Good morning EIE and everyone else too.... Let us step back and ask the question Civil or Criminal? The standard of proof is higher in the Criminal Court as it must be 'beyond reasonable doubt.' The standard of proof in the Civil Court is that it must be proved 'on the balance of probabilities' I know that most of you are already aware of this, but my point is short and sweet (who said that makes a change......?) It is this: I believe that the evidence already collected by you all is more than enough to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' the offence which is[are]taken forward on a Criminal basis. This evidence (to answer the point raised by EIE) is evidence of a CRIME. (It could also be evidence in a Civil case - the same evidence can be used in either court, there are different procedures, that is all.) The case would be (in my humble opinion), best started thus: 1. Large group complaint to Police.(remember what I said about their lack of interest/action)........or 2. In that event then SOCA perhaps - see their website - it makes VERY interesting reading - they mean to put those who profit at another's loss away for a long time (my phrase not theirs) 3. Or a private prosecution - I see this as the last effort - but by that time there should have been enough in the press/tv for these people to have been dealt with.... There was a question raised - 'Where is the loss?' I draw your attention to S.5 subsection (4) of the Fraud Act 2006. (Well worth a read....Sorry I am such an anorak!) Finally to answer EIE's question : A Barrister would be instructed once proceedings had been commenced in the event of a private prosecution, and matters would begin at the Magistrates Court, thence to Crown Court (by reason of the offence - Indictable -(and the fact that it 'offers' a prison sentence). Any subsequent Appeal may be to the Royal Courts of Justice, by way of the High Court, with the House of Lords as the last 'stop' before the European Courts of Justice - BUT IT WILL NEVER GET THAT FAR - think of what these people have done to you all, and the evidence that you have about it, how will they possibly ever talk their way out of it? THE EVIDENCE YOU HOLD IN YOUR HANDS WHEN YOU GET A LETTER FROM THEM IS UNQUESTIONABLE - IT IS WRITTEN BY THEM TO YOU - What it says is what they intend or did intend to do. My best wishes to you all as always (I just want to help if I can) Dougal

SPARKIE IT'S A 'YES' FROM ME - WHAT A BRILLIANT IDEA BEST WISHES DOUGAL

If you wish to PM me I will 'talk' you through the entire procedure. Kind regards Dougal

Good evening all.... Yes it was that marvellous actor, Jack Warner, as George Dixon, in Dixon of Dock Green, (later to be Sergeant Dixon!) Sorry no prizes available...I'm too poor...! Serious stuff now : As far as two matters are concerned; firstly in my post text was deliberately marked RED, because in subsection (3) it shows exactly the definition of 'representation', and how the law sees the offence. The offender does not even have to believe it is untrue or misleading, as long as there is the possibility that the offender knows (or ought to have known - given the circumstances - see other legal definition for guilty knowledge - also called 'mens rea.') [How appropriate.....!] We really must move away from this fixation that no-one will do anything. What is needed is a joint action........ SOCA will certainly take this from a joint group of complainants, because the potential proceeds of crime are enormous, and they are keen to stop this type of criminality - REGARDLESS of who the offender is, are or might be!! The CPS will only 'take the case from you to proceed with it, in certain circumstances.....' but if they wish to halt matters then they have to make an application to have it dismissed.....does anyone think they really would be so silly in view of the circumstances and the associated press coverage this is going to get?? Secondly, I believe I may know exactly the Barrister to take this case on, and on a pro-bono basis.....I'll keep you posted. (Anyone interested, please PM me) With the agreement of the Bar Pro Bono unit, I will be able to instruct him direct...... Meanwhile... The very best wishes to you all Dougal

Good evening all, Anyone remember who said that on BBC on a saturday night in the 1960's.....? (Just a bit of fun - I enjoy a good quiz!) Serious now to respond to the question by EIE in post 5 above: My mistake is that Mackenzie Hall were seen off by me first, not Robinson Way (although I have since dispatched them.....) I wrote a first letter to Mackenzie Hall, the text of which is set out below: Thomas Lloyd Mackenzie Hall 30 The Foregate Kilmarnock KA1 1JH 9th May 2008 First Class recorded delivery. Re: M 7XXXXXX I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or any other person. I have today received your unsigned letter dated 29/4/2008. I will not be making any payment to you. I will not be calling you. This is because I do not carry out any financial business on the telephone, all business between us must be in writing. Please provide me with proof of your lawful right to claim any money from me. You must not telephone me, any calls from you will be recorded and construed as harassment. You must not send collection staff or any other person acting on your behalf or under your instructions to my residence as this will be construed as harassment. Take note that any implied right of access that may have existed to my residence and grounds is withdrawn from you and any of your agents apart from Royal Mail, to this effect, for you to send a door step collector will be considered trespass and harassment and you will be held liable and reported to the relevant authorities. If you fail to comply, this will be reported to the Court, a copy of this letter will be provided as evidence to the same and an Order enforcing your compliance will be sought. IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED DEBT CLAIMED, I REQUIRE: 1. A true copy of the executed credit agreement and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time of any default and at the time the account was opened. 2. All records you hold on me relevant to this case, including but not limited to: a. A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, repayments and payments and both the original amount of the loan and any repayments made to it the account. b. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, or by any previous creditor c. Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my account. d. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that you or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold. e. Documents relating to any insurance which is held on the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted (if applicable). f. Details of any collection charge added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers. g. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied. h. A genuine copy of any deed of assignment, or proof that you have a legal right to this money. i. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998 j. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed. k. A copy of all account statements for the duration of the agreement. 3. A copy of your complaints procedure, as required by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. 4. Clarification of the date you acquired the debt, or instructions to act as collection agents; what organisation these were acquired from, their registered office, their company number (if any), and what legal title they had to this debt, and what credit licence number they had at the time that the debt was purchased or entered into. You are also required to provide your credit licence number. I must advise you that if the information is not forthcoming within the legally prescribed timescale, all of the facts will be reported to the OFT and Trading Standards for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for all or any of the offences disclosed. (Please note :A “true copy” means a first generation copy of the actual signed document.) All documents should be readily available as proof of your or your clients legal right to collect this account. Your and your client’s failure to provide this documentation within the statutory time limits means would means you or your client has committed a summary criminal offence. However, due to your vexatious nature of your correspondence I also reserve the right to make formal complaints against you and/or your client to Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading to whom I may now send copies of our correspondence as evidence. Please be aware that I am logging all correspondence with you with regards to this matter and will be charging for time at the rate of £17.80 per hour as part of my counterclaim against any action you may take. I trust you will deal with this matter using all due diligence. Kind Regards They didn't get the message or respond so: Thomas Lloyd Mackenzie Hall 30 The Foregate Kilmarnock KA1 1JH 20th May 2008 First Class recorded delivery. Re: M 7XXXXXX I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or any other person. I have today received your unsigned letter dated 9/5/2008. I will not be making any payment to you. I will not be calling you. This is because I do not carry out any financial business on the telephone, all business between us must be in writing. It is necessary to draw your attention to my letter to you dated 9th May 2008, sent by recorded delivery first class mail. Royal Mail have confirmed receipt by you of this letter. This letter required certain information from you – that information is still outstanding. In the meantime, the contents of your letter dated 9th May 2008 constitute an offence under The Fraud Act 2006 . The appropriate sections read: Section 1. Subsection (3) sets out the penalties for the offence. The maximum custodial sentence of 10 years is the same as for the main existing deception offences and for the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud. Section 2. This section makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4. Subsection (2) defines the meaning of "false" in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of "representation". A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person's state of mind. Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website. Subsection (5) provides that a representation may be regarded as being made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that fraud can be committed where a person makes a representation to a machine and a response can be produced without any need for human involvement. Section 3. makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29: "7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal). 7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it." Section 5. defines the meaning of "gain" and "loss" for the purposes of sections 2 to 4. The definitions are essentially the same as those in section 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 32(2)(b) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under these definitions, "gain" and "loss" are limited to gain and loss in money or other property. The definition of "property" which applies in this context is based on section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (read with section 34(1) of that Act) and section 4(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (read with section 32(1) of that Act). The definition of "property" covers all forms of property, including intellectual property, although in practice intellectual property is rarely "gained" or "lost". Section 6 makes it an offence for a person to possess or have under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. This wording draws on that of the existing law in section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 and section 24 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (These provisions make it an offence for a person to "go equipped" to commit a burglary, theft or cheat, although they apply only when the offender is not at his place of abode.) The intention is to attract the case law on section 25, which has established that proof is required that the defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with the offence, and that a general intention to commit fraud will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr. App. R. 7 (CA), the court said that: "In our view, to establish an offence under s 25(1) the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word 'any' in s 25(1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to prove that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else." Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this new offence is 5 years. Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. For example, a person makes devices which when attached to electricity meters cause the meter to malfunction. The actual amount of electricity used is concealed from the provider, who thus makes a loss. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offence is 10 years. In the Magistrates Court the sentence for a single offence may not exceed 12 months. However, Section 78 of Powers of Criminal Courts Act (Sentencing) Act 2000 imposes a maximum of six months. This was due to be changed in November 2006 and will change if Section 154 Criminal Justice Act 2003 is activated. As at 16 January 2007 it has not been activated so the maximum penalty is restricted to six months. Section 8: "Article" Section 8 extends the meaning of "article" for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form. Examples of cases where electronic programs or data could be used in fraud are: a computer program can generate credit card numbers; computer templates can be used for producing blank utility bills; computer files can contain lists of other peoples' credit card details or draft letters in connection with 'advance fee' frauds. Section 12 repeats the effect of section 18 of the Theft Act 1968. It provides that if persons who have a specified corporate role are party to the commission of an offence under the Act by their body corporate, they will be liable to be charged for the offence as well as the corporation. By virtue of subsection (2)(a) and (b) this offence applies to directors, managers, secretaries and other similar officers of companies and other bodies corporate. Subsection (3) provides that if the body corporate charged with an offence is managed by its members the members involved in management can be prosecuted too. It is now too late to reverse your position, as a report has today been passed to the OFT. However, I am conscious of the possibility that their enquiries may be protracted and so therefore I have today made a formal complaint to the Police, providing a S.9 Witness Statement, together with first generation copies (taken by the Police) from the documents you sent to my address. My request for this matter to be investigated under the Fraud Act 2006 has been accepted and enquiries are today commencing. Nothing heard from Mackenzie Hall after that.....and by the way I refused point blank to speak to them on the telephone, and they did not know my former career. (IF YOU PM ME I WILL TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED AS FAR AS THE POLICE WERE CONCERNED:cool:) My apologies for a lengthy post, but just trying to show how I dealt with them. Finally, the vexed question of the CPS: 1. It is true that one complaint may not be enough. 2. However, it is open to anyone to launch a private prosecution, and if you check the CPS website you will see that they 'may intervene if it is in the public interest' and take over the case. 3. I suggest a mass complaint to the Police, and /or to SOCA. Any thoughts anyone.....?? Best wishes to all Dougal p.s.; they've done it to us - NOW LET'S DO IT TO THEM....

Good evening all I am flattered by the comments..... Let's look at the detail: The Fraud Act swept all of the old statutory deception offences away. Instead a new offence of fraud has been defined as follows: The defendant must have been dishonest, and have intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another. In addition, the defendant must carry out one of these acts: 1.Making a false or misleading representation. 2.Failing to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose. 3.Abusing a position of trust. The new offence of fraud is intended to be wide and also flexible, particularly as technology changes. There is no reliance on the concept of "deception". It does not matter whether the false information actually deceives anyone, it is the misleading intention which counts. The offence of conspiracy to defraud has not been abolished, but the government's objective is that reliance on it by prosecutors should be very much less. The impact of the change What will the impact on business of the new act? This will probably not be very profound outside the criminal law enforcement field, but several areas should be highlighted: The Fraud Act could be used to criminalise conduct which may previously only have amounted to a breach of contract or other civil law or moral obligation. That's looking at a summary of some of the main points - and I believe that this may apply to all of these 'people' in the rather unpleasant business of sub-prime, shady loans and so on. My own experience with Robinson Way [and some others] was that as soon as I mentioned to them the Fraud Act 2006 they vanished....I wonder why?? However we also have a real chance here to obtain a return of what is rightly ours, be it property or money [or anything else that has been lost as a result]. Finally a Criminal conviction will be an open door to a Civil Claim....I think. If I'm wrong please tell me......... Best wishes to all Dougal

Good evening all Just to clarify what my friend said in post number 54: In British and British-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order (frequently misspelt Anton Pillar order) is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This prevents destruction of incriminating evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements. The order is named for the case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited [1976] Ch 55 [1] in 1976, although the first reported such order was granted by Templeman J in EMI Limited v Pandit [1975] 1 All ER 418 in 1975. They are now known as search orders in England and Wales. Because such an order is essentially unfair to the accused party, Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to the three-step test set out by Ormrod LJ in the Anton Piller case: There is an extremely strong prima facie case against the respondent, The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant, and There must be clear evidence that the respondents have in their possession incriminating documents or things and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before an inter partes application can be made. In the UK, it has been reported that approximately 500 Anton Piller orders were made per year between 1975 and 1980. During the 1990s, this rate had dropped tenfold. Although the name persists in normal usage, the common law application of this order has been largely superseded by a statutory search order under the Civil Procedure Act 1997[2]. A search order under this act "does not affect any right of a person to refuse to do anything on the ground that to do so might tend to expose him or his spouse to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty". But it is vital to complain to the Police - see new thread as before... Best wishes to all Dougal

Good morning all Almost finished my submission.... Just a quick thought, I note that in post 44 here it was mentioned trying to get a Solicitor to tackle a fraud case - this is impossible simply because the majority of solicitors are civil practitioners only, those that are criminal practitioners are almost always defence specialists. The only way to take a criminal case forwards is to go to the police - as an ex p..c. myself I can tell you that if your evidence is in order then the Police WILL take it on - if the officer you speak to or a civilian counter clerk says they will not, then remember this, 'an officer (including civilian staff) who neglects his duty will be liable to proceedings under the Police Act, and may be disciplined by the Chief Constable, and are also subject to investigation by the IPCC.' (Independent Police Complaints Commission.) Now I know that certain 'loan/finance companies' would have great problems with the police investigating their actions - I draw your attention (again!) to my old friend the Fraud Act 2006 - [also incorporating the Fraud Act 1968] This is where the offences being committed are clearly set out, and it makes good reading (......) ALMOST ALL OF THESE SUB-PRIME COMPANIES AND THEIR ASSOCIATES HAVE COMMITTED AND CONTINUE TO COMMIT OFFENCES UNDER THIS ACT. All it needs is one complaint to the Police and the rest, as they say, may be history. I hope I can help, if you would like me to - you can always PM me if you wish. Kind regards as always Dougal

Good morning You don't get a better chance than this at 'putting the problems right.!! My 100% support, sending mine off tonight and I will be prepared to go as a witness. Regards to all Dougal

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, What we have here is a prima facie case EDIT by Swift Advances plc, on a very large scale. It is therefore essential that all documents are collected by one source, and in view of the very serious nature of these offences, I recommend copying all documents in your possession and forwarding them to the Serious Organised Crime Agency,PO Box 8000,London,SE11 5EN. The 24/7 telephone number for SOCA is 0370 496 7622. Their website CLEARLY indicates that they will deal with matters of this nature. See :SOCA | Serious Organised Crime Agency. The way forward in the Civil Courts is very limited and fraught with too many unknown parameters (DJ's who don't know exactly what he Law says, Counsel who are too clever for mere mortals like myself to follow, and so on...) It has to be the Criminal Courts in order for this to be stopped, but of course once the Criminal Case is commenced then Civil Litigation may be started in earnest! My sincere best wishes to you all Dougal

Good morning all I have had some difficulties with Swift..... Briefly, I took out a loan with them in 2006, for £15,000 and it was secured on my home. I sent the SAR to them recently and received a copy of the application form, the agreement and the welcome letter. However, the amount to be paid equates to £16,500, according to their correspondence. Now for the interesting bit - for various reasons, I got divorced and ended up agreeing to repay the Swift loan from my share of the sale proceeds. Swift attended the FDR proceedings during the Divorce, but left after 5 minutes when the DJ announced that there would be an Order for sale of the property made during that hearing. (This is perfectly normal). No payments have been made to Swift for some time, due to the divorce. No annual statement of account has ever been received from Swift. The property has been on the market for almost 2 years, and various people have wanted to buy but couldn't due to their own financial problems (couldn't sell their own place, couldn't get mortgages and so on..), Swift then decided that they wanted to act as an Intervenor in my Divorce proceedings. They made application and this was heard last Monday by the Deputy DJ at my local CC. I showed the lady Counsel for Swift my copy agreement, welcome letter and application, and she said ' this is not right, Swift cannot deduct fees from a loan, give you the balance, and then add back the fees deducted. There must be a mistake.......' I did tell her that there were moves towards a class action against her clients, and some 250-300 people may be involved....she said 'I will tell my clients....I just cannot believe their (her clients') attitude.' This is from THEIR Counsel!! The DJ whilst looking at my witness statement last Monday said 'I note that there is a difference between the amount which you applied for and the amount which Swift say you agreed to repay. This may affect Swift's position in these matters as they may not have an equitable interest, in view of this discrepancy.' I told him that I am dealing with that situation, and that I anticipate having the agreement revisited in Court in due course. His response was 'I assume under the CCA 1978?' My response was 'Yes sir, that is my intention.' He refused the application by Swift (but allowed them to be joined into the Matrimonial proceedings (perfectly normal request where a loan is secured against the matrimonial home) and has stated on the Order that 'Swift might have an equitable interest in the property in this case, and the balance of their application to be adjourned to the first open date after 10th August 2009.' Swift's application for costs was refused. I note that it seems Swift may have used a broker called Central Capital...has anyone heard of them? I am determined that Swift will not have an equitable interest, and that I will succeed in getting the agreement declared void...watch this space...... Please, any help you want to give, wish to give, or would like to contribute will be more than welcome. OK that's it for now.....I just want to say 'Let's do to them what they've been doing to us, only we will do it with the Law on our side.' Best wishes to all Dougal

Please include me Sparkie....you will see that my use of the Fraud Act 2006 has already 'seen off' some of the lower life forms of exisitence sometimes known as DCA's! Kind regards Dougal

Firstly good evening all, Secondly, many thanks sparkie - I did send the letter with the phrase non-compliance with this request will result in an application being made to the Court for your compliance. Was that OK? Thirdly, sparkie I would be VERY grateful if you could take a look at my agreement and letter that came with it. Would it be OK if I PM'd you with them? I think I know what I'm doing...but sometimes I just need a LOT of help!! This is a very difficult situation in my particular case, and if you agree to a PM I'll be pleased to tell you why!! In the meantime I am determined to deal with these charlatans.... Best wishes to everyone Dougal

Good evening all Just sent my 31.16 request to Swift for the underwriting sheet, and all or any other documents which they have in their possession in relation to my account. I'll keep you posted......... Best wishes everyone Dougal

Good morning all, I have now had the chance to make some further and deeper investigations regarding Swift. Firstly I apologise, and yes it is more important to get the money back from Swift BEFORE they go under!!! Secondly and as a main issue, non compliance (possibly deliberately) with a SAR request is against the current legislation. I understand that a gentleman by the name of Matthew Payne is an Assistant Solicitor with Swift, according to documents received, so I have checked the Solicitors register for England and Wales and he is on the register having been admitted on 15th March 1990. However, it is important that he holds a CURRENT practicing certificate, and these are valid from 1st November to 31st October, and a fee is payable. Perhaps further enquiries should be made..... Now then, let us consider his position - I say that a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, (and they are the former Law Society Complaints Department - now independent) will get the ball rolling, and I have taken this from their website 'We tackle unacceptable performance, misconduct and dishonesty by taking firm, fair and timely action. As far as possible, our processes are open and transparent.' The alternative is the Legal Complaints Service whose service is 'independent, impartial and free' according to their website. They may ultimately refer complaints to the SRA, but we must remember that a solicitor acting for a firm has a defined duty to ensure that his employers comply with the Law, and by non-provision of responses to requests, whether they be by Data Protection Act SAR requests or otherwise for information, a breach of the Law has occurred. This may well prove to be the 'Achilles Heel' in Swift, they will be unable to argue that they were unaware of their own position, because in doing so, they would immediately place their legal representative in a position of having breached the regulations. I suggest that a letter to Swift along these lines may well produce a better reaction.....If not numerous complaints will turn the spotlight onto their activities in no uncertain manner. Meanwhile I am still looking at other details, my apologies for a rather long post.....I believe that the comments I have made will apply to all other organisations - I may be wrong..... Best wishes to all Dougal IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN A CLASS ACTION AGAINST SWIFT PLEASE PM ME.

Hello everyone, rainbow can you let me have sight of your agreement ? - pm me if you prefer. If you do post it here BLOCK OUT YOUR DETAILS please. I'm currently working towards : 1. A Class Action against SWIFT 2. Getting our money back 3. Putting them out of business Not neccessarily in that order!! Kind regards to all Dougal Dougal

Hi Sparkie, Many thanks, the good news is I am exempt fees! No disclosure has been made to date, so at this stage standard disclosure will be requested. Kind regards Dougal

Good evening all, I myself am due to be at my County Court against Swift on 15/6/2009, as they wish to become an 'intervenor' in the sale of my property. I shall be: 1. Opposing the application 2. Serving documents under CPR 31.6 on their representative 3. Requesting an 'unless order' for disclosure 4. Asking for Costs at Legal Aid rates against Swift if my opposition is successful. Let' s do it to them before they (try) to do it to us!! Best wishes all Dougal

Good morning (again) Whilst I hope that this is true, it will not happen of its own accord, it is VITAL that a concerted effort is made to deal with SWIFT now, rather than just wait it out. I have already put the wheels in motion, by asking them to explain their accounting and mathematics...... I will only wait for 28 days (letter sent yesterday).. then I shall be off to SOCA with the details I have -anyone care to join me?? All the best Dougal

Good morning everyone, Well, it looks as if Swift have finally 'cooked their own goose'! I do strongly recommend at the very least direct contact with the Financial Crime Unit at the Home Office, if you went to local police with this it would almost be a non-starter, because it is serious fraud. I have researched this in some depth, and the starting point could also be: Serious Organised Crime Agency PO Box 8000 London SE11 5EN The 24/7 telephone number for SOCA is 0370 496 7622. If you look at SOCA's home page, you will see that they arranged for : Cash to be returned to Victims of financial crime.....is this the end of the road for Swift......I wonder what a Class Action against them would do?? There is also: Metropolitan Police Service - Fraud Alert As I have said, it really is essential to use all of the tools the Law provides to stop these rogues, together we could do exactly that. Best wishes to you all Dougal Feel free to PM me....I'll always reply

Good evening all, Sparkie is absolutely correct, he is referring of course to my old friend the Fraud Act 2006. Section 3 is definitely the 'killer' in some respects, but Swift appear to ignore this. However in my own situation I have mentioned the Home Office Financial Crime Unit, and this has bought a response out of them! (I thought it might), you see I checked my agreement and discovered that whilst they say they have deducted certain fees from the loan, they have actually ADDED them on! I have just written to them asking them to explain, and I will report them to the Police (and the FSA, FOS if neccessary) if I get no response. I always do what I tell these bozos I am going to do, NEVER say you are going to do something and don't then do it! As a matter of interest I have just reported my ex-wife for Perjury during the Divorce, and the Police are proceeding against her for that, so in my book if you can't play fair, I'll come looking for you! If you PM me I'll tell you what to look for in the agreement, but it is on this site anyway, I've just lost the post it's on! Best wishes to everyone Dougal

Good afternoon Why not go it alone ??? - we are all here to help you, and I am certain someone may even come along to 'stand beside you' to battle these people and teach them that the law is to be obeyed. You have our unwavering support, and I am sure I speak for all caggers.... Best wishes Dougal

Hi Sparkie, I'll check this out later today. Many thanks, they really are a low level bunch to say the least! I'll post this evening, and thanks for the message. Regards Dougal

Good morning all, Absolutely right....I've checked my agreement and they added on the commission to the loan WITHOUT asking me first (not a sensible thing to do, because it brings out the terrier in me!). So I shall pursue this 'doggedly' (pardon the pun), but I will succeed sooner or later. In the meantime I await the reply to my SAR. Best wishes to all as always Dougal

Good morning everyone Just wanted to say that I too have a loan (secured) with Swift, and this has mysteriously increased from £16,000 to £25,000!! Just sharpening my pencil now........ Watch this space, I have just sent SAR and will keep you all posted. Best wishes to everyone Dougal