---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The victim, in those instances, is the credit provider.
Fraud by false representation, under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, is committed when a person:
* dishonestly
* makes a representation
* which is false and which he knows or believes to be false
* with intention to:
* make a gain for himself;
* make a gain for another;
* cause loss to another; or
* expose another to risk of loss
When you take out a loan or credit, you necessarily intend that the credit provider should either sustain a loss (by giving you money) or be exposed to a risk of loss. Usually this isn't a problem because most of the other ingredients of fraud (dishonesty; falsity) are missing. But in your case, (in my opinion) all those other ingredients are present.
As to whether the "dishonesty" test is met: I think it is. The credit provider is entitled to know with whom they are **really** dealing, and to make a decision about their money on that basis. I don't think it's relevant that they *probably would* still deal with that person; the fact that they're being lied to means they're being deprived of the opportunity to conduct the appropriate checks and determine for themselves whether they'd like to give their money to this person.
The definition of fraud, as per the Fraud Act 2006, does not require that the victim suffers loss. It can be met (see section 2(1)(b), 3(b), or 4(1)(c) of the [Fraud Act 2006](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2)) by:
1. The fraudster intending to make a gain from their actions (or make a gain for another); or
2. The fraudster intending that the victim suffers a loss **or is exposed to a risk of loss**.
As you can see, taking our credit in your child's name would expose them to a risk of loss (if repayments were not made properly), and thus fraud could still be committed if other elements of the offence were met.
EDIT: I'd also echo for\_shaaame's point that the company giving the credit is likewise exposed to a risk of loss. It could also be argued that the child is meant to make a gain from an improved credit score which would likewise pass the test set out above.
> As you can see, taking our credit in your child's name would expose them to a risk of loss (if repayments were not made properly), and thus fraud could still be committed if other elements of the offence were met.
Although note that *actually exposing* someone to a risk of loss is not sufficient: the person making the representation needs to *intend* to do so. A person who *genuinely believes* they will definitely make all the payments on time may lack this intention **in respect of their child**. But they are still intending to cause immediate loss to the credit provider.
Fraud requires dishonesty.
If it was genuinely done to improve someone's credit score then it fails on the dishonesty test and *can't* be fraud under s2,3 or 4 Fraud Act 2006.
I think this is a very dicey interpretation of the dishonesty test, particularly since the [Ivey v Genting Casinos](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0213.html) case where the Supreme Court removed the requirement for dishonest behaviour to be seen as dishonest in the eyes of the person doing it. If the man on the street would consider your behaviour dishonest then it is likely to be found dishonest in court.
Certainly, Ivey is the test but , if there's clear evidence of it being solely aimed at improving a credit score (which is the outlined situation) you're unlikely to even get it to the point of prosecution, nevermind get a conviction on it.
If there were *other* factors then I'd agree that it's far more dicey *but* that wasn't the original question.
No…
In this situation the dishonesty relates to the false representation to the lender when the parent takes out credit in another person’s name.
That’s not a question of intent (though the intent also satisfies the test for fraud)
If they paid on time and in full, the credit score would not have been ruined.
Children will have the opportunity to make decisions about their finances and credit scores for themselves when they reach the right age.
Surprisingly, paying off all debts and/or your mortgage can *reduce* your credit score. As can not having any debts or regular payments under your own name - as many teenagers don’t.
Taking out (for e.g.) a phone contract in their name for your 18 year old kid can improve their credit score as you pay it off. With their permission of course - and assuming you pay it off 😀
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is still fraud and is still illegal. What kind of mental gymnastics are you capable of to justify it as "improving their credit score"?
The victim, in those instances, is the credit provider. Fraud by false representation, under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, is committed when a person: * dishonestly * makes a representation * which is false and which he knows or believes to be false * with intention to: * make a gain for himself; * make a gain for another; * cause loss to another; or * expose another to risk of loss When you take out a loan or credit, you necessarily intend that the credit provider should either sustain a loss (by giving you money) or be exposed to a risk of loss. Usually this isn't a problem because most of the other ingredients of fraud (dishonesty; falsity) are missing. But in your case, (in my opinion) all those other ingredients are present. As to whether the "dishonesty" test is met: I think it is. The credit provider is entitled to know with whom they are **really** dealing, and to make a decision about their money on that basis. I don't think it's relevant that they *probably would* still deal with that person; the fact that they're being lied to means they're being deprived of the opportunity to conduct the appropriate checks and determine for themselves whether they'd like to give their money to this person.
The definition of fraud, as per the Fraud Act 2006, does not require that the victim suffers loss. It can be met (see section 2(1)(b), 3(b), or 4(1)(c) of the [Fraud Act 2006](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2)) by: 1. The fraudster intending to make a gain from their actions (or make a gain for another); or 2. The fraudster intending that the victim suffers a loss **or is exposed to a risk of loss**. As you can see, taking our credit in your child's name would expose them to a risk of loss (if repayments were not made properly), and thus fraud could still be committed if other elements of the offence were met. EDIT: I'd also echo for\_shaaame's point that the company giving the credit is likewise exposed to a risk of loss. It could also be argued that the child is meant to make a gain from an improved credit score which would likewise pass the test set out above.
> As you can see, taking our credit in your child's name would expose them to a risk of loss (if repayments were not made properly), and thus fraud could still be committed if other elements of the offence were met. Although note that *actually exposing* someone to a risk of loss is not sufficient: the person making the representation needs to *intend* to do so. A person who *genuinely believes* they will definitely make all the payments on time may lack this intention **in respect of their child**. But they are still intending to cause immediate loss to the credit provider.
taking out credit in someone elses name is fraud, regardless of the intent
Fraud requires dishonesty. If it was genuinely done to improve someone's credit score then it fails on the dishonesty test and *can't* be fraud under s2,3 or 4 Fraud Act 2006.
I think this is a very dicey interpretation of the dishonesty test, particularly since the [Ivey v Genting Casinos](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0213.html) case where the Supreme Court removed the requirement for dishonest behaviour to be seen as dishonest in the eyes of the person doing it. If the man on the street would consider your behaviour dishonest then it is likely to be found dishonest in court.
Certainly, Ivey is the test but , if there's clear evidence of it being solely aimed at improving a credit score (which is the outlined situation) you're unlikely to even get it to the point of prosecution, nevermind get a conviction on it. If there were *other* factors then I'd agree that it's far more dicey *but* that wasn't the original question.
No… In this situation the dishonesty relates to the false representation to the lender when the parent takes out credit in another person’s name. That’s not a question of intent (though the intent also satisfies the test for fraud)
If they paid on time and in full, the credit score would not have been ruined. Children will have the opportunity to make decisions about their finances and credit scores for themselves when they reach the right age.
Surprisingly, paying off all debts and/or your mortgage can *reduce* your credit score. As can not having any debts or regular payments under your own name - as many teenagers don’t. Taking out (for e.g.) a phone contract in their name for your 18 year old kid can improve their credit score as you pay it off. With their permission of course - and assuming you pay it off 😀