Fraud Act 2006 - Time to ask the police to take action

(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.

meagain · November 19, 2006

There is one fatal flaw in your plan. Google "nullum crimen".

alanfromderby · November 19, 2006

There is one fatal flaw in your plan. Google "nullum crimen".

I am more inclined to look at the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.

meagain · November 19, 2006

I am more inclined to look at the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.

Am I missing something? That doesn't relate to those offences at all. It redefines the credit part to be overdraft-agnostic, but that appears to be it.

alanfromderby · November 19, 2006

Sorry, wrong one....Theft Act 1968.

meagain · November 19, 2006

I don't believe that covers it either, otherwise we'd have been on it already.

Of course, there is already a belief that the banks are guilty of offences under S1(?) Theft Act 1968, in that they have dishonestly appropriated funds with intent to deprive, but beyond that ...?

thesergeant · November 20, 2006

Meagin,

No the Fraud Act 2006 repeals all previous offences of deception etc. As the Theft Act 1968 offences of "fraud" were very difficult to prove. The new Fraud Act offences change the necessary proof - you no longer have to prove that a "victim" was actually deceived.

The new acts do apply to corporate bodies carrying on a fraudulent business. The home office "descriptive cases" do set out businesses carrying on "deceptive practices" that are nothing more than profiteering.

This is a new act and no one is "on it" yet ..................

meagain · November 20, 2006

Did you do the search I suggested?

PhantomReclaimer · November 20, 2006

I don't believe that covers it either, otherwise we'd have been on it already.

Of course, there is already a belief that the banks are guilty of offences under S1(?) Theft Act 1968, in that they have dishonestly appropriated funds with intent to deprive, but beyond that ...?

Actually we've mentioned possible offences under the Theft Act before. Sec.1 (theft), Sec.15 (obtaining property by deception) and Sec.15(a) (obtaining a money transfer by dceception). I also think there is a Sec.23 (I think) offence which is making an unwarranted demand for money with menaces (blackmail).

P.

meagain · November 20, 2006

Yes, but as has been mentioned before, the difficulty comes from proving both the deliberate deception and the dishonesty (it can be reasonably argued, but the banks can plead constructive ignorance, which at least creates reasonable doubt).

Even if the new offences make proving these easier, there is the issue of nullum crimen - you can only be guilty of an offence if it was an offence at the time you committed it. Hence, we're still stuck with the provisions of the Theft Act for the banks' prior actions (since new laws cannot act retrospectively). Of course, if they do not subtly change their ways, we can get them on fraud by false representation, since there is enough documentation out there to demonstrate that the banks are aware that their charges are unlawful, therefore to tell the public otherwise is deliberate misrepresentation. But we have to be aware that if they do change their ways in subtle ways, they may be able to escape the new law before it comes into force.

PhantomReclaimer · November 20, 2006

Yes, but as has been mentioned before, the difficulty comes from proving both the deliberate deception and the dishonesty (it can be reasonably argued, but the banks can plead constructive ignorance, which at least creates reasonable doubt).

Didn't the cheif Exec of one of the big banks (Lloyds?) say in interview that charges were used throughout the industry to fund free banking?

This sounds to me like pretty good proof that the banks knowingly represented their charges as being compensation for their loss when, in fact, they actually act for profit. Hence, deception offences, theft, etc.

Even if you couldn't prove it in relation to past offences all it will take is one case relating to charges being successful at Court and it would stop all future charges dead in their tracks as no bank could ever present them as being genuine compensation for loss even again.

P.

thesergeant · November 21, 2006

Constructive ignorance is no defence and would be extremely difficult for the banks to believably argue in any case.

The "example cases" given regarding this new Act involve for example a holiday company selling insurance that they know does not pay out, or the old favourite the builder deliberately over charging for work.

In the banks case they are deliberately over charging customers and profteering. I think we can take it as read that they know what they are doing.

Proving it, I believe would not be overly difficult. I am sure that a few Directors receiving a 4am knock on the door would soon get all the banking thieves "bleating" and blaming each other. (e.g. cash for honours investigation).

PhantomReclaimer · November 21, 2006

Proving it, I believe would not be overly difficult. I am sure that a few Directors receiving a 4am knock on the door would soon get all the banking thieves "bleating" and blaming each other. (e.g. cash for honours investigation).

I agree. It's just a matter of getting the police to take note; I've tried, I got so Pee'd off with IF that I emailed the Police and had a couple of cops on the door a hour later. They didn't really want to know though.

Like I said above, the ex-chief exec of Lloyds has said that charges are used to fund free banking for the entire population. That's a straight admission of a deception offence to me.

P.

thesergeant · November 21, 2006

PhantomReclaimer,

That will be the problem getting the right investigative body to take it on. That would need political power. The cash for honours scandal would never have begun if it hadn't been for the media "wagging the political tail".

That is what is needed here, media pressure to push the politicians to challenge the bankers - A hard thing to get done; as WE all know who pays for the political system !!!!!!!!! :cool: :lol:

thesergeant · November 21, 2006

Serious Fraud Office

Dealing with Cases

Case Acceptance Criterion

The key criterion we use when deciding whether to accept a case is that the suspected fraud appears to be so serious or complex that its investigation should be carried out by those responsible for its prosecution.

The SFO could not - and does not - take on every referred case of suspected fraud. SFO resources must be focussed on major and complicated fraud.

Factors considered:

does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million?
is there a significant international dimension?
is the case likely to be of widespread public concern?
does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets?
is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/guidance.asp :lol: :rolleyes:

Bicester1 · November 21, 2006

What about embezzlement?

Embezzlement is defined as "the fraudulent conversion of property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property". Crimes of this nature generally have involved a relationship of trust and confidence, such as an agent, fiduciary, trustee, treasurer, or attorney

Embezzlement - what is it?

That seems to fit quite nicely! By misrepresenting what are penalties as liquidated damages could it not be argued that they are guilty of fradulent appropriation?

The other line of argument might be that the Banks /CCC have a fiduciary relationship and their contract might be be regarded by the courts as:-

"CONTRACTS UBERRIMAE FIDEI"

Contracts uberrimae fidei (contracts of the utmost good faith) impose a duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party is in a strong position to know the truth. Examples would include contracts of insurance and family settlements.

A material fact is something which would influence a reasonable person in making the contract. If one party fails to do this, the contract may be avoided. See:

Lambert v Co-Operative Insurance Society [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 485.

Where there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties to a contract a duty of disclosure will arise, eg, solicitor and client, bank manager and client, trustee and beneficiary, and inter-family agreements.

UK default charges controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The banks know what their actual costs are, they refuse to disclose them the contract is invaild and the charges are invalid.

I agree that criminal charges might be very entertaining so how about a private prosecution or a letter writing campaign to ones local Chief Constable copy to local MP. Anyone care to draft the letter template?

Any lawyer care to comment?

Bicester1

thesergeant · November 21, 2006

Embezzlement is not an offence in itself in the UK. The site you were looking at is American based. The Theft Act 68 & 78 incorporated all "old" worded offences.

I agree with you that it would be very entertaining to orchestrate a letter writing campaign to instigate media attention and hopefully an actual investigation. However we need to wait until January when the new Fraud Act comes into being.

This is because the new fraud act covers a wider range of fraudulent acts, as well as changing the way in which the act can be proven against offenders in essence making it easier to prove. :grin: :cool:

meagain · November 22, 2006

UK default charges controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't link to that article with an incorrect link. The correct target is UK default charges controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

1. It's titled "UK default charges controversy" and is a redirect from "Bank Action Group", which will probably go at some point.

2. The original version of the article was probably written by CAG users, and has had little review from third parties since. That's no better than the bank quoting their own terms to support their practices.

Bicester1 · November 23, 2006

thesergeant

Thank you. Point taken, pity, it seemed to fit quite nicely, but then I am not a lawyer!

I have spoken to my local MP, he is interested and has asked me to email him more info., which I will. I have also spoken to a senior Police Officer of my acquaintance who was of the opinion that letters to the Chief Constable, if there were sufficient numbers, might produce a reaction but he was not too encouraging.

meagain.

I did not cite the Wikipedia article in support of my argument. I did not mean to cite it at all, the url,correct or otherwise, was left in from a post I started to write and then changed! Mea culpa!

Considering your other points, may I suggest that as neither you nor I are aware of the authorship of the article or its likely future, then speculation and your admonitory posting serves little purpose. It certainly does not answer the question I posed as to the value of attempting to get the police to take an interest by a letter writing campaign.

I still think its worth a try.

November 23, 2006

Theft Act 1968 (-), [email protected], David Swarbrick, Solicitor, Wrigley Claydon

This is what your looking for.

thesergeant · November 23, 2006

Bicester1,

Involving everyones MP will be necessary. Your police friends response is not surprising. It would be necessary to involve letters to chief constables etc. However it is political and media clout that would actually get this matter to either the SFO or a public enquiry. All of which will be resisted at every turn.

As I said the actual people who have kept this massive public fraud going are at the top of these organisations.

To actually get this into the media would be "fun", anything else would be a bonus.

After all these are the organisations who are stating that the uncovering of their dishonesty is now requiring them to bring in further charges to keep their pockets lined !!!!!!!!!! :razz:

shaun fleming · January 16, 2007

Hope you all get to read this.

I have removed my name from this and the SFO officer that I have sent this letter to.

The statement in this letter is my view and mine alone, the site and it administers are not held responsible for its content as they no way assisted in its format. But has been posted to them in good faith.

12th January 2007.

I am also sorry for the length of the letter, and would be grateful for any input.

Thank you from The Grim Reaper.

Director.

Serious Fraud Office.

Elm House,

10-16 Elm Street.

London.

WC1X 0BJ

Dear Sir.

I hope you will take the time to read this letter and give it your full and considered judgement. I have tape recordings of interviews and have copied the tapes to written form, word for word in ordered to back up my complaint against my bank, and possible prosecution against other banks. As they have removed Billions of pounds from customers accounts illegally.

I believe that under these Laws listed that there is a case to answer for in a criminal court, and just because it is a major High Street Bank should and cannot exclude it form the Law of the land as laid down by Majesty’s government.

The Laws I believe that Abbey Bank have broken are:-

Theft Act 1968

5. Belonging to another. (1)

6. ‘With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’(1)

15A. Obtaining a money transfer by deception (1)(2) (a)(b)(c ) (3) (4) (a)(b)(d)(e)

15B. section15A: Supplementary(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(a)(b)

16. Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception(1)(3)

17. False accounting (1) (a)(b) (2)

18. Liability of company officers for certain offences by company (1) (2)

19. False statements by company directors etc; (1( (2) (3)

20. Suppression, etc., of documents (3)

24A. Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit. (1)(a)(b)( c) (2) (3) (4) (a)(b)(d) (5)

34. Interpretation. (1)(2)(a)(i)(ii) (b)

2. Criminal Justice Act1993 (c.36) Part1.

(2) (a) section 1 (Theft) section 16( obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception)

Section 19( false statements by company directors, etc)

Page 2.

3. Fraud Act 2006 Chapter 35.

1. Fraud. (1) (2) (a)(b)( c) (3) (b)

2. Fraud by false representation. (1) (a) (b) (i) (ii)

3. Fraud by failure to disclose Information. (a) (b)

4. Fraud by Abuse of position. (1) (a) (b) ( c) (i ) (ii) (2)

5. “Gain” and “Loss”. (1) (2) (a) (3) (4)

6. Possession etc. of articles for use in a frauds. (1) (2) (b)

7. Making or supplying articles for use in fraud. (1) (a) (b)

8. “Article”. (1) (a) (b) (2) (a) section 1 (7) (b) of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60)

9. Participating in fraudulent business carried on by a sole trader etc. (3) Act (a) (b) (4) (a) (b) (5).

10. Participating in fraudulent business carried on by company etc. penalty. (1)

11. Obtaining Services Dishonestly. (1) (a) (b) (2) (a) ( c) ( i ) (ii) (3) (a)

12. Liability of Company Officers for Offences by Company. (1) Subsection (2) applies.. (2) (a) (b) (3)

13. Evidence. (1) (a) (b) (4) “Related offences” (a) (b)

I understand if you feel this is along winded letter but please understand that I have tried reason, I have contacted the relevant authorities but feel the only way to bring the Bank into line with the Law, as they seem determined to ignore the Law is to now enforce the Law with your help.

I have in the past few years had cause to question the banks charges but have always been told that they were legal and law full, and part of banking law. But I have always question whether they were enforceable under the law as laid down by Her Majesty’s Government. And until now have not been able to put enough information together to start answering some of those questions.

In July 2005 I started to question, in writing, to the Abbey bank as to the charges to our account. They of course refuted the letter. I then wrote to the Ombudsman who said that the ‘complaint does not appear to be one we would deal with’.

I was then listening to BBC Radio 2 when Mr Martin Lewis came on and told us of this new web site called ‘The Consumer Action Group’ set up to help people to reclaim unfair bank charges, I then started to listen more closely to the other stations and TV programs, and when possible taped those programs to build up information that might help me take my bank to court and back my claims for a refund.

The Abbey Bank has a court action pending against it for our 1st account of £4786.52 plus court fees, and an outstanding money owed on our other account of £1912.06, at least, waiting for the first court case to be settled.

Page 3.

The charges have been levied against our account, ignoring the ‘Under the Unfair Terms (Contract) Act 1977’, ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999’ and ‘Supply of Goods and Service Act 1982’.

They have always claimed that the cost cover the administration of the returning of Direct Debits, Standing Order’s or Cheques. This now turns out to be a Fraudulent claim, which I aim to show to you, and will place before you any information that I have for you to use in an investigation. Should you request it?

The Charges for bouncing Direct Debits, Standing Orders, and Cheques are not to be profit making and should only reflect the cost of administration.

3rd February 2000 the OFT won a court appeal that the First National Bank, a subsidiary of Abbey was acting unlawfully. ( Court says First National used unfair contract term).

5th April 2006 the OFT released a statement under the heading ‘Current credit card default charges unfair’.

And although the statement is mainly for the credit cards it also says ‘These principals also apply to default charges in other consumer contracts such as those for bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages.’ They also said that ‘The OFT is not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold’.

The OFT have told banks charges should not exceed £12 (or 12 as it is known) and that is a maximum charge.

In an interview on Radio 5 Live 7th Sept 2006, Lunch Time Show. There was an interview with Lyn Parker (OFT) and interviewer Pauline McCole (see quotes below)

Q:-Pauline McCole (P M ). Lyn Parker as far as credit charges are concerned could you just sum up what has exactly happened?

A:- Lyn Parker ( L P ). We have started looking at credit cards and we issued our provisional findings last July that we felt that the current charges were to high.

We then invited 8 of the major credit card issuers to come to us with their thoughts on this, and we spent sometime looking at he various costs that are incurred , and we made a findings in April that we felt that the charges were to high and we asked the credit card issuers to reduce their charges in line with a set of principals that we published.

They have all come back to us and said they will reduce their charges the majority by at least ½ if not more.

Page 4

Q:- Pauline McCole. Now going on to the overdraft issue. Are we starting the process from scratch again are we going back to the beginning?

A:- Lyn Parker. No because in our statement put out in April we said that the principal that we put in that statement applied to other services such as those for unauthorised overdrafts and default charges there. And so what we are now doing is looking at the details of how that industry differs from the credit card arena.

In the interview on 7th Sept 2006 Drive Time Show (4pm-7pm) there was a further interviews with Lyn Parker (OFT), Joanna Elson (Executive director of the British Banking Association) conducted by Philippa Busby.

In the program it was said by:-

Lyn Parker:- We are concerned to insure that the amounts the banks are charging people when they go into unauthorised overdrafts are fair. The amounts banks are currently charging do seem high. Our concern is banks should not be profiting, they should only be charging the amount it costs them when somebody defaults.

But when questioned by Philippa Busby the retort is:-

Joanna Elson (Executive Director of British Bankers Association):- If you ask them they will tell you the charges they levy are a reflection of the work involved because when somebody goes overdrawn and that’s not authorised, then clearly the banks has to find the money from somewhere which otherwise would be used, say for supporting small business or help with some body's mortgage or something like that .

So they have to find that money and they will tell you that the charges that they levy are a reflection of the work involved.

In that above paragraph it tells me:-

1. They are making profit from these charges which they are not legally entitled to!

2. And I am paying for somebody Else's bill when we are struggling to make ends meet.

3. I believe that the Bank Abbey (as well as other Banks) have now broken the 2006 Fraud Act 2006 chapter 35.

Page 5.

On the morning Show with Matthew Banister Radio 5 Live (9am-12pm) an interview featuring Kathy Cole, Gordon Taylor, & Eada Riley, some ordinary people spoke about their problems with the Banks and Talk Talk (the telecommunications company). During that conversation Kathy explained how see was being charge when on benefits:-

Kathy:- Not particularly, I had a straight forward account. So I had to go on benefits and they just kept on hammering me, and taking away my benefits in charges.

Then Yorkshire Bank sends the program a statement about Kathy Cole case:-

Accordance It says:- “The charges were levied In with the terms and conditions of the account, which the customer accepted on opening the account, they were incurred because the customer failed to adhere to the limits placed on the account. The charges are genuine, and relate to the cost incurred by the Bank, given the time and resources to deal with the case.”

It also has a statement about the case with Gordon Taylor from The Bank of Scotland:-

“ All charges are easily avoidable if you maintain your account within the agreed terms and conditions. If anyone is concerned with not being able to manage their account properly we recommend they visit their local branch and arrange an appointment to discuss their Banking requirements.

In this specific case, taking into account our relationship with the customer we have agreed to refund charges made over a lengthy period, as gesture of good will.”

I believe that these statement are again in contravention the Fraud Act 2006 chapter 35.

On the Breakfast show 1st December 2006 (6am-9am) with Nicky Campbell. Interviewer Nick Cosgrove interviewed Peter McNamara the former director of personal Banking at Lloyd's TSB and current Chairman of Note Machine, a company who supplies cash machines, said:-

Page 6

Peter McNamara:- No, no, Indeed it’s much cheaper in the UK to have a current account that it probably is in most countries in the world.

Really the Banks make their money in current accounts in 3 ways. First of all they do not pay very much interest on your current account balances in most cases, so the Banks pocket the interest instead of the customers getting it. Ah! But secondly they hope to sell you other products to current account customers, credit cards, mortgages and insurance products. And thirdly, and this is the point you heard in the clip. If you go overdrawn without arrangement or you go over your overdraft limit you get some pretty hefty fee’s for doing that.

Now that’s under attack by the OFT at this moment in time, or certainly being looked at. The OFT has reduced the fees on credit cards, and they are going to have a good look at the fees on those so called unauthorised overdrafts which is where people go over drawn beyond their limits.

Each of the banks really make a few hundred million out of those charges every year.

If those charges are reduced, well the Banks are going to have to look at other ways of recovering that revenue by other fees and other charges. So the example we heard there of First Direct charging a monthly fee on a basic current accounts, could become more common place

Again this directly contravenes the charges that are supposed to be allowed and so again be in breach of the Fraud Act 2006 chapter 35.

On the money program 12 December 2006 the program put before the viewer Experts:-

Experts:-

Kieron Beal ( Barrister, Matrix Chambers. ).

Joe Gardner ( HSBC - Gen Man of Personal Finance HSBC ).

John Fingleton ( OFT Chief Executive ).

Nicky White ( Head of Personal Finance at Uswitch )

John Struthers ( Professor of Banking University of Paisley )

Philip Molyneaux ( Professor of Banking University of Wales Bangor )

Ian Jarrit ( Former Executive of Nat West )

Walter Merricks ( Ombudsman spokesman )

Angela Knight ( British Banking Association ).

For us all to listen to and here are just a couple of quotes for you:-

Michael Robinson( programs front man):- What ever you think about the Banks, the idea of them taking Billion of Pounds from their customers by breaking the law might come as a bit of a surprise. But under the regulations covering the ’ The Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts’ that’s exactly what banks are accused of doing.

Page 7.

Kieron Beal ( Barrister @ Matrix Chamber ):- The changes that the banks make to you on your account should be broadly in line with the cost to the bank, of sending the letter out to you. If it’s not broadly in line with the cost they actually incur then it is unlawful.

Michael Robinson:- None of the big Banks would answer the question, so we decided to find out for ourselves with our own money program ‘ Banking Commission’.

In October we asked 2 top business academics John Struthers ( Professor of Banking University of Paisley ), Philip Molyneaux ( Professor of University of Wales Bangor ) to join a former senior Banking executive Ian Jarrit ( Former Senior Executive at Nat West ) and work out the highest amount the banks could reasonably claim it cost them to deal with the default. It’s a question campaigner’s like Steven Hone have long been trying to get answered?

Nick White( Head of Personal Finance Uswitch.com):- :- For people who are in this situation are probably the ones who are less likely to afford those charges, so go 2 or 3 pound over your overdraft limit and then be hit with £100 to £150 it’s just very, very unfair, but it generates hug amounts of revenue for the banks, but it’s completely disproportionate.

Michael Robinson:- Money Banks make from penalties from credit cards is small change compared with what they make on current accounts. Officially the bank won’t say how much that is, but of the record one top banker told me that last year alone it was as much as £4 ½ Billion.

The bad news for Banks is that the OFT has started to challenge legality of the current account penalties, using the same regulations.

John Fingleton( OFT ):- The legal principal we consider is the same for Banks can’t recover more than it costs them, and we feel it’s worth while looking at whether what the Banks are recovering when customers default or go over their unauthorised overdraft on their current accounts. Whether the charges there are fair.

Michael Robinson:- Another tactic Banks have been using to keep out of court is to refer demand for repayment to the Financial Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman tries to settle disputes between Financial disputes between Financial institutions and customers. Penalty charge cases have been pouring in.

Walter Merricks ( Ombudsman spokesman ):- They’ve been growing at a rather substantial rate they are probably the fastest growing area of complaint in the organisation. We’ve got over a 1000 in the office now.

Page 8

Michael Robinson:- The Ombudsman staff were happy for customers to accept Banks offers, but no longer last month the Ombudsman told the banks to prove their penalties were legal or pay their customers claims in full.

Walter Merricks:- What I’ve said to the Banks is I do need them to help me resolve these complaints by either offering to refund 100% of the charges that people are claiming or if they are not prepared to do that and they want to argue the point then I have to start down the road and investigate myself!

Angela Knight ( BBA ):- We are a representative body here, we cannot, Uh, start revealing commercial information which is survey in the ownership of our members firms.

Michael Robinson:- Have you got any kind of rough ball park figure for what these costs are?

Angela Knight (BBA ):- I’m saying to you that you should first of all ask the Banks that question because as you understand their internal systems are different, their business are different, it‘s for them to give you information such as that, if they wish to do so.

Michael Robinson:- And we already know they’re not about to do that. But in the mean time our own ‘Banking Commission’ have been busy . A month after they had started or 2 Professors and former Bank Executive met to reach a conclusion as to the highest cost the Banks could possibly justify claiming for dealing with customers defaults.

Philip Molyneaux:- I think the point is the fees don’t seem to bare any resemblance to the costs, I mean we have had a technology revolution over the last decade or so.

John Struthers:- It certainly means that about 80% of cases does there’s not manual intervention at all, it’s done by computer.

Michael Robinson:- So after considering every possible expense what do they think banks costs are. First for bouncing cheque’s the most labour intensive procedure?

Ian Jarrit:- We came up with a figure recognising that the cheques require more manual intervention we came up with a figure of £4.50.

Michael Robinson:- Could you not get it any higher than that?

Philip Molyneaux:- I think it’s difficult to get higher because, um, even the cheque credit system became much more automated, £4.50 we thought was really the top end.

Page 9

Michael Robinson:- What about the other item’s?

John Struthers:_ Well for other items such as Direct Debits, unauthorised we think that charge of about £2.50 is appropriate charge.

Michael Robinson:- But that’s hugely less than the banks are charge!

John Struthers:- That’s the figure we’ve come up with based on the research we have done, and we feel confident that appropriate and fair cost, that should be passed onto the customers.

Last week their association unveiled a new legal argument that their charges aren't penalties after all!

Angela Knight ( BBA ):- There not called penalties because they are not penalties they are in fact, there service fees. They relate to the whole of the current account overdraft service.

Michael Robinson:- I think many people would be astounded that the idea that they bouncing a cheque or a Direct Debit was a service that they enjoyed?

Angela Knight ( BBA ):- Well I didnt say that they enjoyed it, we may not like the service when we go and do something wrong, but never the less its part of the service.

Michael Robinson:- Just to get this clear your saying that because it’s a service a fee for a service, the Unfair Terms and Consumers Contracts’ legislation which is the root of all this trouble doesnt apply?

Angela Knight( BBA ):- No. I’m saying that the legal opinion the Banks have had is what they are doing is entirely legal, yes!

Michael Robinson:- It’s an interesting argument, but will it get Banks of the hook?

Kieron Beal (Barrister ):- Think the answer to that must depend on whether or not they are providing a service? If they are simply telling you are overdrawn then that does rather beg the question well what’s the service in that?

Michael Robinson:- The OFT isn’t much impressed by the Banks new argument either, and if necessary they plan to get tough.

Page 10.

John Fingleton ( OFT ):- We are open to listening to the arguments Banks make in that regard, but at the end of the day if it comes down to a disagreement between us and the Banks on that legal principal, that something we are prepared to litigate on.

Michael Robinson:- Do you think you will end up in court with the OFT on this issue?

Angela Knight ( BBA ):- I think, as far as the OFT inquiry is concerned, we are at a very early stage which is all about the quest for information, I’m not going to pre-judge anything, all I can say to you is what I have said all the way along the line, and that is from the Banks perspective what they are doing is entirely legal.

I hope that I have not board you with this letter but I am so upset and agree with my Bank. Coupled with the fact that the Ombudsman, OFT and the FSA seem to be unable to pull the Bank/Banks back in line with the Law.

I have contacted all the Directors of the OFT and FSA and also had a reply from the Ombudsman Kristelle Jacobs.

Our current court case is to be held in the small claims court in Swindon, but is presently stayed at the moment and would not want you to prejudice our case but the more that I delve into the Law the more I feel there is a case to answer by the Banking industry!

The Abbeys solicitors that are dealing with our case is DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP. Princess Exchange, Princess Square. Leeds. They I believe are helping their clients delaying refunds to us and others customers, knowing full well these charges are unlawful.

The Lady at the at Customer Satisfaction Centre. Abbey. PO Box 5129. Milton Keynes. MK9 2YN. Is Dawn Hoyle and she is ignoring the Law and prolonging the cases against the bank to the detriment of the customers.

The Banks Directors and Policy makers for ignoring the Law and denying customers Law full writes as laid down by Her Majesty’s Government. And the Banks know that they are doing so, and that is the reason they are not going to court, and settling out of court.

I also believe that this meets your acceptance criteria of being in excess of £1 million.

That Abbey as well as others in the main High Street Banking Industry, is in full knowledge of this illegal removal of these funds from account holders. And I have document evidence, in written form of taped interviews from radio and TV.

Page 11.

I understand if you feel that this could throw the Banking business into problems but they are not immune from prosecution and their policy makers have made it this their business to go about the removal of these funds illegally, and attempt to conceal this! And I believe you are now bound to investigate these claims in this statement.

Sorry to put you to so much trouble and please do not hesitate to contact me, and please acknowledge this letter as soon as possible. I will assist in any way you require.

Yours sincerely,

NB. Please note that we have a case waiting in civil court and would not want to prejudice the case.

I have also worried over whether I should send this letter to you as the Bank could pull the rug from underneath our accounts and we would not be able to pay our bills and possibly not get another Bank account. So it is imperative that you do not mention my until the last possible time, I will help as much as you want when you ask but cannot hide from the fact that I feel the Law has to be up held. As my parents have taught me and we have taught my children.

The above names maybe removed from the posting if the site feels the necessity to do so. All of the above are genuine quotes and I will stand by them should anybody wishes to challenge them.

January 16, 2007

Name & Registered Office:

DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY LIMITED

1 ST PAULS PLACE

SHEFFIELD

S1 2JX

Company No. 05415039

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 06/04/2005

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

9999 - Dormant Company

Accounting Reference Date: 30/04

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 06/02/2007

Last Return Made Up To: 06/04/2006

Next Return Due: 04/05/2007

Last Members List: 06/04/2006

Previous Names:Date of changePrevious Name18/05/2005BROOMCO (3772) LIMITEDBranch Details There are no branches associated with this company.Oversea Company Info There are no Oversea Details associated with this company.

Now can anyone give me one good reason why they shouldn't now prosecute.

shaun fleming · January 18, 2007

I have today received a reply from The SFO and it reads:-

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter dated 12th January 2007.

As you may Know the serious Fraud Office is a small, highly Specialised investigating and prosecuting authority.

Our investigations are resourced intensive and time consuming. We cannot accept every case that is referred to us, even from the police or other government departments. The Director must exercise his discretion and choose whether or not to commit public funds to an investigation. To ensure this the SFO has published "acceptance criteria", namely:

1) The sum at risk is estimated to be at least £1 million ( this is simply an objective and recognisable sign post of seriousness and likely public concern rather than mainly indicator of suitability).

2) The case is likely to give rise to national publicity and widespread public concern. These include those involving government departments, public bodies, the government of other countries and commercial cases of public interest.

3) The investigation requires a highly specialist knowledge of, for example, financial markets and their practices.

4) The case has significant international dimension.

5) There is a need for legal, accountancy and investigative skills to be brought together as a combined operation.

6) The suspected fraud appears to be complex and one in which the use of section 2 powers might be appropriate.

These criteria must also be applied in light of our aims and objectives which are

* Reducing fraud and the cost of fraud;

* The delivery of justice and the rule of law;

* Maintaining confidence in the UK's business and financial institutions.

It follows that we are inevitably restricted to taking on only appropriate cases, which must be more than commercial or contractual disputes but must clearly involve criminal behaviour ( within the body of offences provided by the criminal law) of a nature which falls both within our statutory remit ( offences involving serious or complex fraud) and our published objectives.

The matter you raise are being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, and the Financial Ombudsman Service both organisations having the powers to refer maters to the Serious Fraud Office should they consider that to be the appropriate course of action. To date neither organisations has made a referral to the Serious Fraud Office, the OFT is considering bringing its own legal proceedings against the banks if necessary.

I would add that in the papers you have forwarded there is no tangible evidence of criminal activity and therefore does not fall within the SFO criteria for acceptance.

I hope this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely.

Tony Frankson

Whilst I accept the letter as true, it still asks more questions than gives answers.

For example:- If I was to take more money from one of my customers telling them it was for materials purchased and they then paid me for those materials.

Kept on doing this and the authorities found out that I had been misleading my customers they would soon throw theft and fraud act against me, as you will see on the SFO web site, of their past cases?

Also why is there one rule for one and not another? I am going try and teach my children that one!

See my letter posted on the site dated 16th Jan 07,& posted on this page, for the SFO. The above is my thoughts and opinion. And any constructive views are welcome.

from The Grim Reaper

Announcements

Tweets

Posts

Recommended Topics

Our picks

Picked By

Picked By

Picked By

Picked By

Recommended Topics

Fraud Act 2006 - Time to ask the police to take action

Recommended Posts

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 Caggers

Navigation Links

Latest

Help and Support

Useful LInks

Reclaim the right Ltd

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service