Re-claim company will not return my deposit

ppidisgrace

many people had ppi added without their knowledge

many had it added even when they specifically said they did not want it

the banks were mis leading people from the start in an organized and systemic way in an attempt to defraud

the % of claims without ppi is tiny at both fscs and fos

anybody without ppi cannot commit fraud as they have nothing they could possibly gain as without ppi there is 0 chance of getting any money in this "fraud"

now who do you blame for this, the banks or the people?

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

many people had ppi added without their knowledge

What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?

many had it added even when they specifically said they did not want it

What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?

the banks were mis leading people from the start in an organized and systemic way in an attempt to defraud

What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?

the % of claims without ppi is tiny at both fscs and fos

What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?

anybody without ppi cannot commit fraud as they have nothing they could possibly gain as without ppi there is 0 chance of getting any money in this "fraud"

Wrong. Section 2 of the Fraud Act says you only have to make a statement that is misleading or untrue in the knowledge that it may be misleading or untrue with the intent of making a gain for yourself or somebody else, or somebody else for an offence to be committed.

now who do you blame for this, the banks or the people?

I blame the ambulance chaser for defrauding the OP of their money.

vax2002

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Explain how the OP could sign an E-Mail?

(Seriously, why shouldn't this communication be signed by the sender?)

Its called an electronic signature, they started around 2004-2005, basically a scan of your signature.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?



What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?




What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?



What has that got to do with the fact that a lying ambulance chaser fraudulently took the OP's money?


Wrong. Section 2 of the Fraud Act says you only have to make a statement that is misleading or untrue in the knowledge that it may be misleading or untrue with the intent of making a gain for yourself or somebody else, or somebody else for an offence to be committed.



I blame the ambulance chaser for defrauding the OP of their money.

your brave enough to come out and debate again last time you ran a mile , when it turned out you hadnt read properly what I had written

woops you done it again, the points I raised dont relate to the up front payment by the cmc , absolute disgrace agreed, they related to the issue of a claim being submitted that turns out not to have ppi

as you again have confirmed, it cannot and is not fraud as there is no potential gain, if there is no ppi no gain can be made, if there is ppi then it isnt fraud

[Deleted User]

I've said it before and I'll say it again ;
Don't feed the troll(s)

ppidisgrace

troll obviously someone who dares to ask questions of mse and martin lewis and which
can you present a case for anything they have actually done since martin and which announced they were getting into bed with the banks apart from achieve the sale of mse for 85million

ppidisgrace

hey guys be careful dont debate with the kid ( he's right and making some good points) he could blow our cover

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

your brave enough to come out and debate again last time you ran a mile , when it turned out you hadnt read properly what I had written

As I recall, you persistently claimed that the rules published by your regulator, the Ministry of Justice in the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007 did not apply to you
and I responded every time I was aware of it.

woops you done it again, the points I raised dont relate to the up front payment by the cmc , absolute disgrace agreed, they related to the issue of a claim being submitted that turns out not to have ppi

But that is what the thread is about - so you are hijacking it.

as you again have confirmed, it cannot and is not fraud as there is no potential gain, if there is no ppi no gain can be made, if there is ppi then it isnt fraud

Wrong again. It is the INTENT that creates the offence, not the outcome or potential outcome.

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again ;
Don't feed the troll(s)

Why not? - troll baiting is in season (there is a vowel in the month).

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

As I recall, you persistently claimed that the rules published by your regulator, the Ministry of Justice in the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007 did not apply to you
and I responded every time I was aware of it.



But that is what the thread is about - so you are hijacking it.


Wrong again. It is the INTENT that creates the offence, not the outcome or potential outcome.

intent to commit an offence from which you could not possibly gain from LOL :rotfl:
I think there are far greater fish to fry like sorting out the banks and the ethos and mentality of the financial institutions and their vermin who feed and live off the back of it such as ifa's
these amount to a tiny number of claims , what do you think about lloyds being allowed to take 16 weeks to settle claims?