Court judgements against Duncan Oldham of Koptalk?

by Rupert Insider

country-court.jpg

Photo: County Court Scarborough

One of our contributors has posted some details of County Court judgements he says are against Duncan Oldham of Koptalk and against “another” person living at the same address with the Oldham name but a different initial.

Unfortunately the record sent in is only to 1998 which is when Oldham started messing a round with an LFC usenet group which eventually led to his appearance on Koptalk.

Prior to that he was a security guard and office cleaner and was selling illegal Sky satellite cards on the net and radios tuned to police broadcasts.

He was also being pursued by Mark Lacey, an officer from Trading Standards in Scarborugh . Last year he was investigated and interviewed by another Trading Standards officer from Tyne and Wear and currently is being monitored by him.

Last year – under pressure from the blog – Oldham declared he had a single “conviction”.

We have received a number of emails and comments have been made on the blog about how difficult it is to get Oldham to pay refunds for (a) fake memorabilia (b) donations to his various “charities” for which accounts were not published nor receipts issued (e) competition prizes won but not delivered (d) double-charging PayPal accounts for annual memberships to Koptalk Gold Club (e) tickets to games sold but not delivered (f) memberships fees, in whole or part, when the member has cancelled or been summarily kicked out by Oldham.

It is clear that Oldham’s honesty and trading record is a major concern.

Commonsense suggests it is something that people should consider before sending him money for anything – especially memberships. It is also something they might want to cite when reporting him to Trading Standards or the police.

Can anyone do a public service by accessing public records to build up a complete picture of judgements against him – civil or criminal?

You could post it in the comments or send it in the strictest confidence to myself or Insider Insider.

My address is rupert.insider@gmail.com

Presumably any civil judgements would be in Yorkshire or Tyne and Wear. He lived in Scarborough and now Wallsend.

It may be also worth looking in Merseyside or the Country Court in Chester since he has unconvincingly claimed from time to time to have passed through Liverpool and also claimed to have bought a house in Formby or environs.

If anybody can access military records perhaps we could also look at his claim to have served in the Transport Corps – I guess that must have been in the few years prior to 1998 – and let’s see if there were any problems there.

Some of our correspondents have said how difficult it is to get him even to respond – which also seems to be a pattern going back into the 1990’s, according to court records.

I received this email yesterday from someone whose name I will withold for now:

hello, i am sad to say that i was recently a member of kop talk. and i found out that the fat cunt dunk was taking money from my paypal account every year without my permission, i cancelled my membership and got locked out of the fat robbing cunts site and ive left 5 messages for the fat cunt even giving him both my numbers , but i havent heard from him and its almost been a week.any ideas how i can get in contact with the fat piece of shite ? you can post this on your site if you wish,also what other liverpool websites would you reccomend?

For those who have not noticed them already, I’ll reproduce the recent exchange about judgements against Oldham from another thread.

  1. Dunkster Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 4:13 pm eDon`t know if this is the same Duncan Oldham, but I know one at 1 Princess Terrace Scarborough, he is a scam merchant owes me over £1000. used to have tel no Scar 355884 or 507273
  2. Insider Insider Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm e“Dunkster” – the Duncan Oldham we’re talking about did live at 1 Princess Terrace, Scarborough, but now spends more time living with his mam in Wallsend.I’d be interested in hearing more about how he scammed you – email me (in strict confidence) at koptalk.insider at gmail.com if you are willing!
  3. Dunkster Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pm eDunk as no need to write a book the courts already have one on him and his mother
    J Oldham York Ref JE740807
    D Oldham Scarborough SZ701035
    D Oldham 9301682
    J Oldham Hull KH513735
    J Oldham Northampton XN702395
    D Oldham Scarborough SZ711358
    J Oldham Scarborough SZ601644
    J Oldham two more one in Scarborough and one in Northampton.
    He also tried to get out of a court hearing saying he was too sick, but the sicko forgot to tell a photographer not to publish his photo in the Scarborough Evening News saying he was going to France for World Cup DIRECTS
  4. rupertinsider Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pm eTell us more – what do all those references mean?Under pressure he once admitted to a conviction – I think it was for traffic but can’t really remember.
  5. Dunkster Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm eThese are all the county court judgments against him, but only up to 1998, and the numbers are the court references
  6. rupertinsider Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pm eWhat were the judgments about and the amounts?Can you find all the judgments since 1998?He started on Koptalk about 1998.
  7. Dunkster Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pm eJ Oldham in York Court JE740807 £10707
    Dunk Scarborough Court £931
    J Oldham Hull £3270
    J Oldham £807
    Dunk Scarborough £1930
    J Oldham Scarborough £370
    J Oldham Northampton £232
    J Oldham Scarborough £575
    J Oldham Northampton £393
    Report says he has a 91 to 98% of failing to pay
    doesn`t say what they are for
    Also a R oldham at same address with court proceedings
    £158 £232 £67 £6611
    Must be inbred
    Have no info since then
  1. Andy Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 5:56 pm eDunkster,Do you know what years these cases cover?

    And could you tell us how you got hold of this information – no offence if you’d rather not.

  2. rupertinsider Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 7:12 pm eI’ve re-posted the comments about the court judgment as an article and perhaps it would be best to continue there.https://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/oldhams-court-judgements/

    In answer to Andy – I think anybody can access the public records ofa public court – its just knowing which one and where to look.

    As for ciminal convictions – its harder to access the central computer service that has a coordinated record with a legal authorisation, but searches can be done in newspaper reports of public trials – although they are far from complete.

    As for Army records – I know these are accessible in Kew at the Public Records Office, but may be simpler to write to the Transport Corps and ask them if he served.

    His date of birth is 13th September 1974. He left school in 1991. He married in 1999. So if he joined the army it would have been between 1991 and 1999.

    His cleaning and security business in which he worked with his mother was UK911.

It would be good to doule-check that all these “Oldhams” are the Koptalk Oldham and what the judgements were about. If they are from the same address they likely to be.

If you can, help the blog complete the picture!

Advertisements

34 Responses to “Court judgements against Duncan Oldham of Koptalk?”

  1. Red_Al_77 Says:

    “Can anyone do a public service by accessing public records to build up a complete picture of judgements against him – civil or criminal?

    You could post it in the comments or send it in the strictest confidence to myself or Insider Insider.

    My address is rupert.insider@gmail.com

    By asking people to provide details of his criminal records you are inciting people to break the law Rupert.

    There is no need as Dunk already admitted on a thread on KT about 18months ago about America the extent of his criminal record.

  2. rupertinsider Says:

    And how exactly am I doing that?

    People are entitled to check credit history including civil and criminal judgments.

    The records I referred to are those that would already be in the public domain – such as reports in newspapers etc..

    Perhaps you could tell us what is the extent of his criminal record that you say he posted on KT. And also explain why we should believe what he publishes on Koptalk.

    I have already referred to his admission a few months ago to what I think (but cannot remember for certain) was a motoring offense.

  3. Red_Al_77 Says:

    Read the Data Protection Act Rupert before you fall foul of it.

  4. rupertinsider Says:

    Perhaps you could answer my points and questions.

    “Before” I fall foul of it – your first post implied I already had.

  5. Red_Al_77 Says:

    Erm no not a public forum. That’s why I said about the Data Protection Act. You know where to find me.

  6. Red_Al_77 Says:

    Answer me this Rupert. What relevance has Dunk’s criminal record got to do with getting the Police or any other agency to prosecute him? Such agencies will know. Why do you need to know?

  7. rupertinsider Says:

    No I don’t know where to find you and I have no reason to look. Surely you don’t mean EST 1892?

    Short of paying a credit checking service for a deep investigation I don’t think anything is available apart from what I suggested.

    I think you used to have some sort of business relationship or other arrangement with Oldham so guess you are more familiar with him than most.

    But the rest of us have the right to check him out or anybody else who trades with the public especially after we have discovered him to be a liar about his relationship with LFC, a copyright thief, a serial breacher of the data protection act, a seller of fake memorabilia and a target of investigation by Trading Standards and even more so when we hear of his refusal to respond to creditors or claimants emails, telephone calls and support tickets or to refund monies promptly or at all.

    I’m just about to disconnect my computer and hit the road so any replies will have to wait until the next cyber cafe.

  8. Stanbull Says:

    “And how exactly am I doing that?

    People are entitled to check credit history including civil and criminal judgments.”

    No you are NOT

    Only Financial institutions who hold a Consumer Credit Licence and who subscribe to a Credit Reference agency have the right to look at someones personal history.
    Even then they can only search someone who either has an account with them or is applying for some type of facility ie Loan, Credit Card or HP.

    Whenever you fill in an application of any description you give the company consent to search you. If they search without consent the employee & the company are breaching the Data Protection Act & liable to prosecution.

    Only the Police & certain other Government Agencies can access someones criminal history.

    The danger here Rupert is you may have some impressionable fan who works for a bank & wants to become an EST1892 hero. If he searches & gives you or more foolishly sticks the info on here he stands a good chance of losing his job & gaining a criminal conviction to boot

    My best advice is to stop this line of enquiry,a) you or others are on dangerous ground legally & b) It is wrong to look into someones personal credit history without consent no matter who they are or what they’ve done

  9. Larakin Says:

    Have to agree with Red Al and Stanbull here, just stick to exposing Kop Talk ripping off members and dont stoop to these levels. You are quickly losing credibility by seemingly becoming obsessed by everything Oldham, instead of concentrating on the facts about the website.

  10. Dunkin' Donut Says:

    Oh stop being a bunch of soft poofters. Rupert has asked noone to do anything illegal, I am sure some of the information re Dunk’s criminal activities and fraudulent past is on public record. If it isn’t then people will have no way of getting it. If they breach they’re company’s policies well then they are just stupid.

    Dunk and his kraptalk site are a stain on this club and anything to expose the fat twat for what he is can do only good.

    Anyone who knows the truth about Oldham and still supports him is just as guilty.

  11. AussieSteve Says:

    Forgive me if i’m wrong but i think this site might help but it does cost to access the records.

    http://www.registry-trust.org.uk/

  12. Toby Says:

    I think you need to be careful with the actual info published here Rupert, but I do agree that Oldham’s criminal past is relevent information for someone who may be ready to part with £30 for a missold service.

  13. Toby Says:

    On another note, are you aweare of the new legal requirement for all businesses to provide corporate information on their website and emails?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/21/new_web_email_regulation/

    Koptalk would make for very interesting reading.

  14. Koptalksucks.com Says:

    @Toby: Koptalk isn’t even a registered business/company.

  15. Dale Says:

    Keep up the good work fellas – it’s much appreciated.

  16. Dunkin' Donut Says:

    Koptalk is a charity for obese cross-dressing con artists. Didn’t you know?

  17. fat_boy_fat Says:

    I have to agree with Dunkin’Donut when he says people are being soft and over reacting.
    Oldham is fair game because he is the one who brought everything on himself. If he dosnt like all this, then sorry but TOUGH LUCK! You went out of your way to con and rip people off, now its time for you to get back what you dished out to people.
    People are being to PC about it all. HE is a fat prick who has conned hundreds of people out of money. Some people are actually forgetting this fact and are starting to believe that the blog just hates D*nk and just wants to pick on him, just because they can. WRONG
    The blog is trying to get justice for LFC fans who have been conned. Makes me sick that some people are happy to let go the fact that he stole money from people. It wouldnt happen in the “outside” world, so it shoudnt just be passed over so easily on the net.

  18. Stanbull Says:

    I’m not being PC at all and I agree with your sentiments entirely.

    What I am saying is to obtain someones credit history the way it was suggested is breaking the “law of the land” & could leave someone open to prosecution.

    That applies on the outside world & on the net

  19. rupertinsider Says:

    I’m now in another city and in a cyber cafe.

    Oldham raised the subject of his criminal record on Koptalk at least twice. He sells memberships in that site. By claiming whatever it is he claimed about his criminal record he sought to influence public opinion about himself in a way that could affect whether someone remains or becomes a paying member or an employee or a volunteer or contributor to his site.

    He put the issue in the public domain and thereby opened it to public comment.

    My understanding is that it is perfectly legitimate to refer to any public records about any convictions – which is what I suggested. I referred to newspaper reports of convictions.

    As for credit history – some of you make me laugh. I’ve been getting reprots from for years from credit agencies which list all the country courts and other civil judgements against whoever I was enquringabout, and sometimes notes about reports in the press about criminal proceedings involving that person.

    Let’s cut to the chase – what did Oldham say on Koptalk about his criminal record?

    One or two who object were members of his site for a long time. I wonder if they objected when he invaded the privacy of his members and the players at LFC?

    I know two wrongs don’t make a right – but still – why the passion to keep his privacy sacrosanct when he spends most days writing about his life – his appetite, family, sexual fantasies, money, business and personal investment plans and everything else he can think of. Are we to believe only what he says and not check it?

    As for restricing ourselves to subjects that suit our critics I’ve already answered that several times.

  20. Insider Insider Says:

    Just to briefly go over the above comments….

    We’ve had various pieces of information relating to Duncan Oldham sent to us legitimately over the past few months, sent by readers of this blog.

    The amount of information that can be obtained legitimately is quite surprising. Sometimes it needs a fee, and to this date I’ve not personally paid a penny towards this blog and its causes.

    Not all information requires a fee, but you do need to know where to look.

    We’ve got solicitors on our side – not “hired” by us, just Liverpool fans who happen to be solicitors who support us in what we do. Two examples of what I’ve been sent by solicitors are 1) A copy of land registry information relating to the 5 Swan Avenue address that Koptalk is based at and 2) Proof that “Paul Harper”, Dunk’s “solicitor” isn’t a solicitor. If he exists at all, which is doubtful, he’s not a solicitor.

    Item 1) cost £5 IIRC, item 2) cost nothing.

    County Court judgements are, from memory, public domain. I don’t know who you go about finding the information on them, but I expect that you’ve got to go into a county court somewhere in the country and fill in a form and pay a fee to get information on an individual.

    Credit checks are different. If you’ve missed two payments on your Harry Ramsden’s store-card you’ll show up on a credit-check as having missed those two payments, but it won’t show on any county court records. Not until the Harry Ramsden store-card people take you to court anyway.

    I’ve no idea how you find out about criminal records. Well I have, thanks to a solicitor who wrote in to me, but it seems that’s something that needs permission of the person you are investigating. It seems that criminal records are not public domain. If you want to check someone’s criminal record before, for example, employing them, you can – with permission.

    All that Rupert asked for above was for someone to look up what they could from information in the public domain. Those who have been quick to condemn must have mis-read the words written above. You can’t find everything out on the ‘net (but you can find out a hell of a lot). You sometimes need to go in person to find things out, to a library, to a town hall, to a court, to government office…

    I don’t want anyone to lose their job because of this blog – even though Dunk’s mam has tried to make that happen in the past by calling ex-Koptalk members at work with threats.

    If you can, please help – and thanks to everyone who already has.

  21. Andy Says:

    I can see how some may construe Rupert’s post as asking people to break the law but I don’t think it was clear cut at all. He has since clarified his position.

    Providing details of Oldham’s criminal record demonstrates that he is a career criminal who, as the bloggers have claimed many times, just happened to chance across LFC as a means to con people out of their money.

    Not wanting people to lose their jobs over the blog is commendable but saying evidence of Oldham being a serial con artist is somehow off limits is just daft.

  22. rupertinsider Says:

    I’ve just noticed Red Al’s second question, above. Although he has not answered any of mine I’ll have a shot at his.

    “Answer me this Rupert. What relevance has Dunk’s criminal record got to do with getting the Police or any other agency to prosecute him? Such agencies will know. Why do you need to know?”

    And how will they know? They only look if they investigate. They only investigate if they receive a complaint from a victim, from a member of the public reporting their suspiscions or from their own direct enquiries.

    Any blogger who has dealt with these agencies regarding Oldham will know that they need everything on a plate. You can’t expect them to read the entire blog. They also need to be convinced quite quickly that Oldham merits suspiscion.

    If the complainant can point to reports of his criminal convictions in the newspapers or from wherever they can legally be obtained then this not only grabs their attention but gives them leads which they can follow. It might convince them or give them grounds for checking all his dealings with the courts.

    The same is true with county court judgements or other civil judgements against Oldham.

    For example, if he is constantly being sued for taking money and not delivering goods which he has
    legally or illegally obtained (and TV streams, illegal satellite cards and fake memorabilia could be among the latter) then the complainant may have decided it was better to seek
    a judgement in the civil courts because they can then collect from Oldham – but that does not mean the matter could not also have been pursued in the criminal process.

    The pattern in these cases might suggest to an official that Oldham was a person who repeatedly engaged in activity that could be prosecuted. This information would not have been readily available on any record of any criminal convictions he may have. The information might convince an official to pursue the matter more urgently than otherwise.

    Nor is this matter of potential or borderline criminal activity merely speculative. We know know he has been investigated by Trading Standards at least twice – once in 1998 and once in 2006. They investigate criminal matters only. We know they are monitoring him now.

    (There is a footnote – Oldham claimed last year that his real name is not Oldham (even though it is) and I notice some of the country court judgements have a different initial. We know he carried on business under aliases – Del Johnson being the most famous. So a thorough survey of judgements should take that into consideration. It would be more difficult for him to pass with another name in the criminal process – but it would be good for any authority considering a criminal prosecution to know if there have been civil judgements against him under his aliases).

    BTW I’m not a policeman or a solicitor and these opinions are based on common sense and business experience. I doubt that Red Al is either a policeman or a solicitor. But he he had working arrangement with Oldham which I undestand from his remarks on EST 1892 and here were rather tense.

  23. disco Says:

    I’d personally take any advice from Red Al very seriously Rupert 😉

  24. The Platinum Club Says:

    Why’s that Disco?

  25. disco Says:

    Because he probably knows what he’s talking about

  26. Dunkin' Donut Says:

    NO wonder Dunk has to keep so fat, there’s still a few leeches stuck to his arse. Lips first.

  27. rupertinsider Says:

    Disco – back again – the guy who will never post on the blog again, who never reads any threads about the blog on Est 1892 but only scans them but always responds if he thinks he sees a foothold.

    Since you are a current member of Koptalk with thousands of KT posts, many of them sycophantic to the cult master over there, I can understand why you would take any advice Red Al gave because he “probably” knows what he’s talking about.

    That kind of thinking is of the essence in a cult.

    Its too bad you did not take your own advice when Red Al left Koptalk a few months ago because of major differences he said he had with your cult master.

  28. disco Says:

    LOL, whatever.

    You should read the profile in this 😉

    http://www.bullyonline.org/related/stalking.htm

  29. disco Says:

    PS You’re somewhere between ‘vengeful’ and ‘delusional’ if you weren’t sure LMAO!

  30. Stanbull Says:

    “As for credit history – some of you make me laugh. I’ve been getting reprots from for years from credit agencies which list all the country courts and other civil judgements against whoever I was enquringabout, and sometimes notes about reports in the press about criminal proceedings involving that person.”

    Rupert you make me laugh,if this is true why haven’t you done one on Oldham and posted your findings on here? It’s the first thing I’d have done if it were true.

  31. rupertinsider Says:

    Standbull

    Why should I? Oldham is not a debtor of mine. Insider says he has never spent a penny on the blog or analysing Oldham and neither have I.

    That’s why I asked for informed volunteers. Its only you and one or two others who have scruples about our readers looking up the public record of judgements against Oldham or reports of any proceedings against him – you object to them doing it directly or using a credit agency. Why?

    You advice is not reliable – we don’t know who you are and what your qualifications are and why you want to deflect questions about Oldham.

    Obviously you don’t work for the credit checking agencies I have used.

    But if you really think this blog should publish reports from credit checking agencies and it would haev been the first thing you would have done IF you had started this blog – its not too late. You could order a report and post the results as a comment in the same way as the first commentator has done in this thread.

  32. Stanbull Says:

    Rupert

    This is getting out of hand, I agree with what you and the insider are trying to achieve and I’m not for one minute trying to deflect anything from Duncan Oldham.

    I have worked in the banking industry for over 20 years & I have used several credit reference agencies in those years, & still use them several times a day,so I’m more than qualified to comment

    I have no objections to people looking up public records such as CCJ’s Bankrupcy, Director Disqualifications etc and if they want to post on here fine, it would make interesting reading for me, probably not the majority of posters though!!

    A persons credit history which is what you asked for is not just public info it also consists of personal credit data.
    What I was trying to get across and obviously not very well is that a personal credit search shows what type of credit you have, how much you owe, how you pay it each month,how much you pay each month, default details etc This info is covered by the Data Protection Act.
    As such only people authorised ie Banks & Finance Houses can search that info only with the persons consent can look at it. The business or the employee must not share that info with anyone outside the business.

    Years ago many emploees would carry out searches as favours for people or look at their next door neighbours search, this now is a sackable offence.If you read my first post again I was trying to warn any naive person who has access to Equifax or Experian not to search Oldham either a) just for their own interest or b) to share on the blog

    I am guessing you are self employed as you refer to him not being one of you debtors, the credit reference agencies you would use give info relating to how credit worthy companies Ltd or not are, You probably usev someone like D&B or Risk disk, there are numerous others, but they will not give you a persons personal credit history.

    Now I don’t care if you catch Dunk with his hands in the till or indecently involved with small fury aminal, so long as you get the facts right

    Any way I’m off out for Pint, this is boring the tits off everyone

  33. Insider Insider Says:

    Last word on this (I hope).

    If you can find anything out about Duncan Oldham that you think could be even slightly relevant or mildly interesting for the blog PLEASE FIND IT OUT!

    You might find something out that tips someone sitting on the fence into falling onto our side of the fence, rather than into the rat-infested Koptalk side of the fence.

    You might find something out that fits in with something someone else found out and which together leads us to another important discovery about Mr Fats.

    So – find out what you can, but: Don’t get yourself sacked from work, don’t go rummaging through Dunk’s bin, don’t pretend to be Dunk to get his credit reference records.

    Better still, if you’ve got time, SHOP DUNK! Write down some of the things that upset you the most and make sure somebody else knows. If that’s a case of telling all the LFC fans you know of about it, then do that. If you’ve been ripped off yourself by him, contact Trading Standards or the Police as you see fit. Don’t assume that someone else will do it for you.

    I do appreciate advice people give. Sometimes it sounds more like criticism than advice though, which might be why the reaction can sound a little fiery.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: