Is it illegal to open a catalogue account in a false name/

[kibbles]

Ok, so the answer to that might be a bit obvious. But if, as in the case of a friend of mine, can there be mitigating circumstances. My friend is living with an aggressive alcoholic who refuses to help around the home, either financially or otherwise, and in some desperation, and due to her not having her own decent credit rating, opened an Empire Stores account in his name. She bought (over a period of three years) a chest of drawers for the children, a microwave, and a television. Each item was cleared within a few payments and always before the next one was ordered. The money came via direct debit from her account, she was the point of contact with the catologue, and the items were signed for in her name. He never knew about this until he had to take delivery for the television (which had incidentally been paid for immediately and in full as she had saved up for it and there was a good deal on as ES had been taken over.) But as he has found out about it, he is using this against her in threats, telling people she is a theif and threatening to expose her to the police as a con artist. This is a seperate issue I know, and a difficult one, but that aside, despite being incredibly stupid, has she broken any laws if she did not intend to, nor did she, defraud anyone of any money?

[Ethel]

Tell you friend to tell her husband to go right ahead and report her.

He will have to prove she forged his signature.

Now, your friend has not committed theft - for a theft to occur there must be an intention to permanently deprive the rightful owner, and as she paid in full there is absolutely no deprivation.

However, she has undoubtedly 'gained a pecuniary advantage by deception'. She has fraudulently got a credit account.
If she closes the account immediately it is highly unlikely the catalogue company would take action if they became aware of the fraud - they have suffered no loss at all.

Your friend could deny forging his signature or claim he was aware of it from the start. He must have noticed the new goods.

The one thing that goes against her is the television - if she were doing it for absolute necessities for the children that would be more understandable than using fraudulent means to get luxury items.

Tell her to call his bluff and tell him to go to the police.

[gouldc]

The circumstances are very mitigating here, but the fact that the items were paid off immediately would go in her favour if she was ever found out.

In the event that the catalogue did find out and cancelled her account, there is a potential that she would be loaded on one of the main fraud databases, and this would note the reason why she was loaded (using a false name), and would effectively zero her credit rating for the next 13 months, as well as permanently labelling her as a fraudster.

I would agree with Ethel and get the account closed immediately - no real harm has been done, and the catalogue would be unlikely to take any action here.

[monkeywiener]

no not at all. in fact the more accounts you open the less illegal it is.

[kibbles]

thanks. theres no excuse for doing what she did, but she never had any intention of harming anyone, its a sad situation that has many complicated facets to it. I appreciate what you say about the TV Ethel, a luxury indeed, but imagine trying tobring up three children in a household without a televison that wont stay on longer than half an hour. I dont think he will report her, not while he has it to control her at least. I think also shes learnt her lesson, I just wanted to reassure her. Many thanks for your responses.

[kibbles]

I appreciate your questions, and they are ones I have asked myself a million times but at the end of the day I am her friend and I am there to support not to dictate.

[Dave123x]

just a thing but if you paid for them but the account is in his name that would give him the right to say they are his property even if you paid for them out of your own pocket. he would have a paper trail to show they came from his account. also it still didnt help your credit record.

[Dave123x]

sorry i meant her credit. He could say they were gifts so she could not ask for them back if they were to split. He is also putting himself on the line by making statment to her being a theif. but in England the law says Disshonestly appropriateing property belonging to aother with the intention of perminently depriving the other of it. She was dishonest but she did not deprive him of it. she could also say he had given him permission to do it as he was also benefiting from having the vt. Also she could say he signed the form whilst under the influence and just forgot he did it. what proof is there to say he didnt sign it..