Jump to content

Sparkie1723

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    3,272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Sparkie1723

  1. Just my delusional thoughts again... but a laugh and a joke anyway........JAWS ...John Alfred Webster.SWIFT....no can't be!!?? That' just a coincidence most probably. sparkie
  2. I let people know what I want them to know .....what I do not want them to know goes to the relevant autyhorites and that is a LOT. sparkie
  3. You have no idea what so ever what we are doing ......which IS WORKING it is just the authorities take their own sweet time .........it took 3 years with the gmac issue and that was just over extortionate penalty charges. With Swift Advances plc it is much deeper than that .....even the police know it........they know what you do not know Others may comment also but this is my comment. sparkie
  4. I am sure members will like this comment quoted from your post. "It is also good of you to tell everyone that out of everyone who posts on this thread takeit easy is the ONLY one who is in any way trying to be helpful!!?? sparkie
  5. I want them shut down simple as that I do not want them to be allowed carry on as they are......you are as you said a newbie and have not got a clue of what has happened to people.... who have been hit 10 times worse that I have.. I also am not particular bothered about what you say ......( give a damm as you say)... you like everyone else entitled to your own opinion. With regard your comment about pm'ing people on such matters I am sure one of the site team will be contacting you or posting about that comment ....read the rules of the forum before you post sparkie
  6. Hi JOE, Go for Swift Advances plc under the Unfair Relationship Act....Was your default notice issued by " Swift Advances" was Eastern Conselling involved in that £250 counselling fee ...if the answer to these two questions is yes... you have a good foundationfor a good claim under Section 140 of the New CCA act 2006 amendments sparkie
  7. Slight ommissions from previous post ..ooops! Above should read "and I ask again How can a company with no assets borrowover £125 MILLION...how can a company have "loan book" ie money they are supposed to have lent the public when the have never lent a penny". and "One of the £200 MILLION was obtained from Singer Freidlander the other was obtained from Barclays"
  8. Good afternoon TIE ..Thank you again,...The set of accounts I refer to and the sections of them are the FIRST set of accounts Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd. They cover the period June 2005 to 2006....and I ask again How can a company with no assets borrowover £125...how can a company have "loan book" ie money they are supposed to have lent the public when the have never lent a penny. The 2 x £200 million was not to pay off outsatnding debts.....£200 was paid to Swift Advances plc for the loans they bought that year ( 2007 to 2008) that is not the issue that is another issue that I challenge also.......The other £200 million I can assure you is " Missing"...... SWift Advances plcthemselves still have the £400 revolving credit deal oustanding along with at the last Total 13 other mortgages and debentures .....but as I said that is another issue.........here it is the First set of Kestrel Loans No Ltd ..........these First set of accounts are absolutely false and misleading without any doubt what so ever....what they have done and said they have done is not they have "Cooked the books".They are full of false statements.....and it is about time the authorities got off their backsides and took real action aginst the whole lot of Directors as they are all involved ....all the way down the line. The accounts are all amalgamated in the accounts of Kestrel Holdings Ltd ........so it follows if one set of accounts is so far out and false every other set of accounts are false misleadings and accounted for. This why I constantly refer to these accounts despite you saying what has it to do with customers borrowings.........THEY HAVE BEEN LENT TAINTED FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED MONEY. I n my lowly opinion With regard the brokers fee and commission 1. Swift Advances plc added it to our loan when it had been agreed with the broker that they would be deducted. I have since obtained a letter from the broker ( now dissolved via they receiver) in which it states that they cannot confirm if these fee were qadded or deducted. 2. Swift Advances plc paid the commission and denied paying it in court ....but after the Court case I found out that they HAD paid thic commission ....and as I said a sum of £3,325....on top of the brokers fees we paid One of the £200 was obtained from Singer Freidlander the other ws obtained from Barclays again believe it or not...................but Barclays also use a very strong tough Negative pledge and Swift breach this every time and Barclays have not got a clue about it I don't think sparkie 95(6) Knowingly or recklessly authorising or permitting misleading, false or deceptive material in statement by directors under section 95(5). 1. On indictment. 2 years or a fine; or both. Laying or delivery of unsigned balance sheet; circulating copies of balance sheet without signatures. Summary. One-fifth of the statutory maximum. 305(3) Company default in complying with section 305 (directors’ names to appear on company correspondence, etc.). Summary. One-fifth of the statutory maximum. 342(2) Relevant company entering into transaction or arrangement for a director in contravention of section 330. 1. On indictment. 2 years or a fine; or both. 2. Summary. 6 months or the statutory maximum; or both. 342(3) Procuring a relevant company to enter into transaction or arrangement known to be contrary to section 330. 1. On indictment. 2 years or a fine; or both. F49 419(5A) Person making false statement under section 419(1A) or (1B) which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true 1.On indictment 2.Summary 2 years or a fine; or both 6 months or the statutory maximum; or both] F54449(6) Wrongful disclosure of information to which section 449 applies. 1. On indictment. 2. Summary. 2 years, or a fine; or both. 12 months, or the statutory maximum; or both. F55451 Providing false information in purported compliance with section 447. 1. On indictment. 2. Summary. 2 years, or a fine; or both. 12 months, or the statutory maximum; or both.
  9. And NO-ONE knows that better than you and me Paul!!!
  10. I agree with busterg the standard of legal advice is absolutely atrocious.....I have had £3600 solicitors charges ordered to refunded by the Legal Compliants Service for poor sevice and poor advice the Bar Standards Board could not separate the poor advice and poor service for the negligence of the barrister this solictors firm advised me to instruct to act for us, that is now in front of the legal ombudsman am waiting for a decision on that...so that goes to show the state of the advice we consumers get in the vast majority of cases....they are all out to fleece the " dumb" man in the street....they just do not give a dam. sparkie
  11. Hullo again TIE, As you can see that the stated principle activity of Kestrel Loans no 1 Ltd is lending money to the domestic market.....this is one of the the "sub companies" you refer to .....but I submit that as they do not lend money to anyone........they are set up purely to borrow the extra funds that Swift cannot do because they are on their credit limit. In their 2007 to 2008 transactions they resurrected Kestrel Loans No 2 Ltd to borrow the funds I refer to and borrowed the same amount of funds on the same day from two different banks using two different presentors, that is to say I believe £200 million ...TWICE ..Kestrel Loans No 2 Ltd as soon as these transactions had taken place was made dormant again with one of these morgtage borrowings on their books.......not one single penny has passed through this companies books since. That to me is strange and I believe more than some " funny business" took place...it is things like this the reason why I have reported it to the authorities ....it is beyond me to discover any more.........and the reason I asked for the Mortgage sale agreement and the Mortgage administration agreement which as you know is practicaly impossible to obtain..........and I submit for the reason I have claimed ....double borrowing etc etc. sparkie
  12. I just love your last post sweetjane:cool: ........absolute poetry in my delusional state of mind. sparkie
  13. Swift Advances plc CCA licence renewal was applied for on 9th April 2010 ........aproximately 1300 licences have been either renewed or new licences have been approved and granted by the OFT from applications made since the date .....could be an omen?????!!!! sparkie
  14. Very Simple to answer that TIE BOTH ......if possible not likely...but shutting them down is my prime aim! Full stop! sparkie
  15. Hiya patrick ......I forgot about the format sorry about that!! Here is latest on Swift Advances plc licence application for renewal. CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details :: Licence History :: Event Details Event Details Licence Details: Licence/Application Number Licence Status Applicant/Holder Name 0391618 Current Swift Advances plc Event Details: Event Number Event Type Date of Receipt Closed Date Status 27 Renewal 09-Apr-2010 Open Licence Event Details: RoleNameActionLICENSEESwift Advances plcPendingOfficerAmanda BrooksPendingOfficerAndrew PunchPendingOfficerBernard Robert BarwickPendingOfficerJohn WebsterPendingOfficerKestrel Holdings LimitedPending Address TypeAddressActionCorrespondenceArcadia House, Warley Hill Business Park, The Drive, Brentwood, Essex, CM13 3BEPendingPrincipal Place Of BusinessArcadia House, Warley Hill Business Park, The Drive, Brentwood, Essex, CM13 3BEPendingRegistered OfficeArcadia House, Warley Hill Business Park, The Drive, Brentwood, Essex, CM13 3BEPending Trading Names: NameActionSGLSPendingSwift AdvancesPending Categories: CategoryActionConsumer creditRetainedConsumer hireRemovedCredit brokerageRetainedCredit reference agencyRemovedDebt adjusting/counsellingRemovedDebt administrationPendingDebt collectingRemoved sparkie
  16. I have got ideas.....but TIE will say they are more of my delusion rants:lol: sparkie
  17. Hiya determinator Its still available just checked again sparkie
  18. Sorry in post 3617 ...the below should read "He then changed that statement and said they had been assigned again withOUT any borrowers knowledge" sparkie
  19. The problem with your argument TIE and using the TCF argument is of no use what so ever against Swift Advances plc…they are not FSA regulated……Swift 1st Ltd do not even know what treating a customer fairly means. As far as getting charges and fees back Swift may offer 10% of the amount they should return………and because 95% of Swift Advances plc agreements are unregulated ….they can and do anything they want under those agreements. IF any borrower had it explained EXACTLY what they could do after the agreement was signed, I am sure that at least 75% of the people who were enticed into their trap would not have signed those agreements. Once Swift Advances plc have the title to a property that is when they commence to do the things I allege. I give you my example as an example and it is done with all other customers title charge. The debenture and negative pledge that Swift Advances plc have with Barclays Bank says that Barclays are their own trustee for funds lent to Swift Advances plc and that their assets down to last paper clip in their office belong to Barclays Bank and that includes the title to the properties loans etc etc etc that Swift Advances plc have put as security to borrow the funds to lend out to customers. This pledge states that Swift Advances plc cannot do anything with the titles loans etc with out the express written permission of Barclay. That is why I ask to see the mortgage sale agreement that must be there for Swift to borrow MORE money and use the same title deed and equity that they have already borrowed ( Swift Advances plc DO NOT SECURITISE) ……never have done. That is what makes the difference in my view. Only two weeks after we had signed our agreement it was sold……that sale was planned even before we had signed it in my opinion we were never told or even warned it would be……if you do not agree that this information that they knew in “advance”, they would be paid the money that we had just borrowed by another company….. ie redeemed by that company is not deception? Can you not see why I claim double borrowing on our property?? Can you not see that by doing this they then lent the money again that they had just been paid by the selling of our loan and title on which they then charge their exorbitant fees and charges. What they do is use customers title and equity twice to their advantage…..again if a borrower knew this they would not borrow money from them. I say this is where the fraudulent deceptive use of another person assets is in play. Remember their company accounts show that this is exactly what they do……..the two Kestrel Companies that they use did not and have not got one single asset on which to have borrowed the funds to pay Swift Advances the FULL amount of the loans they paid Swift Advances plc for them……………….they had to use the titles of the properties that had already been used to secure the original funds from Barclays, and use, them again without any borrower knowing except 3 and I am one of them which I was allowed to find out by one simple mistake…..Swift Advances plc forgot to remove the record of the sale of my loan account and title from the history of this transaction from the SAR information they supplied under my request………..on every other history they DELIBERATELY and precisely remove this entry so as to conceal these transactions of every borrowers loan That is what I claim, and because the Kestrel company has to have the Title deed it should have been changed to Kestrel as soon as that sale and purchase of it was made. Another reason to see the two documents I referred to in my last few posts, that is where the record of these transactions will/should be. I do not believe they have them……for reason Mr Webster first said that these transactions were merely internal accounting transactions, as the vast majority of the 5 Companies involved are the same directors of which only two have any sign of being fully legitimate is the reason I claim such mal practices…..it is all preplanned. He then changed that statement and said they had been assigned again with any borrowers knowledge I could as you say rant and rave on …but that is what know I am 95% right in sparkie
  20. Sorry takeiteasy... but thank you first............. you say that it is in the agreement that they would be in breach of it if they disclosed it………..how do we know that this specific term is in the agreement if we do not have sight of it…….more to the point how can you speak for Swift Advances plc, and this/these agreements and their content? Have you seen that agreement to be able to say that term is in that/those two particular agreement(s)…you know quite well that there are many types of agreements ….even a comma or full stop can change the meaning of a term in any agreement…….and most importantly IS there a mortgage sale agreement and mortgage administration agreement in existence relating to the loans that were sold/transferred/assigned by the Swift Companies to the Kestrel Companies involved in such transactions….we do not know ……you do not know……..you are making assumptions based on what you think in exactly the same way as I have been doing and am doing……… without producing these agreements I have claimed Swift Advances plc are doing something wrong and as you said yourself……..they should be required and to prove I am wrong they should disclose it of their own free will………not conceall it ......that is my point……until I am actually proved wrong ….I will continue to say what I do say and claim……….there is something secret going on…..within these companies. And finally as I have said the proper authorities ARE at last taking me seriously, they can see on the evidence I have produced there is validity for an investigation to be entered into……whether or not I am and have been right or wrong is now up to those authorities. I have produced the documentary evidence to them that the same amount of money was borrowed on the same day from two different banks using two different presentors. That is the main reason I question this to be more than likely double borrowing……….what is the reason to do this ….why not borrow the amounts from the one funder. If I am wrong then I am wrong..........and I am entitled to a belief until I am actually proved wrong for all to see. sparkie
  21. Again a question Takeiteasy you mention Company accounts lodged with companies house....can you explain why some of the accounts of the Kestrel Holdings Ltd (Group) lodged at companies house are unsigned? Is there also nothing wrong with that? sparkie
  22. Thank you for that information takeiteasy....my argument against this because I am a very transparent person ....if I had nothing to hide .......I would let anyone see what they asked for....if you thought I had drugs in my house you would be very welcome to search for them.............because I have nothing to hide..........if any one wanted to know how money I had ..ask me and I would tell them ...not that I have any Swift take it .......if someone asked me if I had been I prison and I had ......I would tell them.........it is only people who have things to hide ....hide them......but then I was brought up in a different era than you ...I lived on " Jam Butties" for most of the week. Why are such documents not available as these would show exactly what Swift Advances plc actually do/did with the loans they sold/transferred/assigned......why keep it secret ....when and how they move these loans about......you may have heard that the FSA are taking action to stop securitisation ( which Swift DENY they do not do) so what do they do on these movements of deals and borrowings...these are the questions I ask........ if the answers were given I would more than likely be sitting with my feet up watching the Tele like most all other 73 year olds with my slippers on and my glass of milk. But thank you for saying we are not entitled to see them ........that is the exact phrase Mr John Webster CEO of Swift Advances plc used when I requested a copy of the Title Indemnity Insurance....you must have learnt your banking skills in answering from the same LehmanBros he did. sparkie
  23. Hi everyone, After all the commotion on the thread last night, I would like to point out …..especially to Andrew 1 and fretfull…About the OFT and regulated and unregulated agreements fretfull said that an approach was made to Mr Blocksidge and she received a letter from him that said the OFT cannot and do not intervene in any single specific case. That is correct and I received the same reply when I made my complaint in 2007………what Mr Blocksidge did not say …is that the OFT can and do intervene in cases where a complaint is made by a group of consumers, and a “Group” is widely considered to be more than 2 persons. For everyone to be clear……… the OFT does involve itself in unregulated credit agreements….but the only regulations that are available for them to use are ...the UTCCC regs, the CPR,s ( Consumer Protection Regulations) and the Enterprise Act 2002. The only credit agreements the OFT cannot intervene in are First charge mortgages, exempt agreements and High Net worth agreements. I hope this helps folks understand a bit more about this sparkie.
  24. Just one final post before I go off to bed The two questions I asked TIE on post 3585 are VERY important to all of us..........but getting hold of them is Extremely difficult nearly impossible ...but if they could be obtained they would answer lots of questions ....but no go so far ...but we will get there. Sparkie
×
×
  • Create New...