Fraud Act 2006

[enoughisenough]

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Dougal16T]

The same could have been said about bank charges some time back & look where this is currently at. A private individual (or even a group) could not have hoped to take the banks on to this stage (& maybe even beyond, let's wait & see) unless they were particularly flush.

 

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (& also your argument) caution may just be a valuable word too.

 

Good evening all...

 

I accept that caution is neccessary, but inaction may be worse that making a start on this path...

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

 

[Crapstone]

The theory seems sound but my faith in the court system is below zero. Up until the last few years I had won every case both in defence and as a claimant, but it seems that the judges just can't be bothered to listen anymore.

 

What could be achieved in the criminal courts? The interpretation of the Fraud Act is open to arguement by both sides. Unless you can get their books and a full audit it's going to be one hell of a fight.

 

I still think the brokers are the best bet. Mine is currently sunning himself in Florida at his 2nd home. One thing he did say was that if anyone 'crossed his path' he delights in taking out a CCJ against their previous address. No prizes for guessing why or for character evaluation.

 

I'm all for a complaint to the police as a starting point and then see where that leads although I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

What is written and how it is understood are 2 different things. SPML reserve the right to securitisition with the blessing of the FSA. The fraud part would apply to fees charged through invented arrears, not disclosing arrears breakdowns and not processing payments received and then claiming breach of contract/court order.

[Crapstone]

I'd like to see an end to the credit reference agencies that have put people into the prime/sub-prime catagories by info submitted by all and sundry, true or false, and charge you for your own information. It seems to be the only public thing you can't opt out of that are not government agencies or state run. OK. in some respects they are as they need the catagory on their CCL but they process thousands of pieces of info per day and you are forced to go to them to make any amendments.

[Crapstone]

EIE,

 

Defeatism isn't in my vocabulary. I too favour any approach but with caution. Going in feet first isn't going to do any of us any good until we have built up enough material against them as a group and not individually. That way if they claim their 'mistakes' are limited to one account, as they do, then you can call in a witness and beg to differ as systematic abuse.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning everyone...

 

I agree with Crapstone, that a joint action is the only answer. I know we all want our own cases/claims/complaints dealt with now....but how much better to be in a VERY strong position as a team, rather than an individual?

 

It is obvious that there are offence being committed by these people on a wholesale basis, and for the offender if there is only one complainant, then there is every chance of much more lenient treatment by the Courts, so all complaints must be gathered together.

 

So what is now required is to collate all of the complainants, and their complaints against the particular companies, [ I believe there may be just 2 companies, Swift Advances plc and GE Money], and then possibly to arrange a meeting of us all [?], to decide how to take this matter forwards and nominate the Police station and representative we would like to use. This could of course be one of us at this stage.

 

Any thoughts anyone.....?

 

I personally am keen to get this matter rolling, so have made a start in putting all of my papers together.

 

Best wishes to you all

 

 

Dougal

[iconoclash]

Okay, thanks JonCris, (Sorry Dougal got to post before mine hit the screen!) now how far can we stretch this Fraud Act in so far as getting the bank to disclose whether the mtg has been securitised or not? I have asked my Mortgage Lender, one of the High Street banks and they flatly refuse to tell me. I know they do and I know the general name of the company they use as the SPV.., whether it is xxx No1 Ltd or xxx No8 Ltd I really don't know, but they do it so I guess mine is amongst them. Now failing to disclose this information , apart from the CPR which is what I asked under when litigation was in progress, now that is finished maybe I can use the fact that they are effectively defrauding me into believing my Mtg is with them ? - defrauding?...deceiving?...misleading? Not sure...? Your thoughts would be welcome...

Ever thought about approaching an agent to supposedly BUY shares in xx No 1 or No 2 etc and be sent the data of content that way????

[iconoclash]

Hi - last year I put a claim into my local court under the Fraud Act to get monies back from an insurance company - they had used my bank card details to remove over £200 from my account as they decided that I owed it on some old policy - which I didnt. I'm just posting this as the court did not refuse the claim - however it did not get to a hearing as they soon coughed up! if I can contribute anything re my specious lender Oakwood will be with you - got a letter today from this outfit threatening to take me back into court for not arranging to pay off my arrears:mad: - so what the hell were we all doing in court in February then? - suspended repo given and legal costs agreed and now theyve added over £2k more in legal fees despite the DJ have assessed and rubber stamps that already?!!!! I spoke with the legal complaints people today and they say they will look at the third party solicitors behaviour in this case, that being Wragge & Co,acting for Oakwood.

[Smarterchick]

that being Wragge & Co,acting for Oakwood.

 

Wunch of bankers...

[Crapstone]

Dougal,

 

Count SPML into that as well as the other Lehman companies administered by Capstone. I'm all for meeting up like minded people to put the world to rights (or at least give it a bloomin' good try)...otherwise we are just banging our heads against a brick wall.

 

These companies tend to tie themselves in knots with their own lies tailored to suit so if we can show we are all getting different responses to similar situations they should have enough rope to hang themselves.

 

My lender is accusing me of breaking the court order by not paying. I did pay and sent them cheques which they denied receiving. They asked for proof the cheques were sent..that wasn't possible as I can't prove the contents of an envelope although I do have a witness. When they sent my SAR it clearly states they received one cheque, although they say it was 'unsigned,' which is a load of bull. They admit not returning it or sending out any letters to say as much and that they have 'lost' it. But as it was uncashed I am still in breach.

 

Capstone seem to have lost a lot of information and paperwork over the years. Is there anything that anyone had found that they actually do correctly?

 

'Wunch of Bankers'? They wouldn't know how if the instructions weren't on a screen in front of them. They can't even tell you their names most of the time.

[enoughisenough]

 

I had one who couldn't spell his own name!

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all,

 

I've had a very interesting response from Swift, I'll post it in the morning, basically I think I might have upset them by intimating that for Fraud it is not just the Company, but the person that sent the letter and the Directors of the company that could be sent to prison if found guilty.....!!

 

Kind regards to all

 

 

 

Dougal

ps : Don't forget a group action will be the answer, and we need to start organising this NOW.! Any thoughts anyone....

[enoughisenough]

Hi dougal

 

this is excellent news. Posting on a mobile but will respond more extensively later !

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all,

 

 

As promised the two letters received from Swift (in sequence of receipt),

I know what I think....any thoughts from anyone else please?

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

Dougal

Page 1 swift letter 1.doc

Page 1 swift letter 2.doc

Edited July 7, 2009 by Dougal16T
Removal of personal data.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Dougal

 

Unfortunately a bereavement has kept me away from the threads. I want to get back to business though.

 

Does the act have any retrospective effect whatsover? i.e. An act committed in 2005 which became an offence in 2006/7. the act continues to the extent that the gain and loss are still in evidence. Or is this just impossible?

[Dougal16T]

Hi EiE,

 

I am very sorry to hear of your sad loss. My thoughts are with you.

 

Turning to the question of Fraud, a Criminal act committed in, say 2004, which has just come to light and is a case of fraud, and as such would now be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

Hope this helps.

 

All the very best

Dougal

[Beck1968]

subbing

[enoughisenough]

Hi Dougal

 

That's unbelievably brilliant news. Thanks. Is there a Statutory Instrument of section within the act to this effect or was it in the commencement order?

 

So in suffering a loss then which I continue to be deprived the benefit of the very fact that there has been no voluntary restitution since the act makes them prosecutable or what ever the adverb is? That's right isn't it?

 

PS we need to revive this thread and keep it at the top of the board. Also have a gander around my EU thread!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/209359-eu-law-consumer-protections.html

 

Good to be back in touch.

[enoughisenough]

Testing Testing Testing...

 

I am using the Fraud Act this week...not yet on our sub prime friends but on a couple of low level scumbags.

 

This will test the water and I'll report back.

 

I'm absolutely confident that Dougal is right.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Folks!

 

Interesting Thread.

 

It strikes me that a similar line of attack should be used against one of the Credit Card bankers, say, MBNA for example.

 

There's little doubt they Securitise from day one, and ample evidence that thereafter they then work on boosting their cut from the Interest Strip they are allowed to keep over and above what they agree to send on to their SPV.

 

I don't have the actual figures to hand, but most MBNA Cards start on Interest in the mid-teens say, 15%. So, at a rough guess, they Securitise at a figure within striking distance of that say, 12% or something like that.

 

MBNA make 3% at the start, but anything above that they can keep.

 

No surprises then that MBNA Cards soon see interest rate and credit limit manipulation, to encourage payment problems, then charges, then interest rate ramping on the back of them...many people soon find themselves on 18%-25%, and many closer to 30% and the ones MBNA can see have been milked dry, end up on 35%.

 

They all do it, but if we pick on one that is very clearly doing it, nail them, then the others will be easier to take down thereafter.

 

Sorry to butt in, but it just struck me that we have so much evidence against MBNA, that they are prime targets for a group action based on the Fraud Act 2006.

 

I won't keep Posting on this Thread, but suggest when this Thread has gone a little further, it could be a good idea to start a sister Thread that uses the same tactics against a Credit Card bank.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[enoughisenough]

Hi BRW

 

Thanks for your excellent post. The act is framed so generally there is a strong and convincing basis for believing that it could be used on DCAs as well. These fraudsters are just that. Credit cards, personal loans, ppi, overdraft charges, mortgages, phone companies, power suppliers, the list is endless. Especially the dcas though. If I could get just one of these foul parasites banged up my life's work would be done...

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello EIE!

 

Indeed, nailing someone like MBNA who we can see, from the benefit of finding out about Securitisation to fully explain why they have behaved they way they so clearly have, could have great knock-on effects against many other groups, as you say, the list is endless indeed!

 

Happy to start a sister Thread, but maybe it would be best for now to let Dougal16T complete things here first.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[diddydicky]

Hello EIE!

 

Indeed, nailing someone like MBNA who we can see, from the benefit of finding out about Securitisation to fully explain why they have behaved they way they so clearly have, could have great knock-on effects against many other groups, as you say, the list is endless indeed!

 

Happy to start a sister Thread, but maybe it would be best for now to let Dougal16T complete things here first.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

looks like it falls to me (again) to be the bad fairy then- since no one seems to be doing the devils advocate bit

 

so here goes

 

I have no doubts at all about what has been highlighted - and it may well indeed turn out to be that someone unwittingly bo booed in the setting up of the act

 

BUT no one has mentioned the CRUCIAL bit- and that is that ALL that has been mentioned as acts which lead towards the "offence" are predicated on DISHONESTY- for dishonesty to be proved you would still have to prove an INTENT to act fraudulently

 

and that is where the real battle needs to be fought-

 

we are a capitalist society and making money or profit is not illegal - indeed it is encouraged and is the backbone of our financial system-

 

 

The apparently simple gap between a company carrying out its lawful right to engage in making a profit - to dishonestly seeking to defraud is i suggest not a Gap but a chasm (did i spell that right?)

 

so "all we have to do" to move the burden of proof from a civil to a criminal level of culpability- is to show that the making of money or profit ceased to be a "right" of the business in question and became a dishonest activity

 

as john cris has said- this means fighting the "establishment" right the way up the pariliament and the house of lords you will in effect be taking on a cartel of interested parties with all the financial and political clout at their disposal.

 

Such an action will be legally stonewalled for years and cost millions to prosecute this IMO would be an even bigger task then getting result on bank charges

 

anyone got the odd 10-20 million spare to take this on with?

 

Now, i'm quite prepared for the "usual suspects" to slag me off- but hey - you asked for a devils advocate- no one else seemed to have stepped up to the plate.

[diddydicky]

as the new football season approaches, my A**E will undoubtedly increase in size with all the pies i will be eating and therefore suitably prominent enough to show in burtons window if and when someone shows my arguments to be flawed

[enoughisenough]

It's a fair enough point. I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. An absolute mountain..but who would have thought that the banks would end up paying back an estimated 500 million and never having the confidence to take it head on in the courts on a case by case basis?

 

Nontheless your argument is flawed because irrespective of what parliament may or may not have intended that's the way the law is framed and only the law lords can ultimately decide differently.

 

I might add that it gets the odd dodgy practice halted forthwith whenever I've mentioned it. Oh and by the way 3000 posts near enough in 5 months. Where do you find the time?