Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[pkelly]

yep your right caro after all a trolly dolly like myself should know better than this after all I work with the likes of spoiled brats all day

but check back when this slagging started and who by

[caro]

Don't worry PK. It was noted.

[Guest takeiteasy]

How long will Swift go down for? How about they wont go down at all? Birds again? What is it with you? My posts aren't considered useful because they aren't what the group want's to hear (eg. opposite to Sparkies). I've never seen a single post of yours that said anything useful at all. You look like Methuselah in your picture - are you sure you're not old? Maybe you forgot or you've confused yourself with a sparrow or a nightingale?

[busterg]

LOL. I've just took forever trying to catch up with the thread. You go off the grid for a while it goes off. I've been missing out on the good stuff.

 

7 guests at the minute.

 

Feels like im counting crows.

[Sparkie1723]

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

[sweetjane]

Which bank do you work for TIE? Your inside info could probably help out on some other threads. I like the sound of a helping hand from someone in the know. Most bankers have a very long way to go before they convince me that they have the public interest at heart. I understand you are in business to make a profit but most high street banks have slyly moved from being staffed by wise Bank Managers who offered advice and lent responsibly to young sharks in suits, hired for their "sales" techniques. I include all "bankers" in my damnation, not just the top guys or the investment bankers who get the mega bonuses, I include all the branch staff in high street banks who continue to be incentivised to sell inappropriate products with poor returns, high costs, charges and interrest without any thought of the ramifications. The high street banks' actions have lead many people to have to resort to sub-prime and that's when they get into real trouble. Roll on the competition in the high street - mutuals, Post Office, Tesco, Credit Unions etc etc. We'll all do our bit in the meantime to bring down Swift (and similar). It's not just Sparkie and PKelly (don't be fooled by their high jinks) there are many of us fighting our corners, in many ways. I don't understand how anyone working in banking or lending can live with themselves quite honestly when you see the misery they have caused worldwide. If banks are too big to fail, they must be taught to have a social and moral purpose. As for casino banking and the likes of private equity investing in sub-prime, they're on another planet. They don't care about the hardship they are responsible for, the suicide, depression, stress, repossession, poverty, divorce, kids going without - all because someone is in it for a fast buck and a bit of a gamble. So I'm delighted to see someone like TIE who's going to come over from the dark side and help us on all the threads on this site concerned with the many many problems individuals have with banks. Go get to work TIE. Have you seen the threads on Barclays, Halifax, RBS, Lloyds, GE Money, HSBC, Nat West, Capital One, Egg Yorkshire etc etc etc. There's even a thread called "A word from the banks" for those who work in banks. I look forward seeing your advice on those threads.

[Sparkie1723]

I just love your last post sweetjane:cool: ........absolute poetry in my delusional state of mind.

 

sparkie

[Guest takeiteasy]

Sweet Jane – As I have said consistently and honestly if I can answer any questions I will. Clearly any opinion I have is met with a lot of scepticism and I’m accused of being a spy, working for Swift or worse. I do not work for Swift, never have and most certainly never will. While I have been drawn into a few unsavoury exchanges with PKelly, my intentions are sincere, that I promise. I believe if you go back and check, you will see anything I say is immediately discounted. If I knew how to sort my posts properly I’d paste them so you can see.

Your opinion of bankers is shared by many and you won’t be surprised to hear me say that I disagree with painting bankers with that broad brush. Were there unethical bankers that were motivated by pure greed? Yes. Was it all bankers – no. It’s no different than the BP petrol station owner getting abuse from people or losing business because of the oil spill in the US. The petrol station owner didn’t do anything but he’s BP so he suffers. Bankers take 100% of the blame for this mess and while they are at fault what about the following; borrowers taking a mortgage that was above their means. You know what you can afford and should not take on a payment you can’t afford. And no broker or banker should persuade you otherwise. How about the rating agencies? How about the bond investors not doing their own due diligence on the bonds and solely relying on whatever the rating agency said? The same rating agency that gets paid by the lender to rate the bonds. A bit of a conflict don’t you think? Or how about pension funds investing in these bonds without performing their own due diligence thereby squandering billions hard working people’s retirement money? Then claiming the structures were too complicated to understand. I wouldn’t invest my money into something I didn’t understand – how could they risk other people’s money? You say you don’t understand how people working in banking can live with themselves. The overwhelming majority of bank employees are no different than you and the rest of the CAGERS. They are hard working people trying to provide for their families and often struggling to make ends meet. Same thing for most of the employees at Swift. They aren’t bad people, of course some are but the rest are struggling to make it like everyone else. Should a single mother of 3 kids who’s struggling to put food on the table and pay her bills quit her job at Swift? Where would she go in today’s economy? She’s not done anything wrong.

I genuinely feel bad for you all and appreciate what you are up against. I am genuinely surprised you don’t get more assistance from the government and that an MP hasn’t backed your efforts. I’m sorry to say that I still believe that what Swift are doing or have done isn’t illegal, it’s just unethical. I may be wrong if I saw something to show otherwise. I’m not very good at navigating these boards but am willing to do what I can.

[sweetjane]

TIE: I genuinely believe that if the people who work for banks and lenders stood up and said, as a group," we've had enough of conning the public", they'd have a very strong voice and be in a position to change the culture operating in these organisations. Some of the Swift workers may well be caring conscientious folk - unfortunately not the ones I've encountered. They don't seem to give a damn about the suffering of their customers. I've seen how they and their brokers talk about their customers. Believe me, most of their employees have no sympathy whatsoever for us. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the majority of the financial industries - they're all cocked and need a thorough clean up. The ratings agencies are a sham - I can't believe they're still operating. Directors on all financial instutions' boards (executive and non-executive) should properly take responsibility and speak up when they don't understand something. The pension funds are a disgrace. The fees people are paid for irresponsible decisions are shocking. We even discover that the auditors can't do their jobs properly. The whole industry is sordid albeit I'm sure for a few "genuine" types working within it who are "only obeying orders". There are few bankers left like Sir Brian Pitman who sadly died recently - now he knew how to put a customer at the centre of a business model and speak out if he didn't understand a complicated product. I do blame the industry as a whole - lets remember they're the professionals and if they don't understand their products, how on earth are the punters supposed to. People are mis-sold products in a deliberately non-transparent way. This has been a deliberate ploy by the industry and companies like Swift are the worst of the bunch. People have been actively encouraged to extend their credit beyond their means. This is what the banks wanted and put a huge sales force in place to achieve. Many of their customers did not realise they were taking out mortgages or other products they could not afford because of the way they were sold and the way they are administered. I don't think it is fair to blame customers when they have been swindled so badly by the so-called experts. The world is changing, people don't trust banks any more. It is not just a few small arguments - they all add up into a huge groundswell of public opinion. Everyone on this site will fight until they have been refunded every last penny they deserve and the anti-banker flack will only increase when the inevitable bonuses are announced after the banks' profits of the last few days. So TIE, here's your chance: Go forth and change the mind-set of your world. Say "no" to consumer detriment and "yes" to moral purpose. We're relying on you!

PS If you go to the top of this page and go back from SWIFT ADVANCES, OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO: THE BANK ACTION GROUP and click on that - you'll be amazed at what you find.

[busterg]

TIE: I genuinely believe that if the people who work for banks and lenders stood up and said, as a group," we've had enough of conning the public", they'd have a very strong voice and be in a position to change the culture operating in these organisations. Some of the Swift workers may well be caring conscientious folk - unfortunately not the ones I've encountered. They don't seem to give a damn about the suffering of their customers. I've seen how they and their brokers talk about their customers. Believe me, most of their employees have no sympathy whatsoever for us. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the majority of the financial industries - they're all cocked and need a thorough clean up. The ratings agencies are a sham - I can't believe they're still operating. Directors on all financial instutions' boards (executive and non-executive) should properly take responsibility and speak up when they don't understand something. The pension funds are a disgrace. The fees people are paid for irresponsible decisions are shocking. We even discover that the auditors can't do their jobs properly. The whole industry is sordid albeit I'm sure for a few "genuine" types working within it who are "only obeying orders". There are few bankers left like Sir Brian Pitman who sadly died recently - now he knew how to put a customer at the centre of a business model and speak out if he didn't understand a complicated product. I do blame the industry as a whole - lets remember they're the professionals and if they don't understand their products, how on earth are the punters supposed to. People are mis-sold products in a deliberately non-transparent way. This has been a deliberate ploy by the industry and companies like Swift are the worst of the bunch. People have been actively encouraged to extend their credit beyond their means. This is what the banks wanted and put a huge sales force in place to achieve. Many of their customers did not realise they were taking out mortgages or other products they could not afford because of the way they were sold and the way they are administered. I don't think it is fair to blame customers when they have been swindled so badly by the so-called experts. The world is changing, people don't trust banks any more. It is not just a few small arguments - they all add up into a huge groundswell of public opinion. Everyone on this site will fight until they have been refunded every last penny they deserve and the anti-banker flack will only increase when the inevitable bonuses are announced after the banks' profits of the last few days. So TIE, here's your chance: Go forth and change the mind-set of your world. Say "no" to consumer detriment and "yes" to moral purpose. We're relying on you!

PS If you go to the top of this page and go back from SWIFT ADVANCES, OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO: THE BANK ACTION GROUP and click on that - you'll be amazed at what you find.

 

HI SJ

 

Ive never had a pleasant experience speaking with Swift staff. It's gotten so bad a times that having been called a liar effectively until I challenged that tapes be pulled and listened to, that Ive actually been physically sick at the thought of having to call them up. No joke I say this in all honesty. That's how bad an experience Ive had with them.

 

I don't know if it's the stress they are under themselves or what??? But getting customers to that point and far worse is just beyond belief to some that have never experienced anything like it.

 

TIE, Good to see you back on the thread I was gonna ask a serious question if I may, if an equitable assignment is made, and a customer wants to counterclaim an action or indeed bring an action about themselves, would they need to include the new co-owner to proceedings as 2nd Defendant? I think if it is an equitable assignment then to bring an action against a debtor like me for example would also need to include the assignee. Is that right? It's just with a full legal assignment I think the NEW lender then can bring the action in their own right.

 

I know this is a straight forward question. But, I know Im gonna get a less the complicated answer. Any chance of small steps.

 

Ive tried going through the thread but it's gotten a little muddled at times. Im hoping you can help some of us getting a better understanding in laymans terms.

 

Some are looking at unfair relationship claims at the minute and I think it would be of some help.

[Guest takeiteasy]

Sparkie - obviously that isn't something I or anyone else would defend as legal. I don't know the specifics of course but here are a few thoughts. It is very common in the industry to "dress" up commission payments as something else. For example, commission payments can be paid under different terminology such a processing fees, packaging fees, marketing allowances, etc. I'm not entirely sure but I think all fees paid to third parties in relation to your loan need to be disclosed on the KFI (I'm also not sure if KFI's apply to your loans but I'll assume they do). Cost such as the property survey, insurances, TT fees, legal fees, etc. In addition to the borrowers associated loan costs, the lender has to disclose any payments they make to third parties in relation to your loan. Specifically a lender has to disclose if they pay a broker for introducing a loan. Some lenders pay broker fees from the borrowers loan advance. So if you borrowed £30,000 and the broker fee was £2000 your total loan would be £32,000 but your net is £30,000. This is where a lender can get creative and claim not to pay commissions. I dont know if this applies either to your loans, but generally a broker is required to get the best deal available in the market for the borrower and they need to prove how they selected that deal. This is another area that can be manipulated. How do you define the best deal? Is it lowest rate? Is it a higher rate but the borrower gets the money faster? So Sparkie while your points may be valid they may be stifled in a labyrinth of semantics. I'm sure you have pursued this and by no means does this absolve Swift, but it seems to me that the broker has a significant role in the wrong doings. Swift probably do not offer advice so rely on brokers to have taken care of that and to ensure it's the best deal for the borrower. Has anyone gone after the brokers?

 

Regarding the inter or intra company transfers, this is another standard practice. It's possible that the SPV that originally funds your loan has covenants that state a loan can only sit within that vehicle for a limited time and it may be at a much higher borrowing rate. A lender would use this to fund loans quickly then transfer/sell the loan to a longer term SPV that is more advantageous for them. It could be for tax reasons or something else entirely. Another possibility is that one of the SPV may allow third party investment so the SPV is made up of £50 million in assets and 10 private or instittional investors by £5 million each and get a return on their money. Lenders also need a mechanism to service and collect the loans so may set up separet companies to do this. Some funding lines will not allow loans in arrears to sit on their line so if a loan falls into arrears the lender has to transfer/sell it to another line or SPV that allows loans in arrears usually at a much higher cost to the lender. If that loan then pays current it can be sold back to the original line. There are many possibilities. To further complicate things a loan can have multiple funders. You need £100,000, funder A advances £80,000 and funder B advances £20,000. Each line needs a charge and an interest in the security. So when Swift says the sell their loans I believe they do. They are either sold to a Swift sub company or to another third party but Swift would have a servicing contract to administor everything. These structures are complicated but very common which is why I dont think this element of your claim is illegal. And I don't think Barclays, RBS, PWC and everyone else involved would all miss this if it were illegal. it just cant happen on that scale. Obviously purjury and deceit are different things all together. Somewhere in this diatribe I mentioned the broker. Sparkie - have you or anyoner else pursued them?

[Sparkie1723]

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

[busterg]

I tried the broker issue but my then solicitors' ineptitude knew no bounds.

[Sparkie1723]

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

[paulwlton]

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

 

Politicians, the legal profession, bankers.....they're all out to fleece us mate.

[Sparkie1723]

Politicians, the legal profession, bankers.....they're all out to fleece us mate.

 

 

And NO-ONE knows that better than you and me Paul!!!

[Guest takeiteasy]

Sparkie - Obviously you have spent a lot of time on this and frankly I’m surprised that Swift doesn’t give you whatever you want to go away. Right or wrong, you must be making their lives uncomfortable.

I may be covering old ground here but I think it's important that the distinction between loan sales/transfers and securitisation is made clear (apologies if this is already known). I’m fairly certain that Swift do not securitise their loans. If they did you would easily be able to find out as the deals would have to be rated and there would be surveillance data available through the rating agencies that would tell you everything you needed to know. In a securitisation structure the lender will pool some or all of the mortgages that are on their balance sheet. The mortgages assets are then bundled into a bond which 1 or more of the rating agencies with rate (AAA+, AA-, BBB+, etc.). After it’s rated the bonds are sold and the money received pays down the funding lines and the lender starts all over again. The lender will always set up a SPV for each securitisation. In addition, they will generally service the loans for a fee, usually 0.25bps-0.50bps depending on the asset type. This is not something Swift does. Loan sales/transfers are entirely different. A loan sale can be made to another bank or lender. Usually the sale commands what is called a premium. If the total amount of mortgage balances is £100 million the pool may sell for a premium of 2% so the buyer pays £102 million for the mortgages. Finally, loan transfers. Loan transfers are usually made to companies to service the loans for a variety of reasons (cost, expertise, etc.). Or, as it appears in Swifts case, the loans are originated from company A (one of the Kestrels?) then transferred to company B (another Kestrel ?) who’s sole purpose is probably to only service the loans. Again, this is a common practice. One company lends the other services. So company B the servicer isn’t normally licensed to lend money.

As for the £200 million from Kestrel 2 obviously I can’t say what that was for but it could have been borrowed money to pay off existing lines. As for it appearing as a double hit, it could have easily been 2 separate deals totalling £400 million. It’s impossible to say why they would have one that but a few possibilities, cheaper funding, one or more of their funders called in the line meaning they had to pay the line off immediately. Have you done any work on trying to find out who funded Swift?

On the commissions, do you know if the commissions paid to the broker were paid by Swift and added or deducted from your loan or did you pay a fee directly to the broker? The fees and commission/fees line on the accounts of £666,389 is very vague. It doesn’t say if this was broker commission or something else. Also it says fees. Fees can be extremely high just to set up or renew funding lines. I think you need that line broken down to show “broker commissions paid on new mortgage lending”. Finally, do you have copies of more recent returns? These look like 2006 or 2007?

[Sparkie1723]

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.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

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"

Edited August 7, 2010 by Sparkie1723
ommissions

[JAWS2010]

Hello Everyone, I have spent alot of time reading this forum to try and get help. I understand that people are annoyed at the way that this company are operating, like myself, but I dont believe that Sparkie1723 should be doing what they are doing. It is not fair that people are relying on someone that as Take It Easy said is " building people up" about these big things that are going to happen when eventually nothing ever becomes of it. If people were to look at this forum for genuine advise, Take It Easy really is the only one who is trying to be in any way helpful.

 

I believe that if given the chance, Take It Easy could help alot of people because he is talking with alot of knowledge. Wheater he works for Swift or not is irrelevant, in fact it would be even better as he would give us a better insight to what actually is happening.

 

Sparkie1723-a word of advise, don't post things up on the forum that would help you in your own situation. If you need to share things then PM them because as you said yourself, you believe that Swift are reading the forum, so why let them know what you know??? Strange!!

 

The forum is supposed to be about helping each other out and trying to get ahead but this one seems to be going around and around and always comes back to the same thing. People are doing themselves no favours and if anyone , like Take It Easy, does try and get people to go down the straight road they get stopped in their tracks. Thats not what a forum is about. And Sparkie wheather you like it or not, the forum is not about you either.

 

No doubt I will attacked now because I am a newbie but frankly my dear, I dont give a dam!! If you were to spend as much time concerning yourselves on what exactly it is you want from this scenario you would be alot further in your developments than what you are.

 

Take It Easy, I agree with everything you have said and I hope you continue to post.

[Sparkie1723]

Hello Everyone, I have spent alot of time reading this forum to try and get help. I understand that people are annoyed at the way that this company are operating, like myself, but I dont believe that Sparkie1723 should be doing what they are doing. It is not fair that people are relying on someone that as Take It Easy said is " building people up" about these big things that are going to happen when eventually nothing ever becomes of it. If people were to look at this forum for genuine advise, Take It Easy really is the only one who is trying to be in any way helpful.

 

I believe that if given the chance, Take It Easy could help alot of people because he is talking with alot of knowledge. Wheater he works for Swift or not is irrelevant, in fact it would be even better as he would give us a better insight to what actually is happening.

 

Sparkie1723-a word of advise, don't post things up on the forum that would help you in your own situation. If you need to share things then PM them because as you said yourself, you believe that Swift are reading the forum, so why let them know what you know??? Strange!!

 

The forum is supposed to be about helping each other out and trying to get ahead but this one seems to be going around and around and always comes back to the same thing. People are doing themselves no favours and if anyone , like Take It Easy, does try and get people to go down the straight road they get stopped in their tracks. Thats not what a forum is about. And Sparkie wheather you like it or not, the forum is not about you either.

 

No doubt I will attacked now because I am a newbie but frankly my dear, I dont give a dam!! If you were to spend as much time concerning yourselves on what exactly it is you want from this scenario you would be alot further in your developments than what you are.

 

 

 

Take It Easy, I agree with everything you have said and I hope you continue to post.

 

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

Edited August 7, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[JAWS2010]

Sparkie, I understand what you are saying but really.... step back and look at the situation. The way you are doing this is not working.

Why wont you take advise from other people on the forum without hitting back with petty playground remarks? It might just do you some good.

 

You dont know what my situation may or may not be Sparkie.

 

In reference to your last remark.......that just sums things up.

 

You dont seem to like other people giving advise that YOU dont agree with.

[Sparkie1723]

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

[JAWS2010]

You are like a bad poker player Sparkie, you show everybody your hand and have nothing to play with!!!

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie, I understand what you are saying but really.... step back and look at the situation. The way you are doing this is not working.

Why wont you take advise from other people on the forum without hitting back with petty playground remarks? It might just do you some good.

 

You dont know what my situation may or may not be Sparkie.

 

In reference to your last remark.......that just sums things up.

 

You dont seem to like other people giving advise that YOU dont agree with.

 

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