Locked threads.

[scorpio_manuk]

Barracad,

You have shown yourself to be rather silly in locking the thread and a complete lack of knowledge of the law along with reload, others will see this as well. Simply read whats there admit you have no knowledge about this matter and let others try to get there money back in a quicker manner than they are now. The banks are beginging to hit back now and the glouster court thread of stays someone put it in the judges mind about Lloyds going to take a few cases to court to try and set presidence which was their sloicitors not rocket science to work out. So if their is a way of getting things done by the back door by a strike out of defence then people should be given the option and getting people paid more quickly they should be allowed to take it. Not because you go into a hissy fit !!! One case to watch out for in the high Court soon is a case coming up that will decide if a company should be treated the same as a living person when it comes to litigation either criminal or cival as required under EEC Law. If thats won then the banks as every one else (defendants) will have the right to transfer to local courts to them.

 

So up to you if you want to look silly and loose all credability on the site and the site will loose credability as well. Carry on shutting down threads and people who try to help others out. By the way I got all my fees back with out issuing along with my fathers and a couple of friends as well. Worth listerning to what I say as you are asking people to blindly follow you and pay out £350 of money they can not afford in some cases hope you can sleep well at night their is no holy grail in this. Only what works at the time when one route gets blocked try another !!!.

 

Kind regards, Scorpio_manuk

[Dappa44]

I cant see whats wrong with the original thread, it seems scorpio knows quite a bit about the law, has anyone from the site looked into his claims?

[reload]

Hi scorpio,

 

Please - prove to us that telling a judge that the defendent's firm of solicitors are actually the defendents themselves will work. I just cannot see how you can prove such a claim to a county court Judge without him laughing in your face. Instead of us both posting insults and, certainly in at least one case yourself, unjustified advice with no evidence backing it up (Court cases being referred to the local court of a bank), let's both try to be constructive instead, please?

 

I'm sure we'd all also be very interested to hear on the exact process you went through to get your charges returned - copies of your letters for EG, the exact laws you based your letters on. Please, educate us.

 

One case to watch out for in the high Court soon is a case coming up that will decide if a company should be treated the same as a living person when it comes to litigation either criminal or cival as required under EEC Law. If thats won then the banks as every one else (defendants) will have the right to transfer to local courts to them.

 

This does sound a very interesting case, although it puts a somewhat different light on your earlier thread RE: Banks being able to repeatedly delay cases and force them to be transferred to their local court.

 

Do you have the details for the case? The name/case number etc?

 

£350 - where the hell did you get that figure from? For small claims court cases over £1500 the fee is £120 for filing the claim, and £100 for returning the Allocation Questionnaire. Both fees are returnable either in settlement or in a successful win.

 

Lastly, as far as I'm aware the Gloucester judge has only put a stay on two cases. Both of which, I believe, people are applying - justifiably - an objection to the stay and proceeding with their case as normal.

[scorpio_manuk]

I cant see whats wrong with the original thread, it seems scorpio knows quite a bit about the law, has anyone from the site looked into his claims?

 

Dappa44,

What I did was very simple and what I would recomend to everyone. I looked and all the money claiming back sites and looked at what was working and what was not, worked my plan of action out with bits from all. Got a friend who is a qualified solicitor who does free work for the Citizens advice to give it the once over for good measure and it worked for me with out issuing court proceeding there are loads of other people out their that have won with out issuing proceedings even now. You just have to be one step ahead of the game with the banks before they block the route. This forum is closed to ideas of how to speed up matters its one track focused thats why so many people are log jammed now in the legal system. The courts are going to get more upset when their lists get full thats why stays will be granted to free up time till more test cases get put though a higher court. So what is needed is another way to get the money back from the banks. Whats needed is a thread of fresh ideas to be looked at and contributed by every one on finding away for quicker payments for all. Worth a try at least if the powers that be would allow it to happen but I think they wont some how as they see them selves on a misson with the holly grail.

 

Kind regards, Scorpio_manuk.

[reload]

Dappa44,

What I did was very simple and what I would recomend to everyone. I looked and all the money claiming back sites and looked at what was working and what was not, worked my plan of action out with bits from all.

 

Care to share an example of one of your letters?

 

Fact of the matter is: This process does work as it is. Some banks choose to drag it out longer than others, pretend to defend from a different angle, etc etc.

[scorpio_manuk]

Care to share an example of one of your letters?

 

Fact of the matter is: This process does work as it is. Some banks choose to drag it out longer than others, pretend to defend from a different angle, etc etc.

 

Relaod,

Before shooting off the hip any more go to the companies house web site use the free service for checking on companies both PLC and Limited and put the name of the solicitors in and then post the results to this site. If you then what to enter into a genuine storming session to get people their money back quicker then I will do so. Court costs of £250 to issue and alloction fees of £100 have been repeatly posted on tis site thats how £350 is arrived at.

 

Kind regards, Scorpio_manuk

[reload]

Companies House - specifically, WebCHeck Find Information On A Company

 

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC

 

Lloyds TSB Asset Finance Division Limited (NB: There is no "Lloyds TSB Asset Management Division" listed)

 

I can find absolutely no information on the companies house site about a company named Sechiari, Clarke and Mitchell. If anyone can come forward with a registered address and/or registered company number, it'd help. However, Waterlow legal - Your gateway to legal advice, forms, services, documents, aid and help has 4 seperate offices of Sechiari Clark & Mitchell listed. The Brighton address is identical to that of Lloyd's Brighton collection centre 1 - 9 Brighton place. Although this does not necessarily mean Lloyds pay their wages directly; they could quite easily be working out of the same building for convenience.

 

As reference: Martineau Johnson Trustees Ltd. This is MJ, address matches that of the registered office on the letter I received yesterday.

 

Point noted about the court costs. However, you have to admit that the majority of cases through these forums do not end up with a court claim filed, and indeed £250 is an exceptional case given that the average amount from the survey reclaimed so far would call for an £80 fee alone.

 

Now, are you willing to allow us to see this magic letter of yours?

[scorpio_manuk]

"I can find absolutely no information on the companies house site about a company named Sechiari, Clarke and Mitchell. If anyone can come forward with a registered address and/or registered company number, it'd help. However, Waterlow legal - Your gateway to legal advice, forms, services, documents, aid and help has 4 seperate offices of Sechiari Clark & Mitchell listed. The Brighton address is identical to that of Lloyd's Brighton collection centre 1 - 9 Brighton place. Although this does not necessarily mean Lloyds pay their wages directly; they could quite easily be working out of the same building for convenience. ""

 

Reload let the light go on if they are not registered at companies house they are not a leagaly trading company. They are using what is called a trading style to hide their identity. Proff enough for a judge to rule that the court forms not filled in correctly trufefully and honestly as per wording that all parties have to sign. That way defence is struck out and summery judgement given. Care to check this out on legal sites then post back what you find.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

[Ihatebanks]

I FOUND THEM !

Law Society of England and Wales - Details

[scorpio_manuk]

I FOUND THEM !

Law Society of England and Wales - Details

 

Thanks for that, thats the Lloyds Collection centre address they quote. As I said before its a trading style only not a registered independant company.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

[reload]

Nicely done Ihatebanks - I'd just found that site. Here is the info for their head office - coincidentally completely different from anything Lloyds-ish.

 

As for the rest of your assertions scorpio_manuk, you've basically just stated that any Sole Trader or Partnership, or for that matter any unincorporated or un-limited company, is not a "legally trading company". Interesting in the context of a Legal Partnership.

 

I'm going to leave this thread here, as I really can't be bothered to argue the toss over this any more. I don't dispute it's possible to get a claim struck out in the circumstances you describe, however I'm going to stick my neck out and categorically say that SCM are NOT Lloyds TSB Bank PLC. They may operate cases for them, but they are most definately not one and the same company.

 

Unless, of course... can we see your magic letter yet?

[Ihatebanks]

Head Office address is

SECHIARI CLARK & MITCHELL

116 Cockfosters Road

BARNET

HERTFORDSHIRE

EN4 0DY

ENGLAND

 

 

Prehaps LSTB is their Largest Customer and they find it easier to work within the same building this would obviousley save on costs and time

[scorpio_manuk]

Nicely done Ihatebanks - I'd just found that site. Here is the info for their head office - coincidentally completely different from anything Lloyds-ish.

 

As for the rest of your assertions scorpio_manuk, you've basically just stated that any Sole Trader or Partnership, or for that matter any unincorporated or un-limited company, is not a "legally trading company". Interesting in the context of a Legal Partnership.

 

I'm going to leave this thread here, as I really can't be bothered to argue the toss over this any more. I don't dispute it's possible to get a claim struck out in the circumstances you describe, however I'm going to stick my neck out and categorically say that SCM are NOT Lloyds TSB Bank PLC. They may operate cases for them, but they are most definately not one and the same company.

 

Unless, of course... can we see your magic letter yet?

 

Reload, Its all Lloydish addresses for the different divisions they act for. You cannot escape they are not a registered company in the UK ETC Etc. Regardless of legal partnership they have to be registered to trade in the UK. I can understand you lossing interest especially when you dont want to admit whats stareing you in the face well people will draw their own conclusions on this as the facts speak for themselves.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk

[reload]

Just to reiterate the point. You're stating that any business not registered with Companies House is operating illegally?

 

Can we see your magic letter yet?

[hagenuk]

The methods outlined on this site have, so far, enabled 1043 people to recover over £1M - I know which way I shall do it and I would suggest everybody else who is serious does the same.

 

scorpio_manuk's method appears to be a bit of a "one trick pony," for example, what happens if the banks solicitors are registered with the Law Society and Companies House?

[Ihatebanks]

I am a sole trader and not registered at companies house,( I AM NOT ILLEGAL)You dont have to registar at companies house unless you are a Limited Company LTD PLC LLP etc

I have a few friends who are solictors(Convayencing) one sole trader and one in a partnership neither are registered at Companies House I think its upto the partners if they form a limited company or not

[hagenuk]

It is, there are many perfectly legal forms a "Company" can take and not all companies need to be registered at Companies House.

[stacymason]

just from a legal point of view it would be inappropriate for a firm registered with the Law society to be one and the same as one of its biggest clients. Also it would disclose on companies house in the notes if the two firms were associated. If you can give me the Company No I can check as I'm registered with the Companies house direct!

[scorpio_manuk]

I am a sole trader and not registered at companies house,( I AM NOT ILLEGAL)You dont have to registar at companies house unless you are a Limited Company LTD PLC LLP etc

I have a few friends who are solictors(Convayencing) one sole trader and one in a partnership neither are registered at Companies House I think its upto the partners if they form a limited company or not

 

Yep whats your turn over a year, what do you think theirs is way above the limit also for VAT registraion purposes ETC. All address lead to Lloyds TSB offices. Also check out on the web search all hits on solicitors and you will find every one is Lloyds TSB or client based.

 

Kind regards, Malcolm Reffell.

[stacymason]

LLPs are a relatively new thing and solicitors are not allowed to be Limited Companies, It has nothing to do with turnover although it is unlikely a company with such a high turnover would be anything but due to tax planning!

[scorpio_manuk]

The methods outlined on this site have, so far, enabled 1043 people to recover over £1M - I know which way I shall do it and I would suggest everybody else who is serious does the same.

 

scorpio_manuk's method appears to be a bit of a "one trick pony," for example, what happens if the banks solicitors are registered with the Law Society and Companies House?

 

Law society state that they beleive its a trading style and under DPA act they can not disclose who owns the company.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

[scorpio_manuk]

just from a legal point of view it would be inappropriate for a firm registered with the Law society to be one and the same as one of its biggest clients. Also it would disclose on companies house in the notes if the two firms were associated. If you can give me the Company No I can check as I'm registered with the Companies house direct!

 

Hi Stacymason,

The company is not registed at companies house, I have spoken to them as well as checking on line. Also as a general enquiry the say that they would have expected them to be for limited liability cover, tax advantages, Etc, Etc. I agree with what you say as being inappropaiate Etc. Bear in mind that the banks all use so called "debt collection companies" which in reality are in house debt collection staff.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

[hagenuk]

Law society state that they beleive its a trading style and under Data Protection Act act they can not disclose who owns the company.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

 

That may be so, but what if they are not using this firm? What if the bank or Credit Card company are using any other firm? What if someone is not claiming from Lloyds?

 

Your method is still somewhat tenuous and, as you have yet to reveal any details, still unproven. The methods outlined here however, have worked every time for over 1000 people.

 

Why must you reinvent the wheel?

[Janet-M]

People must decide for themselves when conflicting advice is offered .Do you follow tried and tested steps by people with numerous post counts or do you follow someone who does not back up what they say with evidence .Please judge carefully .If in any doubt please seek the advice of a qualified insured professional.

[scorpio_manuk]

People must decide for themselves when conflicting advice is offered .Do you follow tried and tested steps by people with numerous post counts or do you follow someone who does not back up what they say with evidence .Please judge carefully .If in any doubt please seek the advice of a qualified insured professional.

 

Yes Iagree before you post check the threads, I have detailed how I did it in another thread. A simple addition to the DPA request and then straight to compiance department pure and simple no Service recovery department which means loss prevention department. Not rocket science. I cannot agree with you more about proffesional advice, from the standard of advice from forum moderators and their ability to understand issues you should add look at other sites and see what is currently working as well with little or no cost to yourselves. The bubble will burst on this method as sure as eggs are eggs and people need other routes to tread to get there money back.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.