I really would like some other opinions on this please.....

OK, I agree that this can be going around in circles, but let me just point something out: there is NO racism involved whatsoever.Words implanted like that can give readers false perceptions, and yet again bend the actual situation. The power of words and their interpretations, is at the heart of the situation, and this is so well played out here as well. I would like comments from others if that is possible, but thank you for your time anyway emmzzi.

The policy is basically not to bring the company into disrepute.The PICTURE can be seen as brining the company into disrepute, but the comment was for the sentiment the picture depicted, what it alluded to. From what I can gather it seems these types of "disciplinary's" are based on Napoleonic law in that one is guilty until proven innocent. It is also a matter of interpretation and putting words out of context to match a "managers" way of thinking. And also does not the disciplinary committee have a conflict of interest if they are attached to the company?

Sorry, but how does failing to report a picture condone it? So in that context: everyone who works for the company who saw the picture is, in effect , also guilty. Thought crimes are not part of law just yet! If this was a court of law this would be an absolute joke and thrown out. And I also did NOT say that I am the supposed writer of the comment!

Im not saying that the picture was not seen, if you have read what I have written. There is no question of a "I did not see it" defence whatsoever. Read my last post to fully understand the situation please.

There is a union rep, however the basis of the charge seems to be that the comment condones the taking of the picture. This is clearly not the case as the comment refers to the sentiment of the picture, not the taking of the picture itself. There seems to me to be 2 elements to this: 1. the physical taking of the picture in the workplace 2. the sentiment of the photo. The powers that be say the comment condones the taking of the picture, whereas the comment is clearly agreeing with the sentiment, nothing more, nothing less. It seems there is a very weak case on their part and they are trying to use the comments/words out of context to fit their agenda. The works policy is bringing the company into disrepute. The comments, as stated, do not mention the company whatsoever or are about anyone that works there. The happen to be under a photo that was tagged by the originator of the photo as being taken at workplace. Please note what I pointed out: 2 elements. First element: photo taking - yes that is punishable by hearing. 2: sentiment of the photo, wherein company not mentioned in any way, or anyone from company; merely agreeing with the sentiment of the photo and its implications.

Hi. The one taking the photograph and the one who commented. Sorry it is a little hard to follow, but its difficult to word in such away as to not divulge any names/facts etc, that a search might reveal. I need to keep this as general as possible. thanks.

Sorry, the comment is relating not to a person , but to the sentiment of the photograph. The argument is solely based on the fact that the photo was taken within the workplace and tagged as said workplace. The photo was deemed inappropriate but does not contain a person, just objects.

A comment was posted on facebook regarding a photo that was taken in the work place. The photo was tagged as the workplace and a comment by the originator of the photo was in relation to a recent UK commemoration. A comment by another work colleague was left about the sentiment of the posting, does not imply or mention the workplace name whatsoever; however a disiplinary hearing is to take place that argues the comment brings the company into disrepute, even though, as stated, the 5 worded comment does not mention or imply work place whatsoever.

Are they justified to bring about disciplinary proceeding on these grounds? Yes, agreed on the originator of the photo, but the colleagues comment, I feel, should not be taken this far. Am I correct? Have I missed something? Any help appreciated. Thanks.

That FSA document: these parts I DO NOT agree on. They KNEW exactly what they were doing, and I truely believe that deep down the FSA knows this as well:

The extent to which the breach was deliberate or reckless

6.6. The FSA has not determined that Swift deliberately or recklessly contravened regulatory requirements.

The size, financial resources and other circumstances of the Firm

6.7. There is no evidence to suggest that Swift is unable to pay the financial penalty.

The amount of benefit gained or loss avoided as a result of the breaches

6.8. The FSA has not determined that Swift deliberately set out to accrue additional profits or avoid a loss through the way in which it operated its systems and controls and

14

processes.

Hi. I want to clarify a matter. A halifax bank account that went into arrears and overdraft due to outrageous, never ending charges was passed to an "inhouse" debt collector and they claim that my dispute is not so as it the debt is an overdraft and is not covered by section 77-79 of the consumer credit act 1974, which refers to credit agreements. Overdrafts are covered in section 74. That section, she says, does not apply to an overdraft of a current account anyway (?), as it is exempt from the requirements of part V of the act that there will be no documented agreement.

So what angle of attack do I now take with this. The bank complaints section have passed from the Inhouse collection - Blair Oliver and Scott to outside agency - Fairfax solicitors, although I have heard nothing from them whatsoever and the bank complaints say I must contact them within 6 MONTHS!!! FROM 12 JULY 2011. .....thats wierd I thought. So anyway, should I just wait until the outside people contact me or are they correct and I cannot fight my dispute as they claim there is none?

Any advice on this matter please would be greatfully received.

Hi all . We have just received the annual statement and ALWAYS, every annual "statement" they put Amount of credit for Loan, Broker Fee, Admin Fee. So am I right in thinking that every time we make a payment, they are charging interest on the Broker fee and admin fee as well, and not just the loan amount? So that would be 3 seperate, extortionate interest rates. Taking the raw figures from the statement, it works out roughly 62% is taken from our monthly DD with interest....2/3 of the payment pays the interest and only 1/3 off for the loan. Basically what they have said is £5000 credit for loan, £625 for broker fee and £150 for admin fee. Why quote this annually on the statement if they are not charging interest on fees? Thanks.

[EDIT]

I find your bile quite offensive. If your intention is to somehow undermine the work of this site, then unfortunatly you are sadly wasting your time. Sadly being the operative word, loser.

despite adequately disputing the revised terms, complaining to eric daniels as well as their customer "services", and then infrming them of my f.o.s. complaint, they have just whacked a default notice on me....how does this work?...they make up some revised terms, then claim your in default??

Unfortunatly they dont give a monkeys. It seems that you will have to pay the OD back in some form or another. I could not pay back the full grand of my OD, so I had to wait until it went to their collections department before they were willing to accept MY terms of repayment...5 quid a week!!

Thats just how these greedy bstards work.

Just a point of interest of mine:

Can anyone please tell me that when you ask for anything from Swift, call Swift, Email Swift..any communication with them whatsoever; that you have received a demand for a fee to handle that communication (plus interest)???

If so, then have you actually contested this? Have you seen how much this will increase your balance over time as they add interest to this?

Thanks.

....And all these statements and emails that you send to them AND they reply to...they WILL CHARGE YOU FOR IT, even though you sent it to THEM. They WILL attempt to charge you £12 a time for ANY communication attempt, whether initiated by yourself (your money) or not. They will only reverse these charges if you can contest and prove that they are crap.

I know....I've been down that road and its not pleasant. Once you start any communication with them, they will try any trick in the book to slap charges onto your account..plus Interest.

Just Beware.

Dear Coolchris:

As you will see if you look at my posts I consider that an offence is committed under the Fraud Act 2006, and if you have a look at Sections 2, 3 and 4 they all are clear and in my (humble) view as an ex-pc and former prosecutor. the offence to be charged has to be what is called 'complete', or in today's parlance 'has ticked all of the boxes'. In examining the actions as described I consider that they have not only 'ticked all the boxes', but have provided evidence by their actions of a complete disregard for the Criminal Law.

 

This could be due to two things:

 

a) Either ignorance or no knowledge of the Criminal Law and their culpability under the Fraud Act 2006

 

or

 

b) Complete arrogance

 

Have a look at the sentences that those committing offences under this Act can receive - and remember that officers of the company are individually liable (see S.12 Fraud Act 2006).

 

It really is about time that the Serious Crime Unit were contacted by someone who has suffered at the hands of anyone committing these offences.

 

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

Hi Dougal.

I think that they are fully aware of the Law, so I would go with (b) Complete arrogance.

I would like to know, as you seem clued into this, is: even though they have reluctantly refunded all their trumped up charges, could I still send a complaint into the OFT? The OFT because I think that their business practice is definitely not FAIR on consumers and more evidence to OFT the better. As far as instigating an investigation through the FOS, then I think It wont be looked at in much detail and they will probably come back..."oh well they refunded so there aint anything we can do". So submitting evidence to OFT in the first place seems the best route.

See, I reckon to snare these vipers, we need to concentrate on the Fraud angle of attack. I can prove that they send out letters for fictional charges. Is this a training/software problem or is it premeditated fraud? I obviously believe its the latter, however they can argue the former, but that can also be proven as a falsehood if investigated thoroughly (database management etc). They could argue that they can charge you as its part of the agreement...well NO..because I can Prove that a payment was NOT returned unpayed, therefore the 2 options mentioned previously stand.

Hmm, thanks but I dont think I would be happy [] if they did; as you can see from my posts, I think its fkin outrageous and should be stamped on immediately. They should be made an example of in the courts and be shown to be a warning to anyone else that attempts downright deception and prior intent to commit fraud.

Thought I just said that. Maybe I'm going nuts and my post is somehow only visible to myself.

That is NOT acceptable by law and they know it. If they cannot find a TRUE SIGNED COPY of your credit agreement, then that agreement is unenforceable by LAW and they should NOT pursue you for the debt. Its THEIR fault for not doing their job, not yours. They pay the consequences. Its bull**** about the OFT saying that any old copy is OK. Its NOT and they know it. They are lying..a tactic all too familiar with myself. I took on Littlewoods exactly the same thing and eventually, after a year of wrangling and bull**** harrasment, they relented with what they call a CCA5 letter. They will go through stages until they know they cannot get anything from you. Be persistent and above all DO NOT GIVE IN to their bullyboy tactics. YOU are in the right on this matter, NOT THEM.

As far as this being on your credit record, then yes unfortunately it will be and will take some damn good proof to get it lifted by the ombudsman/adjudicator or whatever they call themselves.

Good Luck and remember you are in control, not them.

Even more reason why EVERYONE should obtain this Actuarial Accrual Account Summary Sheet. That's what they call it on the heading.

Hi. Did Swift charge you for supplying this?

Yet again Swift have tried to do the dirty on our account with them. After phoning about them being total arseholes in handling a simple switch of Bank account Direct Debit, they still find ways to add charges to the account by sending letters out that are TOTALLY FALSE AND PROVE THAT THEY ARE FALSE.

Example..Fee for payment returned unpaid (total lie) £33.00 - BULL**** AND LIES.

Arrears letter charge £23 (again because they failed to instigate the new DD). BULL**** AND LIES.

Upon phoning them yet again, they reversed these trumped up charges.

My point: they will try ANYTHING to slap LYING charges on the account and will stay that way unless you prove otherwise.

This account is my mums, she is pensioner and would not have contested these fkin scumbags charges if I had not stepped in and told them to shove it.

Point is: check everything, contest everything this **** send you.

Question: even though these false charges are now reimbursed (they better be not on the statement) could I still report them for Negligence, false claiming of charges with prior intent to commit fraud? Its quite obvious that they do this thing on a regular basis, the computer spits any old crap out and the zombies at Swift sign it. See EVERYTIME I PHONE THEM, A LETTER ARRIVE 2 DAYS LATER WITH SOME FALSE CHARGES.

You have to flush these beggars out...these days they MUST NOT MISLEAD....so these actuarial statements should be just a 'statement' like you'd get from a bank or any other business. If all people on here keep asking, keep pressing, keep tripping them up then they'll HAVE to come clean - they can't stay in denial forever. They can lie in one court or one letter and get away with it, but because they've never had so many people speaking to one another like this we are comparing their answers and witness statements and they can no longer get away with this and these tricksters (alleged ) are being slowly exposed for what they are. We did it with the DCA's and look how their industry has changed - they are realing at the consumer backlash, now it's happening to these 2nd Charge sub-prime gangsters (allegedly:grin: ) and they will go the same way. Ask for it, analyse it and keep asking.

Can you tell me, or anyone else, who has this statement AND IF they have taken FOS action, that the charges from the FOS to Swift were, or were not, added to this statement of accounts please?

Great work BTW SC. Got my brain working again.

I instigated a FOS action against them and I believe the FOS charge £450/500 for this to the company being complained about. Now that you brought up the actual statement thing, I was wondering if they would put this charge onto OUR account instead of them actually paying as they should. I am not saying they have as I dont have the statement you refer to, but I would not put it past these vipers.

And....if you ask for this statement...they will most probably charge you for the priveledge and then put that charge on your total balance and charge interest on that. Round and round the money pot goes.

Hi all,

I've got an appointment to see my MP on Saturday and I'm going with my sister to see her MP on the following Saturday.

SJ

Nice one. Be interesting to find out their take on these scumbags.