Re: Getting a new identity & a new credit history

Anthony R. Gold wrote:


In the proposed circumstances there appears to be an intention to use the name change to evade an existing £60k debt. If successful, that would clearly represent a "loss to another", wouldn't you say?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:42:28 +0000, Anthony R. Gold put finger to keyboard and typed:

No, but they may amount to a different offence.

Obtaining services by deception, Theft Act 1978, as amended by the Theft Act 1996. Actually, you'd need to get a loan for it to be an offence, so merely having a bank account and keeping it in credit wouldn't break the law even if you lied to get it. But if you obtain a credit card, or go overdrawn on a current account, then it's a breach of the law if you used deception to obtain the card or account.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon,
Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:11:50 +0000, Mark Goodge

Replaced by obtaining services dishonestly. See my comments elsewhere about the necessary elements of that offence. but they involve only the payment for those obtained services.

To misrepresent and cause a loss in not the same as to misrepresent in order to cause a loss.
Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:55:31 GMT, Ronald Raygun

Whether it is fraud will turn on whether the misrepresentation or the failure to disclose was made with the intention of causing a loss, and that will depend on the particular facts. I could cobble together one set of facts in which it would be fraud and another in which it would not.
Here Dave Tyke ran up £60,000 to a credit card company which he can not afford to repay. Dave now goes to a bank and tells them his name is something else. It is unclear to me that this false representation to the bank is made with the intention of causing a loss to either the credit card company or the bank, but a tryer of facts may come to a different judgment.
Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony R. Gold wrote:

Agreed, and moreover he's not in fact making a false representation to the bank by telling him his name is something else (he is genuinely changing his name, so his name will actually *be* something else). The false representation would be claiming that he's not held a UK bank account before, etc, and inventing a foreign history.
What the OP is suggesting goes beyond just telling the bank something. He is suggesting losing his former identity and having his old slate wiped clean by, not to put too fine a point on it, "disappearing" (doing a runner, but with smoke and mirrors rather than leg work). It is *that* which would constitute fraudulently depriving his existing creditors of their dosh.
Wouldn't you agree?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Would that be fraudulently depriving his current creditors of their money? He has said he can't afford to pay them back anyway, so assuming he is not hiding assets or hiding ability to pay then whether he changes his name or not makes no difference to his repayment. Surely, either way, he is simply breaching his contract with the creditor? If he took out the credit knowing he couldn't repay it and then changed his name to deliberately avoid repayment then sure that would be fraud, but I'm not sure the OP's situation as described constitutes a fraud at all.
--
Mike_B

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the fact he's *said* it doesnt constitute an actual fact as to whether he could pay them *something* as decided by a court (at last resort)
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well no, but if we are going to base our answers here on assumptions that the poster is not telling us the truth then we may as well do away with original posts and just endlessly make up answers that we want to give to non-existent circumstances. Oh... sorry... I forgot that is what most here do anyway.
--
Mike_B

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike_B wrote:

He hasn't said he can't afford to pay *any* of it back *ever*. Indeed, the fact that he is considering starting a new life, which will presumably be "viable" in the sense of establishing a reasonable stream of income, means that he would be able to pay rather more than none of it. Deliberately closing that door is therefore clear intent to defraud.

Surely he's not *that* bad. I'm assuming that when he took out the credit he had every intention of paying the piper.

There's no doubt in my mind that it does.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is doubt in mine. Firstly, having an income doesn't necessarily mean that you have an income that can maintain regular necessary outgoings plus repayments at any reasonable level on £60,000 of debt. Second, changing one's name is not illegal and frankly, he could keep his own name and still not be able to repay the debt. The law even allows for the debt to become unenforceable after a period in which no payments on or acknowledgement of a debt is made. I accept that a proper course of action would be to do something positive about dealing with the debts, like consideration of bankruptcy or an IVA, but choosing not to address debts that one cant afford to pay is not fraud.
--
Mike_B

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ronald Raygun wrote:

But the intent to defraud needs to exist at the time he obtained the services surely? All he is doing with the existing £60k loan is not making further repayments, and not providing any information to assist the lender in tracking him down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:12:49 GMT, ThePunisher wrote:

Well, there's a little more to it than that. Some years ago there was an aricle in the FT called something like "how to disappear". Conclusion was that it was: a.) expensive to do properly b.) took time to establish your alternate persona _before_ you make the break c.) required you to break contact with all your friends and family
The upshot is, that if all you're trying to do is wriggle out from paying your debts, then an IVA is possibly cheaper/easier and means you won't spend the rest of your life worrying that someone's found you. Your credit rating will be completely non-existent in either case so that balances out.
Usual disclaimers apply: IANAFC, don't lend someone money for plastic surgery, etc.
Pete
--
..........................................................................
. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
At 17:59:28 on 02/01/2007, Peter Lynch delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Untrue. It will be non-existent if he has a completely new identity. If he goes for an IVA then his credit record will most certainly exist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I thought that loophole was plugged years ago?
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tumbleweed wrote:

How?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:14:57 GMT, Ronald Raygun wrote:

It's more usual to use the b/c of someone who emigrated and is unlikely to return to the UK. Although nowadays that would be considered identity theft. What with all the post 9 Sept malarkey, it would be difficult to travel by air using your false identity.
--
..........................................................................
. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Peter Lynch" wrote

What happened on 9 Sept?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
At 13:14:57 on 03/01/2007, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by announcing:

One would hope they at least peruse the register of deaths as part of their checks.
However, I note that the UKPA states that "Birth certificates are not conclusive proof of identity, and we may therefore ask you to provide additional evidence to establish your identity, for example a driving licence, medical card, National Insurance card or Benefit book."
DVLA will check your ID with IPS if you have a 'digital' passport. Otherwise they require a full passport and/or birth certificate (or other docs if you're not British).
For a NI number DWP may require a passport, birth certificate, driving licence (or other docs).
Bit circular, isn't it, and the common underlying document is?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alex wrote:

Why should they? The fact that someone has died does not contradict the fact that someone was born. A birth certificate doesn't of itself create an identity, after all, it is merely documentary evidence of the fact that a certain individual's alleged birth was reported by someone along with details of when, where, and who the parents were. Entitlement to have a birth certificate in one's possession or to have one issued is not restricted to the individual therein described.
Which makes it all the more surprising that it plays as big a role in establishing someone's identity as it does. It merely "proves" (if that) that an individual of that name was born at the time and place stated. It doesn't prove that a person having it, and claiming to be that person, is that person. It only proves that if he isn't, then he's up to no good.

Exactly. Daft, isn't it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
At 13:47:42 on 03/01/2007, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

To provide an indication as to whether a dead person is trying to apply for a passport.
(For the purposes of this illustration, I'm looking at someone born in after 1969).
If John Quincy Doe, born in Little Wibbley on 1/12/1970 applies for a passport and a check of the register shows that a John Quincy Doe, born in Little Wibbley on 1/12/1970, died in Upper Bottomley on 3/2/1971 then I'd expect Mr. Doe's application to be checked quite thoroughly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.