Peter of England: A REal guru.

[littleFred]

I wouldn't criticise anyone for not knowing how to write a cheque. (At least, no more than I criticise myself for taking ages to learn how to pay bills on the interweberry thing.) I'm amused it took so long for Peter to explain how to do it.

Cindy Harris has claimed great success:

I've sent several cheques out and cleared ALL debts including my mortgage. Which is a relief cos I was threatened with a repossession order if I didn't pay the arrears in 21 days. I've paid the whole thing off instead!! It might be early days yet cos there's still time for them to be returned. The threatening letters seem to have stopped though and I'm beginning to relax again. BIG THANK YOU TO PETER!
· 28 April at 16:54 · Edited

Emily, I've paid off the Council Tax, South Yorkshire Water Authority, Virgin Media, a Credit Card Payment, Equita Debt Collectors and the Mortgage! Looks like they have all been cleared cos I posted them about 2 weeks ago. I've had confirmation from Virgin Media and my Credit Card agency.
· Yesterday at 01:20

But today she asks a question:

Just reading through the 'Notice of Protest' again. Sorry if this is a stupid question but what are we supposed to write in place of 'CD' and 'EF'? Today at 09:01

Now, I wonder why she wants to know this? Possibly, just possibly, something has bounced?

[exiledscouser]

Hello and good evening, first post after 'lurking' for many months.

And lurk I would further were it not for this thread which is fascinating, hugely enjoyable with just a guilty touch of Schadenfreude on my part.

The whole Weary Bank adventure is like looking at a very slow car crash where the result is inevitable yet you are powerless to intervene other than to watch helplessly from the sidelines.

Years ago there used to be a criminal scam with cheques known as 'cross-firing' whereby fraudsters discovered that a worthless cheque cleared half a day slower than the the paying-in slip that accompanied it. So the payee's account would receive funds just long enough to spank the ATM for all it was worth.

I'm guessing that because the Weary cheques don't conform to the usual standards (made up sort code etc) that there is a chance that a modern day opportunity for a similar occurrence.

I'm a little more charitable towards those (other than the usual suspects of die-hard Goofers) who might think this is some sort of financial miracle. They are often vulnerable to such schemes and although it is caveat emptor desperate folk will sometimes resort to desperate means.

The back-pedalling by BB and his fellow travellers at this early stage shows that they know the house of cards will come tumbling down. And the bank is promoted 'off-planet by aliens? Not just another flavour of "Banksters" but...wait for it...Interstellar Bankers! In offering to bail his scheme out they'll probably ask Peter if he has change for a Bleem. Bloody Space trash I say - where's Nigel Farrage when you need him?

Fly a million light years and first task on earth - team up with some fraudster. Sigh.

More seriously its just a shame that some, if not truly innocents, then certainly naive individuals get caught up in the final denouement. Hence my minor sense of guilt in following this.

It did cross my mind to join Goodf and add my two penneth but GWC has been far more subtle and has (so far) and to my amazement defied a ban. He must be a paid shill. No wait....

Anyway, I estimate about another two weeks before the size 10s will be heard clumping down Peter's driveway - its a pity that the old adage 'prevention is better than detection' is no longer the way plod seems to do things anymore - a lot of folk might be spared the anguish of getting even deeper into debt whilst paying for the privilege.

And to the earlier poster who suggested a Proceeds of Crime hearing - spot on although HMCTS don't accept Weary cheques.

[littleFred]

Welcome, exiledscouser.

As you may know, this forum is named after a fictional alien currency (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatloos.com), so is an apposite place to discuss Peter's fictional alien-assisted "Re".

[longdog]

And to the earlier poster who suggested a Proceeds of Crime hearing - spot on although HMCTS don't accept will dishonour Weary cheques.

Corrected for you

[notorial dissent]

I suspect that the ones who paid or paid off their credit card balances will have maybe a week, if that, before their cards are frozen or more likely closed. The ones who paid their mortgage arrears maybe slightly longer, but the end result will be even nastier when their account goes in to foreclosure. I figure it will take about 24 hours for the check to bounce and be returned to the card processor, and then maybe 24 hours after that the account will either be frozen or closed and the Goodfies will be wondering what happened. I know some banks here have direct processing agreements with the big banks, and can process on sight, and the turn around is immediate. The one thing I can say is that the end result will not be happy for the participants in this little flight of fancy.

[Hyrion]

The threatening letters seem to have stopped though and I'm beginning to relax again.

Artificial stress relief while avoiding reality...... sad.

I personally prefer to deal with reality and get rid of the unhappy stress in positive ways - like actually paying the bills with real money.

[mufc1959]

The ones who paid their mortgage arrears maybe slightly longer, but the end result will be even nastier when their account goes in to foreclosure.

If the lender's feeling generous, it might just unwind the arrears and ask them to be paid. But most mortgages in the UK have a clause that says the lender can demand immediately repayment of the entire loan if there's a good reason - and trying to pass a fake cheque is definitely a good reason. So someone who might only have had a couple of grand of arrears to pay off might end up having to refinance the entire loan. And as there'll be a CIFAS entry against them, no new lender will touch them with a bargepole. Bye-bye house. Hello Wormwood Scrubs.

[mufc1959]

As well as getting everything to do with accepting/dishonouring a cheque arse-backwards, Peter of England's interpretation of a notice of protest is also the complete opposite of its actual meaning.

He's telling people to serve the notice of protest on the payee's bank (that is, the real bank). In fact, a notice of protest is served by the drawee on the drawer's bank, protesting that the cheque's been dishonoured and demanding it be accepted.

He's even helpfully filled in a template.

Know all men that I, peter of england [householder/tenant/freeman], of 44 Laburnum Drive, Newcastle, Staffordshire ST8 2JT, in the county of Staffordshire, in the United Kingdom, at the request of WeRe Bank and Self, there being no notary public available, did on the day of 14thOctober 2015, at BARCLAYS BANK/NATIONAL WESTMINSTER etc, registered place of business, demand acceptance of the bill of exchange hereunder written, from BARCLAYS BANK/NATIONAL WESTMINSTER etc, to which demand he made answer [state answer, if any] wherefore I, peter of england, now, in the presence of Witness 1__________________ and _______________________________________________[Witness 2] do within the proscribed period, being within 3 days of being informed by PAYEE, do protest the said bill of exchange as per PART V SUPPLEMENTARY Sections 90 –94 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as well as the UN Convention 1988 on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

Pleeeease could GWC or someone point this out to the numpties on GOODF?

[notorial dissent]

I don't know what the law is in the UK, but I do know that in many jurisdictions in the US writing a bad check for a significant amount, i.e. enough to pay off your mortgage or card debt, with what is effectively the intent to deceive and defraud, since the individual SHOULD know that the REchecks are worthless turns in to a felony matter almost immediately. Stupidity and gullibility are not mitigating factors. I can unfortunately see a great number of these fools finding themselves in the dock over this, completely clueless as to how it all happened.

I'm just hoping that Peter is one of them sooner rather than later.

[PeanutGallery]

Welcome, exiledscouser.

As you may know, this forum is named after a fictional alien currency (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatloos.com), so is an apposite place to discuss Peter's fictional alien-assisted "Re".

I wonder if, in the spirit of the episode referenced, we should wager on when the scam will come tumbling down. I'll start with 50 Quatloos/Re on Wednesday.

[littleFred]

I would bet on, not a single identifiable tumble, but a gradual series of events. Suckers will get their rubber cheques back, and will "protest for dishonour". That may have already started. Clearing houses will realise there is no point in asking WeRe Bank to honour the cheques, so the speed of rejection will increase. Major suppliers will figure out that WeRe cheques are useless, and will immediately reject them.

I expect FCA action to be slower, and police action to be much slower. Perhaps WeRe will be in the FCA list of Unauthorised firms and individuals to avoid by Wednesday but I think a month is more realistic.

Meanwhile, Peter has many more schemes up his sleeve and will continue to rake in new members, and continue selling chequebooks for another couple of months at least. We won't hear about any legal cases for six months or more.

[grixit]

Question: would a lender be able to ask the courts for an expedited foreclosure on the grounds that the debtor's obvious bad faith raised fears concerning the status of the collateral?

[Bill Lumbergh]

Welcome to Q exiledscouser!

Are you a red or a blue?

[longdog]

As well as getting everything to do with accepting/dishonouring a cheque arse-backwards, Peter of England's interpretation of a notice of protest is also the complete opposite of its actual meaning.

Pleeeease could GWC or someone point this out to the numpties on GOODF?

It has been done countless times but you might as well be talking to yourself. They either repeat the same Bills of Exchange / Lord Denning crap or the ban-hammer falls... or both. A total waste of time.

I don't know what the law is in the UK, but I do know that in many jurisdictions in the US writing a bad check for a significant amount, i.e. enough to pay off your mortgage or card debt, with what is effectively the intent to deceive and defraud, since the individual SHOULD know that the REchecks are worthless turns in to a felony matter almost immediately.

We don't have the felony / misdemeanour thing in the UK but the scale of the offence is a factor on whether the trial will be before a magistrate with a relatively small punishment or a judge and jury with somewhat more serious sentence on the cards.

You might find this fairly interesting. I won't bother paraphrasing as it's a quick read but I have to say PoE looks to be facing some serious jail time.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... sentation/

Stupidity and gullibility are not mitigating factors. I can unfortunately see a great number of these fools finding themselves in the dock over this, completely clueless as to how it all happened.

Again... covered by the above link.

I'm just hoping that Peter is one of them sooner rather than later.

Agreed.

[longdog]

Question: would a lender be able to ask the courts for an expedited foreclosure on the grounds that the debtor's obvious bad faith raised fears concerning the status of the collateral?

Common sense if not the law would suggest that an attempt to defraud the lender would be a pretty much cut and dry reason to call in the debt but in reality I suspect the banks deal with quite a few of these crackpot schemes and will initially try to get the borrower to see sense and bring their payments up to date with actual currency. If the GOOFY forums show us anything it is that the lenders are often a damn sight more tolerant towards cranks than perhaps they ought to be and will always give people at least a second and third chance.

If the punter tries to persevere with the claim-your-free-house routine however the lender is almost certainly going to be a hell of a lot less sympathetic towards them than they are to somebody who is genuinely in difficulty and trying to deal with things in a logical and rational way.

But I'm not a lawyer

[ArthurWankspittle]

Question: would a lender be able to ask the courts for an expedited foreclosure on the grounds that the debtor's obvious bad faith raised fears concerning the status of the collateral?

I think you couldn't claim the above in English law. However, any judge will be more sympathetic to someone who hasn't managed to pay their agreed arrears, but has tried, than someone who comes along with a rubber cheque. It could be the difference between another court hearing ( = 3 more months away) or now for a possession order. Plus the judge could refer it to the Police, and they will automatically take it seriously compare with someone off the street saying I think there's some mortgage fraud going on here.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I had an interesting thought earlier today. Pete's get out is that all the promissory notes were valueless. "I was trying to start a bank but everyone gave me duff promissory notes." He just needs to accuse all his punters of fraud and he's only broken some banking regulations.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I had an interesting thought earlier today. Pete's get out is that all the promissory notes were valueless. "I was trying to start a bank but everyone gave me duff promissory notes."

The one thing the suckers are missing is that Peter states on his website that all promissory notes must be treated as cash (as per the usual Denning gibberish) but he is not treating the notes as cash himself. You cannot withdraw cash from the WeRe bank. He is breaking his own rules.
It would be a tad hypocritical of him to say the notes are duff when his website says they should be treated as though they are cash, but I wouldn't put it past him.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I think you couldn't claim the above in English law. However, any judge will be more sympathetic to someone who hasn't managed to pay their agreed arrears, but has tried, than someone who comes along with a rubber cheque. It could be the difference between another court hearing ( = 3 more months away) or now for a possession order. Plus the judge could refer it to the Police, and they will automatically take it seriously compare with someone off the street saying I think there's some mortgage fraud going on here.

Attempting to pay off a mortgage with a rubber cheque is one thing, but attempting to pay it off with a rubber cheque drawn on a bank that doesn't even exist is.....well, surely that is a matter for the police?

[mufc1959]

lenders are often a damn sight more tolerant towards cranks than perhaps they ought to be and will always give people at least a second and third chance.

That's because there's a Pre-Action Protocol that mortgage lenders have to comply with before a court will grant a possession order. Court action has to be the last resort.

I wonder what would happen if, next month, all the people who've now had their cheque books pay their £10 a month sub to WeRe bank using a WeRe bank cheque? What will Peter do? He can't very well say "er, thanks, but could you pay me in real money please?"