Fraud Act 2006

by **daveiron** Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:18 am

This act is worth a look through with particuler reference to sections 1/2/3
when claimants refuse to provide documents to support their claim.
Deed of assignment (redacted) etc .

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/1

by **Mrblue2015** Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:22 am

Great find DI! Perhaps we update the template letters to explicitly call out this legislation???

by **daveiron** Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:09 am

I'll leave it to you guys, maybe one to keep in reserve ?

by waylander62 Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:37 am

tread a little carefully when using something like the fraud act because fraud will remove the jurisdiction from the county courts ( i think ) which they will try and find a way around by stating that the notice is enough so p*ss off.

much better to find case law in the higher courts where the deed of assignment is discussed to prove title and the actual words of the Judges in such cases ( all of which will be high court judges ) quote these passages in your correspondence and watch them squirm.

by **daveiron** Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:39 am

This is my take on it.
Definition from Merriam Webster legal dictionary
Definition of holder in due course

: one other than the original recipient who holds a legally effective negotiable instrument (such as a promissory note) and who has a right to collect from and no responsibility toward the issuer

The only one who can have a valid claim is the HiDC. Its very clear DPs do not
posess the original agreement. without it my logic dictates their claim must
be fraudulent.

by **daveiron** Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:54 am

I take your point Waylander, I think maybe just referencing in correspondance
would be more effictive ,rather than incorporate it in a notice. It may just give
them something to think about.

by waylander62 Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:20 pm

i understand what you are saying also but i know how these 'judges' perform

you are right what you are saying but this is how i would expect a 'judge' to get around this: well they hold the legal title to this instrument therefore they have the right etc etc..... proven by the notice served under the law of property act

just anticipating or covering arses if you like, but as you say could be very good to put in correspondence to see how they react at an early stage, should it go to court then change tact a little ?

all worth a discussion

by **Mrblue2015** Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:06 pm

Good points Waylander62 (and great to receive your very experienced input as always!) Smile

And thanks again DaveIron. Overall, it's def an area to look into and 'get right' / worth a discussion as Waylander62 suggests Smile

by **assassin** Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:37 am

Actually Waylander makes an excellent point, the Fraud Act is worth using as supplementary evidence to support other evidence, but Fraud is now a civil offence in its own right and a statutory offence in a criminal context and this is important to understand.

Much of what we do is under Common Law and common law is a superior jurisdiction to statutory law which then becomes inferior law, why would you move something from a superior jurisdiction into an inferior jurisdiction as this is exactly whats being done, this tells a judge that you are stupid and can be easily fobbed off so they will.
This could also have a knock on effect later on if you bring a claim against them as this could be done using affidavits under the Maxims of Commercial law which is an even higher jurisdiction than Common Law rendering common law the inferior jurisdiction and Commercial Law the superior jurisdiction.

Don't mix your jurisdictions and never go from a higher jurisdiction or superior jurisdiction, to a lower jurisdiction or inferior jurisdiction.

by Sponsored content

Fraud Act 2006

Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006

Re: Fraud Act 2006