Peter of England: A REal guru.

[littleFred]

It was the work of a satirist who wrote fictional accounts about dealing with inept public servants. I think the pen name was A Haddock.

See Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock.

[wanglepin]

But didn't Bertie Bert say you can write a cheque on the side of a cow?

and a snail

Yes and bertiebert has just confirmed again in a new WeRe bank thread

were success

by bertiebert » Tue May 26, 2015 6:34 pm

aarons1950 wrote:
Hope your Council Tax wasnt' to Southend Council.

Southend Council Notice


lol councils making accusations of fraud.. lets start with the councils themselves, and their fake "court " paperwork.. ,, then work our way through the issuing of the £...and the fraud of mortgages etc etc you can go on .. and on

cheques are instructions to your bank,, you can write a cheque on a snails back, if it contains the relevent details its ok...

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WSu1jTF98E

[NYGman]

Oh dear......

http://www.southendlearningnetwork.co.u ... _1421).pdf

Excellent. These fraud alerts will be passing between banks and public bodies. The net is closing around this dishonest enterprise.

Yes but did you notice, they said acceptign these cheques will result in a loss for the Council?

These cheques if presented to the bank will not be honoured, hence the Council will not receive the funds into our bank account and the council will incur a loss.

Why would that be, if these are fake, and the Council never got paid, isn't there still a liability that needs paying? If not, should they not go after either teh bank or the person submitting the cheque?

[littleFred]

I suppose the council incurs costs when it processes bad checks. Perhaps its own bank levies charges for this.

Yes, when WeRe don't pay the amount, the payer still owes the money.

[mufc1959]

I suppose the council incurs costs when it processes bad checks. Perhaps its own bank levies charges for this.

Yes, when WeRe don't pay the amount, the payer still owes the money.

If WeRe cheques are used for paying parking tickets, nowadays council car parks are usually operated by outside companies who've won a tender to run the service. So if a cheque is sent in payment of a parking ticket, the council may well then pay the parking company for its share of the parking fine. It'll then sustain a loss once it's established that the cheque is a fake as I doubt the likes of a parking company would be willing to reimburse the council once it's been paid. The council's bank also probably charges it for a returned cheque, if the council gets as far as trying to pay it into its bank.

[NYGman]

I suppose the council incurs costs when it processes bad checks. Perhaps its own bank levies charges for this.

Yes, when WeRe don't pay the amount, the payer still owes the money.

If WeRe cheques are used for paying parking tickets, nowadays council car parks are usually operated by outside companies who've won a tender to run the service. So if a cheque is sent in payment of a parking ticket, the council may well then pay the parking company for its share of the parking fine. It'll then sustain a loss once it's established that the cheque is a fake as I doubt the likes of a parking company would be willing to reimburse the council once it's been paid. The council's bank also probably charges it for a returned cheque, if the council gets as far as trying to pay it into its bank.

Yes, but in that case, would not the council true up the next payment due, resulting in a simple timing issue. I read it to mean that there is more lost than small fees.

[vampireLOREN]

I suppose the council incurs costs when it processes bad checks. Perhaps its own bank levies charges for this.

Yes, when WeRe don't pay the amount, the payer still owes the money.

And some inspired genius on this Goofy thread just posted that he is looking forward to the day the first WeRe member and PoE challenge a council in court! WONDERFUL me too ....me too!

[PeanutGallery]

I wonder what the reaction of GOODF will be if they saw Mr Broadbent's letter alleging that Peter's cheques are part of a fraud?

I have to say it's a remarkably accurate description of the scam and I also wonder if Mr Broadbent has read this thread when looking into WeRe bank.

[mufc1959]

Edited, because I am still jet lagged and my brain is running at GOODF level rather than full power.

[noblepa]

One thing I noticed on the images of WeRe cheques that have been posted is that it says "Pay ______________________________" rather than "Pay to the order of ________________".

Now, IANAL, and I am certainly not an expert on UK law or banking practices. However, in college accounting classes, I was taught that (at least in the US), the difference between the two choices of wording is that the latter may be endorsed over to someone else, like my own bank, while the former may not.

In the case of the former, it can only be paid directly to the payee by the bank that the funds are drawn on. IIRC, the big problem was that, if a check said "Pay Paul Noble" ten dollars, I could only cash it at the maker's bank. If I used a different bank, I could not deposit it in my account, because, by endorsing it, I am giving my bank authority to collect the money (Pay to the order of). My bank, in turn, pays me.

[littleFred]

In the UK, crossed cheques can only be paid into the payee's bank account. WeRe "cheques" are pre-printed as crossed, as is common practice.

[wanglepin]

I wonder what the reaction of GOODF will be if they saw Mr Broadbent's letter alleging that Peter's cheques are part of a fraud?

I have to say it's a remarkably accurate description of the scam and I also wonder if Mr Broadbent has read this thread when looking into WeRe bank.

Well this was bertiebert`s response

Re: were success
Postby bertiebert » Tue May 26, 2015 6:34 pm
lol councils making accusations of fraud.. lets start with the councils themselves, and their fake "court " paperwork.. ,, then work our way through the issuing of the £...and the fraud of mortgages etc etc you can go on .. and on

cheques are instructions to your bank,, you can write a cheque on a snails back, if it contains the relevent details its ok...

when up against this drivel,, write to Paul Broadbent of the said council, YOU CONTACT him By letter, RECORDED DELIVERY, and state that you need him to confirm in writing that [WeRe Bank] are comitting fraud by,,,,,,,under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury] and to state in a few lines why he believes WeRe bank is operating fraudulently, AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING BRING LEGAL ACTION......not against THE COUNCIL but against WeRe Bank...and you are calling HIM as a witness for the PROSECUTION....
Last edited by bertiebert on Tue May 26, 2015 7:21 pm, edited 5 times in total.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WTKWDTF98E

[IDIOT]

I wonder what the reaction of GOODF will be if they saw Mr Broadbent's letter alleging that Peter's cheques are part of a fraud?

I have to say it's a remarkably accurate description of the scam and I also wonder if Mr Broadbent has read this thread when looking into WeRe bank.

This one.

http://www.southendlearningnetwork.co.u ... 421%29.pdf

[Hercule Parrot]

Oh dear......

http://www.southendlearningnetwork.co.u ... _1421).pdf

Excellent. These fraud alerts will be passing between banks and public bodies. The net is closing around this dishonest enterprise.

Yes but did you notice, they said acceptign these cheques will result in a loss for the Council?

Poor phrasing, and it will provide a tendril of encouragement for the GOOFy's. They'll read this as meaning that if they 'pay' by a worthless werecheque then the debt won't subsequently be pursued. I think that would be a mistaken hope, but no doubt they'll try it anyway (because they're stupid and greedy).

[rumpelstilzchen]

bertiebert wrote:

lol councils making accusations of fraud.. lets start with the councils themselves, and their fake "court " paperwork.. ,, then work our way through the issuing of the £...and the fraud of mortgages etc etc you can go on .. and on

Even if for the sake of argument we were to agree that councils issue fake court paperwork, agree with Bertie about the creation of money and agree that all mortgages are fraudulent that does not alter the fact that the council's accusations about the WeRe cheques are correct.

[Hyrion]

These cheques if presented to the bank will not be honoured, hence the Council will not receive the funds into our bank account and the council will incur a loss.

Why would that be, if these are fake, and the Council never got paid, isn't there still a liability that needs paying?

Yes, there is still the outstanding liability. But that doesn't mean additional loss did not occur.

I was once dinged for an NSF (non sufficient funds) cheque. The post-secondary education institute I had enrolled in required post-dated cheques to cover the monthly payments. The secretary responsible for taking the cheques in monthly ended up including two cheques for me. The correct one for the month in question and the cheque that was dated a year later for the same month.

The bank charged me an NSF charge - I believe $15. Additionally the normal process for an NSF cheque provided to the institute incurred an additional charge (can't remember if it was $15 or more) - that would be a total of $30 (at least) hitting me when I missed 1 payment.

I've never followed up so I don't know the reality. But I wouldn't be surprised if an NSF service charge was dinged on both the payee and payer. $15 to both sides of the equation by the Bank. Since the payee wouldn't want to incur a cost for the mistake of the payer they could avoid their side of the cost by pushing it back to the payer. That would easily explain the standard agreement that generally included the payer to pay a service charge to the payee for any NSF cheques.

If the Council ends up pushing through one of those bogus cheques, they may very well be paying service charges on that. In that sense, they would be facing a loss even if the actual debt was still owed that could be recovered unless they could then push that extra cost back to the individual that signed one of those bogus cheques.

As an aside to complete my story (for those curious): The institute recognized the error was totally theirs. They not only waived their normal NSF charge but also paid for the NSF charge the Bank dinged me for. Since that experience I've refused to provide post-dated cheques to anyone and have always worked out other methods of payment where I didn't rely on the preciseness of the entity I was dealing with to avoid unnecessary costs.

[PeanutGallery]

bertiebert wrote:

lol councils making accusations of fraud.. lets start with the councils themselves, and their fake "court " paperwork.. ,, then work our way through the issuing of the £...and the fraud of mortgages etc etc you can go on .. and on

Even if for the sake of argument we were to agree that councils issue fake court paperwork, agree with Bertie about the creation of money and agree that all mortgages are fraudulent that does not alter the fact that the council's accusations about the WeRe cheques are correct.

The problem with the allegation that the courts issue fake paperwork, is that the courts have appointed Bailiffs to enforce those 'fake' warrants, those Bailiffs will if needed enlist the support of the Police who will use their power of arrest.

The reason they will do this is because the Police, Bailiffs and Courts don't believe the paperwork is fake and because they can't be disabused of that belief by the Bertie and his chums they will take steps to enforce it.

Of course their is some comedy in the notion that an individual like Bertie would attempt to pay a real debt that he thinks is fake, with a fake cheque that he thinks is real.

[NYGman]

That makes sense. Just a curious way to say it. Would have rather seen it say something like, accepting these checks will result in additional fees incured by the Council, resulting in a loss.

Now I am waiting for the GOOFy folk to say this is the issue. In that the checks are good, and if they are cashed, the account is cleared, and the Council will loose out on the right to collect. However, now the Corupt Councils, will unlawfully decline to accept these checks, as they know they will clear if they did.

Not saying this is right, just saying the way the letter is drafted, it can lead the GOOFy folk to make the asumption that the Council is attempting to stop valid checks from being deposited, as they are in league with the evil banks. And that those lucky enough to have them accepted have now cleared the debt.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Bertiebert appears to be suggesting that because (he thinks) the council commit fraud they do not have the authority to accuse anyone else of committing fraud. If we take that to its logical conclusion that would mean that somebody like Guy Taylor, who has served time for his fraudulent activities, has no right to accuse anybody else...such as B&B....of committing fraud.

[Hercule Parrot]

Well this was bertiebert`s response

Re: were success
Postby bertiebert » Tue May 26, 2015 6:34 pm
lwhen up against this drivel,, write to Paul Broadbent of the said council, YOU CONTACT him By letter, RECORDED DELIVERY, and state that you need him to confirm in writing that [WeRe Bank] are comitting fraud by,,,,,,,under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury] and to state in a few lines why he believes WeRe bank is operating fraudulently, AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING BRING LEGAL ACTION......

Another FMOTL fantasy phrase. There is no "full commercial liability", and the offence of perjury cannot apply in correspondence of this kind. I assume they've borrowed this bullsh1t attempt at a threatening phrase from the USA, perhaps it means something there?