Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[mufc1959]

Morning all, Happy New Year. This situation is going to end well for gups. As he rightly points out, ignoring these letters results in a revoked licence.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... oeM3fmLTDc

My first speeding offence I was court by a speed camera doing 37 in a 30 zone. It was RTSANR straight away haven't heard anything since. I then received another one however I have not been able to work out what it is exactlty. I have just searched the post code and it is from the traffic criminal justice. My car is registered in my name but i am using a correspondence address hence the RTSANR approach. However my only fear is from hearing other cases of the DVLA revoking licenses of those who do not respond to these letters. I need my licence for work. Has anybody got any advice for me in regards to this.

[Joinder]

Morning all, Happy New Year. This situation is going to end well for gups. As he rightly points out, ignoring these letters results in a revoked licence.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... oeM3fmLTDc

My first speeding offence I was court by a speed camera doing 37 in a 30 zone. It was RTSANR straight away haven't heard anything since. I then received another one however I have not been able to work out what it is exactlty. I have just searched the post code and it is from the traffic criminal justice. My car is registered in my name but i am using a correspondence address hence the RTSANR approach. However my only fear is from hearing other cases of the DVLA revoking licenses of those who do not respond to these letters. I need my licence for work. Has anybody got any advice for me in regards to this.

The obvious advice is "pay the fine" especially if you need the licence for work.
Hopefully that is not the advice that will be offered

[longdog]

Morning all, Happy New Year. This situation is going to end well for gups. As he rightly points out, ignoring these letters results in a revoked licence.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... oeM3fmLTDc

My first speeding offence I was court by a speed camera doing 37 in a 30 zone. It was RTSANR straight away haven't heard anything since. I then received another one however I have not been able to work out what it is exactlty. I have just searched the post code and it is from the traffic criminal justice. My car is registered in my name but i am using a correspondence address hence the RTSANR approach. However my only fear is from hearing other cases of the DVLA revoking licenses of those who do not respond to these letters. I need my licence for work. Has anybody got any advice for me in regards to this.

For the sake of a £60 fine and 3 points

[hobgoblin]

For the sake of a £60 fine and 3 points

It's been £100 for a couple of years now, but that speed would usually result in a speed awareness course for about £80 and no points.

However if he goes down the "Addressee Not Recognised" route he will be in for a whole world of trouble. If he doesn't respond he will be charged with "failure to furnish the name of the driver", [s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988] which means he will get 6 points and a huge fine. All this will be done in his absence if he doesn't respond to these letters, then when he doesn't send his licence in to have the points added it WILL be revoked, and he will have to pay the fine before he gets it back.

[PeanutGallery]

Oh it gets worse, he's been advised by Vanreet to have a read of JimmyW's thread on dealing with the DVLA. I suppose it goes to show that in the land of the brain dead the one-celled man is king.

[Hercule Parrot]

The DVLA revoking your licence does not mean a great deal because they have NO powers to ban anyone, only a court can do this.

This sort of stupidity should be detected by the interconnection of motor insurance database (http://stayinsured.askmid.com/about-askMID.html), MOT database (http://www.mot-test.net/computerisation/) and DVLA driver licensing database. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen, certainly not as quickly or reliably as it should. Reckless idiots like OneCell can drive around unlicensed, uninsured or whatever for months, sometimes years, before the system catches them.

[Bones]

Santander (UK) Plc v Carlin & Anor [2013] NICh 14 (19 September 2013)
http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Ch/2013/14.html

Carlin v Santander (UK) Plc and R.G.Sinclair [2013] NIQB 136 (17 December 2013)
http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2013/136.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35316087

Policeman to stand trial for contempt over 'judge arrest threat'

A policeman who allegedly approached one of Northern Ireland's most senior judges and threatened to arrest him is to go on trial for contempt of court.

Thomas Anthony Carlin was dressed in uniform as he attended Belfast's Royal Courts of Justice again on Thursday.

He declined to apologise for his actions at an earlier hearing.

He also rejected an offer of legal representation and asked to have a jury decide on his behaviour towards Lord Justice Gillen.

But another judge refused his request, instead listing the case to be heard by him next week.

Mr Justice Horner said: "I'm going to arrange for a trial to take place on this issue of whether or not there has been contempt in the face of the court.

"I will hear it, there will not be a jury."

He also warned the policeman that, if found guilty, he could be fined or sent to prison.

Mr Carlin's alleged outburst came at the end of a ruling in a house repossession case in the High Court on Tuesday.
'Threat to arrest judge'

The 43-year-old had been representing himself in the legal battle with Santander bank over a property in County Antrim.

At the end of the hearing, he allegedly got up and moved towards the bench, claiming he was going to arrest Lord Justice Gillen.

Security and court staff intervened before he was led from the courtroom.

He was arrested on suspicion of two counts of common assault, but subsequently released without charge.

The Police Ombudsman was also notified.

Mr Carlin is alleged to have interrupted proceedings without justification, refused to resume his seat, approached the presiding judge, threatened to arrest him without lawful excuse and physically interfered with a court tipstaff.

He had been given until Thursday to secure a lawyer, apologise and provide an explanation for his behaviour.
Refusal to apologise

But shortly after entering the courtroom again, Mr Carlin made his position clear.

He told Mr Justice Horner: "I believe for me to apologise to the court would be abandoning my defence."

The offer of legal assistance from a law firm that deals with the Police Federation was also turned down.

Mr Carlin further said: "I acted in my capacity as a police officer, I believed a crime had been committed (and) it was outrageous in nature.

"I believe the tipstaff and court staff who intervened... obstructed me in the execution of my duty."

At one stage Mr Justice Horner asked if he denied the alleged behaviour set out in writing.

"I completely dispute those facts," the officer replied.

The judge then cautioned him: "You realise that should you be found guilty of contempt in the face of the court you will be liable for a number of penalties including imprisonment."

Mr Carlin responded that he would comply with the findings of a jury.

However, he was told to turn up on Monday for a trial to be decided by Mr Justice Horner alone.

[AndyPandy]

Just one to share for the sheer amusement factor, what a dilemma poor old Ryan's got, my advice - tear the filthy cheque up Ryan, you don't want to be joined to your person, no way no how !!

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... prWnXrfWK0

Its not really a success but its still good haha
I complained to the FOB, 10 weeks later Llyods reply, saying the same old "we believe debt validation is american law" BS. So they havnt cleared the debt. They said the cheque is an apology for not replying and there sorry they didn't answer all my points
Do i keep the cheque or do i send it back and the letter because its addressed to my person. Would keeping the cheque be joining me to my person??

Amazing site by the way, lots of info, really on the front line of consciousness raising in my opinion.

[mufc1959]

What nice people these FOTL are. Decent, principled individuals with a strong moral compass.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 60#p438492

Clart wrote:
I want to try claiming my mortgage payments back on a property I used to live at with my Ex, but she fucked off with my
best mate.
She still lives at the address, good or bad idea folks?

. yes, why not, let the bitch pay the bills. Are there any other bills you paid by dd you could claim back?

Hell yeah
I just totalled up what I paid on the mortgage by DD and it comes to over £26,000 over a three year period.
Would I be right in thinking that if I claimed it back then the bank would just add it on to the mortgage that she is now paying?

[longdog]

To be followed in a few months by "I've been charged with fraud for reclaiming £26,000 in direct debits. I've sent the summons back not known at this address, copyrighted my name and sent the court my fee schedule... What next?"

[mufc1959]

In the meantime his ex is repossessed for being £26,000 in arrears overnight.

[longdog]

In the meantime his ex is repossessed for being £26,000 in arrears overnight.

That would only happen if the company holding the mortgage repaid the £26,000 to bank from which the DD payments had been made and I can't see that happening without them being given a very good explanation of how/why the money was wrongly paid in the first place.

As a matter of fact I can't see the bank repaying that much in DD payments without a very good reason. Their fraud-o-meter needle will be so far over in the red it'll bend the needle.

[mufc1959]

In the meantime his ex is repossessed for being £26,000 in arrears overnight.

That would only happen if the company holding the mortgage repaid the £26,000 to bank from which the DD payments had been made and I can't see that happening without them being given a very good explanation of how/why the money was wrongly paid in the first place.

As a matter of fact I can't see the bank repaying that much in DD payments without a very good reason. Their fraud-o-meter needle will be so far over in the red it'll bend the needle.

Yes, when the FOTL/GOOFYs first started trying this the banks paid up without question, and I dealt with one case at work where a stupid, stupid woman ended up repossessed because she'd reclaimed £30K of mortgage repayments and her bank complied and refunded her without question. We tried to work with her to get her to pay the money back to her mortgage, but she started the 'void mortgage' argument, leaving us with no choice but to go for repossession. She defended the proceedings on the void mortgage argument, which got her nowhere in court. This was about 2 years ago, and I think the banks have since wised up.

[Hyrion]

As a matter of fact I can't see the bank repaying that much in DD payments without a very good reason. Their fraud-o-meter needle will be so far over in the red it'll bend the needle.

This was about 2 years ago, and I think the banks have since wised up.

There's also the flip side to that. Assuming:

• 1) The Bank's have no liability exposure in refunding the payments

• 2) It's easier to deal with the business rather than the individual

• 3) There's sufficient funds in the business account to make the associating debit

They may very well decide to respond with the logic:

• Give the refunds - let the other business that has entered into associating agreements deal with the individual in Court

Additional possible factor:

Given the bank was not party to the contractual obligation that was entered and is simply providing a third party service to handle the funds between the other two parties: depending on Jurisdiction, they may have no lawful standing to refuse reversing the transaction.

Of course, if the bank in question was the bank that provided the "other" service (such as being the mortgage lender) then they'd be in a very strong position to review the history of the account and clearly say "no, we're not refunding your payments".

[YiamCross]

The Direct Debit Guarantee is pretty simple:

If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society.
If you receive a refund you are not entitled to, you must pay it back when the organisation asks you to

The problem is the bank has no way of knowing if there really has been an error, they just have to take the customer's word for it. Then it's between the person claiming the refund and the organisation to determine whether there really has been an error and what to do about it if not.

I don't think the bank has much choice in the matter, I'm not even sure if they're allowed to go to the organisation to ask about the validity of the refund. They just have to give the money back if the customer asks for it.

How to claim

In the event that an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit*, either by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund from your bank of the amount paid.

Simply contact your bank or building society. They are responsible for refunding the money - even if the original error was made by the organisation collecting the payment. But remember, if you receive a refund you are not entitled to, you must pay it back when the organisation asks you to.

So, as far as I can see, until some change is made to the rules governing Direct Debits this scam will run and run. Good luck to the organisation trying to get their money back but if it is for a secured loan then I guess the only way they have to go is to instigate possession proceedings.

[#six]

We all know that the wheels of commerce work slowly. But if making a DD claw back causes the bank to issue proceedings against this guys ex then I can see the ex taking him to court for theft. Criminal proceedings like that move a lot quicker.

[mufc1959]

All banks are becoming wise to this now. Particularly where refunds of multiple payments for loans or mortgages are being demanded, banks are resisting an immediate refund, putting the onus on the customer to clarify the error allegedly made. Where I work, if we have a request we think is shonky (either as the paying or receiving bank) we now say we can't identify an error and we either refuse to initiate a chargeback request or we refuse to pay the chargeback and provide evidence of a valid DD mandate (always a signed one for mortgages) to the other bank. If the customer disagrees they can take it to the FOS.

[longdog]

The problem is the bank has no way of knowing if there really has been an error, they just have to take the customer's word for it. Then it's between the person claiming the refund and the organisation to determine whether there really has been an error and what to do about it if not.

I don't think the bank has much choice in the matter, I'm not even sure if they're allowed to go to the organisation to ask about the validity of the refund. They just have to give the money back if the customer asks for it.[/b]

While I agree that the DD guarantee does seem pretty cut and dried I very much doubt banks can be held to a 'no questions asked' policy if they suspect the clawback is fraudulent and a clawback of £26,000 is certainly going to set off alarms... Or it should anyway.

If you're a billionaire you might not notice £26,000 disappearing over a space of three years but us normal mortals bloody soon do... Certainly before three years has elapsed.

[mufc1959]

Ahh, poor greedy, nasty Clart, his plan has been thwarted.

[Hyrion]

... I very much doubt banks can be held to a 'no questions asked' policy if they suspect the clawback is fraudulent...

Without actively contacting the business that applied for payment (not reversal) to find out what was going on, how would the bank be able to prove in a Court Of Law anything pertaining to the alleged fraudulent transaction assuming the situation went that far?

I'm not a member of the Legal Industry so I can't quote the specific legislature in even one jurisdiction. However, I do believe some Jurisdictions have interference with business relations as a point for Anti-Competition Laws. Perhaps someone more knowledge with this context can clarify.

To ignore the context of "he's a small time loser who can't afford to take us to court context" I present a hypothetical to cover the context of the situation of one entity making a substantial and unusual clawback request. And perhaps the clawback requests do not even apply in this situation. I don't know the legislation covering that either so I really can't speak to the possible exceptions.

However, if anyone insists the bank can "interfere" in a business transaction governing a contractual relationship between 2 other entities: I sure would like clarification on how the Bank can legally do that.

So... on with the context:

Ford Motor Company (FMC) entered into an agreement with Billabong Dealership (BD). FMC agrees they'll apply a direct debit against BDs Bank Account. BD meanwhile will purchase the vehicles for their lot utilizing that mechanism.

This is all going well and fine for some time. One day, in verifying inventory BD realizes they were charged for 10 vehicles they had not received. They called up FMC and confirmed all deliveries have been made and no other deliveries were en route. The lazy accountant at BD decides the easiest route is to simply contact the bank and request a clawback.

Now.... whether the Bank is right in thinking the situation is fraudulent: Does the Bank have Legal grounds with which to interfere with the business transaction between FMC and BD other then to decide whether or not the Bank will handle their transactions?

The Bank doesn't know anything about the agreement between FMC or BD with the limited exception of the information FMC needs to file in order to direct debit BDs bank account. And the Bank certainly doesn't know details such as which vehicles were part of the payment but didn't actually get to their destination.

I'd think that the Bank could be held to (at least) possible anti-competition grounds in the event they interfered in a contractual relationship to which they were not (other then as a third-party transferrer of funds) involved.

Is it a situation where the Bank is "damned if they do, damned if they don't"? If they don't follow up (in some way) on what they suspect is a fraudulent transfer, can they be held lawfully accountable? If they do follow up, lawfully accountable again?