Robin Hoody: A Bankster in Dishonour

The following is a sanitized transcription of the genuine attempt of a former executive level chartered accountant to enforce payment using a credit card remittance slip (cheque) in the geographical area known as England, in the light of the discovery that credit card companies deposit such instruments in accounts at Euroclear, without the knowledge or consent of their customers. Unless stated otherwise, the company in question ignored or rejected the contents of the missives sent and issued another demand for payment.

Robin Hoody
Managing Director
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

1 December 2008

Notice of Acceptance for Value

Dear Robin,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Please find enclosed the financial instrument your company sent me in relation to the above account, accepted for value and returned for settlement, and prepayment against future transactions.

Please also be advised that this instrument, once accepted for value, is lawful specie of money which can be used to credit/off-set the balance of the above account with the authorised use of my exemption ID number. This properly endorsed remittance can be redeemed by depositing it with Her Majesty’s Treasury, as I am sure Capital Two’s Chief Financial Officer is already well aware.

Therefore, please forward this letter and remittance to the appropriate accounts facility within Capital Two and instruct them to act accordingly, providing me with evidence that the account balance has been adjusted.

If no written response from Capital Two is received by mail within ten days of your receipt of this notice, it will be assumed that the account has been credited as per these instructions and that this fact will be reflected in the next monthly statement of account.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT.

Robin Hoody
Managing Director
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

29 December 2008

NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE

Dear Robin,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

With reference to the financial instrument, accepted for value and returned for settlement and prepayment against future transactions, that was enclosed with the Notice of Acceptance for Value dated 1 December 2008, both of which were delivered to Capital Two by registered mail.

As no written response from Capital Two has been received within ten days of your receipt of said notice, it has now been assumed that the above account has been credited in accordance with my previous instructions. However, this fact is not reflected in the current balance of the account.

Therefore, please send me written confirmation that payment has been received and accepted, as well as an appropriately adjusted statement for the above account, within three working days of your receipt of this notice.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

Robin Hoody
Managing Director
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

29 December 2008

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF STANDING ORDER

Dear Robin,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

In accordance with the original instructions in the said notice, since Capital Two have accepted the said financial instrument as means of payment, I hereby deliver notice that the standing order related to the above account has been cancelled, as of 29 December 2008.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

They might choose to cancel the facility, but they refused legal tender of payment so the debt has now been legally dicharged in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act.

The credit agencies are about to be served notice that should they record false information in relation to this account they will be immediately reported the Office of Fair Trading and invoiced for a substantial fee schedule.

Robin Hoody
Managing Director
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

12 January 2009

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR

Dear Robin,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

With reference to the financial instrument, accepted for value and returned for settlement and prepayment against future transactions, that was enclosed with the Notice of Acceptance for Value dated 1 December 2008, Notice of Non-Response, dated 29 December and Notice of Cancellation of Standing Order, dated 29 December 2009, all of which were delivered to Capital Two by recorded mail.

I hereby give notice that Capital Two has dishonoured each and every one of the said Notices by failing to respond appropriately within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, Capital Two has agreed to all the terms set forth therein; namely:

1. In accordance with the original instructions given in the Notice of Acceptance for Value, Capital Two have accepted the properly indorsed remittance slip as means of settlement and prepayment; and
2. The above account will be credited accordingly.

Since Capital Two has accepted the above, Capital Two therefore also accepts the following:

1. Capital Two has no claim to any interest payment, or additional charges, neither of which can be legally added to the account balance; and
2. Capital Two has no authority to adversely affect the credit rating of the card holder.

Therefore I request Capital Two send me written confirmation that payment has been received and accepted, as well as an appropriately adjusted statement for the above account, within three working days of your receipt of this notice, sent by recorded mail.

Please be advised that Section 43(a) of the English Bills of Exchange Act, which is still in full force and effect in the UK, clearly states that a bill of exchange is discharged when it:

‘…is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused or cannot be obtained’.

Therefore, in accordance with the law, in the event that you fail to provide me with what has been so reasonably requested once again, Capital Two’s dishonour of a legal tender of payment discharges the outstanding balance on the above account.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

Robin Bandit
Director of Collections
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

15 January 2009

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Dear Robin,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

In relation to the above account, I hereby serve notice that since 1 December 2008, I have presented legal tender of payment and served four notices by registered mail to ROBIN HOODY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAPITAL TWO EUROPE, all of which have been dishonoured.

Therefore, please find enclosed Capital Two’s invalid claim that I have defaulted on the above account, along with an invalid statement of the above account, both of which were received on 15 January 2009, and both of which are hereby REFUSED FOR CAUSE.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

Theevin Basterd
Executive Office Manager
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

22 January 2009

NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE DISHONOUR

Dear Theevin Basterd,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Firstly, I must respectfully decline your offer of title and kindly request that any future correspondence be addressed to Uppercase: Lower, a flesh and blood man. ‘Mr’ is the title to a corporate fiction, otherwise known as my Legal Person, for which I am acting as fully authorised agent and administrator.

Thank you for your letter dated 9 January 2009, which was received at the above mailing location on 21 January 2009, some 11 days after the registered date of posting. Contrary to your claims, I do not feel that Capital Two has given an appropriate response to the serious issues that my legal notices have raised, nor do I consent to your offer of this case being considered closed.

You refer in your letter to my ‘letters’. It is important that Capital Two understand and acknowledge that far from sending Capital Two letters, I have, in fact, sent several ‘Notices’, which are a different specie of correspondence altogether. The Notices, which were all sent by recorded mail, were:

• Notice of Acceptance for Value, dated 1 December 2008,
• Notice of Non-Response, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Cancellation of Standing Order, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Dishonour, dated 15 January 2009 and
• Notice of Invalid Claim Refused for Cause, dated 15 January 2009

Your correspondence was the first response I have received from Capital Two in relation to any of the above. I do not believe it to be acceptable business practice for a company to take 40 days to respond to a Notice sent in good faith by a customer, nor should it take 11 days from the date of writing for a letter to be received by the customer. Your tardy response is the only reason matters have yet to be resolved. Therefore, I do not give my consent for you to record negative information on my Legal Person’s credit file and feel compelled to reiterate that Capital Two has made an invalid claim that STRAWMAN has defaulted on the above account, notification of which was Refused for Cause in the Notice dated 15 January 2009.

Furthermore, as set out in each of the said Notices, by failing to respond appropriately within a reasonable timeframe, which was also set out in each Notice, Capital Two has in fact given its tacit acceptance to all the claims made within these Notices, including, but not limited to:

1. Capital Two have accepted the properly indorsed remittance slip as means of settlement and prepayment,
2. The above account will be credited accordingly,
3. Capital Two has no claim to any interest payment, or additional charges, neither of which can be legally added to the account balance; and
4. Capital Two has no authority to adversely affect the credit rating of the card holder.

With reference to your confusion regarding the financial instrument I sent to Capital Two, the legal definition of remittance is:

‘REMITTANCE, comm. law. Money sent by one merchant to another, either in specie, bill of exchange, draft or otherwise.

In commercial law, to remit is to send money, bills, or something which will answer the purpose of money.’

It is my understanding that, in accordance with the English Bills of Exchange Act, my acceptance and indorsement of the said financial instrument as Holder In Due Course, validates it as a legal tender of payment. Therefore, the legal definition of ‘remittance’ clearly includes without restriction, the properly indorsed financial instrument I sent to Capital Two as legal tender of payment in relation to the above account.

In addition to all of the above, if, as you claim, Capital Two does not accept prepayment, or if, as you also claim, the ‘giro bank payment slip’ is not legal tender, why has the remittance not been returned to me with an instruction to amend the amount or send alternative payment before now?

Please be advised that Section 43(a) of the English Bills of Exchange Act clearly states that a bill of exchange is discharged when it:

‘…is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused or cannot be obtained’.

Therefore, in accordance with all of the above stated facts, I have provided Capital Two with a valid method of payment and an account number from which Capital Two may effect payment and clear instructions as to how to effect this payment.

I hereby serve notice that if Capital Two should choose not accept the properly indorsed remittance, currently held by Capital Two, as legal tender of payment within ten days of your receipt of this notice, sent by recorded mail on 22 January 2009, the debt will be considered legally discharged and the account must be adjusted accordingly.

I hereby declare that notice to principal is notice to agent, and notice to agent is notice to principal, shall apply to all correspondence referenced herein, as well as all future correspondence in relation to this matter.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

Theevin Basterd
Executive Office Manager
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

23 January 2009

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Dear Theevin Basterd,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Please find enclosed Capital Two’s invalid claim that I have defaulted on the above account, received at the mailing address above on 23 January 2009, the entire contents of which are hereby REFUSED FOR CAUSE.

In relation to the above account, I hereby serve notice that since 1 December 2008, I have presented legal tender of payment and served six notices by registered mail to Capital Two, all of which have been dishonoured. It is important that Capital Two understand and acknowledge that far from sending Capital Two letters, I have, in fact, sent several ‘Notices’, which are a different specie of correspondence altogether. The Notices, which were all sent by recorded mail, were:

• Notice of Acceptance for Value, dated 1 December 2008,
• Notice of Non-Response, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Cancellation of Standing Order, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Dishonour, dated 12 January 2009,
• Notice of Invalid Claim Refused for Cause, dated 15 January 2009, and
• Notice of Opportunity To Cure Dishonour, dated 22 January 2009.

Ignoring legally served notices in relation to the above account and making invalid claims against STRAWMAN will result in following fee schedule being charged to Capital Two:

– GBP£150.00 per invalid claim made by Capital Two – GBP£150.00 per notice sent by registered mail by STRAWMAN – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Agent & Administrator’s time

The law of agent and principal shall apply this notice and all other notices sent to Capital Two in relation to this account.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

Robin Bandit
Director of Collections
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

2 February 2009

NOTICE OF DISCHARGE

Dear Robin,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

I hereby serve notice that Capital Two have chosen not to reply to a Notice sent in relation to the above account on 22 January 2009 by recorded post. As detailed in that Notice, failure to reply within ten days of Capital Two’s receipt of that notice can be taken as Capital Two’s tacit acceptance to all the claims made within that, and previous Notices, including, but not limited to:

Therefore I request Capital Two send me written confirmation that payment has been received and accepted, an appropriately adjusted statement for the above account, within three working days of your receipt of this Notice sent by recorded mail, along with evidence that the credit rating of the account holder has not been adversely affected.

Furthermore, as explained in the NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR CAUSE sent by recorded mail to Capital Two on 23 January 2009, ignoring legal Notices in relation to the above account will result in the following fee schedule being charged to Capital Two:

– GBP£150.00 per invalid claim made by Capital Two – GBP£150.00 per notice sent by registered mail by STRAWMAN – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Agent & Administrator’s time

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

Robin Bandit
Director of Collections
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666

INVOICE

4 February 2009

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

In accordance with the Fee Schedule clearly defined in legally served Notices to Capital Two Europe, all of which have been tacitly accepted by said debtor, Capital Two are now liable to pay a total sum of SIX HUNDRED GREAT BRITISH POUNDS to STRAWMAN, in return for the considerable and valuable time, skills and energy expended by the authorised Agent in the administration of the following:

– GBP£150.00 for one dishonoured legal notice – GBP£150.00 for one invalid claim, enclosed REFUSED FOR CAUSE – GBP£300.00 for two hours of the Agent & Administrator’s time GBP£600.00 TOTAL AMOUNT NOW DUE

Cheques should be made payable to STRAWMAN and should be sent to the mailing location below within ten days of receipt of this Invoice, which was sent by recorded mail.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

The credit card company are now sending notices of their own refusing to accept that the debt has been discharged. They are denying that they agreed to the proposed terms with their silent consent and they are falsely claiming they have a right to charge late payment penalties and adversely affect the credit rating.

They’re also pretending they haven’t received an invoice for the Fee Schedule, which is now in excess of £1200 and that they have not been asked for verification and validation of the liability. In other words, they are fecked and they know it!

DECLARANT: Uppercase: Lower
c/o Non-Residential Mailing Address

RESPONDENT: THE ROBIN HOODIES 1-5
CAPITAL TWO BANK EUROPE PLC

RE: Account number: 123412341234
Registered Mail Number: 123412341234
Return Receipt Requested

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
A verified plain statement of facts

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

I, the flesh and blood Man known as Uppercase: Lower, hereinafter “Declarant”, do hereby affirm and declare that I am of legal age, have first hand knowledge of the facts contained herein, am expensively educated, highly qualified and a former chartered accountant. Therefore, I certainly feel more than competent enough to make this verified plain statement of the facts in relation to the account referenced on Page 1 of 4 of this Affidavit.

Therefore, let it be known by those responsible for the corporate entity known as CAPITAL TWO EUROPE (“Respondent”), and any relevant parent or subsidiary company, including its directors, shareholders, agents and affiliates, that I do hereby state that the following is, to the very best of my knowledge, true, correct and complete, presented in good faith, and not intended to mislead in any way.

1. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not in multiple dishonour of registered legal notices served by the Declarant in relation to the above account, and believes that no such evidence exists.

2. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not dishonoured legal tender of payment presented by STRAWMAN in relation to the above account, and believes that no such evidence exists.

3. Declarant has seen no evidence that a properly endorsed ‘remittance’ is not legal specie of money, and believes that no such evidence exists.

4. Declarant has seen no evidence that STRAWMAN’S liability has not been legally discharged by RESPONDENT’S dishonour of said presentment of payment, and believes that no such evidence exists.

5. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has returned the balance to zero on the account referenced on Page 1 of 4, as agreed by RESPONDENT in its dishonour of said legal notices, and believes that no such evidence exists.

6. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has the legal right or the Declarant’s consent to telephone STRAWMAN’S place of work, mobile phone or mailing location, and believes that no such evidence exists.

7. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its telephonic harassment of the Declarant at STRAWMAN’S place of work, and its repeated telephoning of STRAWMAN’S mailing location, does not constitute contacting the alleged debtor at unreasonable times, and believes that no such evidence exists.

8. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its pursuit of the exclusively authorised Agent & Administrator for STRAWMAN, is not pursuing a third party who is not liable for payment, and believes that no such evidence exists.

9. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its psychological harassment of the exclusively authorised Agent & Administrator, is not putting pressure on a third party that is considered to be oppressive, and believes that no such evidence exists.

10. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has ensured that adequate history of the discharged debt has been appropriately passed on, resulting in both repetitive and frequent contact by different parties, and believes that no such evidence exists.

11. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has ignored and/or disregarded the Declarant’s claim that any previous liability has now been discharged, and believes that no such evidence exists.

12. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is legally entitled to disclose or threaten to disclose details of the alleged debt to third parties, and believes that no such evidence exists.

13. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not failed to investigate a disputed debt in the appropriate manner, resulting in the wrongful pursuit of an alleged debtor, and believes that no such evidence exists.

14. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has ceased collection activity whilst investigating said disputed debt, and believes that no such evidence exists.

15. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not claiming collection costs from an alleged debtor in the absence of express contractual or other legal provision, and believes that no such evidence exists.

16. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not applying unreasonable charges which are not based on actual and necessary costs, and believes that no such evidence exists.

17. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not engaged in business practices which appear deceitful, oppressive, unfair and improper, whether unlawful or not, and believes that no such evidence exists.

18. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has fully disclosed information pertaining to any assumed, presumed or implied Consumer Credit Agreement between the parties, and believes that no such evidence exists.

19. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not, through its multiple dishonour of legal notices and tender of payment, agreed to pay the exclusively authorised Agent & Administrator’s Fee Schedule in relation to the account referenced on Page 1 of 4, legal notice of which has already been appropriately served, and believes that no such evidence exists.

Furthermore, following detailed and extensive research on the deception, greed and corruption that is all too common in the fictional world of commerce:

20. Declarant has seen no evidence that a legally enforceable bilateral contract exists between RESPONDENT and STRAWMAN, excluding the offers presented by STRAWMAN to RESPONDENT, which were tacitly accepted by RESPONDENT, as evidenced by the legal notices that were sent by STRAWMAN by recorded mail and subsequently dishonoured by RESPONDENT, and believes that no such evidence exists.

21. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not attempting to aggressively enforce an invalid claim, and believes that no such evidence exists.

22. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is able to provide verification of the alleged debt owed by STRAWMAN, and believes that no such evidence exists.

23. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is able to provide validation of the alleged debt owed by STRAWMAN, and believes that no such evidence exists.

24. Declarant has seen no evidence of RESPONDENT’S valuable consideration pertaining to the account referenced on Page 1 of 4, and believes that no such evidence exists.

25. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT does not balance its accounts every time the exclusively authorised Agent & Administrator signs for a credit card purchase or enters the appropriate pin number, and believes that no such evidence exists.

26. Declarant has seen no evidence that the RESPONDENT’S dishonour of Declarant’s tender of payment did not transfer all liability in this matter to RESPONDENT, as holder in due course of Declarant’s consideration, and believes that no such evidence exists.

27. Declarant has seen no evidence that notary certification of said dishonour would not comprise RESPONDENT’S confession to offering a chose in action for all such liabilities, and believes that no such evidence exists

28. Declarant has seen no evidence that notary certification of said dishonour would not comprise the RESPONDENT’S stipulation that no facts are in dispute and no controversy exists in the above-noted matter, and believes that no such evidence exists.

29. Declarant has seen no evidence that notary certification of said dishonour would not comprise Administrative Default Judgment, binding RESPONDENT pursuant to voluntary agreement, and believes that no such evidence exists.

30. Declarant has seen no evidence that such notary certification would not create a permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence as an operation of law, barring the bringing of any and all further judicial or administrative actions pertaining to this matter, whether against Declarant’s property, collateral, interests, freedom and liberty, and believes that no such evidence exists.

31. Declarant has seen no evidence that, upon such notary’s certification, the RESPONDENT would not have waived for all time all rights, remedies and defences in and at law, equity, commerce and admiralty regarding the above-referenced matter and consequential actions which may be brought to cure the RESPONDENT’S commercial dishonours, and such waiver of rights shall include, without limitation, waiver of the right to argue, raise a controversy or initiate litigation or arbitration in any venue or jurisdiction, whether foreign or domestic, and believes that no such evidence exists.

32. Declarant has seen no evidence that the said dishonour does not comprise RESPONDENT’S agreement by way of default to the filing of such consequential actions, judicial or administrative, as Declarant may deem necessary, and believes that no such evidence exists.

33. Declarant has seen no evidence that the said dishonour does not comprise RESPONDENT’S tacit agreement of the facts listed on all Notices and Schedules delivered to the RESPONDENT in relation to this matter, and believes that no such evidence exists.

34. Declarant has seen no evidence contravening the maxim of law that silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, and believes that no such evidence exists.

35. Declarant has seen no evidence contravening the maxim of law that an affidavit stands as truth in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, unless rebutted, point-by-point, by an affidavit which is sworn to the same degree of commercial risk, and believes that no such evidence exists.

36. Declarant has seen no evidence that an answer indicating “NA”, “not applicable”, “inapposite” or similar dishonours, or failure to answer any point herein would not be unresponsive and comprise stipulation to all facts in this Affidavit, pursuant to the maxim that silence comprises agreement, and Declarant believes that no such evidence exists.

37. Declarant has seen no evidence that failure to respond to this Verified Affidavit of Facts, point-by-point, will not comprise the RESPONDENT’S affirmation, attestation and agreement to all terms and statements contained herein, and believes that no such evidence exists.

COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OATH AND VERIFICATION

“I, Upper-Case: Lower , the exclusively Authorised Representative, Agent & Administrator for STRAWMAN, hereby certify upon my own commercial liability that I have read Pages 1-4 of this Affidavit, and, to the very best of my knowledge, the facts contained herein are true, correct and complete, not misleading, and should be considered a verified plain statement of the facts as I perceive them.”

Use of a Notary Public is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.

Autographed and sealed this, the sixteenth day of March, in the year known as two thousand and nine. Void where prohibited by law.

Right thumbprint:

Sworn & Subscribed By: Uppercase:Lower

_____________________________________________
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Non-Assumpsit

Autographed & Sealed in the presence of:

Notary Public: Seal:

Dated: _____ Day of ______________________, 200___

Notary Public’s Signature:__________________________

Directions for Response

All responses to this affidavit must be made upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, and received by mail at the above Notary’s office within 7 (seven) days of service. Failure to respond to this affidavit in an appropriate and timely manner will result in an automatic default judgement, establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence, forevermore barring the bringing of any charges, claims or liens under any statute, act, code and by-law against Upper-Case: Lower (Declarant).

Surprise suprise, no response was received at the notary’s office within the stated time and the following Notice of Dishonour was duly served.

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR

Notice to the principal is notice to the agent
Notice to the agent is notice to the principal

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 123123123

Following the recorded delivery of the AFFIDAVIT OF NEGATIVE AVERMENT to CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC on 20 March 2009 in relation to the above account, and the subsequent failure of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC to deliver a response within the stated time and in the appropriate manner, I hereby serve NOTICE OF DISHONOUR.

Legal Maxims:

Silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy.

An affidavit stands as truth in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, unless rebutted, point-by-point, by an Affidavit which is sworn to the same degree of commercial risk.

CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’S failure to respond to the VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT, point-by-point, at the same level of commercial risk, comprises the Respondent’s affirmation, attestation and agreement to all terms and statements contained therein.

Therefore, since the parties are now in agreement that the liability of STRAWMAN has been discharged, please return the endorsed instrument for reconsideration, along with confirmation that the balance of the above account is zero, within three days of your receipt of this notice.

CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC should also be advised that any further demands for payment may be in contravention the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 section 3, the Theft Act 1968 sections 17, 18, 21 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. At no time have I abandoned, implied or given consent for any party to claim or withhold proceeds as abandoned funds.

In the event that the said instrument has been lost, then section 69 and 70 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 may apply, in which case, please supply both your Public Liability Insurance policy number and your TIN (Tax Identification Number), in order that the necessary claim might be effected.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower (Authorised Representative)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

The usual threats we have all experienced at the hands of credit bandits have been conspicuous by their absence, as has ANY correspondence from Robin Hoody’s in-house debt collection arm, and a delinquent debtor report to the credit referencing agencies has not been filed.

The executive in question, rather than risk being held personally liable for fraud, has now closed the account and passed the legally discharged debt on to a third party interloper with no legal standing, who has sent a very polite letter attempting to establish a new agreement.

Nevertheless, it has taken five months to achieve this, using a process which is definitely not for the faint-hearted. Since the beginning of the tale new information has come to light that suggests that there is a much more efficient way to enforce Accepted For Value technology.

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM

Dear Chief Executive Officer of 3rd Party Interlopers,

INTERLOPER REFERENCE: 123123123

I hereby serve legal notice that INTERLOPER has made an invalid claim against STRAWMAN, in relation to a discharged liability with CAPITAL TWO BANK EUROPE.

The alleged debt has been legally discharged pursuant to the English Bills of Exchange Act 1882, following CAPITAL TWO BANK EUROPE’S dishonour of legal tender of payment, and its subsequent failure to respond to a notarised AFFIDAVIT OF NEGATIVE AVERMENT, which was delivered to your client on 21 March 2009 by recorded mail, creating permanent, irrevocable estoppel and administrative Default Judgement, vitiating any and all previous agreements between CAPITAL TWO BANK EUROPE and STRAWMAN.

Please be advised that INTERLOPER’S pursuit of this false claim against STRAWMAN may be in contravention of the Statute of Frauds Act 1667, which clearly states:

“IV Noe action shall be brought…F2 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt default or miscarriages of another person…F3 unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in writing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.”

For the avoidance of doubt, at no point has STRAWMAN entered into or consented to any Agreement of any kind with INTERLOPER, nor does STRAWMAN consent to any Agreement, whether express or implied, with INTERLOPER.

Furthermore, the Fraud Act 2006 states that:

“1 Fraud

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are –

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
© section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable –

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he –

(a) dishonestly makes false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation –

(i) to make gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if –

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

Please be aware that making any further invalid claims against STRAWMAN and/or attempting to contact the Authorised Representative by mail, mobile phone and/or telephone, whether at the above mailing address or at STRAWMAN’S place of work, will constitute the agreement of INTERLOPER to the following Fee Schedule:

– GBP£1500.00 per invalid claim in writing – GBP£1500.00 per notice sent by recorded mail – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Authorised Representative’s time – GBP£150.00 per attempt to contact by telephone

Furthermore, please supply me with your Public Liability Insurance Policy Number and your Tax Identification Number (TIN) in order that I can instigate any and all administrative and/or judicial procedures necessary to redeem the liability that you have created by bringing this invalid claim against STRAWMAN.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower (Authorised Representative)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear Chief Executive Officer of Interlopers Limited,

RE: 123412341234

In response to your Calling Card, received at the above mailing location today, 20 April 2009, please find enclosed a copy of NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM, which was delivered to the Chief Executive Officer of Interlopers Limited by Post Office recorded mail on 17 April 2009.

I hereby record the assumption that your Calling Card and said NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM crossed in the post and that Interlopers Limited have now ceased from all attempts to collect a legally unenforceable claim against STRAWMAN, which could be construed as fraud by false representation, pursuant to the Statute of Frauds Act 1667 and the Fraud Act 2006.

Please be advised that should you or any other representative of Interlopers Limited call in person at the above mailing location in any further attempts to collect on this invalid claim, a liability of GBP£1500.00 per visit will be incurred and a complaint will be filed with the Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading, for the purposes of which Interlopers Limited’s licence number ******** has been duly noted.

Furthermore, please supply me with your Public Liability Insurance Policy Number and your Tax Identification Number (TIN) in order that I can instigate any and all administrative and/or judicial procedures that I deem to be necessary in relation to this matter.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Authorised Representative)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS

Dear CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

RE: ####/######

In response to your company’s letter dated 02 June 2009 (enclosed Refused for Cause), please find enclosed a certified copy of the NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS, which was sent to you at the above address on 28 April 2009.

Please be advised that POWER2INTERLOPE LIMITED, in sending another invalid claim in writing, have now incurred a liability of GBP£1,500.00, in accordance with the Fee Schedule set forth within said notice.

Furthermore, please supply me with your Public Liability Insurance Policy Number and your Tax Identification Number (TIN) in order that I can instigate any and all administrative and/or judicial procedures that I deem to be necessary, in relation this invalid claim against STRAWMAN.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Authorised Representative)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON ASSUMPSIT

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS

Dear CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 1234123412341234

In response to your company’’s INPORTANT NOTICE, sent for and on behalf of POWER2INTERLOPE LTD, I hereby serve NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS made by Interloper Limited, on behalf of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC.

Contrary to Interlopers Limited’s claims, a NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS was delivered to Robin Bandit on 12 May 2009 by Post Office Recorded Delivery ***************. Since this NOTICE was ignored, a certified copy of it was sent by Post Office Recorded Delivery *************** on 16 May 2009. Please find enclosed certified copies of all correspondence sent by STRAWMAN to Interlopers Limited in relation to this matter.

Please be advised that any further invalid claims made by POWER2INTERLOPE LTD following service of this NOTICE, and/or further attempts to contact the Authorised Representative in person, by mail, mobile phone and/or telephone, whether at the above mailing location or at STRAWMAN’S place of work, will constitute the agreement of POWER2INTERLOPE LTD to the following Default Fee Schedule:

– GBP£1500.00 per invalid claim in writing, nunc pro tunc – GBP£1500.00 per visit to the above mailing location – GBP£1500.00 per notice sent by recorded mail by STRAWMAN, nunc pro tunc – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Authorised Representative’s time, nunc pro tunc – GBP£150.00 per attempt to contact by telephone, nunc pro tunc

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Authorised Representative)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON ASSUMPSIT

NOTICE OF ATTEMPT TO COLLECT AN INVALID CLAIM

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 1234123412341234

In response to your comaony’s INPORTANT NOTICE, sent for and on behalf of POWER2INTERLOPE LTD, NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS was sent to you by Post Office Recorded Delivery ************* on 28 May 2009, a Certified Copy of which has been enclosed with this notice, along with NOTICE OF FEE SCHEDULE.

Please be advised that an employee of POWER2INTERLOPE visited the above mailing location at 11am GMT on Thursday 18 June, claiming that he was “looking for MISS STRAWMAN”. Since I was not present at the time my partner spoke to Mike Atkinson (Ref: 1904), who asked him if “MISS STRAWMAN” lived there, to which my partner replied “No”, since MISS STRAWMAN is a fititious entity, who can neither live or be seen anywhere, and for which I am the exclusively authorised representative, as you have already been informed.

For the avoidance of doubt, this alleged liability has been settled administratively by a notarial proces; the outstanding balance of the above account has been legally discharged pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882; and any and all previous agreements have been vitiated because of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s failure to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt and an original bilateral credit agreement, in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). Please be aware that the House of Lords, in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul), ruled that a credit agreement must contain the prescribed terms and must be signed in the prescribed manner for the agreement to be legally enforcable.

Therefore, POWER2INTERLOPE are clearly attempting to enforce an invalid claim after being served due legal notice that the debt has already been discharged. Certified Copies of all relevant correspondence will now be forwarded to Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading, John Vickers, along with a request that he initiates an investigation into POWER2INTERLOPE’s entirely dishonourable business practice, which may well be in contravention of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553), the above referenced ruling of the House of Lords and the OFT’s Guidance Notes on Fair Debt Collection.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Authorised Representative)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON ASSUMPSIT

The Robin Hoodies sold the discharged liability to yet another 3rd party interloper, who immediately served a blood red, highly aggressive and threatening CREDITOR’S NOTICE, stating clearly that county court proceedings would be initiated if the alleged debt was not settled within 7 days. the sanitised version of my favourite accountant’s nuclear-powered response appears below.

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear INTERLOPERS,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard 1234 1234 1234 1234

Following the receipt of your company’s NOTICE dated __________________, I hereby serve notice that I conditionally accept the alleged debt of ALLEGED AMOUNT DUE, and will use my best endeavours to settle and close the account in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items at the mailing location above:

1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink by the Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
3. Validation of ROBIN HOODIES’ valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged debt, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
4. Proof of claim that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when ROBIN HOODIES refused to accept the payment tendered on DATE OF TENDER OF PAYMENT
5. Proof of claim that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated when ROBIN HOODIES failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt, or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
6. Proof of claim that this alleged liability has not been settled administratively, following ROBIN HOODIES’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
7. Proof of claim that ROBIN HOODIES is not in multiple breach of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices July 2003 (updated December 2006)

Dishonour of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE by failing to provide these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of ROYAL MAIL SPECIAL DELIVERY BAR CODE NUMBER, will constitute the voluntary agreement of INTERLOPERS LIMITED that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, it has caused injury to STRAWMAN, for which the Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN is legally entitled to make a commercial claim through the county courts for three times the value of the alleged debt, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

In sincerity and honour, without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

By: Upper-Case: Lower (Authorised Representative)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON ASSUMPSIT

Within three days of receiving this, the interlopers replied with the following letter:

Dear STRAWMAN,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard 1234 1234 1234 1234

Further to your recent contact with our office and your request for further information in relation to the above account, we would confirm that your account is now on hold for 28 days whilst we obtain the information required.

If you have any proof of payments or correspondence that would assist with your query, please forward these documents, with a brief covering letter, to our Collections Administration department, so that we can resolve the matter as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Collections Administration Department.

Oh dear. It seems that the CEO has created a liability of the 3 times the value of the invalid claim, which is why he is attempting to establish a new agreement with the collections department. With a notarised administrative judgment in hand, there can be no doubt that the final settlement and closure of the matter has materialised on the horizon.

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
CHIEF EXECUTIVE ROBIN HOODY
ROBIN HOODIES LIMITED
ADDRESS
POST CODE

COMPANY NUMBER: XXXXXX
LICENCE NUMBER: XXXXXX

DATE

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear CHIEF EXECUTIVE ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink by the Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
3. Validation of ROBIN HOODIES’ valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged debt, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
4. Proof of claim that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when ROBIN HOODIES refused to accept the payment tendered on DATE OF TENDER OF PAYMENT
5. Proof of claim that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated when ROBIN HOODIES failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt, or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
6. Proof of claim that this alleged liability has not been settled administratively, following ROBIN HOODIES’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated ______________.
7. Proof of claim that ROBIN HOODIES is not in multiple breach of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices July 2003 (updated December 2006)

Dishonour of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE by failing to provide these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of ROYAL MAIL SPECIAL DELIVERY BARCODE NUMBER, will comprise the tacit procuration of ROBIN HOODIES’ agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, it has caused injury to STRAWMAN, for which the Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN is legally entitled to make a commercial claim through the county courts for three times the value of the alleged debt, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

In sincerity and honour, without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

By: Upper-Case: Lower (Authorised Representative)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON ASSUMPSIT
Errors & Omissions Excepted

At this point, my favourite former chartered accountant saw fit to appoint an Agent in Commerce, in the genuine hope of settling and closing the matter…

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ROBIN HOODY
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

24 July 2009
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

I hereby serve notice that AGENT’S STRAWMAN™ has been appointed as the exclusively authorised Agent for STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof), in the genuine hope that we might settle and close any and all disputed matters pertaining to the above account, in the most honourable and expedient manner possible.

Therefore, please be advised that all further correspondence must be sent to:

AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent for STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN’S ADDRESS

Failure to honour this express stipulation will result in a charge of GBP£150.00 being levied against CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC for every item of unauthorised correspondence received by STRAWMAN.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower
Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent for STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ROBIN HOODY
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

07 August 2009

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your company’s dishonour of STRAWMAN’s NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, I hereby serve NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Kindly provide the following items at the mailing location below without further delay:

1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
3. Validation of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged debt, in the form of the actual accounting of your company’s losses
4. Proof of claim that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2008
5. Proof of claim that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated when CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt, or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
6. Proof of claim that this alleged liability has not been settled administratively, following CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009
7. Proof of claim that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)

Dishonour of this NOTICE, by failing to provide these reasonably requested specific items within seven (7) days of service, will comprise the tacit procuration of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC has caused injury to STRAWMAN, for which STRAWMAN is legally entitled to make a commercial claim through the county courts for at least three times the value of the invalid claim, plus the alleged principal, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower
Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent in Commerce for STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
NEIL MACFUCK, DIRECTOR
MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED
2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU

11 August 2009

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following receipt of your company’s letter on 10 August 2009, in my capacity as Agent in Commerce (notice enclosed), I hereby serve notice that MISS STRAWMAN conditionally accepts the alleged debt of Five Hundred & Ninety Two Great British Pounds & Sixteen Pence, and agrees to use best endeavours to settle and close the account in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items at the mailing location below:

1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
8. Validation of your client’s valuable consideration, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
9. Proof that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when your client refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2009
10. Proof that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated, when, upon reasonable request, your client failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
11. Proof that this alleged liability has not already been settled administratively, following your client’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009
12. Proof that MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED and its client, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, are not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)

Dishonour of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, by failing to provide these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of your company’s receipt of this notice, will comprise the tacit procuration of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, your company has caused injury to MISS STRAWMAN, for which the injured party is legally entitled to make a commercial claim through the county courts, for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus the principal, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower
Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent in Commerce for MISS STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Following a letter from a powerful law firm, which issued an explicit request for the Agent in Commerce to cease and desist from sending any more correspondence to Robin Hoody, as well as an allegation that the entire administrative process has no power and effect under English law…

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
DUPLICITOUS SOLICITORS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
12 RED LIARS SQUARE

11 August 2009

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear SIR/MADAM,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following receipt of your company’s letter on 10 August 2009, in my capacity as Agent in Commerce (notice enclosed), I hereby serve notice that MS STRAWMAN conditionally accepts the alleged debt to your client, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC EUROPE LIMITED, of Five Hundred & Ninety Two Great British Pounds & Sixteen Pence, and agrees to use best endeavours to settle and close the account in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items at the mailing location below:

1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
3. Validation of your client’s valuable consideration, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
4. Proof that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when your client refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2009
5. Proof that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated, when, upon reasonable request, your client failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
6. Proof that this alleged liability has not already been settled administratively, following your client’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009
7. Proof that your client is not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)
8. Proof of your claim that the ‘numerous documents’ sent by MS STRAWMAN to your client are ‘wrong in law and without foundation’
9. Proof that your client is not concealing material facts pertaining any existing and/or previous agreement of the parties by refusing to respond appropriately to the issues raised
10. Proof that your client is not subject to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

In good faith, MS STRAWMAN looks forward to receiving these items within seven (7) days of your receipt of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ROBIN HOODY
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

17 August 2009

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your company’s dishonour of STRAWMAN’s NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, and the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF DEFAULT. Your company has failed to provide the following reasonably requested items:

The failure of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC to provide these specific items within the stipulated time, comprises the tacit procuration of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC has caused injury to STRAWMAN, for which STRAWMAN is legally entitled to make a commercial claim for at least three times the value of the invalid claim, plus the alleged principal, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
NEIL MACFUCK, DIRECTOR
MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED
2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU

19 August 2009

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your dishonour of NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 11 August 2009, as expressed in your company’s vexatious NOTICE OF INTENDED LITIGATION, received on 19 August 2009, MISS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Please provide the following items at the mailing location below without further delay:

1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
3. Validation of your client’s valuable consideration, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
4. Proof that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when your client refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2009
5. Proof that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated, when, upon reasonable request, your client failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
6. Proof that this alleged liability has not already been settled administratively, following your client’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009
7. Proof that MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED and its client, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, are not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)

Failure to provide these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of your company’s receipt of this notice, will comprise the tacit procuration of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, your company has caused injury to MISS STRAWMAN, for which the injured party is legally entitled to make a commercial claim for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus the alleged principal, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
DUPLICITOUS SOLICITORS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
NOXIOUS CITY NC6 66FU

21 August 2009

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear SIR/MADAM,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following the dishonour of NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 11 August 2009, as expressed in your company’s letter dated 19 August 2009, the contents of which are rejected as an entirely inappropriate response, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Please deliver these specific items on behalf of your client without further delay:

1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
3. Validation of your client’s valuable consideration, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
4. Proof that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged when your client refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2009
5. Proof that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated, when, upon reasonable request, your client failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt or a legally enforceable Consumer Credit Agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
6. Proof that this alleged liability has not already been settled administratively, following your client’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009
7. Proof that your client is not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)
8. Proof of your claim that the ‘numerous documents’ sent by MS STRAWMAN to your client are ‘wrong in law and without foundation’
9. Proof that your client is not concealing material facts pertaining to any existing and/or previous alleged agreement of the parties, by refusing to respond appropriately to the issues raised
10. Proof that your client is not subject to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

In good faith, MS STRAWMAN looks forward to receiving these items within seven (7) days of your receipt of this NOTICE, the dishonour of which, in the form of another inappropriate response, will comprise the tacit procuration of your client’s agreement that the alleged debt cannot be verified or validated upon reasonable request.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

Once again, the next notice was sent to the credit bandit and its legal representatives:

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ROBIN HOODY
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

31 August 2009

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

RE: ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your dishonour of the NOTICE SEEKING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Therefore, please provide me with specific answers to the following questions without further delay:

1. According to the alleged loan agreement, did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC lend its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note (loan agreement) from MS STRAWMAN? Please answer YES or NO.

2. According to the relevant bookkeeping entries, did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC lend its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note (loan agreement) from MS STRAWMAN? Please answer YES or NO.

3. According to the alleged loan agreement, was MS STRAWMAN to provide valuable consideration to fund the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

4. According to the relevant bookkeeping entries, did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC accept anything of value from MS STRAWMAN that was used to give value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

5. Did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC follow UK GAAP (the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

6. Can CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC provide evidence that its chartered accountant and auditor at the time of the alleged loan(s) can confirm that it followed UK GAAP in the execution of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

7. Was it the intent of the alleged loan agreement that the party who funded the loan(s) is the party that is to be repaid the money? Please answer YES or NO.

8. Have all the material facts of the alleged loan(s) been fully disclosed in the alleged loan agreement? Please answer YES or NO.

9. According to the alleged loan agreement, was MS STRAWMAN obliged to lend the promissory note to CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC or another financial institution, in order to fund the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

10. Was the alleged loan agreement, and/or any and all other documents and/or instruments affixed thereto, registered as a Bill of Sale within seven (7) days of its alleged execution? Please answer YES or NO.

In good faith, MS STRAWMAN looks forward to receiving specific answers to the foregoing questions within seven (7) days of your receipt of this NOTICE, the dishonour of which, in the form of another inappropriate, incomplete or non-response, will comprise the tacit procuration of your agreement that the alleged debt cannot be verified or validated upon reasonable request, and that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is concealing material facts pertaining to any existing, and/or previously existing, alleged agreement of the parties.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower
Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent in Commerce for MS STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

The following notice was then duly served on Robin Hoody:

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ROBIN HOODY
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

10 September 2009

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

RE: ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF DEFAULT.

Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of the above referenced NOTICES, your company’s failure to respond appropriately comprises the tacit procuration of your agreement, by acquiescence, that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is concealing material facts pertaining to any existing, and/or previously existing, alleged agreement of the parties, and that the alleged debt cannot be verified or validated, and in so doing, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC also accepts that it has caused injury to MS STRAWMAN, for which the injured party is legally entitled to file a claim in the commercial courts for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus the alleged balance outstanding, in the event that all administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

The following doument was served on Robin Hoody, as well as his lawyers, none of whom are confident enough to put their names to their predictable responses:

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
DUPLICITOUS SOLICITORS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
NOXIOUS CITY NC6 66FU

21 August 2009

NOTICE REQUESING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear SIR/MADAM,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

While I am certainly no legal expert or a practicing member of the Law Society, it has come to my attention, following extensive research on the banking industry, as well as diligent study of the statutes governing Consumer Credit Agreements, that there is every reason to believe that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is not Holder-in-due-Course of the original loan agreement (promissory note), and/or CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC may be in breach of the alleged existing agreement, concerning the above referenced account.

Therefore, I am once again serving notice of MS STRAWMAN’s intention to discharge the alleged debt in full, using the same specie of money that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC used to fund the alleged loan, provided that the clearly expressed terms of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 11 August 2009 are fully satisfied, and MS STRAWMAN receives specific answers to the following questions:

3. According to the alleged loan agreement, was MS STRAWMAN to provide valuable consideration to fund the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

5. Did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC follow UK GAAP (the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

7. Was it the intent of the alleged loan agreement that the party who funded the loan(s) is the party that is to be repaid the money? Please answer YES or NO.

8. Have all the material facts of the alleged loan(s) been fully disclosed in the alleged loan agreement? Please answer YES or NO.

In good faith, MS STRAWMAN looks forward to receiving these items within seven (7) days of your receipt of this NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

Meanwhile, back in the land of the third party interlopers…

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
NEIL MACFUCK, DIRECTOR
MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED
2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU

29 August 2009

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 11 August 2009, and the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 19 August 2009, MISS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF DEFAULT.

The failure of your company to provide the reasonably requested validation and verification of the alleged debt comprises the tacit procuration of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, your company has caused injury to MISS STRAWMAN, for which the injured party is legally entitled to make a commercial claim for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus the alleged principal, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

After another unworthy effort was received by Robin’s lawyers, the following notice was suitably dispatched, with a similarly styled missive going to their incresingly sleepless client…

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
NOXIOUS CITY NC6 66FU

15 September 2009

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your letters dated 10 and 14 September 2009, in relation to the ongoing commercial dispute between MS STRAWMAN and your client, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED, I hereby serve NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS.

With all due respect, the palpable implication within your assertion that the facts of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd bear no relation to the alleged “argument put forward” by MS STRAWMAN and the undersigned Agent in Commerce; to wit, that the provisions of the Consumer Credit Agreement 1974 (the Act) do not apply to your client in relation to this matter, is hereby rejected as erroneous. For your information, MS STRAWMAN takes the position that it is the legal precedent set by the Wilson case that is relevant on this occasion. In paragraph 29 of the 2003 House of Lords ruling on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd, referring to the Act, Lord Nicholls stated that:

“The court’s powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1) (a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court ‘shall not make’ an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court’s power to make an enforcement order.”

Furthermore, the esteemed barrister and draftsman of the Consumer Credit Agreement 1974, Francis Bennion, stated on his own website:

“…I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if a creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have the power to relieve it of this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.”

Therefore, since the Act is still in full force and effect, and the above referenced section 127(3) has not been repealed by any subsequent Act of Parliament, it seems reasonable to presume that the eventual resolution of this disputed debt will be determined by the provisions of the Act in question, which is applied to all consumer credit agreements in the United Kingdom.

Moreover, the claim that your client has delivered the items repeatedly requested in order to validate and verify the alleged debt is entirely incorrect, as is any implication and/or assertion that your client is not legally required to give adequate assurance of due performance upon request. The only items that have been received are: an unverified digital record of an electronic credit application; a set of photocopied statements of account; and a photocopied consumer credit agreement, which clearly states on the first page, “CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974”, but does not bear either the name or the signature of the alleged debtor, while the questions posed in the NOTICES REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE remain unanswered.

Finally, serving notice that it has advised its client to “proceed accordingly” in respect of issuing proceedings to recover the alleged debt, and/or forwarding the file to one of its external agents for collection seems somewhat belated, since CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC has already forwarded the file to MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY, which hasn’t been able to verify or validate the alleged debt upon request.

For the avoidance of doubt, MS STRAWMAN does not consent to your request to cease corresponding with either DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS and/or your client; until such time that this matter has been settled and closed.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

Goodnight Vienna for the fourth set of 3rd party interlopers…

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
NEIL MACFUCK, DIRECTOR
MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED
2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU

16 September 2009

NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following the service of the NOTICE OF DEFAULT dated 29 August 2009, and the subsequent receipt of your company’s letter, signed in blue ink by Mrs K Murray, MISS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM.

In response to the issues raised by Mrs K Murray, I can confirm that, to the best of her knowledge, the Authorised Representative for MISS STRAWMAN did in fact open the above referenced account, and subsequently used some of the available services and facilities. However, she now believes that material facts pertaining to the alleged agreement of the parties may have been concealed by your client, thereby vitiating it, ab initio; that any existing or previously existing consumer credit agreement (promissory note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen; and that your client may have perpetrated a fraud in the factum against MISS STRAWMAN, for which its debt collection agents are held jointly and severally liable because of their dishonourable lack of due diligence before proceeding with collection.

For the avoidance of doubt, it has already been established administratively that the failure of your company to validate and verify the alleged debt comprises the tacit procuration of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, your company has caused injury to MISS STRAWMAN, for which the injured party intends to file a commercial injury claim for TWO THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED & SIXTY EIGHT POUNDS STERLING & SIXTY FOUR PENCE, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

Well would you credit it, within 3 days of receiving that MACFUCK sent a letter thanking STRAWMAN for bringing the matters to their attention and insisted that the account was not closed, with all the related correspondence being forwarded to their former client, to whom the following notice was duly served:

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ROBIN HOODY
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

25 September 2009

NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST & COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following your dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, and the service of the NOTICES OF DEFAULT, dated 17 August and 10 September 2009 respectively, all served by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST & COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM.

With firsthand knowledge of the evidence, I also hereby certify that the Authorised Representative for MS STRAWMAN believes that material facts pertaining to the alleged agreement of the parties may have been concealed by CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, thereby vitiating it, ab initio; that any existing or previously existing consumer credit agreement (promissory note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen; and that your company may have perpetrated a fraud in the factum against MS STRAWMAN, for which its debt collection agents are held jointly and severally liable because of their dishonourable lack of due diligence before proceeding with collection.

Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of the above referenced NOTICES, MS STRAWMAN is claiming TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED & NINETEEN POUNDS STERLING, in compensation for the injury caused, plus any and all further costs incurred.

CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC has seven (7) days from service of this notice to raise any issues, disputes or counterclaims pertaining to this matter, or to deliver an appropriate offer of settlement, in order to prevent further action.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

When the lawyers tried to argue that an unsigned agreement without a name on it, a set of photocopied statements and an undated printout of somebody making an electronic credit card application were enough to validate and verify the alleged debt, it was clear that they had no sustainable evidence that their clients lent any money.

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
NOXIOUS CITY NC6 66FU

26 September 2009

NOTICE COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear DENY EVERYTHING,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Following receipt of your letter dated 22 September 2009, the contents of which MS STRAWMAN rejects without dishonour, on the grounds that, regardless of Wilson, DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS’s arguments are, with all due respect, unsustainable, I hereby serve NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM.

With reference to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications Act) Order 2004, MS STRAWMAN takes the position that your interpretation of this particular statutory instrument offers little or no adequate protection for consumers against the unscrupulous actions of internet fraudsters and the ever-increasing threat of identity theft, and for that reason, does not consent to the application of the order.

Furthermore, having read the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, its subsequent amendments and the judgment of the Honourable Mr Simon Brown QC, in the case of Rankine v American Express (the legal precedent to which you seem to be referring), it is clear that the circumstances of this matter, as well as the issues raised, are almost entirely different from Rankine. To wit: your client has repeatedly failed to substantiate its alleged losses with the actual accounting of the loan(s); your client has repeatedly failed to give adequate assurances of due performance upon reasonable request; there is no evidence to suggest that the alleged liability was not originally discharged, pursuant to section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when your client refused to accept the specie of payment tendered by MS STRAWMAN; and neither the Agent in Commerce for MS STRAWMAN, not the Authorised Representative, are seeking to profit from any perceived “loopholes” in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On the contrary, we are seeking to enforce its honourable provisions.

Therefore, with firsthand knowledge of the supporting evidence, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves notice that there is every reason to believe that facts pertaining to the alleged agreement of the parties may have been concealed by CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, thereby vitiating it, ab initio; that any existing or previously existing consumer credit agreement (promissory note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen; and that your client may have perpetrated a fraud in the factum against MS STRAWMAN, for which its debt collection agents will be held jointly and severally liable for their dishonourable lack of due diligence before proceeding with collection.

MS STRAWMAN will now initiate any and all administrative and/or judicial proceedings deemed to be necessary in order to cure all commercial injury caused by CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’S debt collection agents, unless your client delivers an appropriate offer of settlement by 05 October 2009.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

Following receipt of the above missive, the lawyers wrote a disingenuous reply, restating their unsustainable position and gave notice that they saw no benefit in continuing in any further correspondence on the matter. So, pursuant to private and international law…

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ROBIN HOODY
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

14 October 2009

NOTICE OF TERMINATION

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Pursuant to the established conventions on private and international law, with regard to the above referenced account; following your dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, and the service of the NOTICES OF DEFAULT, dated 17 August and 10 September 2009 respectively, all served by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF TERMINATION.

As your have already been informed, the Authorised Representative for MS STRAWMAN believes that material facts pertaining to the alleged agreement of the parties may have been concealed by CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, thereby vitiating it, ab initio; that any existing or previously existing consumer credit agreement (promissory note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen; and that your company, its partners and/or affiliates, may have perpetrated a fraud in the factum against MS STRAWMAN, for which its debt collection agents are held jointly and severally liable for their dishonourable lack of due diligence before proceeding with collection.

Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of the NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST & COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM dated 25 September 2009, MS STRAWMAN is claiming TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED & NINETEEN POUNDS STERLING from your company and each of its agents, in compensation for the commercial injuries caused, plus any and all further costs incurred during any and all further administrative and/or judicial proceedings deemed to be necessary. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing expressed in this notice can be construed as any form of waiver of MS STRAWMAN’s legal and/or lawful rights to proceed with this claim against CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED and its debt collection agents.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower
Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent in Commerce for MS STRAWMAN
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Then, on the 5th of November 2009, a Commercial Lien was served upon the Chief Executive Officer.

Affidavit of Obligation
Commercial Lien

the Parties:

AGENT’S STRAWMAN™ for & on behalf of STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN’S ADDRESS

Hereinafter known as “Lien Claimant”

ROBIN HOODY for & on behalf of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666

Hereinafter known as “Lien Debtor 1”, unless otherwise stated

& it’s Agent

NEIL MACFUCK for & on behalf of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED
2 HEARTLESS GARDENS, HOCKPORT HP66 6FU

Hereinafter collectively known as “Lien Debtors”, which shall include Lien Debtor 1 without limitation

Notice to agent is notice to principal
Notice to principal is notice to agent

The Laws of Commerce

All are equal under the law. See Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: No one is above the law; Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.

In commerce, truth is sovereign. See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8. Legal maxim: To lie is to go against the mind.

Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.

An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: He, who does not deny, admits.

An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce. See Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in court, tribunal or arbitration forum consists of a contest of commercial affidavits, wherein the points remaining unrebutted at the end of the contest stand as the truth to which the judgment of the law is applied.

He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond appropriately to an Affidavit) loses by default. See Book of Job; Matt 10:22. Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.

Sacrifice is the measure of credibility. One who is not damaged, put at risk or willing to swear an oath or make an affirmation on his full commercial liability for the truth of his statements and the legitimacy of his actions, has no basis to assert claims or charges, and forfeits all credibility and right to claim the authority to do so. See Acts 7. Legal maxim: He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.

A lien or claim, under commercial law, can only be satisfied by one of the following actions: A full rebuttal by an Affidavit of Truth, point-by-point, supported by evidence and sworn or affirmed at the same level of commercial risk; the satisfaction of the claimant, whether by payment or mutual agreement; resolution by a jury, in accordance with the rules of common law. See Gen. 2-3; Matt 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved

A party injured by the fraud of another may claim triple damages, plus the principal. “And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” Luke 19:8.

Bouvier’s Maxims

Contra veritatem lex numquam aliquid permittit. The law never suffers anything contrary to truth. 2 Co. Inst. 252. But sometimes it allows a conclusive presumption in opposition to truth. See 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3061.

Contractus ex turpi causa, vel contra bonos mores nullus est. A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null. Hob. 167; Dig. 2, 14, 27, 4.

Culpa lata aequiparatur dolo. A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. Sec. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.

Error qui non resistitur, approbatur. An error not resisted is approved. Doct. & Stud. c. 70.

Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom’s Max. 349.

Ex facto jus oritur. Law arises out of fact; that is, its application must be to facts.

Ex tota materia emergat resolutio. The construction or resolution should arise out of the whole subject matter.

Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.

Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.

Idem est facere, et nolle prohibere cum possis. It is the same thing to do a thing as not to prohibit it when in your power. 3 Co. Inst. 178.

Incerta pro nullius habentur. Things uncertain are held for nothing. Dav. 33.

Incerta quantitas vitiat acium. An uncertain quantity vitiates the act. 1 Roll. R.

Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur. The judge is condemned when the guilty are acquitted.

Judicium non suo judice datum nullius est momenti. A judgment given by an improper judge is of no moment. 11 Co. 76.

Manga negligentia culpa est, magna culpa dolus est. Gross negligence is a fault, gross fault is a fraud. Dig 50, 16, 226.

Magna culpa dolus est. Great neglect is equivalent to fraud. Dig. 50, 16, 226; 2 Spears, R. 256; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 646.

Peccatum peccato addit qui culpae quam facit patrocinium defensionis adjungit. He adds one offence to another, who, when he commits a crime, joins to it the protection of a defence. 5 Co. 49.

Quando do una et eadem re, duo onerabiles existunt, unus, pro insufficientia alterius, de integro onerabitur. When two persons are liable on a joint obligation, if one makes default the other must bear the whole. 2 Co. Inst. 277.

Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat, proditor est verilatis. He, who does not willingly speak the truth, is a betrayer of the truth.

Qui non obstat quod obstare potest facere videtur. He who does not prevent what he can seems to commit the thing. 2 Co. Inst. 146.

Qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest assentire videtur. He, who does not forbid what he can forbid, seems to assent. 2 Inst. 305.

Qui non propulsat injuriam quando potest, infert. He, who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it. Jenk. Cent. 271.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

Reprobata pecunia liberat solventum. Money refused liberates the debtor. 9 Co. 79.

English Law

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882

43 Dishonour by non-acceptance and its consequences

(1) A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance-

(a) when it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused or cannot be obtained; or
(b) when presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, an immediate right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

PART IX JUDICIAL CONTROL

Enforcement of certain regulated agreements and securities

127. (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

FRAUD ACT 2006

1 Fraud

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are –

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
© section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

Private & International Law

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS

Article 3.8 – Fraud

A party may avoid the contract when it has been led to conclude the contract by the other party’s fraudulent representation, including language, practices, or fraudulent nondisclosure of circumstances which, according to reasonable standards of fair dealing, the latter party should have disclosed.

Article 5.1.3 – Cooperation between the parties

Each party shall cooperate with the other party when such co-operation may reasonably be expected for the performance of that party’s obligations.

Article 7.3.4 – Adequate Assurance of Due Performance

A party who reasonably believes that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the other party may meanwhile withhold its performance. Where this assurance is not provided within a reasonable time the party demanding it may terminate the contract.

Article 7.4.1 – Right to damages

Any non-performance gives the aggrieved party a right to damages either exclusively or in conjunction with any other remedies except where the non-performance is excused under these principles.

Article 7.4.2 – Full compensation

(1) The aggrieved party is entitled to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of the non-performance. Such harm includes both any loss which it suffered and any gain of which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from its avoidance of cost or harm

(2) Such harm may be nonpecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering and emotional distress.

A Verified Plain Statement of Fact

I, Upper-Case: Lower©, Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™, the legal person acting as Agent in Commerce for and on behalf of STRAWMAN, do hereby state clearly and unequivocally that I have first hand knowledge of the facts, and that to the very best of my understanding, the following statements are true, correct, complete and not misleading.

Allegations:

The following allegations arise from the conduct of Lien Debtors, both directly and indirectly, in relation to an alleged legally enforceable consumer credit agreement, pertaining to CAPITAL TWO MISTERCARD XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

1. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the alleged outstanding balance of GBP£839.66 on the above referenced account was not legally discharged when Lien Debtor 1 refused to accept the payment tendered by Lien Claimant on 3 January 2009, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
2. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors can substantiate Lien Debtor 1’s alleged losses with the actual accounting of the alleged loan(s), and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
3. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 has not failed to provide adequate assurances of due performance upon reasonable request, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
4. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that a legally enforceable original consumer credit agreement is in existence between the parties, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
5. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that, according to the actual bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 lent its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note (alleged loan agreement) from Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
6. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors have not committed multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006), as well as its guidance on Unfair Relationships (May 2008), and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
7. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that, according to the actual bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 did not accept something of value from Lien Claimant, which was then used to give value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged loan(s), and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
8. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 followed UK GAAP (the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged loan(s), and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
9. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 is not concealing material facts pertaining to any existing, and/or previously existing, legally enforceable consumer credit agreement between the parties, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
10. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 lent its own money as valuable consideration to purchase the promissory note (alleged loan agreement) from Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
11. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the intent of any existing, and/or previously existing, consumer credit agreement was that the party who funded the loan(s) is not the party that is to be repaid the money, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
12. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant did not provide the valuable consideration to fund the alleged loan(s) to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
13. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the original consumer credit agreement (promissory note) has not been altered, lost, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
14. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the alleged borrower (Lien Claimant) did not provide the funds that the alleged lender (Lien Debtor 1) claims it lent to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
15. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors do not owe Lien Claimant, jointly and severally, a sum of money treble the value of each of Lien Debtors’ invalid claims, plus the alleged amount outstanding, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
16. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant has not already procured the tacit agreement of Lien Debtors that all of the allegations set forth in this Affidavit are factually correct, true, and complete, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
17. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that any existing, and/or previously existing, consumer credit agreement has not been terminated by Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

Proof of Allegations:

1. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009, as expressed in NOTICE OF DISHONOUR dated 26 March 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that the alleged outstanding balance of the above referenced account was legally discharged when Lien Debtor 1 refused to accept the payment tendered by Lien Claimant on 3 January 2009. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
2. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that the alleged outstanding balance of GBP£839.66 on the above referenced account cannot be substantiated with the actual accounting of the alleged loan(s). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
3. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that adequate assurance of due performance has not been provided upon reasonable request. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
4. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that there is no legally enforceable original consumer credit agreement in existence between the parties. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
5. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, Lien Debtors affirm that according to the actual bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 did not end its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note (alleged loan agreement) from Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
6. Following Lien Debtors’ repeated attempts to aggressively enforce Lien Debtor 1’s invalid claim, Lien Debtors affirm that they have committed multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006, as well as its guidance on Unfair Relationships (May 2008). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
7. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, Lien Debtors affirm that according to the actual bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 did accept something of value from Lien Claimant, which was then used to give value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged loan(s). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
8. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that Lien Debtors 1’s chartered accountant and auditor at the time of the alleged loan(s) cannot confirm that Lien Debtor 1 followed UK GAAP in the execution of the alleged loan(s). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
9. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, Lien Debtors affirm that Lien Debtor 1 has concealed material facts pertaining to any existing, and/or previously existing, legally enforceable consumer credit agreement between the parties. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
10. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that Lien Debtor 1 did not lend its own money as valuable consideration to purchase the promissory note (alleged loan agreement) from Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
11. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that any existing, and/or previously existing, consumer credit agreement stipulated that the party who funded the loan(s) is the party that is to be repaid the money. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
12. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that Lien Claimant provided the valuable consideration to fund the alleged loan(s) to Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
13. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that the original consumer credit agreement (promissory note) has been altered, lost, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
14. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, Lien Debtors affirm that the alleged borrower (Lien Claimant) provided the funds that the alleged lender (Lien Debtor 1) claims it lent to Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
15. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, as well as its agents’ dishonours of further NOTICES OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and NOTICES REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE, and the subsequent NOTICES OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITIES TO CURE, Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors do not owe Lien Claimant, jointly and severally, a sum of money treble the value of each of Lien Debtors’ invalid claims, plus the alleged amount outstanding, in compensation for the commercial injury caused by Lien Debtors. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
16. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, as well as its agents’ dishonours of further NOTICES OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and NOTICES REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE, and the subsequent NOTICES OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITIES TO CURE, Lien Debtors affirm that Lien Claimant has already procured the tacit agreement of Lien Debtors that all of the allegations set forth in this Affidavit are factually correct, true and complete. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
17. Pursuant to the NOTICE OF TERMINATION dated 14 October 2009, served on Lien Debtor 1 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, Lien Debtors affirm that any existing, and/or previously existing, consumer credit agreement has been terminated by Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.

Ledgering:

This Commercial Lien is ledgered at treble the value of Lien Debtors’ invalid claims of £839.66 Pounds Sterling (or functional currency of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, &/or its successors), plus £839.66 Pounds Sterling (or functional currency of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, &/or its successors), the amount alleged to be outstanding by Lien Debtors.

TOTAL AMOUNT OWED BY CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC GBP£ 2,519.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OWED BY MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED GBP£ 2,519.00

TOTAL AMOUNT OWED TO LIEN CLAMANT BY LIEN DEBTORS
FIVE THOUSAND & THIRTY EIGHT GB POUNDS STERLING GBP£ 5,038.00

Sureties:

Sureties for the value of this Commercial Lien are the assets of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED, including, without limitation, any and all property, products, proceeds, bank accounts, fittings and fixtures, held or administered at Lien Debtors’ registered offices.

Default:

In the event of Lien Debtors’ default; should payment in full not be received by Lien Claimant from Lien Debtors within thirty (30) days of notice of said default, triple damages plus costs will be added to the value of this Commercial Lien and the public liability insurance policies of Lien Debtors may be seized in order to satisfy any remaining value.

If this Commercial Lien has not been satisfied in full within ninety (90) days of service, Lien Claimant reserves the right to issue any and all recovery proceedings deemed to be necessary, as well as the right to claim exemplary damages for the commercial injuries caused, which will be charged at ONE HUNDRED TIMES THE VALUE OF THIS COMMERCIAL LIEN.

AFFIRMATION

I, Upper-Case: Lower©, in my capacity as Agent in Commerce for STRAWMAN (Lien Claimant), and with firsthand knowledge of the facts of the matter, hereby affirm upon my own unlimited commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, that I have read all of the contents of pages 1-8 of this Affidavit of Obligation, and to the very best of my knowledge, I believe that the facts expressed herein are true, correct and complete.

______________________________________________
By: Upper-Case: Lower©
Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent in Commerce for STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

VERIFICATION

Affirmed, autographed and sealed (with a red thumbprint) before me, __________, Notary Public, on the fifth day of the month of November, in the year two thousand and nine AD.

Notary Public: Seal:

Signature:_______________________________________

NOTICE is hereby given that the Lien Debtors has seven (7) days following receipt of this Affidavit of Obligation to rebut, deny, or otherwise prove invalid the allegations contained herein, by delivering an appropriate and timely response to the notary’s office referenced above. Failure to rebut, deny or otherwise disprove any of the allegations, upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, will be construed as Lien Debtors’ affirmation that said allegations are true, correct and complete.

Void where prohibited by law.

________________________________________________

Remember, remember, the 5th of November. Since the lien was served on that infamous date, more than three years later, my favourite accountant has received no further correspondence from Robin Hoody or his agents, whilst the credit card company now owe £251,900.00 in damages.

Consumer Credit Act, Case Law & the Credit Bandits

The May 2008 verdict of THE HONORABLE MR SIMON BROWN QC, in the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION, Birmingham District Registry, in the case between Rankine and a gaggle of credit bandits, clearly demonstrates the reasons why:

a] the credit bandits want every consumer credit agreement to be electronically “signed”

b] technical arguments pertaining to the Consumer Credit Act are unreliable

c] arguing that the unsigned photocopy of the alleged agreement is not enforcable is not the silver bullet many of us believe it to be

d] running up credit card accounts with no intention of effecting payment is highly dishonourable and will almost certainly backfire, even if the court has no power to order repayment

Paragraph [26] of the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL DIVISION, after Penelope Wilson appealed with permission of Judge Hull QC from his decision, sitting in the Kingston upon Thames County Court at Epsom on 24 September 1999, refusing her application for a declaration that the credit agreement which she had entered with the defendant, First County Trust Ltd, on 22 January 1999, was void and unenforceable:

“In effect, the creditor—by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms—must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid.”

LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – 2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph [29]:

“The court’s powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court ‘shall not make’ an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court’s power to make an enforcement order.”

Francis Bennion is the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and a very well respected Barrister who specialises in Consumer Law. On his own website he stated:

“As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.”

Extracts from The Consumer Credit Act 1974

PART I DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING

1.—(1) It is the duty of the Director General of Fair Trading (” the Director “)—

a) to administer the licensing system set up by this Act,

b) to exercise the adjudicating functions conferred on him by this Act in relation to the issue, renewal, variation, suspension and revocation of licences, and other matters,

c) generally to superintend the working and enforcement of this Act, and regulations made under it, and

d) where necessary or expedient, himself to take steps to enforce this Act, and regulations so made.

(2) It is the duty of the Director, so far as appears to him to be practicable and having regard both to the national interest and the interests of persons carrying on businesses to which this Act applies and their customers, to keep under review and from time to time advise the Secretary of State about—

a) social and commercial developments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere relating to the provision of credit or bailment or (in Scotland) hiring of goods to individuals, and related activities; and

b) the working and enforcement of this Act and orders and regulations made under it.

PART II CREDIT AGREEMENTS, HIRE AGREEMENTS AND LINKED TRANSACTIONS

8.—(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (” the debtor “) and any other person (” the creditor”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount. (2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000.

(3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an “ exempt agreement “) specified in or under section 16.

9.—(1) In this Act “ credit “ includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation. (2) Where credit is provided otherwise than in sterling it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as provided in sterling of an equivalent amount. (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the person by whom goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired to an individual under a hire-purchase agreement shall be taken to provide him with fixed-sum credit to finance the transaction of an amount equal to the total price of the goods less the aggregate of the deposit (if any) and the total charge for credit. (4) For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

PART VIII SECURITY

General

105.—(1) Any security provided in relation to a regulated agreement shall be expressed in writing.

(2) Regulations may prescribe the form and content of documents (” security instruments “) to be made in compliance with subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular— (a) require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner in documents, and other specified material to be excluded; (b) contain requirements to ensure that specified information is clearly brought to the attention of the surety, and that one part of a document is not given insufficient or excessive prominence compared with another.

(4) A security instrument is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form, itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under subsection (2), is signed in the prescribed manner by or on behalf of the surety, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the security, other than implied terms, and © the document, when presented or sent for the purpose of being signed by or on behalf of the surety, is in such state that its terms are readily legible, and (d) when the document is presented or sent for the purpose of being signed by or on behalf of the surety there is also presented or sent a copy of the document.

(5) A security instrument is not properly executed unless (a) where the security is provided after, or at the time when, the regulated agreement is made, a copy of the executed agreement, together with a copy of any other document referred to in it, is given to the surety at the time the security is provided, or (b) where the security is provided before the regulated agreement is made, a copy of the executed agreement, together with a copy of any other document referred to in it, is given to the surety within seven days after the regulated agreement is made.

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to a security provided by the debtor or hirer.

(7) If—(a) in contravention of subsection (1) a security is not expressed in writing, or

(b) a security instrument is improperly executed, the security, so far as provided in relation to a regulated agreement, is enforceable against the surety on an order of the court only.

(8) If an application for an order under subsection (7) is dismissed (except on technical grounds only) section 106 (ineffective securities) shall apply to the security.

(9) Regulations under section 60(1) shall include provision requiring documents embodying regulated agreements also to embody any security provided in relation to a regulated agreement by the debtor or hirer.

110.—(1) The creditor or owner under a regulated agreement, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor or hirer and payment of a fee of 15 new pence, shall give the debtor or hirer a copy of any security instrument executed in relation to the agreement after the making of the agreement.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to— (a) a non-commercial agreement, or (b) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor or hirer, or © a request made less than one month after a previous request under subsection (1) relating to the same agreement was complied with.

(3) If the creditor or owner under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the security (so far as provided in relation to the agreement); and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

Negotiable instruments

123.—(1) A creditor or owner shall not take a negotiable instrument, other than a bank note or cheque, in discharge of any sum payable— (a) by the debtor or hirer under a regulated agreement, or (b) by any person as surety in relation to the agreement.

(2) The creditor or owner shall not negotiate a cheque taken by him in discharge of a sum payable as mentioned in subsection (1) except to a banker (within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882).

(3) The creditor or owner shall not take a negotiable instrument as security for the discharge of any sum payable as mentioned in subsection (1).

(4) A person takes a negotiable instrument as security for the discharge of a sum if the sum is intended to be paid in some other way, and the negotiable instrument is to be presented for payment only if the sum is not paid in that way.

125.—(4) Nothing in this Act affects the rights of the holder in due course of any negotiable instrument.

PART IX JUDICIAL CONTROL

Enforcement of certain regulated agreements and securities

127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under— (a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or (b) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or © section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or

(d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 123), the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to—

(i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and the degree of culpability for it; and

(ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135 and 136.

(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

(4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if— (a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, to the debt or or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings in which the order is sought, or (b) section 64(1) was not complied with.

POINTS TO NOTE ON BILLS OF SALE

Applicable law: the Bills of Sale Act 1878 and the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882.

Definition: in s.4 of the Bills of Sale Act 1878, includes- “bills of sale, assignment, transfers, declarations of trust without transfer or receipts for purchase moneys of goods, and other assurances of personal chattels, and also powers of attorney, authorities, or licences to take possession of personal chattels of security for any debt, and also any agreement, whether intended or not to be followed by the execution of any other instrument, by which a right in equity to any personal chattels, or to any charge or security thereon, shall be transferred.”

It is a very wide definition, encompassing most documents which transfer a right to personal goods as security, but possession does not pass to the lender.

This raises an issue that even an ordinary consumer credit agreement, which is secured on some chattel (and is not a HP or Conditional Sale agreement), could in fact be a bill of sale….

Form, Content and Registration

Correct Form: A bill of sale is void unless in the form set out in the Schedule to the 1882 Act (see s.9) (although this form may be adapted for the sake of clarity):

This Indenture made the …… day of ……, between AB of …… of the one part, and CD of …… of the other part, witnesseth that in consideration of the sum of £…… now paid to AB by CD, the receipt of which the said AB hereby acknowledges [or whatever else the consideration may be], he the said AB doth assign unto CD, his executors, administrators and assigns, all and singular the several chattels and things specifically described in the schedule hereto annexed by way of security for the payment of the sum of £……, and interest thereon at the rate of …… per cent per annum [or whatever else may be the rate]. And the said AB doth further agree and declare that he will duly pay to the said CD the principal sum aforesaid, together with the interest then due, by equal payments of £…… on the day of ……[or whatever else may be the stipulated times or time of payment]. And the said AB doth also agree with the said CD that he will [here insert terms as to insurance, payment of rent, or otherwise, which the parties may agree to for the maintenance or defeasance of the security].

Provided always, that the chattels hereby assigned shall not be liable to seizure or to be taken possession of by the said CD for any cause other than those specified in section 7 of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882.

In witness etc Sealed and signed by the said AB in the presence of me EF [add witness’ name, address and description]

The Schedule to the Bill of Sale: s.4 of the 1882 Act requires that all the items on which the debt is secured be set out in a Schedule at the end of the Bill of Sale, and these must be specifically described. It is void against any goods of which the debtor was not the true owner at the time of execution (s.5).

The Essential Contents of a Bill of Sale: Without which the bill is void.

1. Date of the bill

2. Names and addresses of the Parties

3. Statement of the true consideration given

4. Acknowledgement of receipt of the advance

5. An assignment by way of security of personal chattels capable of specific description

6. That it is a monetary obligation (rather than any other) that is secured

7. Statement of the sum secured, the rate of interest and the repayment instalments

8. Agreed terms for the maintenance and defeasance of the security (ie that upon payment of the principal sum plus interest, the bill shall be void)

9. A clause limiting the grounds of seizure to those set out in s.7 (these are usually set out in full)

10. Execution by the debtor

11. Attestation by a credible witness who is not a party to the bill

12. A schedule describing the secured chattels (this description must not appear within the body of the bill)

Registration Requirements: s.8 of the 1882 Act requires that

“The duly attested bill of sale must be registered within 7 days of its execution. The correct process is to file the bill with the Filing Department, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. The lender’s copy of the bill will then have a Supreme Court Stamp, and the bill will be entered on the Register at the RCJ.”

Consumer Credit Act Requirements: In addition to the above, where the consideration is under £25,000, the CCA must be complied with.

1. There must be a consumer credit agreement which complies with the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1989 rules (see separate handout).

2. A description of the security must be set out in the consumer credit agreement, or the bill of sale must be referred to.

3. The bill of sale must be presented to the debtor at the same time as the consumer credit agreement, and referred to within the consumer credit agreement (see CCA s.61).

4. The bill of sale (as a document referred to in the consumer credit agreement) must always be sent at the same time as the consumer credit agreement. A signed copy of the agreement must be sent to the consumer following execution (see CCA ss.62 & 63).

What to do if default is alleged

Repossession: the Creditor can only seize the secured goods for one of the five reasons set out in s.7 of the 1882 Act. The Five Grounds for Seizure (s.7):

1. Default in payments or the performance of any covenant which is (a) contained in the Bill and (b) necessary for maintaining the security.

2. Bankruptcy of the debtor or the seizure of the goods from him for rent, rates or taxes.

3. If the debtor fraudulently removes the goods from his premises.

4. If the debtor unreasonably refuses to produce his last receipt for rent, rates or taxes.

5. If execution has been levied against the goods under any judgement at law.

Consumer Credit Agreements: Where the bill of sale is part of a consumer credit agreement, the creditor must serve notice under s.87 of the CCA giving the debtor 7 days to remedy the default.

At this point, the debtor can apply to Court for a Time Order, under s.130 of the CCA, so that he can have longer than the 7 days to remedy the default. The s.7 Proviso: even where the goods have been seized, s.7 of the 1882 Act provides that where any of the five grounds has been relied on, the debtor may apply to the High Court, within 5 days of any seizure. If the judge is satisfied that the debtor can take some step to remove the basis of the ground (eg by payment of arrears etc), he may order that that the creditor be restrained from removing or selling the goods, or make any order as may seem just.

For further information: see Halsbury’s Laws on Bills of Sale.

Jason Freeman,

Barrister,

Office of Fair Trading,

Jason.freeman@oft.gsi.gov.uk.

Bills of Sale Act 1878:

An Act to consolidate and amend the Law for preventing Frauds upon Creditors by secret Bills of Sale of Personal Chattels.

3 Application of Act

This Act shall apply to every bill of sale executed on or after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine (whether the same be absolute, or subject or not subject to any trust) whereby the holder or grantee has power, either with or without notice, and either immediately or at any future time, to seize or take possession of any personal chattels comprised in or made subject to such bill of sale.

4 Interpretation of terms

In this Act the following words and expressions shall have the meanings in this section assigned to them respectively, unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction; (that is to say),

The expression “bill of sale” shall include bills of sale, assignments, transfers, declarations of trust without transfer, inventories of goods with receipt thereto attached, or receipts for purchase moneys of goods, and other assurances of personal chattels, and also powers of attorney, authorities, or licenses to take possession of personal chattels as security for any debt, and also any agreement, whether intended or not to be followed by the execution of any other instrument, by which a right in equity to any personal chattels, or to any charge or security thereon, shall be conferred, but shall not include the following documents; that is to say, assignments for the benefit of the creditors of the person making or giving the same, marriage settlements, transfers or assignments of any ship or vessel or any share thereof, transfers of goods in the ordinary course of business of any trade or calling, bills of sale of goods in foreign parts or at sea, bills of lading, India warrants, warehouse-keepers’ certificates, warrants or orders for the delivery of goods, or any other documents used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or control of goods, or authorising or purporting to authorise, either by indorsement or by delivery, the possessor of such document to transfer or receive goods thereby represented:

The expression “personal chattels” shall mean goods, furniture, and other articles capable of complete transfer by delivery, and (when separately assigned or charged) fixtures and growing crops, but shall not include chattel interests in real estate, nor fixtures (except trade machinery as hereinafter defined), when assigned together with a freehold or leasehold interest in any land or building to which they are affixed, nor growing crops when assigned together with any interest in the land on which they grow, nor shares or interests in the stock, funds, or securities of any government, or in the capital or property of incorporated or joint stock companies, nor choses in action, nor any stock or produce upon any farm or lands which by virtue of any covenant or agreement or of the custom of the country ought not to be removed from any farm where the same are at the time of making or giving of such bill of sale:

Personal chattels shall be deemed to be in the “apparent possession” of the person making or giving a bill of sale, so long as they remain or are in or upon any house, mill, warehouse, building, works, yard, land, or other premises occupied by him, or are used and enjoyed by him in any place whatsoever, notwithstanding that formal possession thereof may have been taken by or given to any other person:

“Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under the provisions of this Act.

8 Avoidance of unregistered bill of sale in certain cases X1

Every bill of sale to which this Act applies shall be duly attested and shall be registered under this Act, within seven days after the making or giving thereof, and shall set forth the consideration for which such bill of sale was given, otherwise such bill of sale, as against all trustees or assignees of the estate of the person whose chattels, or any of them, are comprised in such bill of sale under the law relating to bankruptcy or liquidation, or under any assignment for the benefit of the creditors of such person, and also as against all sheriffs officers and other persons seizing any chattels comprised in such bill of sale, in the execution of any process of any court authorising the seizure of the chattels of the person by whom or of whose chattels such bill has been made, and also as against every person on whose behalf such process shall have been issued, shall be deemed fraudulent and void so far as regards the property in or right to the possession of any chattels comprised in such bill of sale which, at or after the time of filing the petition for bankruptcy or liquidation, or of the execution of such assignment, or of executing such process (as the case may be), and after the expiration of such seven days are in the possession or apparent possession of the person making such bill of sale (or of any person against whom the process has issued under or in the execution of which such bill has been made or given, as the case may be).

From Bouviers:

CHECK, contracts. A written order or request, addressed to a bank or persons carrying on the banking business, and drawn upon them by a party having money in their hands, requesting them to pay on presentment to a person therein named or to bearer, a named sum of money.

2. It is said that checks are uniformly payable to bearer Chit. on Bills, 411; but that is not so in practice in the United States. they are generally payable to bearer, but sometimes they are payable to order.

3. Checks are negotiable instruments, as bills of exchange; though, strictly speaking, they are due before payment has been demanded, in which respect they differ from promissory notes and bills of exchange payable on a particular day. 7 T. R. 430.

4. The differences between a common check and a bill of exchange, are, first, that a check may be taken after it is overdue, and still the holder is not subject to the equities which may exist between the drawer and the party from whom he receives it; in the case of bills of exchange, the holder is subject to such equity. 3 John. Cas. 5, 9; 9 B. & Cr. 388. Secondly, the drawer of a bill of exchange is liable only on the condition that it be presented in due time, and, if it be dishonored, that he has had notice; but such is not the case with a check, no delay will excuse the drawer of it, unless he has suffered some loss or injury on that account, and then only pro tanto. 3 Kent, Com. 104 n. 5th ed.; 8 John. Cas. 2; Story, Prom. Notes, 492.

5. There is a kind of check known by the name of memorandum checks; these are given in general with an understanding that they are not to be presented at the bank on which they are drawn for payment; and, as between the parties, they have no other effect than an IOU, or common due bill; but third persons who become the holders of them, for a valuable consideration, without notice, have all the rights which the holders of ordinary checks can lawfully claim. Story, Prom. Notes, 499.

6. Giving a creditor a check on a bank does not constitute payment of a debt. 1 Hall, 56, 78; 7 S. & R. 116; 2 Pick. 204; 4 John. 296. See 3 Rand. 481. But a tender was held good when made by a check contained in a letter, requesting a receipt in return, which the plaintiff sent back, demanding a larger sum, without objecting to the nature of the tender. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2436.

7. A check delivered by a testator in his lifetime to a person as a gift, and not presented till after his death, was considered as a part of his will, and allowed to be proved as such. 3 Curt. Ecc. R. 650. Vide, generally,4 John. R. 304; 7 John. R. 26; 2 Ves. jr. 111; Yelv. 4, b, note; 7 Serg. & Rawle, 116; 3 John. Cas. 5, 259; 6 Wend. R. 445; 2 N. & M. 251; 1 Blackf. R. 104; 1 Litt. R. 194; 2 Litt. R. 299; 6 Cowen, R. 484; 4 Har. & J. 276; 13 Wend. R. 133; 10 Wend. R. 304; 7 Har. & J. 381; 1 Hall, R. 78; 15 Mass. R. 74; 4 Yerg. R. 210; 9 S. & R. 125; 2 Story, R. 502; 4 Whart. R. 252.

CHECK BOOK, commerce. One kept by persons who have accounts in bank, in which are printed blank forms of checks, or orders upon the bank to pay money.

Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882:

7 Bill of sale with power to seize except in certain events to be void

Personal chattels assigned under a bill of sale shall not be liable to be seized or taken possession of by the grantee for any other than the following causes:—

(1)If the grantor shall make default in payment of the sum or sums of money thereby secured at the time therein provided for payment, or in the performance of any covenant or agreement contained in the bill of sale and necessary for maintaining the security;

(2)If the grantor shall become bankrupt, or suffer the said goods or any of them to be distrained for rent, rates, or taxes;

(3)If the grantor shall fraudulently either remove or suffer the said goods, or any of them, to be removed from the premises;

(4)If the grantor shall not, without reasonable excuse, upon demand in writing by the grantee, produce to him his last receipts for rent, rates, and taxes;

(5)If execution shall have been levied against the goods of the grantor under any judgment at law:

Provided that the grantor may within five days from the seizure or taking possession of any chattels on account of any of the above-mentioned causes, apply to the High Court, or to a judge thereof in chambers, and such court or judge, if satisfied that by payment of money or otherwise the said cause of seizure no longer exists, may restrain the grantee from removing or selling the said chattels, or may make such other order as may seem just.

[F17A Defaults under consumer credit agreements

(1)Paragraph (1) of section 7 of this Act does not apply to a default relating to a bill of sale given by way of security for the payment of money under a regulated agreement to which section 87(1) of the M1Consumer Credit Act 1974 applies—

(a)unless the restriction imposed by section 88(2) of that Act has ceased to apply to the bill of sale; or

(b)if, by virtue of section 89 of that Act, the default is to be treated as not having occurred.

(2)Where paragraph (1) of section 7 of this Act does apply in relation to a bill of sale such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the proviso to that section shall have effect with the substitution of “county court” for “High Court”.]

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1S. 7A added by Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39, SIF 60), s. 192(4), Sch. 4 Pt. I para. 1

8 Bill of sale to be void unless attested and registered

Every bill of sale shall be duly attested, and shall be registered under the principal Act within seven clear days after the execution thereof, or if it is executed in any place out of England then within seven clear days after the time at which it would in the ordinary course of post arrive in England if posted immediately after the execution thereof; and shall truly set forth the consideration for which it was given; otherwise such bill of sale shall be void in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein.

9 Form of bill of sale

A bill of sale made or given by way of security for the payment of money by the grantor thereof shall be void unless made in accordance with the form in the schedule to this Act annexed.

10 Attestation

The execution of every bill of sale by the grantor shall be attested by one or more credible witness or witnesses, not being a party or parties thereto . . . . . . F1

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1898 (c. 22)

15 Repeal of part of Bills of Sale Act, 1878

. . . . . . F1 all . . . . . . F1 enactments contained in the principal Act which are inconsistent with this Act are repealed . . . . . . F1

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1898 (c. 22)

16 Inspection of registered bills of sale

. . . F1 any person shall be entitled at all reasonable times to search the register, on payment of a fee of [F25p], or such other fee as may be prescribed, and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed, and shall be entitled at all reasonable times to inspect, examine, and make extracts from any and every registered bill of sale without being required to make a written application, or to specify any particulars in reference thereto, upon payment of [F25p] for each bill of sale inspected, and such payment shall be made by a judicature stamp: Provided that the said extracts shall be limited to the dates of execution, registration, renewal of registration, and satisfaction, to the names, addresses, and occupations of the parties, to the amount of the consideration, and to any further prescribed particulars.

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1898 (c. 22)

F2Word substituted by virtue of Decimal Currency Act 1969 (c. 19), s. 10(1)

Queen’s Bench Division guidance on Bills of Sale:

12.4 Bills of Sale Acts 1878 and 1882 and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1967 (RSC O.95):

12.4.1 Every bill of sale and absolute bill of sale to which the Act of 1878 applies must be registered under s.8 of that Act, within 7 clear days of its making, and, under s.11 of the Act of 1878, the registration of a bill of sale must be renewed at least once every 5 years. The register for the purpose of the Bills of Sale Acts contains the particulars of registered bills of sale and an alphabetical index of the names of the grantors, and is kept in the Action Department in Room E10.

12.4.2 An application to register a bill of sale which is made within the prescribed time should be made by filing in Room E17 the original bill of sale and any document annexed to it together with a witness statement or affidavit in form PF 179 or PF 180. An application to re-register a bill of sale which is made within the prescribed time should be made by filing in Room E17 a witness statement or affidavit in form PF 181.

12.4.3 An application to rectify;

(1) an omission to register, by extending the time for registration, or

(2) an omission or mis-statement of the name, residence or occupation of a person in the register, by correcting the registration,

must be made by witness statement or affidavit to a Master of the Queen’s Bench Division. In addition to the matters set out in forms PF 179 or PF 180, the evidence in support must also set out the particulars of the omission and state the grounds on which the application is made.

12.4.4 Where the residence of the grantor of the bill of sale or the person against whom the process is issued is outside the London bankruptcy district, or where the bill of sale describes the goods as being in a place outside that district, the Central Office will send copies of the bill of sale to the appropriate county court district judge.

12.4.5 The Master, on being satisfied that the omission or mis-statement of name, residence or occupation of a person in the register was accidental or due to inadvertence, may order the omission or mis-statement to be rectified by the insertion in the register of the correct name, residence or occupation of the person.

12.4.6 Where the Master is satisfied that the omission to register a bill of sale or a witness statement or affidavit of renewal within the prescribed time was accidental or due to inadvertence, he may extend the time for registration on such terms as he thinks fit. In order to protect any creditors who have accrued rights of property in the assets in respect of which the bill of sale was granted between the date of the bill and its actual registration, any order to extend the time for registration will normally be made ‘without prejudice’ to those creditors. The order will be drawn up in form PF 182.

12.4.7 An application for an order that a memorandum of satisfaction be written on a registered copy of a bill of sale, made without the consent of the person entitled to the benefit of the bill of sale, must be made by the issue of a Part 8 Claim Form. Where the consent of the person entitled to the benefit of the bill of sale has been obtained, the application may be made by a witness statement or affidavit containing that consent and verifying the signature on it. Form PF 183 contains precedents for the evidence and forms of consent. Where the application is made with consent, the evidence need not be served on any other person. If the Master is satisfied on the evidence, he will endorse his approval on the witness statement or affidavit (an order is not normally drawn up) and send it to Room E17 for satisfaction to be entered. If a copy of the bill of sale has been sent to a county court district judge, a notice of satisfaction will be sent to that district judge.

12.4.8 Where the consent has not been obtained, the Claim Form must be served on the person entitled to the benefit of the bill of sale and must be supported by evidence that the debt (if any) for which the bill of sale was made has been satisfied or discharged.

12.4.9 An application to restrain removal on sale of goods seized in accordance with RSC O.95 r.3 and under the proviso to s.7 of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882 must be made by the issue of a Part 8 Claim Form for hearing before the Interim Applications Judge.

12.4.10 Under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1967 an application to record an instrument creating a fixed or floating charge on the assets of a registered society or to rectify any omission or mis-statement in it must be made within 14 days beginning with the date of its execution.

12.4.11 Under RSC O.95 r.5 and in accordance with s.1(5) of the Act of 1967 the court may order;

(1) that the period for making an application for recording a charge be extended, or

(2) an omission or mis-statement in such an application be rectified.

The procedure for obtaining an order as in (1) or (2) above is similar to that under s. 14 of the Bills of Sale Act 1878 and must be made by witness statement or affidavit to a Master of the Queen’s Bench Division as in paragraph 12.4.3 above and must exhibit a copy of the instrument duly authenticated in the prescribed manner together with any other particulars relating to the charge.

12.4.12 RSC O.95 r.3 refers to the assignment of book debts; the register of assignments of book debts is kept in Room E10 in the Central Office. An application for registration under s. 344 of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be made in accordance with RSC O.95 r.6(2). Parties may use form PF 186 for their evidence in support. It is helpful if the original assignment is also produced.

Bills of Sale Act 1890:

An Act to exempt certain letters of hypothecation from the operation of the Bills of Sale Act 1882. [18th August 1890]

1. Exemption of securities on imported goods from 41 & 42 Vict. c. 31 and 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43.

[F1 1.

An instrument charging or creating any security on or declaring trusts of imported goods given or executed at any time prior to their deposit in a warehouse, factory, or store, or to their being reshipped for export, or delivered to a purchaser not being the person giving or executing such instrument, shall not be deemed a bill of sale within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Acts 1878 and 1882.]

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

S. 1 substituted by Bills of Sale Act 1891 (c. 35), s. 1

2. Savings of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52 s. 44.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of section forty-four of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 in respect of any goods comprised in any such instrument as is herein-before described, if such goods would but for this Act be goods within the meaning of sub-section three of that section.

Another judge rules against the credit bandits, but this time it was in the county court, on the grounds that MBNA had breached the Unfair Relationships Act, because it earned commission from the insurance company for the policy it had sold, without the card holder’s consent:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1217173/Judge-quashes-womans-8-000-credit-card-debt-landmark-ruling-mis-selling-payment-protection-insurance.html

2.16 Section 140B sets out the powers available to the court where it determines that the relationship is unfair to the borrower. An order made by the court may do one or more of the following:

• require the lender, or an associate or former associate, to repay (in whole or part) any sum paid by the borrower (or a surety) by virtue of the credit agreement or any related agreement

• require the lender, or an associate or former associate, to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified in the order in connection with the agreement or any related agreement

• reduce or discharge any sum payable by the borrower (or a surety) by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement

• set aside (in whole or part) any duty imposed on the borrower (or a surety) by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement

• alter the terms of the agreement or any related agreement

• direct the return to a surety of any property provided by him for the purposes of a security

• direct accounts to be taken between any persons

2.17 An order may be made on an application by the borrower (or a surety) either as a stand-alone application or as part of court proceedings in relation to the credit agreement or a related agreement.

Section 140B(9) provides that if the borrower (or a surety) alleges that the credit relationship is unfair, it is for the lender to prove the contrary. In other words, the onus of proof is on the lender to show that the relationship is not unfair.

[…]

3.15 As noted above, an unfair relationship may arise by virtue of:

(a) the terms of the credit agreement (or a related agreement)

(b) the way in which the lender has exercised or enforced its rights under the agreement (or a related agreement), or

(c) any other thing done (or not done) by or on behalf of the lender either before or after the making of the agreement (or a related agreement).

3.16 The meaning of (a) and (b) is fairly straightforward. In the OFT’s view category (c) is intended to be as broad as possible, to ensure complete flexibility for the courts. It encompasses both acts and omissions, such as where the lender (or an employee, agent or associate) has failed to take certain steps which, in the interests of fairness, he might reasonably be expected to have taken.

3.17 In our view, category (c) would include, for example, pre-contract business practices (such as advertising) and post-contract actions not based on a right (such as demanding sums of money the consumer has not agreed to pay). Relevant omissions might include failure to provide key information in a clear and timely manner (or at all), or to disclose material facts. Category (c) would also encompass acts or omissions which are non-commercial.

One Comment

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Please spread the word :)