Hello everyone, I should have said in post 14 that when you go to te Police Station and see the CID person GET ALL OF THEIR DETAILS : NAME, RANK AND SERIAL/IDENTIFICATION NUMBER Best as ever Dougal

Good evening all, Sorry Paul, but this is exactly what I was referring to - people trying to put people 'off' when considering the use of the Criminal Law. We must at least try to have these matters dealt with by the Police. It is a Criminal offence, and for the prosecutor to prove the matter the standard is beyond reasonable doubt.I agree that a private prosecution is a considerable undertaking, and this ONLY be considered as a last resort - but it is available for use. Perjury is again a Criminal measure, and is difficult to prove in a Civil Court where the Judge may favour the Defendant, especially if they are a large organisation. As a Criminal offence, I went to the Police and they p[prosecuted my ex-wife for Perjury during our Divorce (the Divorce was heard in the Civil Court as usual,but the evidence my wife gave to the District Judge during the divorce hearings was false! However, I am proceeding against GE in the Civil Court, and a Criminal prosecution will follow. As always best wishes to all. Dougal

Evening all, Jacqui was your broker APS Mortgages by any chance? Best wishes to all Dougal

Good morning all, I just wanted to set the record straight: These are the points you will need to deal with to establish that an offence has been committed under the Fraud Act: 1.Has a crime been committed? Do I know the offenders(s)? 2. Have I suffered any loss as a result of this crime? 3. Where is the evidence of this crime? What form does it take? (paper, physical, actual or medical) 4. How do I make a complaint? What happens if the Police say it is a 'Civil Matter'? The answers you need are : 1. Yes as the Law has been broken. Yes as I have knowledge of their address, and activities. 2. Yes I have lost something (property - note: Money is held in Law to be'property)'. which the offender has taken from me without my consent. 3. The evidence is contained in the documents between myself and the offender, and copy documents received from other sources relating to this complaint. (Court papers. Legal advice letters, Bank statements) 4. You must physically go in person to your local Police Station and ask to see a member of the CID (Criminal Investigation Department– NOT a uniformed officer. DO NOT leave details of yourself or the complaint with the Counter Clerk or anyone else. Counter Clerks are NOT police officers. In the event that the Police say it is a ‘Civil Matter’ – then it is time for a FORMAL complaint to the Chief Constable – DO NOT BE PUT OFF – a crime has been committed and the offender(s) must be dealt with by the Police.There are no costs involved to you whatsoever, just some of your time in making the effort to put a stop to this criminal activity. Fraud carries a very severe custodial sentence, it is not a minor crime. There are people who will advise you differently. As an ex-PC I can assure you they are wrong. Also remember this if you do not make a complaint then these criminal acts will keep on happening - DON'T let them get away with it! OK enough preaching - the philosophy is simple, if the Civil Courts can't/won't deal with these matters satisfactorily then it is time for the Criminal Courts to take action. REMEMBER ANYONE CAN COMMENCE A CASE FOR A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION - BUT IT MAY BE 'TAKEN OFF' BY THE CPS (If they want to risk the publicity!!!) TELL MAJOR NEWSPAPERS IF YOU ARE OBSTRUCTED IN THIS FASHION - IT CAN WORK WONDERS!!! CONFUCIUS SAID 'TO SUCCEED YO HAVE ONLY TO TRY'. Any thoughts anyone.......all comments are welcome! As always best wishes to all, Dougal

Good evening all The Fraud Act 2006 is very specific: 1 Fraud (1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence). (2) The sections are— (a) section 2 (fraud by false representation), (b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and © section 4 (fraud by abuse of position) (3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). (4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months. 2 Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation—(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of— (a) the person making the representation, or (b) any other person. (4) A representation may be express or implied. (5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as 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). 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. 4 Fraud by abuse of position (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, (b) dishonestly abuses that position, and © intends, by means of the abuse of that position— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act. 5 “Gain” and “loss” (1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance with this section. (2) “Gain” and “loss”— (a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property; (b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent; and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property). (3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what onedoes not have. Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 3 (4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has. 6 Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both). (3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months. 7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article— (a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or (b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). (3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months. 8 “Article” (1) For the purposes of— (a) sections 6 and 7, and (b) the provisions listed in subsection (2), so far as they relate to articles for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, “article” includes any program or data held in electronic form. (2) The provisions are— (a) section 1(7)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60), (b) section 2(8)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19), and © Article 3(7)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)); (meaning of “prohibited articles” for the purposes of stop and search powers). 9 Participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he is knowingly a party to the carrying on of a businessto which this section applies. 4 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) (2) This section applies to a business which is carried on— (a) by a person who is outside the reach of section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) or Article 451 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/1032) (N.I. 6)) (offence of fraudulent trading), and (b) with intent to defraud creditors of any person or for any other fraudulent purpose. (3) The following are within the reach of section 458 of the 1985 Act— (a) a company (within the meaning of that Act); (b) a person to whom that section applies (with or without adaptations or modifications) as if the person were a company; © a person exempted from the application of that section. (4) The following are within the reach of Article 451 of the 1986 Order— (a) a company (within the meaning of that Order); (b) a person to whom that Article applies (with or without adaptations or modifications) as if the person were a company; © a person exempted from the application of that Article. (5) “Fraudulent purpose” has the same meaning as in section 458 of the 1985 Act or Article 451 of the 1986 Order. (6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). (7) Subsection (6)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months. 10 Participating in fraudulent business carried on by company etc.: penalty (1) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), in column 4 of the entry relating to section 458 of that Act, for “7 years” substitute “10 years”. (2) In Schedule 23 to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (punishment of offences), in column 4 of the entry relating to Article 451 of that Order, for “7 years” substitute “10 years”. Obtaining services dishonestly 11 Obtaining services dishonestly (1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or another— (a) by a dishonest act, and (b) in breach of subsection (2). (2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if— (a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them, Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 5 (b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and © when he obtains them, he knows— (i) that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or (ii) that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both). (4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference (2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if— (a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be (2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if— (a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them, Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 5 (b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and © when he obtains them, he knows— (i) that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or (ii) that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both). (4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months. Supplementary 12 Liability of company officers for offences by company (1) Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate. (2) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of— (a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or (b) a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (3) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate. 13 Evidence (1) A person is not to be excused from— (a) answering any question put to him in proceedings relating to property, or (b) complying with any order made in proceedings relating to property, on the ground that doing so may incriminate him or his spouse or civil partner of an offence under this Act or a related offence. (2) But, in proceedings for an offence under this Act or a related offence, a statement or admission made by the person in— (a) answering such a question, or (b)complying with such an order, is not admissible in evidence against him or (unless they married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) his spouse or civil partner. (3) “Proceedings relating to property” means any proceedings for— 6 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) (a) the recovery or administration of any property, (b) the execution of a trust, or © an account of any property or dealings with property, and “property” means money or other property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property). (4) “Related offence” means— (a) conspiracy to defraud; (b) any other offence involving any form of fraudulent conduct or purpose. 14 Minor and consequential amendments etc. (1) Schedule 1 contains minor and consequential amendments. (2) Schedule 2 contains transitional provisions and savings. (3) Schedule 3 contains repeals and revocations. 15 Commencement and extent (1) This Act (except this section and section 16) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by an order made by statutory instrument; and different days may be appointed for different purposes. (2) Subject to subsection (3), sections 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only. (3) Section 8, so far as it relates to the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19), extends to any place to which that Act extends. (4) Any amendment in section 10 or Schedule 1, and any related provision in section 14 or Schedule 2 or 3, extends to any place to which the provision which is the subject of the amendment extends. Now tell me there is nothing that can be done...I personally have instigated a Criminal investigation into a major Sub prime lender with the aid of the Police and enquiries are extensive and ongoing. Therefore no more can be disclosed at this stage. Have a good read of this Act - it is for us to use!!!! Best wishes to all Dougal ps: I may be using this Act against GE shortly watch the space.......!!

Morning all, The important thing to remember is this DO NOT GIVE IN TO ANY THREATS OF ACTION IN ANY FORM - ONLY A COURT CAN ORDER RECOVERY TO SETTLE DISPUTES AND EVEN THEN ONLY WHEN THAT CLAIM IS VALID IN LAW. 'THE MORE YOU STAND UP TO BULLIES THE SMALLER THEY BECOME' -[ My late mother's words not mine - but true nonetheless.] In the meantime compliments of the season to all of my fellow Caggers, and here's to a very busy New Year! Sincere best wishes to all, Dougal

Afternoon all, Just received a notice from the Court that the defendant 'intends to defend my claim' for repayment of commission! This should be interesting, as I have a letter from the broker which clearly states that they (the broker) did not disclose the commission amount to me! Needless to say this has not yet been disclosed to the defendant! No problem in posting this here as it is a true and factual statement, and will not affect proceedings. As always, Dougal

Evening all, My claim against Swift for repayment of the commission was issued on 9th December 2010 - I have yet to instruct the Police with regards to the Eastern Counselling fees. The act of taking a fee for a non-existent service by a non-existent company is an act of Fraud. Happy Christmas to all on CAG. As always Dougal

Mike, and all at GLC, You are indeed paving new grounds for others possibly to tread and I personally wish you all the very best. Your star is plainly in the ascendency! Sincere best wishes from a mere Southerner, Dougal

Ditto again, Keep up the very good work... Regards to all Dougal

Morning all, I agree with the comments - BUT remember this: Mike Daily has NOT said that this is the end of the road - indeed if you read in full all of the information from his office, it seems that this matter will end up in the ECJ. I believe that every effort will be made to block his path but it will finally get to the ECJ, there is too much at stake for all parties to stop.... I have my fingers crossed Best wishes and compliments of the season Dougal

Good morning all, I too say welcome back Sparkie......remember 'caution in al things will bring reward',.... don't ask me who said this as I can't remember! Commission claim against Swift filed today - better and further particulars of claim to include 'rescission of contract in its entirety'. Meanwhile best wishes to all as always Dougal

Evening all, Speaking as an ex-policeman I could not agree more : it is blatant theft - the police will act if you approach them properly...I will be pleased to help you if you wish and can tell you how to get someone to take an interest at the police station! Trading Standards and the FSA also need to be told. Note this shower are Licensed by Office of Fair Trading to carry out this business under licence number 0447202. (Not for a lot longer possibly?) You will also need 'good' evidence to support your case....BUT you WILL succeed against them! Best wishes to all Dougal

Good evening everyone, VERY WELL DONE FOR GETTING THIS GREAT RESULT AGAINST BLEMAIN. As a matter of interest (pardon the pun), but GE Money are terrified of what is happening to Blemain as these two organisations (?) are almost identical in their working. NOW is the time to start on GE, and I have just done so.... Best wishes to all as always, Dougal

Good evening If you are struggling what about Legal Aid ? Still available at present, and having the backing you have could well be granted. Best wishes Dougal

Evebning all, Perhaps an Order of the Court could be obtained for non-compliance with your SAR - you really need a good brief. Since when is this company (?) beyond the law? Regards Dougal

Good evening, I can help you out with LCS they are not a firm of Solicitors, the Solicitor who 'uses' this name is a Mr R. Marr, and he is stated to be 'an employee of 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd. A report to the SRA would stop Mr Marr in his tracks and a report to the OFT will do wonders - 1st Credit already on restrictions with OFT! What a load of of hapless clowns..... Best wishes to all as always Dougal

Good morning all, and SHOOPS I am just answering Shoops post 3948. I am sorry but for some reason I have not received any of the details you refer to. I you wish to send me another PM please feel free. Best wishes to everyone as always Dougal

Evening all, ....Or they may have left the building!!! However, I still have a pit for them to fall into.......... Best as ever to everyone, Dougal

NICE ONE LL, By the way you are 101% right as far as Fraud is concerned. Have just sent my letter to the Economic Crime Unit of the Police in Swift's home town..... Morning all and best wishes Dougal

Good morning This is a common misconception, and until you have been down that path the Criminal aspect of this situation must not be dismissed or understated. The Police will be 'bothered' if they are approached properly. A crime may have been committed and they cannot ignore it. Best wishes to all Dougal

Good evening, This is where there is a problem - you must be certain that you did not sign the agreement. You must insist that you did not sign it when you report this to the Police, because it is Forgery, even if it was 'copied' from some other document and then entered on the loan form, by whatever means were used...AS LONG AS YOU DID NOT SIGN IT YOURSELF. Best wishes Dougal

Morning LL, Yes I am well, and thanks for that..hopE you are too and that Dad is improving. Now then turning to the issues of the day, WE NEED EVERYONE WHO HAS HAD A PROBLEM WITH SWIFT TO JOIN TOGETHER - IS A PETITION THE WAY FORWARD???? THEY WILL SLIP OUT OF THE NET IF WE DO NOT ACT NOW...... Best wishes to all Dougal

Good morning, Yes I agree, but what better evidence is there than a completed document apparently signed by the debtor, and a true copy of the original which the debtor holds without a signature on? The Police will investigate if a compl;aint is made, and they will find (should) the evidence (let us be devil's advocate and say - if it) exists. However to nail the lid down on this one: A certified copy of the debtors true signature would help! This could be provided by a declaration from a Solicitor, the same method from a Bank, or if possible a handwriting expert could be used. In the meanwhile... Best wishes Dougal

Evening all, Sounds like a job for the Financial Crime Unit of the Police here Swift are based! My suggestion is that everyone who has had problems writes directly to that Financial Crime unit now. The only way to effectively deal with this company is to do it en masse, so to speak. Come on people let's get writing, the earlier we do the quicker the result....? Some of you will think this is too radical - I've sent my letter already...... Watch my posts for a ruling about another major bank (one of the high street players) in my case, which may overturn quite a few decisions. I regret that I am unable to provide details (even by PM) but all will be clear in the weeks to come. In the meantime, mind how you go. Best wishes to all, as always Dougal