Sovrun Paraleguls

[Hercule Parrot]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the bank gives her notice to close her account.

It's about time the banks woke up to this scam and started operating sensible safeguards. It would be nice if they also closed accounts when customers attempted to use their facilities for fraud.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The car insurer will likely pull her car off MID (Motor Insurance Database) if she cancels the DD. For those in the colonies, that's the central file that links car registrations to insurers. Bored cops will pull you over, ask questions and confiscate your car.
Winning!!!1!!!1!!!.

[Hercule Parrot]

The car insurer will likely pull her car off MID (Motor Insurance Database) if she cancels the DD. For those in the colonies, that's the central file that links car registrations to insurers. Bored cops will pull you over, ask questions and confiscate your car.
Winning!!!1!!!1!!!.

No sensible insurer would want to keep a customer who demonstrated eager readiness to seek dishonest advantage.

[longdog]

The car insurer will likely pull her car off MID (Motor Insurance Database) if she cancels the DD. For those in the colonies, that's the central file that links car registrations to insurers. Bored cops will pull you over, ask questions and confiscate your car.
Winning!!!1!!!1!!!.

No sensible insurer would want to keep a customer who demonstrated eager readiness to seek dishonest advantage.

I don't think it ever occurs to these idiots that insurance companies, banks and so on share data with each other about smart arses who attempt to defraud them. They think illegally claiming back payments is entirely free of consequences when in reality they could find themselves prosecuted for fraud (with a pretty much cast iron case against them) and, best of all, find themselves unable to get any sort of insurance for the rest of their lives. If they happen to have a mortgage they will be obliged to insure their property for all risks and if that insurance is not available to them they have very, very big problems.

[notorial dissent]

As someone pointed out earlier, the likelihood of them EVER being able to get insurance again after attempting to defraud the insurance company is slim to none, insurers don't take kindly to things like that for some reason.

[mufc1959]

If they happen to have a mortgage they will be obliged to insure their property for all risks and if that insurance is not available to them they have very, very big problems.

Although it's usually in the mortgage T&Cs that the borrower has to insure the property, if a borrower isn't able to get insurance, the lender will insure the property to protect its security - but just the building, not the contents. All lenders have a block policy on risk to cover this eventuality. The cost is added to the mortgage balance, and is not, of course, the cheapest policy you can find on CompareTheMarket.com.

It'll only take one of the companies this idiot woman is trying to defraud to put up a CIFAS (Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Scheme) marker against her credit file and her entire financial future is screwed.

There are nine CIFAS fraud categories.

Category 0 – Protective Registration - Recorded at the request of the individual to protect against possible impersonation attempts. This usually follows a violent crime or burglary in which personal documentation has been stolen.

Category 1 – False Identity Fraud - Use of a false name with an address.

Category 2 - Victim of Impersonation - Use, by another person, of this name and/or address.

Category 3 – Application Fraud, Facility Granted - Material falsehoods in the personal information provided in the application/proposal.

Category 4 – Application Fraud, Facility Refused - Material falsehoods in the personal information provided in the application/proposal.

Category 5 – Conversion - Selling goods still owned by the lender.

Category 6 – First Party Fraud - Criminal fraud by the account holder. This encompasses false loss or theft reports, significant misuse of accounts, uncleared effects frauds, direct debit fraud etc.

Category 7 – Aiding and Abetting

Category 8 – Insurance Claims Fraud

So it all seems like fun and games, reclaiming DDs, until you get turned down for a mortgage, your credit card is cancelled, you don't have access to credit for any kind of purchase (even at DFS or Oak Furnitureland!!) and you find you're ineligible for anything other than the most basic bank account.

[mufc1959]

It's about time the banks woke up to this scam and started operating sensible safeguards. It would be nice if they also closed accounts when customers attempted to use their facilities for fraud.

They do. The bank I work at does this, and I know all the other banks do too. Banks are required to have strict anti-money-laundering and fraud prevention measures in place. We have to be alert for account activity that could be linked to terrorism, or people allowing their accounts to be used as 'mules', acting as a conduit for dodgy money. We are definitely closing more accounts now than we used to.

I think the fact that the Government decided everyone must have access to a basic bank account made it easier - because we can close an account and know that the (ex-) customer can open a basic account with another bank. This type of account provides simple money in, money out banking, with a debit card, direct debits or standing orders and no overdraft. In the past, we were be more hesitant in closing an account if it might have resulted in the customer having no access to any banking facilities whatsoever.

The fact this woman failed in her fraudulent clawbacks shows that banks have woken up to this. It was successful a few years ago before we all realised how the Direct Debit Guarantee was being misused. But I know our call centre staff have training on it, and I've attended industry conferences where it's been discussed.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Although it's usually in the mortgage T&Cs that the borrower has to insure the property, if a borrower isn't able to get insurance, the lender will insure the property to protect its security - but just the building, not the contents. All lenders have a block policy on risk to cover this eventuality. The cost is added to the mortgage balance, and is not, of course, the cheapest policy you can find on CompareTheMarket.com.

To keep the costs down they also only insure their interest, i.e. the value of the mortgage. So, for instance, if this was the case with Tom Crawford's place, the lender would only be insuring for about £43k-£45k.

[mufc1959]

The Sovrun Paraleguls Facebook page is a great source of entertainment. We now have a follow up to this:

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 80#p261683


Unfortunately, it didn't all go to plan ...



So after receiving a letter from the court saying it was a "reopening hearing", our friend Jam Roxx assumed it was a re-hearing. Sadly for him, this was not so, and it appears that, in the face of people who actually know the law, all his "knowledge" counted for nought. Ever the optimist, though, Jam is still wondering if "they were just all talk".

[grixit]

Maybe he needs to jam a few more roxx in his head to figure things out.

[Siegfried Shrink]

The word 'witness' to Mr. Roxx may mean 'potential or known trouble maker' to the court.

[SteveUK]

Where did the whole 'dismissed the courts' nonsense begin, its been popping up a lot lately?

[Siegfried Shrink]

This is a chestnut so old that had it germinated it would be a spreading chestnut tree with room enough for all of us to relax under.

The usual rationale is that courtroom is a battlefield and the first to leave, loses. Therefore if the judge or magistrate walks out for order to be restored (rather than dishing out contempt of court rulings) they are deemed to have fled leaving the defendant as victor on the field of battle, and entitled to commmand the court to dismiss the action against him.

This simplified version may be traced back to the confusion about maritme or admiralty law where the court is deemed to be a ship and the judge to have abandoned ship, leaving the defendant again in command. (see also fringed flags in US courts)

I have a theory about how admiralty law got dragged into this mess in the first place, and that it all dates back to the first person to use a senseless misreading of the 1666 CQV Act to found a Guruhood on.

It is exceedingly rare that any BS merchant comes up with anything new, so pretty well any theme you like can be traced back through a succession of sources which become very hard to trace in the pre-internet age.
There must be people around who can remember occasions when this pseudo-law nonsense cropped up in the days of paper, but either it was very rare or the membership resources of Quatloos and similar sites do not include anyone with a long enough memory that still functions.

I have suggested to a student that this history of nonsense might be a reasonable PhD thesis.

[SteveUK]

This is a chestnut so old that had it germinated it would be a spreading chestnut tree with room enough for all of us to relax under.

The usual rationale is that courtroom is a battlefield and the first to leave, loses. Therefore if the judge or magistrate walks out for order to be restored (rather than dishing out contempt of court rulings) they are deemed to have fled leaving the defendant as victor on the field of battle, and entitled to commmand the court to dismiss the action against him.

This simplified version may be traced back to the confusion about maritme or admiralty law where the court is deemed to be a ship and the judge to have abandoned ship, leaving the defendant again in command. (see also fringed flags in US courts)

I have a theory about how admiralty law got dragged into this mess in the first place, and that it all dates back to the first person to use a senseless misreading of the 1666 CQV Act to found a Guruhood on.

It is exceedingly rare that any BS merchant comes up with anything new, so pretty well any theme you like can be traced back through a succession of sources which become very hard to trace in the pre-internet age.
There must be people around who can remember occasions when this pseudo-law nonsense cropped up in the days of paper, but either it was very rare or the membership resources of Quatloos and similar sites do not include anyone with a long enough memory that still functions.

I have suggested to a student that this history of nonsense might be a reasonable PhD thesis.

Much appreciated.i hadn't really seen it before Ken Thompson and the Reka debacle.

[aesmith]

The Sovrun Paraleguls Facebook page is a great source of entertainment. We now have a follow up to this:

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 80#p261683

Was there anything saying what the conviction was for, in the first place?

[longdog]

I would guess by the fact that the court fined him in his absence rather than issuing an arrest warrant that it was a traffic offence of some description.

[Dr. Caligari]

I would guess by the fact that the court fined him in his absence rather than issuing an arrest warrant that it was a traffic offence of some description.

Driving while stupid?

[Gregg]

I would guess by the fact that the court fined him in his absence rather than issuing an arrest warrant that it was a traffic offence of some description.

Driving while stupid?

Breathing Whilst Stupid, its a Common Law Offense.

[mufc1959]

The wins just keep on stacking up on the Sovrun Paraleguls Facebook Page.



If you really need to get your car back, how about paying for it in actual legal tender?

[Gregg]

She'll very likely have to pay off the balance now, as TFC won't be wanting to give her another chance to find out how she doesn't really have to pay it.