I would thing that this means that they will have to notify Companies House of all these changes to all their company registrations sparkie

Have just sent Mr Hester another E-mail and given him a link to this thread ....with Pauls permission of course ......and added a few notes for him to consider...I have attached a copy of the letter from the treasury to the Chancellor ....just in case he doesn't know about it sparkie

Hiya Matey Your wish is my command;):D of course I will add a couple of points of my own:smile: I sent John Mc Fall this e-mail last week....got an automatice reply to it so I know they received it. Dear Mr Mcfall, I hear that Chief Executive of the RBS will be attending a meeting of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee in the near future. Is it possible that you could ask questions to him direct regarding the content of the two letters attached, which have been sent to the FSA and the FOS respectively. One letter has been sent by me to the FOS the other is a joint one with Mr Paul Walton to the FSA The content of these two letters will be explanatory enough for you to formulate some questions to put to Mr Hester, we have been attempting to obtain answers from the RBS top management and Mr Hester to no avail. It may be possible for you to obtain them ...BUT I doubt it very much. It is possible Mr Hester will have personally heard of both of us. Thank you Yours sincerely sparkie

A book debt can NEVER be the same as the total indebtedness...that is how they are creating the false assetts. The book debt is what a borrower has borrowed ....if you borrow £10.000. That is your book debt. Your Total indebtedness is the Book debt plus interest and other charges. What the RBS are doing is turning the interest and charges ( i.e created money) adding these to the book debt into a total book debt....making the "assett" appear bigger than it is..... false accounting and fraud ......the total indebtedness does not become an assett until its fully paid....only the Book debt remains constant. Clever aren't they???? or thought thy were.... but now they have been rumbled. sparkie

HI Patrick, As Paul Knows I can advise that Cheshire Police have a copy of my DVD and are studying it. sparkie

THose members who have a copy of my DVD have another look at it ....I and told the Mr Brown the PM what was going on in 2007...I got a letter back from his saying my letter all my docs would be passed to the Treasury who would answer on his behalf..........I say on my DVD that I never got a reply from the treasury and that I thought they had brushed it all "under the mat".......It appears that one person at least at the Treasury took my letter, documents and claims seriously....of False Assetts, False Acounting and Fraud sparkie sparkie

Been very busy folks so I "spout" up again. Kestrel Holdings Ltd do not hold an FSA,OFT or DPA licence and neither do any of the other Kestrel Companies....So what is the OFT playing at....they may be applyng for a license now but all our loans have been sold illegally.....the OFT must be made aware of that ..........try telling the police who caught you last week driving without a Driving License and then saying OH ...but I,ve got them now.would that be accepted ....I don't think so!! I cant see how another Limited company can ever be considered to be a trading style of another company ...don't think the Companies Act will allow this sparkie

Not all letters I write to RBS are written without prejudice only certain ones....mostly to Mr Hester as he was not present when all these "irregular accounting practices" took place..."without malice also" means that I cannot be seen to be "attacking" any one person .......for reasons of unlawful intentions of pure revenge and carrying out a personal vendetta and harrassment. Example............ in telling Mr Hester of the letters to the OFT FSA FOS could be interpreted as an attempt at using them for blackmail/extortion ..........trying to obtain compensation that has not Yet been legally deemed I am entitled to ..............I believe both Paul and myslf are entitled to that.........but it has been known for such letters to be used against the writer. Also to publish some of my letters on CAG I have to show those words anyway as I have been warned too many times for alledging on the CAG what I personally know is true. P.S A copy of my DVD is now in the hands of the Cheshire Police they are studying the allegations I make on it and the documents I show on that DVD with a view to see what action they could possible take, to build up a case against RBS .....no conclusion has been made to date...they have had it since before Xmas and have written to me that they will provide an update when they are able to. sparkie

This e-mail was sent friday evening ...it has been opened 3 times already;) sparkie To Mr Stephen Hester Chief Executive Royal Bank of Scotland Without Prejudice or Malice Dear Mr Hester, It is more than likely that you do not read personal e-mails to you from such "lowly regarded" members of the public as myself, I imagine they would be intercepted on most occasions, how ever that will not deter me from attempting to bring your personal attention to my dispute, so again for transparencies sake, I make you aware of the following, (or who-ever reads you mail) I have previously advised the RBS that I am in close contact with a Dutch National who also has disputes with RBS & Santander. I would direct you to these links which you will find informative. http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=904027 http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=901313 These two links will be posted on other consumer websites for more of the public to aware of what has gone in the dark corridors of the RBS in the past. It is quite possible, no, more than likely I would guess, that by combining my ( and other ex-customer ) allegations with this Dutch person, these issues could end up at some time or other in The European Courts of Justice, may I suggest that it may be in the RBS interests to re-open dialogue with me and to reach a mutual agreeable settlement, which, I believe I thoroughly and justly deserve. This is not a demand in any way Mr Hester , merely a suggestion, you have the right as we both well know know to disregard it, just as the Bank has done in the past i.e. Mr Hemsley who has personally disregarded all other communications about my dispute, I thought it may be helpful if I suggested this. Yours sincerely

This is an e-mail I sent to John Mcfall MP. To The Rt Hon Mr John McFall M.P. Chairman Treasury Select Commitee. From Mr W.B Grace Dear Mr Mcfall, I hear that Chief Executive of the RBS will be attending a meeting of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee in the near future. Is it possible that you could ask questions to him direct regarding the content of the two letters attached, which have been sent to the FSA and the FOS respectively. One letter has been sent by me to the FOS the other is a joint one with Mr Paul Walton to the FSA The content of these two letters will be explanatory enough for you to formulate some questions to put to Mr Hester, we have been attempting to obtain answers from the RBS top management and Mr Hester to no avail. It may be possible for you to obtain them ...BUT I doubt it very much. It is possible Mr Hester will have personally heard of both of us. Thank you Yours sincerely This is one I sent to Mr Hester Dear Mr Hester, Without Prejudice or Malice In order for complete transparency, after speaking with the FOS yesterday who have asked me to send them a copy of my DVD as the initial starting point for their investigations into my complaint about the RBS. I attach a copy of that letter to them to this e-mail I also sent the FOS a copy of a joint letter from Mr Walton and myself to the FSA on the same subjects, which will be forwarded to you when agreement is given by Mr Walton As you must be aware we will take steps to ensure that our cases and issues contained therein will also be well publicised. I have also made you aware and stated before, Mr Hemsley was given the opportunity to resolve all issues between myself and Mr Walton, he failed to do so, and it is he who has protracted the issues even further. Yours sincerley

Fanatasists believe in the stories they have created in their heads....RBS believe in the money they have created in the false accounts ...so I know who I think are the fanatsists. sparkie

This is what the OFT say about " Non Status Lending" ....and this includes unregulated agreements including those over £25000....they also state that the OFT expects all lenders to comply with these guidelines..Very interesting sparkie Documentation ? All documents should be in plain English and legible. Legal and technical language should be avoided as much as possible. ? Agreements should give a clear statement of the borrower's rights and responsibilities. ? Name and address of the lender, together with details of any parent company, must be prominently shown on all documents. ? The contract should indicate clearly the APR and repayment details. It should also make clear the consequence of a failure to pay on time. Lenders should avoid quoting other interest rates, but if these are regarded as essential, they should be given less prominence than the APR. If the APR is variable, it may be helpful to show consumers the effect of a 1% change in interest rates. ? If payment protection or other insurance is compulsory, this must be made clear to the borrower at the outset. The purpose of the insurance must be made clear, and its terms and cost must be included in the documentation. ? Insurance must be appropriate to the borrower's needs, and should not give rise to any unnecessary expense to the borrower. ? Lump sum insurance premiums added to the loan are generally not in the borrower's interest. ? The borrower should be allowed to obtain insurance from any source, subject to providing the lender with satisfactory evidence of its existence and coverage. ? All fees and charges payable by the borrower must be clearly laid out in the documentation, and in any booklet. ? The borrower should be encouraged to read all documents carefully, and advised to seek independent legal or other advice (for example from a CAB, Money Advice Centre or Law Centre).

I agree pt2537 ........that is true up to 6th April 2008.......... after that it applies to ALL CCA credit agreements. sparkie

You are quite correct about the title Indemnity Insurance....and the broker fee ....that is a charge for credit and must be shown in a separate box as a stated charge for credit and then all the charges shpuld be added together plus interest to state clearly a total charge for credit....legal arguments can be built around these points. BUT please remember I'm not a legal person in any way and these are only my personal views. I only give my views as bullets for your solicitor.....and bullets can be DUFF at times:grin::grin: sparkie sparkie

BUt who is going to check they have obeyed the order if it is made to destroy the data ....Banks have been known to defy Court Orders as has been found out;) sparkie

HIFretful, Its dissapointing I know but what they say is enough to negate "secret commission" and its correct that all you would get back is the commission plus interest........it is only when yu can prove actual real bona fide setrecy that makes an agreement unenforceable. One point you can tell your solicitor is that he should Professor Goode on Consumer Law ...he states quite clearly that any insurance ..NO MATTER what it is CANNOT be included in charges for credit and that is what Blemaim has done. It is an Insurance ....not a what is and has been explained in many many case law as to what is considered charges for credit and insurance is not one of them. Other folks may consider this fact if they have had Title Indemnity Insurance stated as a charge for credit ...it isn't its an insurance. sparkie

HI spartathisis, Yeah I get your point about freeman of the land............but will these crank denounces call the guy who used these exact point to get a Borough Council to admit that the Council Tax was an unlawfull tax, in the County Court ....not far from where I live, this guy does not have to pay his council tax it has been waived by the council concerned ...that is ABSOLUTE fact. If peeps want proof by a link to the case I will provide it With regard to Fraud , civil & Criminal ....and the police .....I have the same issue with this regarding the RBS...I made a complaint to the police about RBS ...they tried to fob me off with the " Its a Civil matter" and closed the file ...so I made a complaint to the Independant Police Complaints Committee stating that I had reported an alleged crime of fraud and false accounting and the police had fobbed me off. The police are now investigating my allegation as they are bound by law to investigate all reports of ANY alleged crime to get an idea...go to sparkies story and have a look at the clips from a DVD I have made which has been sent to all Govt Departments ...RBS already have been sent copies, and the police are viwng this DVD as back upto my claims YouTube - Royal Bank Of Scotland clip 1 :grin::grin: sparkie

I would tend to agree with you............but have you seen what these M.P's are relying on for their defence........(an Act I have been promoting for some time.....) the Bill of Rights Act 1689 a constitutional law that can NEVER be repealed.......... and the Magna Carter claiming to be a free man of the land one of the 3 sections that still remain under the Magna Carter sparkie

This is my view of secret commission claim.... it depends on if or not that somewhere on the documents sighned its mentions the fact in words similar to these.... that the lender will pay the broker or intermediary acommission .......most probably pay the broker or intermediary a commission.......may pay the broker or intermediary commission....then any commission paid is not a " secret commission" as such. BUT if it was paid and you were not aware it was paid how much %age wise or what ever, ...you would still be entitled to the amount back plus interest at contract rate Wilson v Hurstanger. If no reference to commission is mentioned in the documents and it is found commission was paid....that is "secret commission" The other challenge to it is found in my case against Swift Advances, Swift do state in their documents that they would most likely pay the broker commission.....BUT in Court the Witness for Swift stated under oath that Swift do not pay Commssion only a document fee of £100..................I obtained evidence that they do in fact pay £1000's in commission in my case I have a document from my brokers stating it was £3.325:00, in another case £2,690:00. In fact their company accounts state that they paid £19 million in commission one year 2007 to 2008. That is "secret commssion" my case is being appealed in the HIgh Court based on that fact and failure to fully comply with my subject access request. They are still concealing certain documents I requested under that SAR 1 of them is the underwriting sheet and the other a copy of the Title indemnity Insurance policy which I paid £165.00 for.. Is this any help to folks? sparkie

In any event who would check with the RBS that they had destroyed your " Router Account" Paul.......The RBS ???....if they destroyed yours it would mean that they would have destroy all the others......I do not think they would do that. sparkie

Hi greedfighter, Use section 146 of the CCA Act (amended 2006) Challenge them that they have paid secret commission ..it would then be up to them to prove they did not and that would mean to prove they did not they would have to produce the underwriting sheet to the Court. IMO te reason they will not supply the underwriting sheet is that that would show that they did ...if that document hid nothing why not produce it. sparkie

This will interest RBS fighters...take a look people.........I know this guy ...he is serious sparkie http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=904027 http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=901313

I am certain that you are 100% correct, but that is only my lowly opinion sparkie

Southern Pacific Mortgages are not a sister company of Swift ...they have nothing to do with Swift or any of their companies ...I think yu are confused to be honest ...no offence meant ........but find your original agreement and see who it is with ........if it SPML then I would advise you to post on the SPML thread ....unless you did finally end up signing with Swift but it is not clear fromyour posts what actually happened. sparkie

Have you contacted the OFT? and again can you provide the full name of Southern Mortgaes as it was when you made first contact with them? Have you any headed paper corresspondence etc from them with the name of Southern Mortgages on? Was it one of these companies? Name & Registered Office: SOUTHERN MORTGAGE CENTRE LTD 8A CROMWELL ROAD HOVE EAST SUSSEX BN3 3EA Company No. 05877776 Name & Registered Office: SOUTHERN MORTGAGES LIMITED THE CUSTOM HOUSE 112B HIGH STREET MALDON ESSEX UNITED KINGDOM CM9 5ET Company No. 06561288 Can you supply the name of the mortgage advisor was that a firm or a self employed advisor? Sorry for so many questions but we need this type of information to be able to deduce how we can help in the easiest and quickest way. sparkie