talkmagic.co.uk

I think that it is possible that the loophole exists because it is not the lender or credit card issuer that chases you for the outstanding amount on your account, it's an agent that they have passed the debt, or collection of that debt onto.

Therefore, if the agent cannot then prove within the timeframe that the debt is owed then they cannot legally collect it. Often they onloy have an instruction on who to chase and they don't possess or have access to the proof that is being asked for.

I also suspect that this would also work only if you too appoint an agent to handle the matter on your behalf.

All too often, those who are acting as agents rely on the people not knowing their rights and being frightened into paying.

The argument that money has no value and that credit is created by us is a valid one but pointless.

Yes fractional systems are a complete con, the cause of inflation and a general numerical nonsense... or to look at it from the position of the major private financial institutions (Bank of England, Federal Reserve etc.) it's a damn good business model.

Yes our currency is a fiat currency, largely because the economic requirement for currency outweighs the value of everything, including all the gold in the world.

I think your arguments are very clever and yes credit companies may have their dark side, however if people wish to spend more money than they have then they should have more sense. The arguement that the money never existed in the first place is a moot point as it is not the intrinsic value that is important but the economic and legal existance and value that is important.

Although the credit is created by the signeé, this too is irrelevant as the ultimate debt lies with the company providing the facility, i.e. if someone raises credit and then never repays due to not having facility to do so, the ultimate responsibility lies with the credit provider. For a someone to create credit in their name is all well and good but it is the third party security (the credit company) that actually provides ANY financial viability of that signature credit.

If you come to the checkout in the supermarket and write them an IOU, although this is effectively the same thing, they will not accept it due to the credit risk posed by accepting a promisary note from an entity that has no financial viability in their eyes.

The credit slips being used as a financial instrument is hilarious and not something I had ever really considered before but I think it's unlikely they will start accepting it in the local Tesco either.

Interesting to read, amusing to annoy with but completely groundless so far as validity of arguement goes I would suspect.

I didn't realise this would cause such a stir. My intention was not to cause a debate. However, some interesting points have been raised, and I'll try to address those, in whatever limited way I can.

My understanding is this - because we are not told that it is our signature that creates the value on a credit agreement, and we are not told that the credit companies do not bring equal consideration to the agreement, that constitutes a fraud perpetrated against me. The Fraud Act 2006 is very clear on this:

"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

(c) 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). "

It seems clear to me that they are guilty of fraud by false representation.

If someone committed fraud against you would you not use any means at your disposal to remedy that?

Secondly, as should be clear from the Notices, I am not trying to wriggle out of payment. Acceptance for Value is a perfectly lawful means of paying for things. There is a whole act (The English Bills of Exchange Act 1882) that regulates how one is to use these financial instruments. Remember that these financial instruments, issued in our name, are extremely valuable. They are gathered into bundles of £30,000, sent to Euroclear (a company that deals in securities) where they are monetarised. Your cash payment is recorded as a 'gift'. They use the remittances to be paid twice!

Furthermore, if the credit bandit could not accept my financial instrument as payment then why did they not return it? In fact, in accordance with the law, by not returning it they have accepted it. Don't forget, the bandits use these laws to their own advantage, using unscrupulous and downright fraudulent methods to conduct their business. There is nothing that says we cannot use these same laws for our own benefit.

Secondly, with the Notice of Conditional Acceptance, I am accepting liability for the claim provided they can prove the validity of their claim, which is not unreasonable. If they can provide the validity of their claim then I will settle with all due speed. If they can't prove the validity of their claim then any attempt to enforce it is fraudulent.

This isn't about pulling scams, or getting things for free, it is about taking responsibility for ourselves and not letting ourselves be deluded into thinking that we have to be slaves to a system we had not part in creating.

I also suspect that this would also work only if you too appoint an agent to handle the matter on your behalf.

You may have noticed that I sign the Notices as the Agent & Administrator for MR GARY DICKSON. I have a commercial security agreement between my strawman and the flesh and blood blessed living soul which names me as the authorised agent and representative for MR GARY DICKSON.

And.... if I may ask, again... How did your boyfriend run up the debts in question? (legal or not?)

Gary Dickson wrote:This isn't about pulling scams, or getting things for free, it is about taking responsibility for ourselves and not letting ourselves be deluded into thinking that we have to be slaves to a system we had not part in creating.

But aren't you supporting this system (even if you didn't create it) by using credit cards in the first place...? I'm also intrigued by this Gary but ultimately, you or your boyfriend or whoever enjoyed the products or services that the credit card enabled you to procure. That significantly weakens your moral or revolutionary argument about which bit of signed paper can or can't be used to repay the debt in many people's eyes...

Well, to be honest I'm not sure and neither is he! They're from before I met him. At the time he was young, impressionable and suffering from clinical depression.

I know that one of them was a phone contract, which he did not understand at the time of signing and the other one is from a bank.

In any event, as the Agent & Administrator for the account, I'm not interested in whether the alleged debtor made use of their services, but whether they have a valid claim against him. Upon proof of valid claim, the account will be settled.

To be honest, I'm unimpressed with attempts to get out of an agreement. If someone signs a credit agreement, either for a phone or a bank loan, they are accepting the debt.

I think, ethically and morally, you are on very thin ice.

Take care, Ian

You claim the credit card companies are perpetrating a fraud by not telling you this information however I'd hazard a guess that if you were to look through the small print on your contract it woud all be there.

As to the whole agent and administrator of your legal fiction b*ll*cks, it holds no water when actually looked at by the law. It's just pseudo legal babble. Anyone claiming legal knowledge without a serious understanding of it is just setting themselves up for a bad run in when someone actually tests their claims in court.

brilliant!

but of course, as you do know, something is defined as legal or not through a higher court of record. Not by reading an act of parliament. The act that you refer to is quite clear, but I'm sure you recall the case of the mother who was found not guilty under that law by a court of record despite many legal professionals, having read the fraud act, asserting that the opposite was the case.

the only minor problem with your action, is that if feckless spendthrifts insist on asserting their rights with banks and reduce banks' revenue through their pernicious (eg) overdraft fees, it means that those of us who do practice proper money management will ultimately be hit by the withdrawl of free banking as the banks (and card companies) try other avenues to maintain their profits.

Harry Guinness wrote:You claim the credit card companies are perpetrating a fraud by not telling you this information however I'd hazard a guess that if you were to look through the small print on your contract it woud all be there.

As to the whole agent and administrator of your legal fiction b*ll*cks, it holds no water when actually looked at by the law. It's just pseudo legal babble. Anyone claiming legal knowledge without a serious understanding of it is just setting themselves up for a bad run in when someone actually tests their claims in court.

You seem to be quite aggressive in your denial of the validity of my claims. People are testing these cases in court, I know of one individual who has made a successful commercial injury claim against a credit bandit to the tune of £120,000. I have seen the court order issued by the judge ordering the credit card company to pay, so your assertion that these remedies don't work is simply false.

Again, I would like to make it clear I am not trying to get out of paying. I used a perfectly lawful method to pay my credit bill using the financial instrument issued by the company. Read that again, I have used a lawful method to pay the credit card bill pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act. It's not my problem if the bandits don't want to accept a lawful specie of money.

With the conditional acceptance I'm simply asking for proof of claim. As I have already stated, if they can prove their claim the account will be settled. If they can't prove their claim, pursuant to the law, then they have no business making it.

but of course, as you do know, something is defined as legal or not through a higher court of record

for me, its more the moral side of things - people borrow or spend what they've not got, a choice...and then they use a loop hole to get out of it...

yet its the very same thing we decry big businesses for, for avoiding paying their taxes and stuff...weird huh!

IAIN wrote:for me, its more the moral side of things - people borrow or spend what they've not got, a choice...and then they use a loop hole to get out of it...

yet its the very same thing we decry big businesses for, for avoiding paying their taxes and stuff...weird huh!

I don't see how I'm being unethical and to be honest I'm getting a little tired of saying the same thing over and over again, but.....

In one instance, I settled the account using a perfectly lawful method. I have paid and they have dishonoured the payment. I haven't wriggled out of anything, I used a financial instrument in a lawful manner to settle the account.

In the second instance I am merely asking for proof of claim, and I'm not asking for unreasonable things. They're all things the debt bandit is lawfully required to have in order to enforce the claim. As soon as they provide proof of claim I will settle the account in the most expedient fashion.

You know, I really don't understand what the controversy is about. I have lawfully settled one debt and am seeking the means to settle another.

I'm getting a little tired of saying the same thing over and over again

The trouble is that you are using deliberately vague and obscure language to describe what you have done. Unless you paid your credit card bill with sterling and they declined it I will maintain my opinion that you are trying to weasel out of your obligations.

Try, once, to explain your case in plain language without obfuscation and legalese. Then maybe people won't think you are quite so contemptable.

Ian

I have to say that I've found this a most interesting thread to read and that everything that Gary has written is indeed plausable.

There are of course moral issues about running up debt that can;t be afforded but quite often the moral issues are set apart from the legal issues and there are many examples to illustrate this. Most are in favour of corporations rather than the public that they serve.

Corporations are renowned for using various legal instruments to their advantage where one would have quite rightly thought that what they are doing is immoral. I personally don't see any reason why the same instruments shouldn't be used against them, particularly where they may have disadvantaged someone who is, or could be vulnerable.

In my view it's a bit like the banks making unfair and unregulated charges against people who go into the red without having an authorised overdraft. Millions of people were charged up to £30 a time for a computer generated letter costing only a few pounds and banks were running four or five of these into peoples account several times each month.

When a bank doesn't pay a standing order for £10 beause of insufficient funds but then charges you £60 which they do pay to themselves is perhaps an example of one rule for one and another rule for someone else.

The anarchist in me thinks that it's about time that people start using the law for their own advantage in stead or rolling over because some corporate tells them to.

Gary Dickson wrote:I don't see how I'm being unethical and .....

I'm not sure, but I think in terms of utility then your actions may be morally questionable. How many people would benefit and how many would be disadvantaged, I wonder?. I'm struggling to see how the greatest happiness test could be applied to this scenario; I suspect that ultimately entering into a bargain only to effect some advantage by arguing that the bargain never happened would harm more people than it benefited. But I accept that I've not thought it through properly. Much as I like the idea of the freeman and the concepts of this dualism.

If we take one of the ethical tests of what would happen if everyone did the action, then ultimately it may not matter but in the interim it would be deleterious to the corporation that, in effect, loaned you something in good faith. While it is true that a corporation can never die, the body of people that comprise the corporation (? corpus ?) certainly do and it is the people that suffer harm.

I'd be interested to understand how this approach is defended: much is made on this forum about nicking ideas and i think that there is some parallel about doing something legal which ultimately does harm (like reading a book in a shop rather than purchasing it). Having said that, I freely confess to being an amoral scamp and wilfully treat WH Smiths like a library.