If a cheque is not honoured for whatever reason it's clear case of fraud

neilmcl

I don't think this thread should continue any further given that the OP is acting like a big spoilt child and putting everyone on his ignore list who disagrees with him.

I'm guessing by the absence to a reply for any of my posts I'm already on that list, so no doubt he wont be reading this either

Forwandert

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Am I missing something?! What in the name of high holy Hades is all this about? And why does it matter?!

Bizarre.

OP posted in this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5217559

He was that proud of the post i'm assuming he decided it was worthy of its own thread, whether it was factual or not didn't really matter as OP is clearly right.

Still trying to figure out why his dad used a solicitor to send letters to everyone that bounced a cheque and simply didnt contact the person and highlight the issue which would have been a little more MSE and had the same result. £19 thirty years ago must have been about £50 a pop these days.

RS2000.

Forwandert wrote: »

OP posted in this thread


He was that proud of the post i'm assuming he decided it was worthy of its own thread, whether it was factual or not didn't really matter as OP is clearly right.

Still trying to figure out why his dad used a solicitor to send letters to everyone that bounced a cheque and simply didnt contact the person and highlight the issue which would have been a little more MSE and had the same result. £19 thirty years ago must have been about £50 a pop these days.

And the rest, but then none of that really happened did it.

unholyangel

Forwandert wrote: »

OP posted in this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5217559

He was that proud of the post i'm assuming he decided it was worthy of its own thread, whether it was factual or not didn't really matter as OP is clearly right.

Still trying to figure out why his dad used a solicitor to send letters to everyone that bounced a cheque and simply didnt contact the person and highlight the issue which would have been a little more MSE and had the same result. £19 thirty years ago must have been about £50 a pop these days.

By solicitor, I highly suspect he means a debt recovery agent. A previous employer of mine used them all the time. Doesnt matter whether the debt has any standing or not and no solicitor actually advises you of anything surrounding the case. You simply give them the details (name, address & amount owed) and they'll send a letter before action from "solicitors" to make it look all official and scary.

That was around 15 years ago and they charged £9 + VAT.

SeduLOUs

Forwandert wrote: »

Still trying to figure out why his dad used a solicitor to send letters to everyone that bounced a cheque and simply didnt contact the person and highlight the issue which would have been a little more MSE and had the same result. £19 thirty years ago must have been about £50 a pop these days.

What amazes me the most is that his dad and his solicitor were a two man vigilante army, and managed to bring justice in the cases of 100s of criminal fraudsters to justice through the criminal courts at dad's own cost and without any aid from the police!

cookie365

neilmcl wrote: »

I don't think this thread should continue any further given that the OP is acting like a big spoilt child and putting everyone on his ignore list who disagrees with him.

How do you know who the OP has got on his ignore list?

I didn't know it was even possible to see who was ignoring you.

RuthnJasper

Forwandert wrote: »

OP posted in this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5217559

He was that proud of the post i'm assuming he decided it was worthy of its own thread, whether it was factual or not didn't really matter as OP is clearly right.

Still trying to figure out why his dad used a solicitor to send letters to everyone that bounced a cheque and simply didnt contact the person and highlight the issue which would have been a little more MSE and had the same result. £19 thirty years ago must have been about £50 a pop these days.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense. A bit. What a depressing thread that one was...:(

mjm3346

How many duff cheques did he accept??

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me
Fool me three times, I must be a total idiot.

lucy03

JethroUK wrote: »

The most ridiculous point ever

Forgetting is not an excuse

It is under the law because the Fraud Act defines very clearly what fraud is. There must be intent.

JethroUK

Ectophile wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that the person who wrote the cheque ever intended it to bounce..

Nope

It's whether the promise maker EVER intended to make good the promise

Should not need an example but I fear it will

Once a person makes a promise to pay (writes a cheq) it does not matter what happens to that piece of paper, i whether it bounces, it spontaneously combusts or gets accidentally eaten by fish

You made a legally binding promise to pay!

And pay you must

If the cheq does accidentally get eaten by fish then you no longer have paper evidence of the promise to pay, which makes your case more difficult to prove but does not negate your legal position in the same way you do not have to have paper to support an agreement

Again you too are on ignore because this is either outside your scope of understanding or you are being deliberately obtuse, either way not got time for you so you should consult a solicitor to explain this theory to you