I changed the APR on small print on Barclaycard application

chattychappy

pompeyred wrote: »

None of this constitutes fraud.

Yep. The fraud talk was all a nonsense - especially secton 2. No false representation, no dishonesty (Ghosh test is applied for this - those interested can google).

chattychappy

pompeyred wrote: »

None of this constitutes fraud.

Yep. The fraud talk was all a nonsense - especially secton 2. No false representation, no dishonesty (Ghosh test is applied for this - those interested can google).

g6jns_2

chattychappy wrote: »

Yep. The fraud talk was all a nonsense - especially secton 2. No false representation, no dishonesty (Ghosh test is applied for this - those interested can google).

Completely wrong. The applicant was being dishonest as any reasonable person would consider and was well aware that he was being dishonest hence Ghost criteria does apply.

chattychappy

g6jns wrote: »

Completely wrong. The applicant was being dishonest as any reasonable person would consider and was well aware that he was being dishonest hence Ghost criteria does apply.

I note you haven't said what the "false representation" is...

SnowTiger

g6jns wrote: »

You are quite wrong. The bank issues standard terms and conditions and customers can choose to accept thm or not. If a potential customer wants to try and negotiate different terms then this has to be done in an open and aboveboard manner. What the OP has done is set out to deliberately deceive in the hope the bank will not notice so that he gains a financial advantage that is clearly attempted fraud. Hopefully the bank will spot this and report him.

That's not true.

I recall a thread here, I think it was about Tesco Credit Cards. Someone wanted to see the T&Cs before they applied for the card, but were told they would only be able to view them afterwards because they would be tailored to the application. Not standard; as the fact that credit card contracts contain interest rate details demonstrates.

Also, we see customers here every day complaining about being caught out by something that's hidden away in the small print of the T&C. In many cases these were things that weren't brought to their attention when they entered in to the contract.

All cases of fraud against the customer? Interesting.

antrobus

chattychappy wrote: »

Yep. The fraud talk was all a nonsense - especially secton 2. No false representation, no dishonesty (Ghosh test is applied for this - those interested can google).

The 'Ghosh test' means simply that it's up to the jury to decide whether or not anyone is being 'dishonest'. So it depends on who is on the jury, and if the enough of them where of the same opinion as g6jns then the OP would be *&%ed.:)

chattychappy

antrobus wrote: »

The 'Ghosh test' means simply that it's up to the jury to decide whether or not anyone is being 'dishonest'. So it depends on who is on the jury, and if the enough of them where of the same opinion as g6jns then the OP would be *&%ed.:)

There are two stages to Ghosh, the objective and subjective parts. Roughly, the jury must first decide whether the act was "dishonest" according to the standards of a reasonable and honest person. Then secondly, they must decide whether the accused must have realised that by those standards what he did was dishonest.

And, both of those must be beyond reasonable doubt.

It is quite possible that the jury all decide that it was indeed dishonest by normal standards, but that he might not have realised that. In which case, not guilty.

We also have the issue of "what was the false representation" necessary for S2.

antrobus

chattychappy wrote: »

There are two stages to Ghosh, the objective and subjective parts. Roughly, the jury must first decide whether the act was "dishonest" according to the standards of a reasonable and honest person. Then secondly, they must decide whether the accused must have realised that by those standards what he did was dishonest.

And, both of those must be beyond reasonable doubt.

It is quite possible that the jury all decide that it was indeed dishonest by normal standards, but that he might not have realised that. In which case, not guilty.

That's right, it's up to the jury to decide whether or not anyone is being 'dishonest'. So if they were of the same opinion as g6jns then the OP would be convicted.

chattychappy

antrobus wrote: »

That's right, it's up to the jury to decide whether or not anyone is being 'dishonest'.

OK, fair enough - if it got as far as a jury.

antrobus wrote: »

So if they were of the same opinion as g6jns then the OP would be convicted.

Nope... because we still have the other tests to consider: what was the "false representation" within the meaning of the law?

antrobus

chattychappy wrote: »

OK, fair enough - if it got as far as a jury.....

Personally I'm not convined that it would. I was only hypothetically pointing out, that if it did, then the jury would decide on the question of dishonesty.

chattychappy wrote: »

...Nope... because we still have the other tests to consider: what was the "false representation" within the meaning of the law?

Well again, if the jury decided that it was "false representation" .....:)