Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sparkie1723

  1. This is the other one I like:D:D If you want to collect information about the creditworthiness of people with a view to giving it to others, you will be regarded as a credit reference agency and are likely to need to apply for Category I.1 All those who wish to be licensed to provide such services will need to satisfy the OFT that they are – or will shortly become – fully compliant with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Credit Reference Agency) Regulations 2000 and the specific provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 19742 and Data Protection Act 19983 of direct relevance. Please note: • You may be regarded as a credit reference agency if, on behalf of fellow members of a group of companies, you hold information about customers dealing with members of the group and supply this information to others in the group. If you apply for Category I you will need to submit a Credit Risk Profile as part of your application in order to assist the OFT’s consideration of your fitness to be licensed and to enable it to make further decisions on the level of scrutiny which it will apply to your business if the licence is granted. You may also be subject to an on-site inspection of your business.
  2. All other agreements I have checked show an agreement number and I have checked quite a few...but that still does not answer my question ..............does a credit agreement have to have an agreement number on it?? Can't seem to find the answer. Whichever..... whether it does or does not its a question unanswered at the moment. I don't like unanswered quesions Agreements are sent to a borrower all set up ..........minus the signatures ....the borrower and the Creditor.....sometimes the creditor signs first but not allways. I look for clues ...I look for stuff most people can't see ......that's my job I'm an auto spark ...you can't see electricity ...but you know its there when it " Bites" you:D:D:D sparkie
  3. This applies to Swift Group Legal Services Their letters allways start WE ACT ON BEHALF OF SWIFT ADVANCES PLC From October 2008, if you want to carry out activities (other than debt collection) relating to consumer credit or consumer hire agreements on behalf of another person who is the creditor, including someone to whom the agreement has been assigned (in the case of consumer credit), or owner (in the case of consumer hire) you will need to apply for Category G. Please note: • You will not need this category if you are acting in your own interest, for example administering loans made by you that have not been assigned by a third party. • You can exercise and enforce the rights of the creditor or owner of the consumer credit or consumer hire agreement under this category, as long as you are not doing anything which may amount to debt collecting. This means that in order to take steps to enforce agreements and secure payments on behalf of another person you will need Category F, debt collecting. Swift Group Legal Services do not hold this category licence.....and they are not on Swift Advances Plc BOG standard licence. They can be referred to as criminals sparkie
  4. From 2004 Eastern Counselling Service Your business is classified as Category E if you intend to provide debt counselling services with no limitation. This would allow you to provide such services on a commercial basis (that means that either you or an associate* will charge a fee or otherwise receive remuneration in connection with the provision of such services and/or in the course of carrying on any consumer credit or ancillary credit business and do not operate, for example, solely as a non-commercial charitable service). You are likely to require this category if you or any of your associates provide any consumer credit or ancillary credit services on a commercial basis. This limits you and/or any associate* to offering debt counselling services on a non-commercial basis only. You should not apply for this limited category if any of your and/or any of your associates’ debt counselling and/or consumer credit or ancillary credit activities are carried out on a commercial basis (see definition in Category E), even if you also provide some such services on a non-commercial basis. It is a criminal offence to carry out any activities that require Category E if your licence only permits you to undertake the limited activities permitted under Category E2
  5. If you have had a counselling fee charged to your account and the vast majority have......that has been applied while a criminal offence was being committed to do this the Category E licence had to be held........that is one charge you can claimback....the second is the account management fee of £70 per month is claimable because to do this again comes under the Category E licence, every time they charged it they were committing a criminal offence;) sparkie
  6. Having checked the OFT info on CCA licences This is what has been discovered Eastern Counselling Services must hold a category E licence issued by the OFT. Swift Group Legal Services must hold a category F licence Swift Advances Plc from October 2008 should have held a category H1 & H3 licence. None of them held or hold any of these licences.......each one of these companies have been and still are committing criminal offences..............if I worked for any of the SWIFT companies I still have not had a reply from Mr Webster when I asked him which "Swift Group" he was CEO of. sparkie
  7. Re Doc on post 2897 this is what they submitted in their Court Bundle.....note that they did not need to type Swift Advances Plc on the top as with the Default notice it refers to Swift Advances Plc...................this shows how carefully and deliberately these documents are doctored.....but they still make incriminating mistakes;) sparkie
  8. With reference to A1's post , I agree absolutely .....then again we have the CAG member who has a First Charge mortgage with Swift 1st Ltd who issued possession proceedings in their name...................and Swift Advances Plc ( our Mr White again) turned up at the possession hearing and gave evidence and obtained possession of the property in question.........................IN SWIFT ADVANCES PLC NAME.......Is that not to be construed as seriously misleading the Court???? Surely this breaks practically every bit of legislation there is................obtaining and acquiring property by deception........ fraud....theft...............making false claims and submissions to a Court of Law ......anyone add any more?? HOW much longer can this despicable man continue to get away with it all????? sparkie
  9. First question to get them to ask The Directors f all the Kestrel Companies which include the Two Swift companies...What was/is the purpose of setting up these Kestrel Loans Companies whose principle business activity ( according to their accounts ) is lending money secured on domestic premises ........when not of these companies have ever lent even a penny to a domestic borrower. They have been set up for one purpose and one purpose alone to BORROW money and pass it on to Swift Advances Plc, and I strongly suspect a "wee" little bit of money laundering could "possibly" not necessarily but "possibly" be taking place. That would be up to them to investigate that little issue. sparkie
  10. Hi landy Then that would be what is called a ....."mis-nomer"..... the number they give you is just a reference Number not an agreement number.........folks could help me on this research Does a consumer credit agreement have to have an agreement number on it.. sparkie
  11. Now look what I've found in our paperwork,..... it's an notification of interest rate rise from Swift First....they tell us its going up on our "mortgage"......they then say if "our loan" is either fixed or discounted etc etc So have we got a mortgage with Swift First ( trading style of Swift First Ltd) or is it a loan with them.......or is it with The Swift Group or Swift Advances Plc ........who owns our loan /mortgage out of all these .....but then again where does Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd fit in also? If they all own it then they have made themselves a hefty extra asset on their books!....of some £ 120.000 or so if they all say we owe it to them and claiming it as such on their books:) Just noticed our agreement hasn't got an agreement number on the executed agreement, has anyone else got a number on their actual agreement??? sparkie
  12. G Rats are lovely creatures compared with this "Swift Group????" lot!!! sparkie
  13. HI Gallahad, Mine used to say .......if something fits like a glove the only thing it can be is a glove......my Dad and your Dad must have gone to different schools together:-D:-D:-D sparkie
  14. Back to the serious stuff...the only reason they would buy these loans back would be that they had sold the titles as well .....BUT we rumbled them and they realised they had to get them back....because they had not changed the Land Regisrty entries as they should have done once they had sold them...........so for 12 months these titles were incorrectly registered. Buying them back does not alter the fact that this suggests that fraud was committed .....I emphasise that this is my personal opinion not the forums. sparkie
  15. I suppose you will doctor one up just like they do and make it look like a Dead Sea Scroll now!!!:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: sparkie
  16. Because I have nothing more to do except find fault with This whole shower I have discovered this set of facts. This is what Webster says in his 2009 accounts directors report "During the year the Group has grown its loan book to £547.2m (2008 436.1m) mainly due to the acquisition of mortgage loans from an associated company £ 199.9 m of loans were acquired in the year ( 2008 nil ). Now it was only in 2008 that Swift Advances & Swift 1st Ltd sold £200m loans and mortgages to the two Kestrel companies £ £129m to No1 and £71m to No3.…total £200m. So the question is what was the purpose of A)……Selling £200m worth of loans and the B)……The next year buying £199.9m back……….to a dumbo like me it makes no sense at all. They sell this amount to 2 companies and then say they buy them back from one company ….when in fact the other two companies accounts say different one says it sold £129m back (Kestrel No1) & Kestrel No 3 say they sold £ 71m back…..the more you study these accounts the more things do not add up and its time the Fraud Squad really looked into this whole lot. It looks just as if they are playing monopoly!! sparkie
  17. Not only was this in techni-colour it was on real top class paper ...so there:p:-D:-D:-D sparkie
  18. THis is one for the books ...here is Mr Webster confirming that he is the Chief Executive of Swift Advances Plc ....Swift Advances ...and the "Swift Group"...and to top it all " Swift "all in the headings etc and letter...he really believes he is the BIG GUY.. so he must take all the blame;) Note what he says in the last 3 lines of para 3....White's false statements were only found out after the hearing he refers to. sparkie
  19. HI Gooner, I disgaree ........... the supreme Court rluing on Bank charges does not apply to Swift Advances Plc nor Swift 1st Ltd as they are not deposit taking banks ..their charges are not bank charges they are all penalty charges and fees I would like you ask your sister about the Bill of Rights Act 1689 ...the Act MPs are claiming protection under with expenses.........This has been declared a constitutional law that can never be repealed. And in one of its clause it says as much as " No man shall be Fined or Penalised/imprisoned, nor any of his Goods or Chattells confiscated unless deemed so by his Peers" Peers as in Lords of the land and therefore Law Lords and that means more than one in deciding the above...it has been used before as shown below it was used as a defence in a Council Tax Claim which the man in question won. Just trying to find more ways to hit Swift Adnaces Plc and their "associates"???? Untitled Document WIRRAL COUNCIL – Admits that Council Tax is Unlawful and Sets a Legal Precedent. Untitled Document Sussex Man Lays Perjury Charges Against Horsham District Council & 2 Magistrates in Council Tax Fiasco sparkie:)
  20. False statements by company directors, etc. 19.-(1) Where an officer of a body corporate or unincorporated association (or person purporting to act as such), with intent to deceive members or creditors of the body corporate or association about its affairs, publishes or concurs in publishing a written statement or account which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, he shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. (2) For purposes of this section a person who has entered into a security for the benefit of a body corporate or association is to be treated as a creditor of it. (3) Where the affairs of a body corporate or association are managed by its members, this section shall apply to any statement which a member publishes or concurs in publishing in connection with his functions of management as if he were an officer of the body corporate or association. Now this is very nice for Mr John Webster Don't you think???. MR Webster Stated in his company accounts and report that all loans and mortgages were sold ....Mr White has said in his Sworn affidavit only some of them were sold ......BINGO:D:D:D Also the New Fraud Act 2006 says this The Fraud Act significantly limits the right of a defendant to claim privilege against self-incrimination (the right to refuse to disclose documents or give evidence if doing so would expose him to the risk of a criminal prosecution) where he is being charged with a fraud offence. How many times has Swift Advances refused to supply the Title Indemnity Insurance AND the records of the Accounts being processed by the Kestrel Companies??? I've been refused about 10 times. sparkie
  21. Taken from the Theft Act 1968 Suppression, etc. of documents. 20.-(1) A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security, any will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in, any court of justice or any government department shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. (2) A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, by any deception procures the execution of a valuable security shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years; and this subsection shall apply in relation to the making, acceptance, endorsement, alteration, cancellation or destruction in whole or in part of a valuable security, and in relation to the signing or sealing of any paper or other material in order that it may be made or converted into, or used or dealt with as, a valuable security, as if that were the execution of a valuable security. (3) For purposes of this section "deception" has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act, and "valuable security " means any document creating, transferring, surrendering or releasing any right to, in or over property, or authorising the payment of money or delivery of any property, or evidencing the creation, transfer, surrender or release of any such right, or the payment of money or delivery of any property, or the satisfaction of any obligation. --------------------------------------------------------------- Could be useful against Swift for not telling us what they have done with the loan accounts,mortgages and Land Registry Tiltle......they would have to prove the legal title interest not just produce the registry entry sparkie
  22. HI busterg Where's my Easter chocolate doggie bone??? knowing you its probably a chewed up Chinese Take away chicken wing bone :D:D sparkie
  23. Jus a little trickle of info ...I do not think I'm giving away too much........but there is a Swift Advances Plc case coming up in the very near future that will affect a lot of their customers. You will remember of course that it has been shown in the Directors reports of Swift Advances Plc and Swift First Ltd....it is stated and confirmed that ALL ( not some) loans and mortgaes were sold to the Kestrel Loan No 1 & No 3 Ltd Companies and.........The Kestrel Loan N0 1 & No3 Ltd company accounts confirm that they both bought ALL (not some) of these loans and mortgages. Signed Directors Reports are considered a statemnt of truth in common law & in Company Law. What is being challenged in this case is Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd's RIGHT to sue for possession. In an attempt to convince the court in this case..........our very Dear friend Mr White with his usual manner of doing the job he is good at ........misleading the court has said in a sworn affidavit " It is true the Claimant sold some of its loans & mortgages to Kestrel No 3 ....( and here is the beauty of this)...... but not the two particular loans referred to in this case" So ,Mr White is going to have to prove beyond all doubt that out of ALL the loans that were sold ( and again they have stated they sold ALL in the particular year these loans relate to) they did not sell these particular two.... (and there are £200 million worth of loans. I do not think even Mr White will be able to persuade the Court that they kept these two back specially from the sale ........ (one was taken out in May and the other in September or thereabouts) ...and if he doesn't.......they have got BIG problems:D:D;) sparkie.......................(Just to make everyone feel a little better over Easter)
  24. Guide this person to this "Swift" forum....they will find out a lot more here, I am sure that they could use. sparkie
  25. Sorry Doc Kestrel Holdings Ltd, are not the holding company of Swift Advances.............Swift Advances does not exist as a legitimate business entity ...it is just a trading style/name used by Swift Advances Plc...this is one of the issues that are being investigated and chased by the OFT. Swift Advances Plc cannot use a trading style or name that is not on their licence issued by the OFT.........I thought I had made that understandable.. Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd are 69% owned by Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd.......who are ulimately owned by Kestrel Holdings Ltd......who are solely owned and set up by Alchemy LLP... However I have thrown a spanner into the works because here is another Kestrel Holdings Ltd.:D;) "Kestrel Holdings Ltd., a private company 100% held by Vancouver mining entrepreneur Ross Beaty" I wondr who is going to win on this one???? sparkie
  • Create New...