Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Re: floor dispute / cashed cheque
It is sadly one of those situations where the answer is “it depends”!
It depends on what the sequence of events was, the time frames of yours and the creditors actions and what you actually said in your correspondence to the creditor.
You will have needed to state clearly that the cheque could only be cashed if full and final settlement was agreed and if not the cheque should be returned to you and the dispute would continue.
If you haven’t said this, and he notified you he was not accepting the offer before cashing the cheque, then he has behaved correctly and was entitled to the sum offered.
The dispute is now the balance between what you agreed to pay and what he thinks he is entitled to.
Normally you would secure agreement to a full and final settlement BEFORE you send the cheque, because in law, the issue and sending of any cheque is an agreement that you owe unconditionally the value amount of the cheque.
Regards
Jackal
Re: Bush WQP8-9347
Chris
Is it part number 674000300067, the stat fitted to the rubber hose which sits on the end of the circular heater? If so I have a set in stock you can have.
If its correct and you want it, Email me the address you want me to send them to and I can get it in the post for you Monday.
Best wishes
Jackal
Re: Finlux 146j washing machine
That’s error code 4, unit is sensing an overflow.
Check the pressure switch and all the wiring to the main pcb.
If pressure switch is ok and the wiring is good, it will be a goosed main pcb.
Pressure switch is PNo. 32000553
PCB is PNo. 20696776
Regards
Jackal
Re: Should have got a deposit.
Such is life that the minority affect the majority!
As to phone systems, we operate over multi locations and found a VOIP system to offer us the best route. We managed to drop our BT bill from circa £600 per month to circa £130 per month with a load of bells and whistles to the included.
For us the VOIP system allows us to call any other extension on our system any where in the world free if charge. I have an office extension at my home in Spain so I can call back to UK office for as long as I went when I want for free and as if we are in the same building.
The system also allows us to put an app on a smartphone and as long as it has 3G the smartphone becomes an extension number on the system and again we can call that foc as an internal call and they can likewise call back to the office.
We control all manor of things like the music on hold, hunt groups, voicemail options, call direction and can create VIP and deny lists to give priority to important numbers or to prevent other less desirable numbers ever bothering us.
Call recording is also possible and can be set to either record on demand, record all or record all inbound only or outbound only.
The system provider records everything securely offsite for 6 years and provides instant access and search facilities so we can find any call easily and quickly. We can if we wish instantly download any call to our local system in an mp3 format as we want to. It’s similar to downloading an iTunes track. A 5min telephone call is about 4meg in size.
The system is supplied by soho66. A google search will reveal all. Other providers are available.
You need a broadband connection and special VOIP phones to run it. We use Snom 320 telephones as the are good quality and reasonably cheap at around £80 per phone. The system is infinitely expandable and importantly shrinkable as you need it.
When doing a recall or exercise for a manufacturer we can easily add 5 or 10 additional extensions for the duration of the exercise and then remove them at the end of the exercise. Contracts can be based on a PAYG monthly basis if needed.
Set up is exceptionally easy, takes around 2 minutes to be up and running once you have everything in place.
We have run this system in two of our offices for a couple of years without any problem whatsoever other than BT and there poor broadband service. We are just completing the transition all our offices so this is the only system in use for us.
Call quality is in my opinion better than an analogue BT line.
We have no relationship with soho66 other than being very satisfied customers.
J
Re: Should have got a deposit.
Lawrence
We get that too.
All telephone calls in to and out of our office are recorded. We pay around £6 per month for all calls to be held securely for six years which is a requirement of our FSA Licence.
We can and do use these calls to prove our contract between us and the end user both PreLitigation and if necessary for litigation if needed.
We have never lost a case as a result. Last year we took action against around 350 customers and took 31 customers to Court. To put that into perspective we attend around 35k calls per year.
As always the courts look to find out on the balance of probabilities whom is telling the truth and its damned difficult to argue with a recording of a customer verbally agreeing a contract, then signing your job sheet confirming your attendance thus completing a contract.
As I constantly bang on about, getting paperwork and your T&C’s right at the beginning is more important than doing the job itself.
J
Re: Should have got a deposit.
Basically yes
If you can prove via your T&C’s and your job signed job sheet that the customer agreed to settle and then refuses subsequent to having received the goods and or services then the argument is fraud has been committed.
We are back to the Bills of Exchange Act again.
A cheque is just a piece of paper which establishes a promise to pay in law. Cash is exactly the same, and in fact states the Bank of England promises to pay the bearer the sum of £X. Take a look at a bank note! If someone bounces a cheque it is the same for the purposes of law as passing forged cash.
Now if your T&C’s are correct and your jobs sheets contain the customers signature confirming acceptance of those T&C’s then you have effectively created a bill of exchange which establishes a promise to pay.
Failure to pay in line with that document demonstrates an intent to prevent you receiving payment in full.
Having then obtained the goods and or services knowing he may be required to pay for them, having agreed to pay for them and then not paying for them with the intent not to pay for them an act of fraud has been committed under S11 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Where most fall down is either poor T&C’s (which are as much use as an iPod is for a Swan), or a non signed job sheet. Without them both you cannot form the Bill of Exchange without other evidence such as a bounced cheque.
And yes, if a third party work provider issues you with a service call and you follow the terms of that contract, you invoice it correctly and they subsequently don’t pay you, provided your T&C’s are correct then you can instigate a criminal complaint for fraud under S11. Remember it says a person is guilty if he obtains goods or services for himself or another……..
It is the or another part which links the customer with the faulty appliance to the action.
My T&C’S specifically link via an indemnity the person with the faulty appliance receiving the benefit of my attendance on them with the invoice, thus co joining liability under a Bill of Exchange to both them and the party instructing me to attend.
A number of third party work providers and manufacturers have realised the hard way when they have attempted to defraud me by not paying for the work done, that me taking the customer to task is not a pleasant way forward for them or the customer and it can be rather embarrassing for them.
Of additional interest, a Bill of Exchange can also be formed if you sign a Direct Debit, but not a Standing Order. Technically therefore, bouncing a direct debit could also be a criminal offence under S11. However preventing a standing order leaving your account does not fall into this scenario.
It is for this reason most financial establishments, mobile phone and such like use DD as the preferred collection method rather than Standing Order.
As a matter of interest, Amex instigate more allegations of fraud for bad debt than any other financial institution in the UK. They also have the best bad debt collection rate in the UK. Wonder why that is?
HTH
J
Re: Should have got a deposit.
Twicknix
For fraud we need to establish intent.
Bounced cheque does that implicitly however, without the cheque it is a lot more tricky to prove.
You will need to prove both the contract and the intent to prevent payment which is hard.
For this reason it is better suited to pursue the matter via the civil court as you have little evidence of the intent to deceive without the cheque.
Lawrence
If the cheque has come back account closed then it is 101{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} fraud. Demand the police take action under Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006.
For obvious reasons they have a far better chance of tracking down the fraudster than you ever will.
Also, once one complainant comes to light, often a string of others appear once the police contact the issuing bank, thus more evidence of the deliberate fraud is uncovered.
You may not get all you are owed but it sure as hell gives you some legal satisfaction. Remember of course, if it goes to court then the court will usually impose a damages fine, payable to you for your losses. You may only get it back at a pound a week but you do get it.
J
Should of got a deposit.
No
Contract is completed by way delivery of the goods and or service and payment by way of the cheque.
The cheque is the promise in law to pay under the Bills of Exchange Act.
Bouncing it breaches that promise and is therefore a criminal offence.
In the olden days it used to be classified under theft act of 1968 and was a criminal offence as it was deemed to have been obtaining goods and or services by deception.
However on 15 January 2007, Sections 2 and 11 (in the case of a service being delivered) of the Fraud Act 2006 repealed the Theft Act (items relating to deception) and made the knowing bouncing of a cheque a criminal offence punishable by a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
What needs to be proved is intent.
To prove intent show the police the bounced cheque. It proves goods and or services were supplied and payment for that was both expected and agreed to, otherwise how would you get the cheque.
The subsequent stop after it being issued proves you intend to prevent the cheque from being honoured.
Tell me do you think the issuer of the cheque phoning, visiting or writing to his bank to ask for the cheque to be stopped would be an act of intent to stop the entity obtaining the money after the goods or services had been supplied?
There are very few legal reasons to stop a cheque. Very few indeed, so every other occasion where it occurs, you run the risk of committing a criminal offence.
Martin do a google search on Section 11 Fraud Act 2006 and I think you will see what I am referring to.
J
Re: Should of got a deposit.
The only proof needed is the returned cheque, that in itself is all that is needed nothing more.
Big well known case, Polly Peck International (Azil Nadia) v SFO
Not so well known, HSNW (Gareth Cawley) v Merloni
Both issued cheques which bounced both reported to the police for fraud, both found guilty based on the evidential element if the cheques return. Both serving time as a result.
The fact that it is unusual us down to the ignorance of the law if those whom could use it.
Cheque value makes no difference other than once over £750 you can also issue bankruptcy proceedings at the same time.
Jackal
Re: Should of got a deposit.
Stopped cheques are serious and the normal rules of debt collection no longer apply irrespective of the amount.
You must keep the original stopped cheque as evidence.
If you have it back from the bank you can either:
Go to court obtain the judgement and send in the bailiffs as she has no legal right to defend her action; or
Go to the police and claim fraud.
I am not joking, a stopped cheque is an act if fraud under the Bills of Exchange Act 1887!
Never ever bounce a cheque! If it won’t be paid, don’t issue it in the first place!
Jackal
Re: General Legal Protection Ltd
Yes undertaken a couple of calls for them and apart from a couple of slight payment delays have had no problems at all.
That’s said we asked what was covered and what wasn’t before we did anything parts wise and yes they classed worn brushes as general wear and tear which we thought was ridiculous.
We now get authorisation on every repair involving a part AND charge a second visit fee as a result of them being ridiculous with wear and tear.
We do lots if warranty and insurance work for many insurers and most are not this pernickety with what’s covered and what isn’t, but every client is different.
Not much help to you I know.
Best wishes
Jackal
