Peter of England: A REal guru.

[mufc1959]

This little gem now appears on the WeRe Bank website:

http://www.werebank.co.uk/payee-presentment/

PAYEE – PRESENTMENT
All PAYEES note well:

ENDORSEMENT

All payee’s must make presentment to WeRe Bank at its publicized mailing address within the proscribed period.

In order for WeRe Bank to accept [become acceptor] cheques for clearing, in line with conventional banking practice, the holder must endorse the cheque, preferably on the reverse side. Failing such endorsement the cheque will/may be returned to PAYEE.

Apart from not knowing the difference between 'prescribed' and 'proscribed', he's now added a requirement, not contained in the 'allonge' nonsense document, that the cheques have to be endorsed or WeRe Bank will return them unpaid. He doesn't explain how the payee is meant to know this.

But if WeRe Bank returns the cheque to the payee, the drawer will become immediately liable for the debt. But Peter doesn't understand this. As he's already explained, in his mind, an unpaid cheque means the drawer 'walks free and clear'.

Oh dear, this is all going to go horribly, deliciously, wrong.

[littleFred]

Back in the old days, that's how cheques worked. The payee's bank would endorse the back and pass it to the drawer's bank. The bank would pay the money and pass the cheque back to the drawer. Every month, I would get my paper statement wrapped around all the cheques I had written, covered in various stamps, mostly on the back. This would be in the late 1970s.

These days it is all digital data (under BoE 1882 s74B, see also Cheque Processing Overview), but the drawee bank can still ask for the physical cheque (to check for forgery or whatever) before deciding to pay out.

These convolutions are created by Peter to cover the remote possibility that a cheque gets through the clearing process and ends up at WeRe Bank, for him to pay. He can say it hasn't been endorsed with a wet-ink signature in the correct colour at the correct angle, so he doesn't need to pay it. Then (according to his misreading of everything) the WeRe Bank has no liability and nor does the drawer.

[mufc1959]

Looking at this purely from Peter of England's standpoint, a 'non-endorsed' cheque is going to be the better outcome for him. He can tell his customer that, because the cheque's not endorsed, WeRe Bank doesn't have to pay it and the customer is now 'free and clear' of any debt. Having to actually pay the cheque is likely to be the start of a whole world of pain for Peter of England because WeRe Bank has no money.

And as we in the real world know, if the cheque's returned, the customer is then immediately on the hook. Not WeRe Bank. Not Peter of England. He has no liability to pay the debt whatsoever.

He will, of course, blame the inevitable backlash from his angry customers on the corruption of the banking system in failing to accept the 'promissory note' as cash in this world of banking that only he understands and knows how to operate. Maybe his customers will be generous and accept his assertions that none of this is his fault. But perhaps people will start asking the questions they should have asked before they paid him their (real) money for this book of magic beans cheques that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

[NYGman]

I wonder if you can pay him by DD then do a clawback later, as they obviously received nothing of value?

[wanglepin]

If the attitude of the financial regulation bodies is "any problem isn't our concern" then maybe the banks deserve to lose some money through this werebank scam. It will teach them a lesson about complacency.

I feel it maybe a case of - `it won`t be` - the banks problem. They simply won’t honour these cheques or let anyone draw cash on them thereby losing nothing. It will be then down to the Utility Companies to take the fraudsters paying with the dodgy cheques to court to claim their payment for services provided.. But Peter believes this will be, ‘The Court of Peter `.

[wanglepin]

Maybe his customers will be generous and accept his assertions that none of this is his fault. But perhaps people will start asking the questions they should have asked before they paid him their (real) money for this book of magic beans cheques that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Ahh, you see that is the trouble with Freeman Sov forums, you don't really get a chance to allay your genuine concerns, suspicion or worry towards some harebrained scheme scam, dreamed up by the likes of bertiebert, Ceylon /Mark Haining or Peter of England. That would all fall under "negitivity" which inevitably leads to a ban.

[longdog]

I have this little voice at the back of my head in the part of my brain that hasn't been killed by red wine saying that the courts will hold that any attempt to pay a debt, even with a rubber / magic-pixie-dust cheque is an acknowledgement of the debt which will make it very hard to dispute the validity of the debt further down the line.

Given that the Goofers refuse to admit the legitimacy of councils, governments, utility companies, anyone they owe moneys too bills this could pose a problem to their whole worldview.

Creditor: "Please pay the £1000 you owe us."
Goofer: "I don't acknowledge the debt."
Creditor: "Then why did you try to pay it with a duff cheque?"
Goofer: "Because I knew the cheque was worthless."
Creditor: "OK"

RING-RING... RING-RING...

Creditor: "Hello... Is that the fraud squad?"

On the matter of how long it will take before this whole charade collapses around their ears my other functioning brain-cell reminds me that even back in the late 1990s, so pretty much pre-electronicinterwebs, the medium sized company I worked for had some form of online access to their bank account and 'paid in' cheques electronically with the actual cheque itself only being taken to the bank if and when anybody could be arsed or Friday lunch whichever came first. Given that the company was forever pleading poverty I very much doubt they would've delayed being paid unless they really had to. If way back then a small(ish) company was doing their own "pre-clearing", for want of a better word, I would imagine that 15 years on multi-national utilities are unlikely to send the office junior down the bank every week with a sack full of cheques.

[Bones]

I don't think any of the numpties want to be the first to try using the cheques. I hope one of them does it soon, the suspense is killing me, I want to see how the numpties will react and what excuses they will dream up

[PeanutGallery]

I think some of them have probably sent the cheques off (certainly their have been postings from various members to this extent). However the issue will be that the companies or departments they are sending the cheques too might not at first sight realise that this is a bogus cheque, until it gets returned back to them from their bank, then they'll have to find out who's account it was.

Of course in the interim period they may receive receipts or acknowledgements that they received the cheque. Which will only spur the GooF into writing and sending out more.

I think we may have to wait a couple of weeks for this scheme to fall down.

[wanglepin]

I don't think any of the numpties want to be the first to try using the cheques. I hope one of them does it soon, the suspense is killing me,

by bertiebert » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:45 pm
....chequebook and allonges slips arrived (chequebook looks very nice indeed), next week the first cheques will be sent out.....cheques to be used to pay.. council tax,TV licence, student loans, parking fines, for the paying of all your PUBLIC liabilities GAS WATER ELECTRIC (its all prepaid anyway)– HMRC, VAT, Council Tax, Speeding and Motoring Fines, all court fines and utilities. Private payments can be made between consenting parties.

Consenting parties? I don't believe all the above mentioned will have consented to being conned.

That post is followed up by a complete idiot who tells us;

by ThamesMan » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:08 pm
I sent 4 cheques out today, one to EON, one to Water company, two to council.
So far I've had good value for my £35.....At the very least we will learn something from this, even if it's only, I'm a gullible twatt

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... TnakDTF98E

[rumpelstilzchen]

This little gem now appears on the WeRe Bank website:

http://www.werebank.co.uk/payee-presentment/

PAYEE – PRESENTMENT
All PAYEES note well:

ENDORSEMENT

All payee’s must make presentment to WeRe Bank at its publicized mailing address within the proscribed period.

In order for WeRe Bank to accept [become acceptor] cheques for clearing, in line with conventional banking practice, the holder must endorse the cheque, preferably on the reverse side. Failing such endorsement the cheque will/may be returned to PAYEE.

Apart from not knowing the difference between 'prescribed' and 'proscribed', he's now added a requirement, not contained in the 'allonge' nonsense document, that the cheques have to be endorsed or WeRe Bank will return them unpaid. He doesn't explain how the payee is meant to know this.

But if WeRe Bank returns the cheque to the payee, the drawer will become immediately liable for the debt. But Peter doesn't understand this. As he's already explained, in his mind, an unpaid cheque means the drawer 'walks free and clear'.

Oh dear, this is all going to go horribly, deliciously, wrong.

Hhmm. Peter mentions the "proscribed" period. I wonder if he is aware of this:

Is it true that cheques are only valid for six months?

No. A cheque is valid for as long as the debt between the two parties (i.e. issuer and payee) exists. In other words, cheques don’t have an expiration date. However, it is common banking practice to reject cheques that are over six months old to protect the payer, in case the payment has been made another way or the cheque may have been lost or stolen.

This timeframe is at the discretion of individual banks. It should not be assumed that cheques older than six months old would automatically be rejected – the only certain way to cancel a cheque is to request that a stop be placed on it. It is recommended that, if possible, customers in possession of cheques that are more than six months old obtain a replacement.

Where there is a dispute, a cheque remains legally valid in order to prove a debt for a period of six years, which is the Statute of Limitations.

http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/resour ... _clearing/

[NYGman]

by bertiebert » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:45 pm
....chequebook and allonges slips arrived (chequebook looks very nice indeed), next week the first cheques will be sent out.....cheques to be used to pay.. council tax,TV licence, student loans, parking fines, for the paying of all your PUBLIC liabilities GAS WATER ELECTRIC (its all prepaid anyway)– HMRC, VAT, Council Tax, Speeding and Motoring Fines, all court fines and utilities. Private payments can be made between consenting parties.

Question, how long will it be before these GOOFs with checkbooks decide to write each other checks for large amounts. Since they are using the checkbooks, it would make sense they consent, so why not write each other checks for £100,000 and deposit it in a real bank. Afterall, they believe these things are real, so what would prevent them for doing this? Heck, they could probably write themselves a check, as I am sure they would consent themselves.

[littleFred]

If WeRe was a real bank that would be just fine. I used to write cheques to myself as a method of transferring funds between bank accounts. Sadly this didn't magic up money from thin air.

As Peter can't magic up money and won't honour cheques, WeRe suckers will accomplish nothing by writing cheques to each other or themselves. But it would be fun to watch them try.

[NYGman]

Maybe we will find out, sooner than later:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 73#p379335

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect the first klangs of doom, and bounced check notices, will start hitting late next week, that should be about proper turn around time for them to have come back from the depositing banks and the assorted book keeping departments to send notices. Gov't entities may be a bit slower, but probably not by much. Then the fun will really start.

[mufc1959]

Maybe we will find out, sooner than later:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 73#p379335

OMG, that thread is hilarious. GWC is stirring the pot and probably secretly hoping skintbloke will write the £150K cheque to his partner. As are all of us here...

[vampireLOREN]

Maybe we will find out, sooner than later:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 73#p379335

I really think Skintbroke is writing this for a joke
But..... if he is really that stupid I hope he goes ahead.
There is a Lunatic posting on Tom Crawfords latest video offering to pay off his mortgage .

[ArthurWankspittle]

by bertiebert » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:45 pm
....chequebook and allonges slips arrived (chequebook looks very nice indeed), next week the first cheques will be sent out.....cheques to be used to pay.. council tax,TV licence, student loans, parking fines, for the paying of all your PUBLIC liabilities GAS WATER ELECTRIC (its all prepaid anyway)– HMRC, VAT, Council Tax, Speeding and Motoring Fines, all court fines and utilities. Private payments can be made between consenting parties.

One thing these geniuses appear to have overlooked is that the UK energy and utility suppliers are companies not government bodies.
For now, I'm going to hold back the other comment I was going to make about "skintbloke".

[vampireLOREN]

Maybe we will find out, sooner than later:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 73#p379335

OMG, that thread is hilarious. GWC is stirring the pot and probably secretly hoping skintbloke will write the £150K cheque to his partner. As are all of us here...

What a nice bloke skintbroke is
his wife had a lucky day when she met him .

[littleFred]

I'll refrain from commenting on what some posters may or may not be doing.

I will say that Peter sells this as a way of stiffing creditors. "Don't fight it -- pay it", ie pay with a WeRe cheque. The bank pays nothing, the debtor pays nothing, and the creditor receives nothing but somehow, by the power of junk magic, the creditor can no longer claim the debt is unpaid.

This is the logic of Peter's proposition, and is why GOOFers love it.

Given this proposition, it is obvious that GOOFers paying each other or themselves won't work. This is why Peter "advises" against it, and the smarter GOOFers support that view.