Fraud

arcon5

bris wrote: »

By allowing the payments to happen he aknowledged the dept. He should have stuck to his guns at the start and denied the debt but it's to late now.

He even authorised the person to discuss the debt, this is no longer fraud.

Of course it is. This doesn't change the fact the contract was entered in to via fraudulent means, just complicates it if any debt was incurred after the point he realised.

Ops actions are very similar to that of a conditional caution the police can issue, in which a caution is issued subject to the victim being reimbursed.

Takeaway_Addict

Scrootum wrote: »

She is the mother of his child. Just pay it off.

So that excuses all illegal activities done by an ex against the OP's son......

brendon

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

So that excuses all illegal activities done by an ex against the OP's son......

But sometimes in the real world it's not necessarily about the law and a person's rights. It's about relationships and having children with people. Sometimes it's just easier for every party to forgive and forget, and take the easy route out.

dinglebert

Scrootum wrote: »

She is the mother of his child. Just pay it off.

Why should that excuse her actions. Shes responsible.

fozmcfc

For £200 - £300, I'd pay it off, even if a few family members get together. It is not worth the hassle over such a small amount.

I'd then make sure I was watching my finances closely.

As for the principle of the thing, well I'd personally do everything I could to alert people to what she has done and she is not to be trusted.

Going any other route, isn't necessarily going to be straightforward and at the end of it all, she could just get a wrap on the knuckles and nothing else.

If we were talking multiple frauds or thousands and thousands, then it would be worth, trying the legal route, but not for the small amount involved IMO.

Smithers37

Scrootum wrote: »

She is the mother of his child. Just pay it off.

She's the mother of his child; why doesn't she take out a credit card out in his name, go on a shopping spree and then expect the OP's son to pay for that too? Or why doesn't she splash out on a new car? After all, she is the mother of his child.

What utter 'ocks!

System

Smithers37 wrote: »

She's the mother of his child; why doesn't she take out a credit card out in his name, go on a shopping spree and then expect the OP's son to pay for that too? Or why doesn't she splash out on a new car? After all, she is the mother of his child.

What utter 'ocks!

I think the point was it's only £200-300. For such a petty amount of money is it really sensible to report the mother of your child to the police for fraud?

Smithers37

goater78 wrote: »

I think the point was it's only £200-300. For such a petty amount of money is it really sensible to report the mother of your child to the police for fraud?

£200 is not petty. If you think it is, then what are you doing on a money saving forum? Maybe you could pay half given it's such a petty amount?

And that's not the question anyway, is it? Clearly the OP's son does not deserve to have to pay for her debt, so why should he.

mattyprice4004

Take the amount owed off any child support payments being made.

System

Smithers37 wrote: »

£200 is not petty. If you think it is, then what are you doing on a money saving forum? Maybe you could pay half given it's such a petty amount?

And that's not the question anyway, is it? Clearly the OP's son does not deserve to have to pay for her debt, so why should he.

This is a consumer rights board, it's not about saving money but standing up for your consumer rights against companies. I keep away from the moneysaving boards as I don't need to get involved in that scene.

However despite how much money you've got £200 is too small an amount to get the mother of your child in trouble with the police.