Jump to content

Sparkie1723

Registered.
  • Content Count

    3,272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Sparkie1723 last won the day on December 28 2008

Sparkie1723 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,243 Excellent

About Sparkie1723

  • Rank
    Gold Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Has anyone noticed that one set of Kestrel Accounts say they sold loans back to Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd to the value of £50million and another set says they sold £5.2million.............remember these refer to the same "block" of loans..not different ones .......discrepancy of £200,000 where has this gone:?:...how can they fix this? If these accounts are out ........so are the rest:?:. just a passing note...check these accounts out....you'll see it straight away, they are in the public domain. sparkie
  2. Some info for all to think about and how to use it..... What is an in house lawyer a solicitor employed by an employer that is not a solicitor's firm or an authorised non-SRA firm (in commerce or industry, in central or local government, in the not-for-profit sector, or in a trade union or other association) acts only for the employer, subject to limited exceptions which allow, for instance, a law centre solicitor to act for members of the public; "pure" in-house work, where the solicitor cannot be said to be working for the public or a section of the public, is not affected by the Act; most organisations whose solicitors currently act for sections of the public, such as law centres or insurance companies, will eventually need to be licensed as ABSs under the Act What is an in house solicitor An in house solicitor is the same as an inhouse lawyer a solicitor employed by an employer that is not a solicitor's firm or an authorised non-SRA firm (in commerce or industry, in central or local government, in the not-for-profit sector, or in a trade union or other association) acts only for the employer, subject to limited exceptions which allow, for instance, a law centre solicitor to act for members of the public; "pure" in-house work, where the solicitor cannot be said to be working for the public or a section of the public, is not affected by the Act; most organisations whose solicitors currently act for sections of the public, such as law centres or insurance companies, will eventually need to be licensed as ABSs under the Act All Swift Group Legal Services solicitors are stated to be employees of Swift Group Legal Services, their registration with the SRA, the Law Societies shows this quite clearly, which is admissible in Court of Law as a matter of fact. 7.—(1) The common law rule effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(a) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968 (admissibility of admissions adverse to a party) is superseded by the provisions of this Act. This is an argument to consider using against them. As there is no such legal entity as Swift Group Legal Services and they are now firmly stated to be a “trading name” on OFT licenses……………….. a “trading name” cannot take legal action to act in court it must be an actual entity upon which liability can be placed. (2) The common law rules effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(b) to (d) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968, that is, any rule of law whereby in civil proceedings— (a) published works dealing with matters of a public nature (for example, histories, scientific works, dictionaries and maps) are admissible as evidence of facts of a public nature stated in them, (b) public documents (for example, public registers, and returns made under public authority with respect to matters of public interest) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them, or © records (for example, the records of certain courts, treaties, Crown grants, pardons and commissions) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them, sparkie
  3. Has anyone noticed Mr Webster no longer signs any accounts filed with Companies House....wonder if he is still there?????!!! Me know a secret...... me no tell...has someone lost his pen????? ....well well well sparkie
  4. Hi Sweetjane, I regret that to get this info you will have to spend another £10 as it is all the solicitors info that they will not supply under your SDAR to either Swift Advances plc or Swift 1st Ltd.............this is another little bit of evidence that helps to prove that Swift Group Legal Services are a "seperate entity" to Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd...and up till now hid behind Legal Privilege....cannot any more. They have claimed that they are just another department within Swift Advances plc......if that was indeed correct then everyone would receive the information you are now requesting. Send your SDAR's in everyone....it will be a TENNER well spent because if they do not comply......then ring the ICO and tell them they wont. sparkie
  5. It has been ruled by the European Courts that in house solicitors are not covered by Legal Privilege ...I would there fore suggest that all "Swifties" submit a SDAR to Swift Group Legal Services asking them for all information they hold on you, transcripts and copies of correspondence e-mails etc etc of internal corespondence in Swift Advances plc Arcadia House.......copies of all correspondence between Swift Group Legal Services and outside solictors ,agents, and Barristers........ sparkie
  6. Examples of situations where you will be practising as a solicitor, and will therefore need a practising certificate, include: (a)you are employed as a solicitor; (b)you are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer; The above is something for debate and to think about ....all the solictors listed on the letters headed Swift Group Legal Services hold practicing certificates.....but here is where they come unstuck....their employers are Swift Group Legal Services...who are an Organisation not a law Firm......but now they have decided to become a Trading Style....in any event they can only act for their employers who are not Swift Advances plc ....So they cannot act for them, because they cannot have " OUTSIDE CLIENTS" they are acting unlawfully. sparkie
  7. 7.You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided: (a)the letterhead or the signature makes it clear that the stationery is being used by an in-house solicitor or in-house*REL on legal professional business and that person is responsible for the contents of the letter; and Look at your letters from Swift Group Legal Services, remember One they are an organisation and Two they are now a trading style....look at the signatures at the end of the letter.....I bet it looks as if it was signed by a 2 year old on the vast majority of them ......I've got loads....but all this is ammo for later in my Unfair Relationship Claim By the way this is what the OFT guidance states at the end of the Guidance, Consumers may find section 140 particulary useful in defence of possession claims. sparkie
  8. I'll be posting how Mr Mathew Payne posed as a Commissionaire of Oaths later on and post the document he signed as a Commissionaire of Oaths ....he can act as one as long as he is not involved in the document he is signing and does not know the persons involved on a personal basis ...another fine mess really!! You never know who views these threads??????? someone might pick this up and take some action sparkie
  9. Well! well! well! ...welcome back sparkle72 very close to my nickname isn't ...you do not shine as bright that's how we tell the difference sparkie
  10. I'll be posting little bits of other stuff about Mr Paynes antics as the days go by ...you won't beieve what he has been doing.....you will soon.... sparkie
  11. Dishonesty..now here is word that "conjures" up some ideas for me....The second page of our possession application by Swift Advances in the statement of truth says this..... Signed .....Mathew Payne.... position......"Assistant Solicitor" ......he was/is the Senior Solicitor in the employ of "Swift Group Legal Services"....in the box which asks name of Solicitor he has put " Swift Group Legal Services"............according to their registration with the Law Society Public Record....... Swift Group Legal Services are registered as an "Organisation"........not a Law firm regulated by the SRA, ........now Swift Group Legal Services have gone and registered themselves as a trading Style of Swift Securities Ltd, it appears that they do not know who or what they are..........so how can anyone else know.....they are in a bit of a mess really. The SRA do regulate the solicitors though, and no matter who they are the solicitors themselves can be charged with bringing the profession into disrepute......no one has done more to do that than this man in my opinion. He has pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes for so long, he must have knitted more" wooly" sweaters than Val Doonican ever had ......if you can remember him....shows how ancient I am. Have people noticed he does not sign many letters these days .....he gets Swift Group Legal Services to sign then...how they get a non existant entity to sign letters in biro I don't know... but.... they achieve it somehow:rolleyes:. sparkie
  12. Agree absolutely Peter.....but it is a good argument for unenforceability I think....well worth considering must take the oportunity here to add about Loans Made Simple ....their CCA license lasped January 2009 ....any loans obtained via them after this date ( not Just with Swift ...with anyone ) would be unenforceable..........so if you are a LOans Made Simple customer check the date of your Loan. sparkie
  13. You use the above in case they btried to argue that they did not notice at the time that you had altered the agreement if they had they would not have agreed to it........That's their lookout they accepted it as you said sparkie:cool:
  14. Estoppell Where one person (‘the representor’) has made a representation of fact to another person (‘the representee’) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time, and in proper manner, objects thereto. sparkie
  15. That one they cannot get out of ...Use my favourite the Law of Estoppell!!! Thats a breach of the contract on their part sparkie
×
×
  • Create New...