Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Admission of a debt in writing resetting the statute barring period is dicated by the Limitation Act 1980 30(1)&(2):   "30 Formal provisions as to acknowledgments and part payments.   (1)To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it.   (2)For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment— (a)may be made by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made under that section; and (b)shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is being made."   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/part/II/crossheading/acknowledgment-and-part-payment   The admission in writing has to be accompanied with a signature, arguably an email with a digital signature could be sufficient acknowledgment. That acknowledgment could be by an agent, i.e. a solicitor, acting on your behalf. But the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply in your case as the statute barring period is dictated by Jamaican legislation so you would need to find out what that is to confirm whether or not an email is considered to be acknowledgment of the debt.    
    • Great work from lookinforinfo.   When you have time, also try to find out if they have planning permission for the signs.  The council should have a portal, if not directly call or e-mail the council.   You've written "the pay machines there were notorious for not connecting for card payments - NCP always blamed Vodafone's coverage".  Have you got any proof of this?  It could be useful.   BW Legal won't send anything about planning permission or contracts, but they might , just, send a copy of the PCN so we know what you are being pursued for, but even if they don't the SAR will get to the bottom of it.
    • dx, do you mean you would or you wouldn't use arthritis as an excuse please?   HB
    • You weren't stupid at all - in fact you've done everything right!  I wish everyone who comes on the forum would act like you.   You were spot on to ignore letters from Smart and from powerless DCAs, just as you were right to jump into action when the Letter Before Claim showed up as Smart are fishing to decide who to take to court and who not.  As others have said, you now need to show them they would be in serious trouble if they took you to court, via a snotty letter ridiculing their claim and showing you're not ignorant of the law.  Do some searching then please post up a draft of what you propose to send.   Cases like yours are the easiest to defend from a legal point of view.  Smart got their money, you can prove it, they suffered no loss, the registration number nonsense is "de minimis" (the court does not deal with trivialities), judges have ruled on this many times.
    • How much was the bracket?  Is it something you can get from Amazon and then process a refund from Currys?
  • Our picks

CL Finance/Cohen Claimform - old GE Edge Card Debt


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4404 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Given that Identity Theft is a massive subject at the moment, any incident of fraudulent use of documentation would be of great interest to the Police

 

If you can prove catagorically that the document is indeed a forgery, then the police should be called immediately and criminal charges brought against the company directors and any signatories of communications.

 

They would then be forced to prove the validity of the document prior to any country court proceedings and any criminal judgement brought to bear would have a massive bearing on cases brought subsequently by a DCA in the County Court and indeed set a precedent in similar cases

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1968 c. 60.] Theft Act 1968—

 

section 1 (theft);

section 15 (obtaining property by deception);

section 16 (obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception);

section 17 (false accounting);

section 19 (false statements by company directors, etc.);

section 20(2) (procuring execution of valuable security by deception);

section 21 (blackmail);

section 22 (handling stolen goods);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1978 c. 31.] Theft Act 1978—

section 1 (obtaining services by deception);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1981 c. 45.] Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981—

 

section 1 (forgery);

section 2 (copying a false instrument);

section 3 (using a false instrument);

section 4 (using a copy of a false instrument);

There could also be charges of conspiracy to commit the above acts by directors and senior officials, given that the document was sent in the name of their company

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i love a good thriller, me!

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that Identity Theft is a massive subject at the moment, any incident of fraudulent use of documentation would be of great interest to the Police

 

If you can prove catagorically that the document is indeed a forgery, then the police should be called immediately and criminal charges brought against the company directors and any signatories of communications.

 

They would then be forced to prove the validity of the document prior to any country court proceedings and any criminal judgement brought to bear would have a massive bearing on cases brought subsequently by a DCA in the County Court and indeed set a precedent in similar cases

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1968 c. 60.] Theft Act 1968—

 

section 1 (theft);

section 15 (obtaining property by deception);

section 16 (obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception);

section 17 (false accounting);

section 19 (false statements by company directors, etc.);

section 20(2) (procuring execution of valuable security by deception);

section 21 (blackmail);

section 22 (handling stolen goods);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1978 c. 31.] Theft Act 1978—

section 1 (obtaining services by deception);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1981 c. 45.] Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981—

 

section 1 (forgery);

section 2 (copying a false instrument);

section 3 (using a false instrument);

section 4 (using a copy of a false instrument);

 

There could also be charges of conspiracy to commit the above acts by directors and senior officials, given that the document was sent in the name of their company

 

 

Hi,

 

its my understanding that the Deception and fraud offences under the 68 theft act have been repealed by the Fraud Act 2006

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are listed quite correctly, with the correct references of origin as part of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 Jusrisdiction in respect of Group A Offences.

 

Which you correctly observe were superceded by the Fraud Act of 2006.

which instead states:

 

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).

 

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.

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, strangely enough the charges of forgery, copying a false instrument, using a false instrument and using a copy of a false instrument are still on the statute books

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Spamheed,

 

you are quite correct that the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act is still in force,

 

i was merely pointing out the repeal of the deception offences under the theft act

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you were entirely correct to identify the reform of the statute, it would be extremely important if any case were to be brought, and I sincerely hope it is

 

I was simply drawing attention to the charges which could be brought, ie forgery with intent/in order to make false representation, which would be identified by their origins in the 1968 theft act.

 

I'm particularly interested in sections 2:a and 2:2b, which one interpretation would make the banks actions of substituting a reconstruction of an agreement for the genuine item an actual breach of the law

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
  • dx100uk changed the title to CL Finance/Cohen Claimform - old GE Edge Card Debt
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...