Jump to content

Sparkie1723

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    3,272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Sparkie1723

  1. Hi Cas. Your agreement states in the Key Financial information Box an APR rate of interest , as it should do....... because your agreement is regulated……BUT If you look at the other financial information on your agreement the interest rate quoted there does not contain the words APR as it is a regulated agreement not to quote this as an APR renders the agreement unenforceable……..also Mark White in Court on oath stated that to quote two different interest rates on an agreement would be misleading to the borrower, this stated in our judgement summary …so therefore he is admitting that you were misled …there are two interest rates showing on your agreement ……..no argument there ……..again use the Law of Estoppel to prevent him from attempting to change that statement….in any event he stated this under oath sparkie
  2. Just to let peeps know what such a bombastic arrogant firm we are dealin with .As if you don't know already They have rejected my CPR 31.16 request completely..........so as it is information related I have sent a copy of it along with other docs to the ICO case worker......he already knows whats going on. sparkie
  3. Swift have this word "May" in their additional information...but I have it sworn by Mark White under oath nand the judgement summary to confirm this " Swift Advances do not pay commissin as such nor do they have any agents" I have the evidence that proves he "misled" the court... ( tongue in cheek )....on both counts..........that can be construed as a deliberate attempt to conceall the truth. sparkie
  4. Hi Joesmylandlord, The charges made via Eatsern Counselling were levied by an unlicensed trading style and were criminally applied write to Swift Advances plc and tell them... demand them back with interest at contract rate...include this in your section 140 claim so the Courts knows about it. The OFT have confirmed that this trading style was dropped by Swift Advances plc in 1996 and is since then been unlicensed ........refer to setion 39 (2) of the CCA 1974 amended 2006,that is a criminal offence and the Court can rule it so. PS would like a copy of Mark Whites witness statement if possible ..would come in very handy sparkie
  5. Hi LL and everyone If you check the history of their licence you will note that two categories are “retained” which means these are the ones they had. All other categories and personel named on the licence and application for Swift Advances & SGLS ( Swift Group Legal Services) to be added as trading styles are “pending”. Whist a licence is be reviewed and considered the applicant can carry out the business it previously held the licence for as if it still had one under the categories it held. That is what “current” means. If a licence is refusal or the renewal of it, the applicant has a right to appeal against the decision, not very many succeed in this appeal from I can find out. Therefore as you an see they did not hold a debt collecting licence and they still do noy have one…….with regard to having the trading style of Swift Advances to be added is in my opinion a clear sign that Swift Advances plc know full well that to have used that in the past was as I have alleged a criminal offence and are trying to put it right. You will also see that Eastern Counselling Department is a historic trading style that they dropped years ago a….but have been using it to threaten people and charge fees for letters etc that is something every one wants to attack Just my view sparkie
  6. LL To enlarge on one of the issues above I copy here a section of a letter I wrote not TO "Swift Group Legal Services" but to each individual solictor in the "employ" of "Swift Group Lega Services". You may find you can use this in your Defence sparkie The Guidance notes you refer to also states at 1 (b); You are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer; The registration of “Swift Group Legal Services” with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority states that the solicitors on the headed paper are employed by “Swift Group Legal Services” Guidance Note 7 a) states; You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided :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; The letter head does not make it clear that the stationary is being used by in house solicitors nor is there a name at the end of said letter. Guidance note 9 states; If you are an in-house solicitor the address of your employer's legal department is the place (or one of the places) where you practice and must therefore be notified to the SRA. Surely I do not have to remind you that this is how “Swift Group Legal Services” are registered with the Law Societyas an Organisation, I do not thinkan internal department can be an Organisation. Who are not regulated by any regulatory body. SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES - Head Office Phone Number: 01277 359466 Fax Number: 01277 359706 Email Address: [email protected] At this office: PAYNE, MATTHEW WILLIAM Employee PAYNE, LORETTA - Employee PURI, RAJIV - EmployeeWALSHE, LYNDA MARIE – Employee. I question how an "internal department" within any company can have a head office of its own. As it is clear from the above that the 4 solicitors are employees of “Swift Group Legal Services”, who in any event if the registration was correct in every detail, the Solicitors Code of Conduct would only allow them to act for their employers, who are “Swift Group Legal Services”. I have made extensive enquiries with many customers of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc if any one has ever previously been advised of this now"alleged" internal departmant of Swift Advances plc to date only one person has, and this was only a few weeks ago.
  7. LL To enlarge on one of the issues above I copy here a section of a letter I wrote not TO "Swift Group Legal Services" but to each individual solictor in the "employ" of "Swift Group Lega Services". You may find you can use tjis in your Defence sparkie The Guidance notes you refer to also states at 1 (b); You are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer; The registration of “Swift Group Legal Services” with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority states that the solicitors on the headed paper are employed by “Swift Group Legal Services” Guidance Note 7 a) states; You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided :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; The letter head does not make it clear that the stationary is being used by in house solicitors nor is there a name at the end of said letter. Guidance note 9 states; If you are an in-house solicitor the address of your employer's legal department is the place (or one of the places) where you practice and must therefore be notified to the SRA. Surely I do not have to remind you that this is how “Swift Group Legal Services” are registered with the Law Society as an Organisation, I do not think an internal department can be an Organisation. Who are not regulated by any regulatory body. SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES - Head Office Phone Number: 01277 359466 Fax Number: 01277 359706 Email Address: [email protected] At this office: PAYNE, MATTHEW WILLIAM Employee PAYNE, LORETTA - Employee PURI, RAJIV - EmployeeWALSHE, LYNDA MARIE – Employee. I question how an "internal department" within any company can have a head office of its own. As it is clear from the above that the 4 solicitors are employees of “Swift Group Legal Services”, who in any event if the registration was correct in every detail, the Solicitors Code of Conduct would only allow them to act for their employers, who are “Swift Group Legal Services”. I have made extensive enquiries with many customers of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc if any one has ever previously been advised of this now"alleged" internal departmant of Swift Advances plc to date only one person has, and this was only a few weeks ago.
  8. What it means in fact ...I did not make myself clear enough ....is that as Swift Advances plc have no licence to collect debt neither do Swift Group Legal Services...........in order to collect their own debt they have to instruct outside solicitors to then instruct Counsel..........what they have been doing in the past has been unlawful and the courts attention must be drawn to that fact.......remeber the OFT licence is accepted as evidence of Fact under the Criminal Justice Act....they just have not got debt collecting licence to collect their own debts they have to instruct a proper legal entity ...not a make believe one they have used.................Swift Group Legal Services are registerd with the SRA as an organistation who the SRA do not regulate.....fact. confirmed by the SRA ring them up yourself and have it confirmed to you...remember Swift Group Legal Services cannot instruct the outside firm Swift Advances have to do it...there is more to come than just this have no fear sparkie
  9. Please disregard this in the above post ...this will be subject to a further post on this issue just to show folks what i mean. sparkie "These totals are for the year of “trading” of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd.2008 to 2009" Should have read Kestrel Holdings Ltd
  10. Back in the loop folks. Need some mathematical experts accountant what ever here... I'm a dumb auto spark sparkie Subject: Amalgamated Accounts. In all of the companies accounts in the Kestrel Holdings Ltd group it shows each companies annual turn over. It also states that this is shown in the amalgamated accounts of Kestrel Holdings Ltd, i.e the combined added totals of all the other companies turnover.. Below are the separate totals of each of the other companies, and the amalgamated totals shown in Kestrel Holdings Ltd. These totals are for the year of “trading” of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd.2008 to 2009 Company Name Company No Year Credit Limit Total Turn over KESTREL HOLDINGS LIMITED 05055802 31-03-2009 96 £3,050,000 £110,713,529 - KESTREL ACQUISITIONS LIMITED 05055827 31-03-2009 94 £60,000 £0 -KESTREL LOANS NO.1 LIMITED 05143638 31-03-2009 84 £180,000 £25,252,327 KESTREL LOANS NO.2 LIMITED 05143608 31-03-2009 0 £0 - KESTREL LOANS NO.3 LIMITED 06217844 31-03-2009 48 £59,000 £2,030,870 - SWIFT ADVANCES PLC 01800474 31-03-2009 93 £800,000 £83,452,713 - KESTREL ADVANCES LIMITED 02807869 31-03-2009 0 £0 - SWIFT HOMELOANS LIMITED 02807874 31-03-2009 0 £0 - SWIFT SECURITIES LIMITED 01559494 31-03-2009 0 £0 - SWIFT 1ST LIMITED 05020019 31-03-2009 93 £305, £19,145,358 My simple mind cannot cope with the scale of it all…Below is an example of 1 years accounts of the 10 companies in the group 2008 to 2009. Kestrel Holdings Ltd accounts are stated to be the amalgamated accounts of the 9 companies it is the parent company of. Their accounts state that the total turnover of the 9 companies is £110,713,529 million it is an easy task total these accounts up from the brief details shown here …. It is quickly seen that the total turnover should be shown as £129,881,268 million. This means that the total declared turnover is false/incorrect.. There is a deficit of £19,167,739 million…This is not declared in these amalgamated accounts. Question is where has it gone. Is it just a coincidence that this £19,167,739 million in years accounts Swift Advances plc of 2007 to 2008 matches the £19.2 million claimed as paid in Commission and brokers fees, and was claimed as tax deductible???
  11. Won't be on the thread for a couple of days just had a phone call fom N.Ireland ...got to catch a night flight to Belfast for a meeting with the Authorities over there to morrow morning ....be back soon sparkie
  12. Hi Frettful Make a CPR 31.16 request if you do not ask you will never be answered sparkie
  13. What you have to find out Frettful if they have assigned or transferred your agreement, Swift Advances plc have confirmed they have. sparkie
  14. As they are part of the commonwealth I am certain this will be a copy of our laws matey...no probs really. sparkie
  15. Just noticed this is New Zealand Law got to got to check how this ties up with our Laws sparkie
  16. Yes Cab.....most people only get the underwriting sheet by accident they will not supply it I've made a cpr31.16 request for them to supply it see how that goes:cool: sparkie
  17. Cab1ne Very nice piece of information, very nice indeed sparkie
  18. Remember LL The OFT CCA licence is acceptable as evidence of absolute fact under The Criminal Justice Act I think it is section 140. Swift Advances plc do not hold the relevant licence to Collect debt, possession proceedings are Consumer Related business sparkie
  19. LL Patrickq has reinforecd my claim Neither Swift Group Legal Services nor Swift Advances plc can collect debts they MUST use outside solicitors to issue initial proceedings and instruct Counsel to act on their behalf.....FACT......and I have the proof to back that claim up. sparkie
  20. JAWS2010 why didn't you use this number for registration with CAG........JAW01219?? sparkie
  21. I still await answer or a view as to how a company ...any company can state it lends money to the domestic market and state that .......it is regulated by certain Acts and Authorities hold these loans on their books....class them as asetts when it is clear and proven that these statements are completely and irrevocably false....no-one as yet has answered me. So I await. By the way JAWS2010.....does the word "GROUP" hold any meaning to you ...if it doesn't it certainly will VERY shortly...it will come as a little bit of shock to you I think? sparkie
  22. I stand corrected TIE ..thank you for that mistake made............. mistake admitted. sparkie
  23. Didn't know about the Dublin meetings in Souhern Ireland of those bankers.....I only knew about the one in Belfast Norhern Ireland must find out where these Dublin meetings are to be held. sparkie
  24. TIE You keeping schooling me into getting my facts right when you say things as this "Also, it did not take the FSA 3 years to get GMAC and that was for TCF issues not the things you're on about." I did not say the FSA because it was not the FSA I actually said the aithorities...it was actually the OFT and it was about extortionate penalty fees and charges...it was a short time after this big fine and the forcing of the pay back of over £7million in charges and fees that Swift Advances plc reduced some of their charges. On another subject could JAWS 2010 be J ohn A lfred W ebster S wift.......no can't be I'm delusional again:rolleyes: It's just a coincidence more than likely anyway its a good laugh ...to me anyway but I've got a scouse sense of humour John Alfred
×
×
  • Create New...