Missing / Destroyed proof of VAT document

Tranona said:
They already do that. The guidance on Client Accounts and separation from operating accounts is there

There is no reason why an individual cannot use an escrow account or any other means of transfer funds that the seller agrees to provided he bears the cost.

You have no evidence that brokers routinely use funds in client accounts for their own purposes, so why do you persist in seeing it as a "problem"?
Click to expand...

The only advice I have been able to find after extensive research and speaking to two associations is

2. A separate client bank account whereby:
2.1 The member will set up a bank account exclusively for holding customer monies,
preferably with a separate bank to that which holds the business’s other accounts

Thats just inadequate and demonstrates that either , the person that wrote it is a half wit and is clueless of the issues
or
Its just lip service intended to pull the wool over the eyes of the marks.

The forum including yourself should now be aware that a client account is useless unless written correctly under trust and the Bank holding the fund agrees not to use it for any other purpose than paying for the benefit of the client whos cash it is.

Suggesting a separate Bank is a very naive suggestion and again shows complete lack of understanding.

A separate Bank would help prevent some issues however it still leaves a great big gap.
In the current economic climate where Banks can get hold of unlimited funds @ .5% , none are going to want to open a client account in isolation.

I am a little surprised that you are still seeking proof of problems, the BAP is clear enough to follow.
Clearly clients funds were being used to fund the Brokers business.
The Broker realised it was going to be exposed and stopped just before the bubble burst.
What more proof do you want ?

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254190


I am also very much aware of a serious problem that occurred in Wales a number of years ago where many (excess of 6) lost their cash including some life savings and homes.
A Yacht Broker was very much involved , he managed to sell the same boat to several different marks, I am not sure if this is the same case mentioned above or another one, I know the details well however I have not been able to get a copy of case notes for your proof.

I feel I have already answered your questions previously on another thread and again feel all you and I are going to do is argue and I believe we would be better dropping it as neither of us can actually make a difference.
We will just have to hope that sooner or later Yacht Brokers associations realize that the market is depressed as some buyers are fearful of risking cash in a dodgy environment.
(this is not intended as a slur on reputable Brokers, its just that at the moment the dodgy ones are currently free to scam along side the reputable Brokers and there is no way a punter can tell them apart, BA Peters were respected just before they went bust, did any Yacht Brokers associations lend any useful advice to BA Peters or the punters how to safeguard cash.)
 
You are very selective in your reading of the BAP case. You highlight that particular passage whilst ignoring the only important bit which clearly states that there was always enough funds in the client account to meet its liabilities. There is no suggestion money was ever taken from it and transferred to the (overdrawn) current account. The failure in the "client account" operation was a failure to pay clients' funds into it correctly even when it had promised to do so, not the illegal removal of funds.

So please do not use this case to support your argument - it doesn't. Equally where is your evidence that Broker's accounts are not run correctly according to the principles? As far as I can see that is only your speculation because it suits your argument.

As to the case in North Wales, from what little I know about it, the fraud (if there was one) was related to buying and selling boats and raising finance against them - not stealing from client accounts. Once again if you are going to use this as an example of wrong doing you need to know what wrong has been done before you can suggest ways of reducing such incidents in the future.
 
DAKA said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

Here you go Pete.



bang-head-here.jpg
 
Thanks Paul :D
I have stopped arguing, I now just present facts backed by case history and others to make their own minds up.
Tranona said:
. There is no suggestion money was ever taken from it and transferred to the (overdrawn) current account.

The case history indicates that an automatic transfer was in place to sweep funds from the clients account and to use this money to credit the £5.5 million overdraft.

The failure in the "client account" operation was a failure to pay clients' funds into it correctly even when it had promised to do so, not the illegal removal of funds.

That another fact I have been trying to get across for years
It is illegal for a Solicitor and some Professionals to take funds from a clients account however there is currently no law in plce which stops a Yacht Broker from borrowing his clients funds as long as at the time of borrowing he says he intends to pay them back.
So please do not use this case to support your argument - it doesn't.

Please read the case notes, Barclays were using all the clients account less £10 000 left in as a float.

Equally where is your evidence that Broker's accounts are not run correctly according to the principles? As far as I can see that is only your speculation because it suits your argument.

Agreed 2-3 years ago I did speculate this, it has taken a number of years for the case of BAP to be heard and now my speculation is proven.

As to the case in North Wales, from what little I know about it, the fraud (if there was one) was related to buying and selling boats and raising finance against them - not stealing from client accounts. Once again if you are going to use this as an example of wrong doing you need to know what wrong has been done before you can suggest ways of reducing such incidents in the future.
Click to expand...

I think we are talking about a different case, despite you claiming there are any cases , clearly there are enough to cause confusion as to which one we are talking about...........


A Yacht Broker in Wales sold lots of boats, he showed marks round a nearly completed boat and sold it several times.

What the marks were actually buying was a sheet of steel with a serial number on which would eventually become part of a boat like the one they were shown round.
Of course money went missing, far more than could be spent on producing a sheet of steel with a number punched on it but that is all the marks ended up with.
I know someone who lost their home because of this.

I feel you are just going round in circles asking the same question over and over because you are too busy at work to read my previous responses, I guess you feel the same about me.
I have suggested numerous times now that we let this drop, its just an ongoing issue that we have, the forum arent really very interested in it and it just deteriorates into huge copy paste sections of text to one another, if we were battling it out on behalf of a valuable client there would be some justification in continuation but we arent, neither of us are getting paid for going over and over on the same arguments so we may as well agree to differ , I feel we have both had adequate opportunity to state our cases.



Kind regards
Pete
 
Pete

I read what you say very closely, otherwise I would not bother to respond.

As I say you can continue to be selective if you wish

Interesting you should bring thieving solicitors etc into this - the law does not seem to be very effective, does it? The law is there because of the special nature of lawyer's relationship with clients and even then has to be supported with an expensive compensation scheme for when it fails. What makes you think any legislation in respect of Brokers will be any better - assuming there is any wrong doing in the first place.

Again (me being selective here a bit) I suspect your North Wales case was taking deposits against future builds, not putting them in a client account and then becoming unsecured creditors. Happens all the time in many businesses - furniture, home improvements, holiday homes, christmas hampers - the list is endless.

So, I agree not a lot of point in continuing.
 
Tranona said:
Pete

I read what you say very closely, otherwise I would not bother to respond.

Thanks, thats a very good point, I equally take note of what you say and I have learnt a great deal from you over the years.
As I say you can continue to be selective if you wish

criticism accepted , but feel we are perhaps both a little guilty even if subconsciously.

Interesting you should bring thieving solicitors etc into this - the law does not seem to be very effective, does it? The law is there because of the special nature of lawyer's relationship with clients and even then has to be supported with an expensive compensation scheme for when it fails. What makes you think any legislation in respect of Brokers will be any better - assuming there is any wrong doing in the first place.

Disappointingly, I have to agree with you once again , I expect the safest way forward is not to entrust the Yacht Broker with cash beyond the deposit/brokers fee by via the use of an escrow, oh sod it back to square one, is there any reason why the Broker needs to hold funds that arnt his :confused:



So, I agree not a lot of point in continuing.
Click to expand...

I am not firing on all cylinders at the moment and I could well miss a statement from you which will clear up any misunderstanding so perhaps now isnt the time to continue.

Seeing as the op handed his cash across to a Yacht Broker at least you know that others arnt taking any notice of my posts :eek:

Happy Christmas :)

Cheers
Pete
 
DAKA said:
I am also very much aware of a serious problem that occurred in Wales a number of years ago where many (excess of 6) lost their cash including some life savings and homes.
A Yacht Broker was very much involved , he managed to sell the same boat to several different marks, I am not sure if this is the same case mentioned above or another one, I know the details well however I have not been able to get a copy of case notes for your proof.
Click to expand...

Hi Daka, i've read many of your posts and you clearly are very knowledgable in aspects of legality and finances. more so than i anyway it would seem and i'm not in any way challenging your comments in this post, i may have a different opinion buts that just my opinion and doesnt make me right. in the above case, you obviously have a good insight into the goings on and the broker concerned ought to have been put away for a long long time, A dispicable trick indeed!
I also dare say that in common with all other walks, there are other, shall we say less honest brokers out there, albeit, in thier extreme minority i dont doubt.
I have dealt with many brokers over the years in buying and selling aspect and can honestly say that they have all been absolutely genuine.

I have one curiosity with your posts in reation to brokers and that is why do you repeatedly refer to the client as the mark?
My perception of the mark is the next victim to be parted from hard earned cash by a scammer. If you are making reference to a particular incident where fraud is proven, yes i think it would be justified but you do appear to openly use this term in any discussion re brokers, which infers that they are all scammers. correct me if i'm wrong.
 
boatmaster said:
Hi Daka, i've read many of your posts and you clearly are very knowledgable in aspects of legality and finances.

I take exception to that,;) my business brings me close to similar aspects, and in contact with some of the marks, thats all. more so than i anyway it would seem and i'm not in any way challenging your comments in this post, i may have a different opinion buts that just my opinion and doesnt make me right. in the above case, you obviously have a good insight into the goings on and the broker concerned ought to have been put away for a long long time, A dispicable trick indeed!
Well its not actually illegal, as long as someone claims the intention was to complete the plate, the industry is totally unregulated which allows unscrupulous dealings from dodgy Yacht Brokers and in some cases from other wise reputable Yacht Brokers too.
I also dare say that in common with all other walks, there are other, shall we say less honest brokers out there, albeit, in thier extreme minority i dont doubt.
I have dealt with many brokers over the years in buying and selling aspect and can honestly say that they have all been absolutely genuine.

I have one curiosity with your posts in reation to brokers and that is why do you repeatedly refer to the client as the mark?
My perception of the mark is the next victim to be parted from hard earned cash by a scammer. If you are making reference to a particular incident where fraud is proven, yes i think it would be justified but you do appear to openly use this term in any discussion re brokers, which infers that they are all scammers. correct me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, its just my attempt to add a little humour in an otherwise really dull thread .

Copy post of mine which shows how Yacht Brokers (Including respected ones can work within the law but shows why a customer is left feeling like a mark.) The Yacht Broker is acting for the seller and does not have a relationship with the buyer so is free to lie his pants off*, ALWAYS DEAL WITH THE OWNER where possible.

There could be a case for a petty tort but we are talking months and thousands wasted, realistically he can basically get away with almost anything.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249638

It takes a bit of following, sorry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top