Quatloos!

Hercule Parrot wrote:So basically he refused to give his details, and they lawfully arrested him. He then bottled and gave his details, so they de-arrested him on the street (to avoid the hassle of booking him through custody).

Alternatively one cop realised who he was because they know him already. "Oh no you've got Crazy Davey there. Don't bother arresting him and bringing him back to the station because he will go off on a 20 minute rant to every question you ask him and it will take you 6 hours to process him."

rumpelstilzchen wrote:I will make a prediction:
"No injured party, no evidence only hearsay and no signature"........
Outcome. Six points and a two hundred pounds fine. If he decides to go to court the fine will be greater and he will be stung for costs.
Success!!!!1!!!!

He wasn't stopped by the Police, just spotted by a co-worker. As he's only just started work there he will have little employment protection in law.
For those of you not up to speed with what is going on, the laws on using mobile phones (cells) were revised from the 1st of this month. There have been lots of explanation and clarification type articles and discussions with the Police, even Q&A over Twitter with the Police. My reading of what he was doing is that he would have broke the law and would have been prosecuted if spotted by the Police.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:He wasn't stopped by the Police

According to this: viewtopic.php?p=242013#p242013 he was.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

ArthurWankspittle wrote:He wasn't stopped by the Police

According to this: viewtopic.php?p=242013#p242013 he was.

My apologies. I'd forgotten this post and was thinking of the one that said a colleague had told his boss. Which also might be true in an additional way. Either way he's likely to get 6 points, £200 fine and no unemployment benefit for several weeks. At least he won't have to pay the fine in a lump sum if he's on the dole, he can ask for it to be taken from his benefit at £5 a week or whatever the current rate is.

To be fair, fairer than he deserves, the UK law prohibiting use of mobile phones while driving scored a massive own goal by failing to define either "using" or "driving". Hence a lot of hearsay about whether you need to switch the engine off when parked, or whether using the phone as a sat nav or dictaphone counts. In practice the police are inclined to treat even handling the phone as "using".

all kicking off in Milton Keynes as we speak......from ETFOTB

This myth that council tax Liability Orders aren't "real" seems to live on.

The freetards haven't grasped the fact that if a court orders them to do something and they don't do it, there are generally consequences. They can kick and scream as much as they want, claiming the court was wrong or fraudulent or corrupt or whatever, but it won't stop the consequences.

aesmith wrote:This myth that council tax Liability Orders aren't "real" seems to live on.

Along with someone who once stopped in the house is classed as "vulnerable" therefore the bailiff should back off.

what he's doing to his mother, if that is even true, is truly a douche move.

littleFred wrote:The freetards haven't grasped the fact that if a court orders them to do something and they don't do it, there are generally consequences. They can kick and scream as much as they want, claiming the court was wrong or fraudulent or corrupt or whatever, but it won't stop the consequences.

It makes you wonder what they would rather have than courts making decisions in a more or less free and open way. Would they rather have the St Trinians principle of "Might is always right"? Toss a coin and the loser pays? A free-for-all where nobody ever pays anybody anything including wages, debts and state benefits?

Useless, self-centred, miserly fuckers the lot of them.

GOOFies have always been fond of "I'm terrible at paying debts and the lender didn't check this so they were irresponsible so I don't need to pay it back."

But Tiggy has a new twist. "I committed fraud to get this loan and the lender didn't notice so I don't have to pay it back."

GOOFy Replenish lied to get a loan, saying he was employed when he wasn't. He's not sure if this will work.

Replenish wrote:Would this work against me or possibly actually work in my favour given they didn't check my employment status?

Well, that's covered by Fraud Act 2006: dishonestly making a false representation intending to make a temporary gain.

But apparently it's the lender's fault for not noticing the fraud:

Tiggy wrote:They should have checked and refused you the loans.

I'd love to see Replenish's complaint, or defence at court: "I confess to fraud."

littleFred wrote: I'd love to see Replenish's complaint, or defence at court: "I confess to fraud."

I love it!
"Your honour, I lied through my teeth and they were taken in by my lies. So they are the ones at fault"

oddly, he could well get away with it and go for interest and charges back plus 8% interest. I wont say who I work for, but we write about 10,000 small loans per month. We often get hammered by the FOS even where people have lied on application, and admitted it. We are bound to do proper checks and not just take the info at face value. Now for example, we test applications against ONS data to shore up the process(amongst other things). The wild west days are over.

I kind of see the logic it in. The desperate will fib when their backs against the wall and as lenders, we are bound to verify that info.IT also gives free loaders a potential free ticket though.

Naturally, they'll always owe the principle though.

Strange times we live in.

oddly, he could well get away with it and go for interest and charges back plus 8% interest.

Wouldn't they still be liable for the high interest rate they signed up to, up to the time of the default?

Anyhow, this suggests another escape route for GOOFies. They might take out a loan in an honest way, but later claim to have lied on the application form.

littleFred wrote:Anyhow, this suggests another escape route for GOOFies. They might take out a loan in an honest way, but later claim to have lied on the application form.

And yet they will still claim to be the party acting 'in honour' and 'without ill-will or vexation'.

littleFred wrote:But Tiggy has a new twist. "I committed fraud to get this loan and the lender didn't notice so I don't have to pay it back."

Reminds me of a bankruptcy case where I was a creditor. Wells Fargo Bank, the class 3A creditor, issued them a loan. The debtor's CFO claimed the application wasn't fraudulent because no one should have believed it, which might have dismissed the claim for loan repayment.

littleFred wrote:

oddly, he could well get away with it and go for interest and charges back plus 8% interest.

Wouldn't they still be liable for the high interest rate they signed up to, up to the time of the default?

Anyhow, this suggests another escape route for GOOFies. They might take out a loan in an honest way, but later claim to have lied on the application form.

No, not a cent. Plus we have to pay them 8% on Amy interest they did pay. Plus the £500 for getting dragged to FOS in the first place

Chaos wrote:what he's doing to his mother, if that is even true, is truly a douche move.

Roll the old bag out and put her in the back seat! It only works if she's IN the car!

https://youtu.be/n1ZsAF9bruM?t=7m15s
Bailiff’s response to wet ink signatures