Stupid and persistent

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:44 am

This guy has been sending me the most ridiculous documents trying to get me to pay tax. I have told him in so many words that he entertains me with his imaginative taxes and the names of departments he comes up with. Anyway, he's given up trying to get me to pay VAT on this sum of money, and so:

Quote:

There is a good news and i want to let know about the meeting i held with the bank and the UK tax authority this morning.

I spoke to them about the tax fee they are demanding from you which is a normal thing in any fund transfer.I have agreed with them that you will pay the tax fee when you get your fund transfer to your account.

They all agreed with the terms and i have signed a LETTER OF UNDERSTAND to this matter and also LETTER OF ARGREEMENT in this matter assuring them that i will bear all the case if any thing happens.

So the bank will contact you and let you what to do so that your fund will be transfer to your account.

Can't wait to hear, but in the meantime, I want to keep him busy:

Quote:

Indeed this is good news, and I thank you for your help and cooperation. For my records, can you please send me a copy of the Letter of Agreement and the Letter of Understood that you have passed to the bank. Are these in English, by the way, or in Welsh? I would prefer the Welsh version, as this has a higher legal standing in these cases.

Nothing fazes this guy:

Quote:

It is English because this is UK and not Welsh and i wll send it to you later i have court case to attend now.

My response:

Quote:

But Wales is part of the UK, and Welsh is one of the UK's official languages. What is your problem here?

And just now I get:

Quote:

What i have is english and thats is my problem

I await with interest... This one is good value. I wonder what excuse he will come up with for the bank demanding its money via WU.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:50 am

Gosh, I would love to see the

Quote:

LETTER OF ARGREEMENT

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:14 am

I'd love to see what kind of junk he comes up with Very Happy

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:09 am

OK, an update. The bank has now got in contact with me:

Quote:

Dear customer,
[baiter name]
We have finished with the calculation of your (COT) that's your cost of transfer of the fund to your account.
So we have to let you know it because you have to pay it before we commence your fund transfer to your account in Japan.The amount resulted total to $40,000 dollars. [I like the $ and dollars, even though this is a UK bank writing to me]
We will issue you out customer payee account were you will pay the COT and soon as we are receipt of the COT,your fund will effect transfer immediately to your account within 48hour it will hit your account.
B3n Ph1ll1p5

Well, you don't pay out $40,000 dollars like that without some assurance of what you're getting for your money, do you?

Quote:

Dear Mr. Ben,

Thank you for your communication. I would like an itemized and notarized pro forma invoice for my records detailing the costs involved in the transfer before I make arrangements for payment.

And after a little bit of hesitation, I get:

Quote:

[baiter name],

We have sort out you COT of transfer and we have attached it for your perusal and we are going to send the account information were you will pay the COT to us and immediately we are receipt of the COT charged from you ,we effect your transfer immediately.

B3n Ph1ll1p5

But to me, something seems funny about this invoice:

Quote:

Dear Mr Ph1l1p

That invoice is totally useless to me. I asked for an itemized invoice. I want details of lifting fees, , , etc. Otherwise I will not be able to claim it back against personal income tax here in Japan.

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

We await developments... Meanwhile I am chasing the barrister for the letters of UNDERSTAND and ARGREEMENT.

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:42 am

haha, nice work!
Keep us updated Very Happy

Adamu's soulmate Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Posts: 337

I would have thought Nat West would know the correct spelling of Fenchurch Street - and just love the incorrect postcode and the 07 phone number.

How hilarious- lazy and incompetent as ever Laughing

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:52 pm

Quality!!

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:24 pm

Nice stuff Thomas! You might point out (after you receive the itemized copy) that your lad completely forgot the RSOT, which is of uttermost impotence on any bank-issued document in Her Majesty's land.

Still, it's nice to see that your mugu is willing to negotiate. Just imagine what this whole thing would have cost you if you had to pay the VAT and the COT, not to mention the fees charged by WU or MG. If your lad can't accept payment via COD, he might have to provide clearance from MI5 or the CIA. I love the lads and their TLA's (three-letter abbreviations)!

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:31 pm

Obi-Wan Knievel wrote:

...your lad completely forgot the RSOT, which is of uttermost impotence on any bank-issued document in Her Majesty's land.

Usually it is, but in this case it's not necessary as it's place is taken by the RRSOA. (Red rubber stamp of approvedness). This makes the deal 100% legal.
I know this as it's what my Barrister told me.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:19 am

Well, he sent the letters I demanded, and they are true works of art.

I have thanked him for them, but I am wondering if there should be any doubts in my mind as to their authenticity. Despite the legal language, and the fact that these copies are certified by the High Court of Justiciary (not sure why he used a Scottish legal institution), some things about them doesn't ring entirely true to me. Such as the fact that London is now a suburb of Taunton, that there is no way in hell that the signature matches the name underneath it, that clauses 4 and 5 contradict each other, and that they refer to the name of a non-existent court.

But when $40 million USD is at stake, maybe I shouldn't concern myself with trifles like these?

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:09 am

Nice going TtT:

Looks like you have an eager mugu that is willing to play.
I hope you are planning in the near future to meet your mugu,
or have a safari scheduled.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:26 am

Don't trouble yourself with minor details such as non-existent courts and severely inaccurate information as to where London is and who it belongs to, you're aboot to get 40 million imaginary smackers out of the deal! It's going to be nothing but luxury cars, expensive drugs and big boats with lots of bikini-clad groupies feeding you little pickles from now on.

Besides, courts don't have to exist to be valid. My lawyer is a credited bench member minister of the Middle Jester County Court of Justiceness (Eastern Conference) and his fees are very reasonable. He's also extremely talented and well-versed at times: He will often point out such trivial errors at the last minute before I send off that Western Onion transfer, and advise me that certain clauses need to be cleared up. It's not my fault of course - the mugu should have known that London is in fact located in Bald Knob Township, county of Stroke Upon Thyne. That might need to be corrected before the deal becomes legally binding!

And good work on those letters! Very Happy

Can't wait to see what you do to him next.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:35 am

Sounds like a good way to de educate him. I suppose you could ask him for a KA KA certificate or something along those lines to throw him more off base.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:06 am

You're all right about this - I shouldn't be such a doubting Thomas. So this is what I have sent to him (we may get an answer here):

Quote:

These letters are exactly what I was expecting. I would be grateful if you could just clear up the meaning of clauses 4 and 5 in the Letter of Understanding, which contradict each other (the COT is an expense incurred along the line, and therefore is payable after transfer, as specified in clause 4). Please have Mr. Ben confirm this.

Incidentally, a few days earlier, before the documents above arrived, I questioned this goat-brain's credentials as a barrister after a few exchanges in which I questioned the existence of some of the tax authorities he quoted:

Quote:

Good - I look forward to the next load of crap you send me - I get few enough laughs these days.

By the way, did you ever send me the bar certificate I asked for?

I'd never asked for it, of course, but he sent it all the same:

I replied as follows:

Quote:

Dear "Barrister" P3t3r5

Thank you for your most entertaining certificate. It will be interesting news to my friend Geoff that in 1996 he was Vice Chairman of the British Bar Council (an organization that does not exist, by the way!). I can't wait to show him this when we next have a drink together and laugh about the "Oath Law Act" you have invented.

And the stupid idiot still takes the trouble to make up documents and send them to me, even after a slap like that.

EDIT AND UPDATE - I think I'm the goat-brain - he had actually sent me all his ID earlier. A completely different Bar Certificate:

A passport (probably once real):

(note that it was described as an "International passport", as is common. Do these guys have internal passports as well, like the old USSR?) and also he sent me:

There's all kinds of other crap promising my $40 million USD, etc. and naming me as NoK, but that's boring. This barrister is much more interesting when he talks about himself.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:19 am

Quote:

London is now a suburb of Taunton,

It was a suburb of Accrington, Lancashire when I was baiting him Smile

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:29 am

^^^
"Swinging London" - it swings from Taunton to Accrington and back, taking in Chipping Sodbury and Little Gittering-in-the-Cesspool on the way.

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:37 am

We continue - this is the lad's idea of an itemized invoice.

Not mine.

Quote:

Dear Mr. Ben

I am completely at a loss to know what this document is meant to be. Despite the fact that is marked as an invoice, it does not mention any itemized charges or any of the details I requested from you earlier. I have never seen any such invoice before in all my years of banking experience.

I have another question, but I will ask this at a later date when I find out exactly what the elements of the COT are composed of.

The other question is, of course, why a UK bank is dealing in dollars, but we'll save that for a later date.

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:57 am

@TtT...
I have these same Lads on the go right now.
They are doc machines!
4 bank accounts submitted to Alan.
TT's that just never arrive or bank accounts that are no good anymore.
A real LIVE other Lad has jumped in an tried to chop using almost an identical email.

I offered to travel to London to clear the matter up. Last night I got a warning from the UK Tax Authorities on official letterhead that stated I am NOT WELCOME IN THEIR OFFICES due to the strict security after the London bombings of July 11, 2001?
I was told to simply pay the taxes to their official tax receiving account at NatWest Bank. There is apparently a guy named 4mudu Sh3Idu who's account is the OFFICIAL tax collection agent for the Her Majesties Revenue and Customs.

These are also the same Lads that had the Queen send me a letter of apology after I sent the taxes to the real HMRC account listed on the HMRC website. She told me that account was being audited and to recall the money. Laughing

By the time we are finished with them, they may jump to their deaths. Laughing

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:53 pm

We've been through a couple of unilluminating exchanges and a few more boring fake documents. Anyway, in response to the man's bank ID card (a truly awful piece of work, but not even funny enough to show here) and the subsequent "Now do you believe me?" message, I wrote:

Quote:

I have viewed it [the ID card]. I would believe it if it was spelled correctly and it contained your date of birth.

So he wrote back:

Quote:

Our ID do no not contain any date of birth and everything is spelled correctly.

To which I replied:

Quote:

You must be a bigger idiot than I thought if you really believe that. It would help if you got the name of the bank that you are pretending to represent correct first. I cannot really believe that you represent a major British bank.

His reply to this:

Quote:

Thank you for everyhting you said about me and i hope you will comply with the COT fee to ensure your swift transfer to yourr acount.

What do you have to do with these guys? Hit them over the head with a 10kg sledgehammer?

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:47 pm

bugger me silly. Our usual 'Best Practice' tells us never to educate lads in terms of their linguistic challenges, but these guys just won't respond to education... I very much doubt, at this stage, that you could get a rawlplug into their head, let alone an idea... or that they would notice if you did. I really think there was a bit too much cement in the mix when their heads were filled.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:04 am

Actually, they have got the name of the bank (almost) right. I am trying to get them to spell it completely wrongly on the official documents.I'm de-educating them, not educating them.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:17 am

I think it's going to be a bit like sweeping marbles up a staircase using a headless broom. I've seen some stupid lads, but these are really stupid. if they could bottle Dumb and sell it in jars they'd be rich. if they could remember how to fit the lids. and I'm not sure they would...

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:46 am

thomas-the-tank wrote:

I'm de-educating them, not educating them.

That's the ticket, thomas. By the look of things, you'd be doing an excellent job of it if only you weren't baiting a lad who appears to be the illegitimate child of Paris Hilton and the Rain Man! Usually dumb(er) lads make for the most boring baits - glad to see you've got yourself a keeper.

Whether or not a lad can be de-educated is unimportant. The important thing is that you try, and that you have a good old time doing it.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:58 pm

I'm also baiting these Lads.
We are officially on our 4th bank account.
I have just returned from my recent trip to London in an attempt to straighten the mess out. The banker Lad refused to meet with me in the Natwest Bank offices.
He sent me a mail after I arrived in London that included the "application for a meeting" document that I had to fill out. Of course I didn't fill it out and demanded that the Lad meet with his millionaire customer in person. The Lad was busy on "official" other business.

Oh well...4 days at the Langham Hilton on the company so all was not lost.
I have returned to my charity Stateside and the transaction continues without much Lad success in getting the taxes paid to the "correct" bank account.
Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:37 pm

It continues...

A very nice letter of assurance from the bank telling me that they do in fact have this Cost Of Transfer business in place. Pity that the "wetness" didn't sign it:

Next, we have a charming letter from the Metropolitan Police (my barrister tells me "i have go extra miles to ensure that all is in good shape for you and get everything that involves in this transaction" - so nice to be working with professionals here):

And lastly, a letter from the Rotherham registrar or someone complete with RSOT, etc. assuring me that the legacy is indeed mine:

So why am I still suspicious?

Actually, I think I'll pay them soon, but the new bank name should appear on a few documents before I do. I'm working on this one.

EDIT - My reply:

Quote:

Dear Barrister

Thank you very much for all the extra time and trouble and the extra kilometers you have stepped forward in this transaction.

A few matters:

I am worried that the wetness failed to sign the letter of assurance, and that the name of the Rotherham Registrar is signed in green, thereby invalidating it in most jurisdictions.

You said that you went to , and the letter you sent me is actually from the Metropolitan Police Service. I assume that in London, as in Paris, the Metropolitan Police have responsibility for the underground railways? Please can I have assurance from the in order to put my mind at rest.

Lastly, the matter of the bank name change. As you rightly point out, the name of the bank will be changed on branches and bank cards etc from next month. However, as I understand it from my friends working there, the group name has already changed, and their bank ID cards show this new name. Why does Mr. card not have the new logo?