS : NAME, RANK AND SERIAL/IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

 

Best as ever

 

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

I never suggested being put off - I just said that perjury was more appropriate than the Fraud Act. In fact, what you have just posted more or less puts us in agreement?

Hello (again)

I am unable to agree that we are 'more or less' in agreement. Perjury is a very serious offence, I grant you, but the chances of a Fraud prosecution being successful are much higher in my humble opinion.

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

[PaulW922]

Then we certainly are not, because I don't think that Jacqui_O's particular case stands a chance using The Fraud Act!

[Dougal16T]

Evening,

It is possible that you may be right...obviously I do not have a crystal ball. BUT if she does not try to get the Police interested - she will never know. I still believe that on the evidence they may well take the case forwards - IF they do so then this may be enough to cause a great surge of fear (he said hopefully) amongst these charlatans that seem to think they are above the law!

 

NO ONE is above the law.

 

Dougal

[jacqui_o]

What experience do you have in this field Paul, that makes you feel your route is the best?.......I took your post as an attempt to frighten me into not going down the fraud route............ you allude ot it not being appropriate. but not really explaining how you get there and what actual experience youhave inthis field....

 

I believe the evidence speaks for its self........

[jacqui_o]

Wonders where Paul has gone!!!!! andwhy he is not answering the questions asked!

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

I am sure Paul is a specialist in Civil Law and for that I salute him. It is very difficult for professional solicitors to 'change horses', that is to say those who specialise in Civil Law will generally speaking stay n that area, and conversely Criminal Lawyers will stay in their area of expertise. That way the client gets a specialist suiting his/her particular requirements.

 

If we upset him, then I personally apologise.....no offence was intended!

 

However it really is VERY important to keep an open mind when dealing with the problems that Charlatans like GE, Swift and others place at our feet! EVERY avenue must be explored.

 

Meanwhile lt the battle continue apace.

 

Best wishes to everyone (including Paul!)

 

Dougal

[jacqui_o]

Yes I concur with that Dougal, if you feel offended Paul, it was nto my intention.... but being a LIP, am sure you will udnerstand why we ask questions to which may well see obvious to you....

 

Keep up and on the good fight Dougal........ as am I:):)

[jacqui_o]

PesteredbyGEmoney

I have read your reply with great interest....................

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458639-GE-now-Kensington-Int-Only-Mortgage-trouble-paying-lots-of-fees

 

Remind them that whilst you are in receipt of benefits they must do all they can to assist you with your difficulties, this is their legal obligation.

 

They must not apply charges to your account whilst you are in receipt of SMI payments, doing so would futher your hardship.....

they were adding charges to our account for almost 4 years and we are still in receipt of DWP payments every month........

..this only stopped in January at a court hearing for possession............

 

We were making payments as were the DWP thinking it was all going to the cmi ...…

.it was not they were deducting payments from this to off set fees and charges!!!

 

at no time did they ever inform us in writing that they were doing this,

despite being written to several times questioning the arrears figures........

.the judge ordered them to stop...

...he also told us to ask for the fees and charges back and if not take them to court.......

..lol..............

 

where did you find the information that they are not allowed ?