Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well it adds up which is an Apollo 11 achievement!   Does simeon need reminding again that it is HIS responsibilty to make sure that all the Exhibits are correctly labelled, ordered and numbered etc, and that they are all correctly cross-referenced in the particulars?  Because we can't check that remotely.   The only remaining thing (which I think would be helpful to have added but is not a necessity) is a list or schedule of exhibits.  It just helps to introduce the exhibits.  But simeon will have to produce that himself - so it may be advisable not to bother...   But I don't want to rock the boat any further and am happy with #165 - unless there are any glaring errors I've not noticed.   [EDIT:  cross posted with 166 and 167.  I will check 165 over as well]
    • No this is (£387.12 for Rubble) not (£8387.12 ) Repairs is £8000.00 and £5190.00 for unfinished work
    • The figures now match, so as far as I'm concerned that's that.   If there is duplication then that's the OP's look out, there has been nearly a year to make simple lists of costs.   I think "the three of us" should have a last read through.   It's up to Simeon to make sure the references to the exhibits are accurate, they certainly weren't accurate in the version I've just edited, in fact they were contradictory, but that's up to him.   If the "three of us" don't see any obvious errors then the document is good to go tomorrow morning (not as the last minute).
    • We might, finally, be there -   Particulars of Counterclaim   1.     The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The Inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The Inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The Inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The Building Inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.    The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3000 (see receipt, Exhibit 1).   11.    The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.    As work commenced on Project 2 and was continuing on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.    It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspected either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged the Defendant he admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Exhibit 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Exhibit 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.   Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed in Exhibit 4.   17.   During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Exhibit 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.   The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete, £3,000.00, Exhibit 1; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in paras 15 & 16 above, £5,190.00, Exhibits 2 & 3 & 4; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above, £8387.12, Exhibit 5; (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.  This has not yet been costed.   19.   In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from 26 October 2020 which was the last day the builder or one of his colleagues worked at the property     STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
  • Our picks

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


overdone
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4086 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I KNOW! I got so pi**ed off when they changed that Lol!:D

Thanks for that busterg, I am still going through the thread.....and through it as different points about my agreement become apparent to me. I've also got a guy coming to see me Monday, he's a credit specialist dealing with these mortgage/loan financial institutions, unregulated credit agreements, un-enforceable agreements etc etc so hopefully, for a small enough fee;) I should be able to get him to cover it all on my behalf. I will certainly be happy to keep you all posted on how I'm getting on with that. Best of luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I KNOW! I got so pi**ed off when they changed that Lol!:D

Thanks for that busterg, I am still going through the thread.....and through it as different points about my agreement become apparent to me. I've also got a guy coming to see me Monday, he's a credit specialist dealing with these mortgage/loan financial institutions, unregulated credit agreements, un-enforceable agreements etc etc so hopefully, for a small enough fee;) I should be able to get him to cover it all on my behalf. I will certainly be happy to keep you all posted on how I'm getting on with that. Best of luck!

 

I thought other aspects would jump up and bit you ;) They did with me...nad it really helped. It really will help you get a better angle on things. Best of luck with your guy on Monday but you will get more for your money if you have a greater understanding of what he's talking about once you've gathered the info from here. :D

 

Best of luck and do keep in touch. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A truly wise man never plays leap frog with a unicorn,

so I see no point in going over everything with people we dont know or can trust??? we have to prove nothing to anyone, If any of you newbees want any information why not pm instead. or as in Ties case at least answer the pms.

There is nothing wrong with having nothing to say unless you insist

on saying it & Don't try to talk sense to a fool; he can't appreciate it.

 

I have pm'd both you and Sparkie about the High Court outcome?

 

I would appreciate a reply when you have the time?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have pm'd both you and Sparkie about the High Court outcome?

 

I would appreciate a reply when you have the time?

 

Thanks

 

I think it's still on going. We'll probably know more in the next few weeks or so. I'm just plodding along with my stuff and relying on no outcomes from anyone. That way I know where Im at and what I need to be doing. I have to admit it's stopped me getting as wound up as I once was just because I feel like Im dealing with it. lol:)

 

Have you made any in roads with yours? Have they come back to you about rate hikes etc? or are they just fobbing you off like the rest of us?

 

Give me a PM when yo get a chance. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A truly wise man never plays leap frog with a unicorn,

so I see no point in going over everything with people we dont know or can trust??? we have to prove nothing to anyone, If any of you newbees want any information why not pm instead. or as in Ties case at least answer the pms.

There is nothing wrong with having nothing to say unless you insist

on saying it & Don't try to talk sense to a fool; he can't appreciate it.

 

If you don't trust people on the open forums then how do you know you can trust them with the info you PM to them?

 

The idea of this site is to share information for the benefit of all.

 

To any newbies - please beware of information provided by PM.

 

d) Offering to advise members by PM or email without good reason - If it is felt that a subject is "sensitive" and would be better discussed off-forum, we ask that members contact a member of the site team BEFORE asking for contact details. This rule is in place to protect our members from claims touts, and also to ensure that any advice given is open to debate, qualification, and where necessary, correction.

 

Link to full forum rules.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html#post16

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest takeiteasy

Sparkie - still nothing to report on this?

 

Please note everyone Swift Advances Plc OFT licence expires at 12 p.m. tomorrow night....

As for news from N.Ireland I have been advised by those concerned to post this and no more

 

HALLELUYA!!!!!........AMEN!!!........Tick Tock!! Tick Tock!!! TICK TOCK!!!!!

 

 

Pick the bones out of this post TIE

 

Tick tock, tick tock!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that pkelly, very informative and helpful! :confused:

 

I'm going to assume you're referring to my good self when you nod to the 'newbees'. Last time I looked however, this forum was designed for general discussion to provide help and advice for those with debt and financial institution problems, the 'consumer community' indeed! At the risk of sounding like, in your good opinion, a fool, what indeed does 'pm' mean? Perhaps if I knew I would do it but then that it probably down to my unfortunate luck of being 'new' to the boards, something not greatly appreciated round here.

 

Thanks to those of you who have actually been helpful but I'll take my queries and problems, and seek help, from elsewhere. I won't use a quote to finish my rant thanks pkelly, as in my humble opinion as a journalist and magazine editor, people generally only use quotes from other people when they have nothing intelligent to say for themselves!!! :(

 

PS: When did the world get so distrusting???

 

nice couple of quotes my friend yourself?

however I can assure you as you say your a journalist and magazine editor, and with my personal knowledge of how you work. I intend giving nothing away other than to people who can use it again swift.

and since they monitor this on a daily basis, there is no point in helping them.

If you want to help then publish all the documents SPARKIE has to prove ie the white lies that have been told in court.

If its a Story my friend you are after? why not meet up and do it right. pm us "private message"

and in ending, to keep to the topic.

 

“There are times when silence has the loudest voice”

Edited by pkelly

pick up a penquin two systems for the price of one:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all

 

EXCELLENT POST PK !!!! I agree 101% !!

 

As always

 

Dougal

Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all

 

EXCELLENT POST PK !!!! I agree 101% !!

 

As always

 

Dougal

 

only we can beat ourselves now DOUGAL so the least said the better, anyone can see Swifts days are numbered. they were so full of themselves they did not see cuckoo in the nest long ago,

lol they didnt see the eggs were a different colour. not a white, lol now they are hatched lol :grin:

pick up a penquin two systems for the price of one:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry pkelly. but what a complete load of bull!! To quote: "I intend giving nothing away other than to people who can use it again swift." What in the name of god do you think I'm doing here? I too am in exactly the same position as yourselves in trying to bring these people to task for their unscrupulous behaviour.If you're not going to give anything away what then are you doing here? This is a community forum designed for people to get help and advice and to offer same. Your comments have no place whatsoever on a forum such as this.

As for me publishing the documents of Sparkie etc or 'looking for a story' I can assure you that is not the case. I am a medical and pharmacy journalist working for publications for the doctor/nursing and pharmacist trades. No doubt you will choose not to believe this but quite frankly I don't care. I don't have to justify who I am to you just to be on these boards and ask for advice. You should take a leaf out of the books of your forum colleagues on here and actually offer something helpful or take your 'own' advice and say nothing at all!! I don't want to use these forums as a slanging ground. I was simply pointing out that it is wrong not to allow new people to the board the opportunity to ask questions and get advice.

 

PS: Don't be ridiculous when you point out the quotes I've used, you couldn't be so simple so as not to see they were to highlight the contact of my post in referring to the usage of these community forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a topic more pertaining to the site, I've been looking at the unenforceable elements of credit agreements and noticed my agreement with Swift was signed by me on 12 April, 2007 and by them on 14 May, 2007. Obviously this is only 6 days before the Credict Act 1974 stipulations kick in. Anyone know if I stand a chance of fighting this gven it's only days?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry pkelly. but what a complete load of bull!! To quote: "I intend giving nothing away other than to people who can use it again swift." What in the name of god do you think I'm doing here? I too am in exactly the same position as yourselves in trying to bring these people to task for their unscrupulous behaviour.If you're not going to give anything away what then are you doing here? This is a community forum designed for people to get help and advice and to offer same. Your comments have no place whatsoever on a forum such as this.

As for me publishing the documents of Sparkie etc or 'looking for a story' I can assure you that is not the case. I am a medical and pharmacy journalist working for publications for the doctor/nursing and pharmacist trades. No doubt you will choose not to believe this but quite frankly I don't care. I don't have to justify who I am to you just to be on these boards and ask for advice. You should take a leaf out of the books of your forum colleagues on here and actually offer something helpful or take your 'own' advice and say nothing at all!! I don't want to use these forums as a slanging ground. I was simply pointing out that it is wrong not to allow new people to the board the opportunity to ask questions and get advice.

 

PS: Don't be ridiculous when you point out the quotes I've used, you couldn't be so simple so as not to see they were to highlight the contact of my post in referring to the usage of these community forums.

 

Well said WLB

 

Although I genuinely appreciate the work Sparkie, PK & SMC are doing (as we are all doing our own bit) I am getting a bit fed up of the 'tick tock tick tock' posts, raising our hopes that something big is going to happen and it never does.

 

We must continue the fight as individuals and together we will make a difference - this company must not be allowed to get away with what they are doing.

 

I have always shared any results I have had with the group, but for some reason I seem to have been excluded now when I ask either on the forum or by direct pm for any upodates - apart from the usual platitudes of course.

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree as well, Swift customers have been encouraged to fight the business through litigation - a potentially risky and expensive solution to their difficulties - they should be told whether the legal arguments which have been put forward on this thread are successful before they go down the litigation route. Or maybe if some of the arguments have turned out to be more successful than others advice should be given in this regard.

 

Swift know the outcome of the cases anyway so why would writing about it here give them any information they don't already have?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a topic more pertaining to the site, I've been looking at the unenforceable elements of credit agreements and noticed my agreement with Swift was signed by me on 12 April, 2007 and by them on 14 May, 2007. Obviously this is only 6 days before the Credict Act 1974 stipulations kick in. Anyone know if I stand a chance of fighting this gven it's only days?

 

Hi Westlandbabe,

 

Just to reiterate - your loan is not regulated under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974. From what you have said it was for more than £25,000 and secured on a buy to let property.

 

Whilst the financial limit of £25,000 was removed on 6th April 2008, loans on non-residential property are still not regulated in any way, shape or form.

 

You will not be able to use non-compliance with the CCA as grounds to have your loan declared unenforceable.

 

You may stand a chance with other arguments such as a secret commission being paid to your broker (not something I'm expert in so I would advise you to seek advice from others on this).

 

Hope this helps.

 

KC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any harm in waiting just a little longer and I am sure that sparkie knows what he is doing and would not mislead anyone, because that has happened to most of us who are having to fight our own individual battles. We have all been misled from these financial institutions in some way or another.

 

Rome was not built in a day was it? and for all you impatient lot litigation is a very complex field and LIP's have to go that extra mile to prove their points so for those few who are getting edgy please be calm and soon all will be revealed. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi KC

I am led to believe the £25,000 limit was removed in April 2008. However, I know it still applies to buy-to-let mortgages. I don't think (but I'm in the process of checking) that I bought the property on a buy-to-let mortgage, I think I recall it was bought under some family discount kind of mortgage as I bought it from mymum. I'm just wondering out loud here.....if I can play them at their own game. There is nothing really to prove that I haven't been living at my 'buy-to-let address after seperating from my husband?!;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi KC

I am led to believe the £25,000 limit was removed in April 2008. However, I know it still applies to buy-to-let mortgages. I don't think (but I'm in the process of checking) that I bought the property on a buy-to-let mortgage, I think I recall it was bought under some family discount kind of mortgage as I bought it from mymum. I'm just wondering out loud here.....if I can play them at their own game. There is nothing really to prove that I haven't been living at my 'buy-to-let address after seperating from my husband?!;)

 

There is absolutely no possible way you stand any chance of arguing that your loan is/was/should have been regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "However, I know it still applies to buy-to-let mortgages." there are no limits on buy to let mortgages as they are not regulated.

 

If you didn't take out a buy to let mortgage but the property was in fact used as a buy to let that is fraud and lenders can (and do) take possession action for this breach of their terms and conditions. Either that or they whack a few % on your interest rate for the additional risk and because buy to lets are generally more expensive than residential. If you try and pretend you were living there when you weren't you could end up a whole mess of trouble with the lender, Inland Revenue etc and surely there would be evidence in the form of the correspondence address you gave?

 

The argument about moving into the property is academic anyway because your loan was far in excess of the financial limit of £25,000 which applied in April/May 2007 so still would have fallen outside of regulation under the CCA.

 

You may well have other grounds for dissatisfaction/legal redress against Swift but you cannot use non-compliance with the CCA.

 

Sorry if that sounds a bit brutal but it's to save you wasting time researching CCA points which could more productively be spent on other issues.

 

KC :)

Edited by Killerschick
Realised I had misread the bit in original post in fact saying mortgage may not have been buy to let
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any harm in waiting just a little longer and I am sure that sparkie knows what he is doing and would not mislead anyone, because that has happened to most of us who are having to fight our own individual battles. We have all been misled from these financial institutions in some way or another.

 

Rome was not built in a day was it? and for all you impatient lot litigation is a very complex field and LIP's have to go that extra mile to prove their points so for those few who are getting edgy please be calm and soon all will be revealed. :D

 

Well put F38!

 

No one in their right minds would post anything that's in current lititgation which is what some are asking of others.

 

KC - I agree about people posting about outcomes and things regarding their cases ..........if you care to look through the thread you'll notice that many have - including Sparkie which can serve as a guidance to others possible next steps.

 

I don't think anyone is being difficlut on the thread it's just that the roof over anyone's head would lead any sane person to hold their cards close to their chest at certain points. So I for one, wouldn't knock anyone for doing that.

 

I understand tensions are running high at the minute.......but if someone hasn't got an angle on their own situation it makes it a hard task for anyone to explain much. It leads to more confusion for them....I talk from experience.

 

That's why Ive tried to guide WBL to go through the task of going through the thread because it will give rise to more people giving advice and help simply because they are not back tracking on what's already here on the thread. It also gives newbies the chance to really get to grips on various avenues relating to their particular case.

 

So yes it is a sharing site.....but it's not a CAB full of qualified people.

 

Great posts like WP3 really help!!

 

I wouldn't dream of posting anything that would be potentially predjudical to my case and many others.

 

I'm not having ago - but can we cut some people some slack here. :D

 

On a serious note - does anyone know the secret receipe for the KFC Gravy??:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Westlandbabe,

 

Just to reiterate - your loan is not regulated under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974. From what you have said it was for more than £25,000 and secured on a buy to let property.

 

Whilst the financial limit of £25,000 was removed on 6th April 2008, loans on non-residential property are still not regulated in any way, shape or form.

 

You will not be able to use non-compliance with the CCA as grounds to have your loan declared unenforceable.

 

You may stand a chance with other arguments such as a secret commission being paid to your broker (not something I'm expert in so I would advise you to seek advice from others on this).

 

Hope this helps.

 

KC

 

I think it's around page 90 or so on the thread. Sparkie posted docs and a good source of refereincing for this WBL. It will start to become a little more clear as you get through it.

 

It's a shame about the CCA though. Have a look on your agreement about when it comes into force T& C's. Mine for example says when they sign the Legal charge and release the money. So when did that happen to you? If after the 6 days then hey it's another ball game. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the litigation is ongoing then fair play I accept that no one would want to reveal their tactics etc. I was just under the impression that some of the cases were coming to a conclusion with hearings within the last week.

 

My only concern is that inexperienced Swift consumers may read the information on this thread, perhaps not fully understand things and try to put some of the advice into practice, get in well over their head and make even more of a costly mistake than taking the loan out in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put F38!

 

 

 

 

I'm not having ago - but can we cut some people some slack here. :D

 

On a serious note - does anyone know the secret receipe for the KFC Gravy??:p

 

On a VERY serious note, isnt KFC gravy just the best thing ever? Its got to be thick though - not runny like some outlets make it.

 

I have been in secret meetings with Colonel Saunders, and I am about to reveal the recipe!!!

 

Tick tock Colonel, tick tock!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the litigation is ongoing then fair play I accept that no one would want to reveal their tactics etc. I was just under the impression that some of the cases were coming to a conclusion with hearings within the last week.

 

My only concern is that inexperienced Swift consumers may read the information on this thread, perhaps not fully understand things and try to put some of the advice into practice, get in well over their head and make even more of a costly mistake than taking the loan out in the first place.

 

Fully appreciate where you are coming from on this and agree. But i think the onus (sp)? is down to that indvidual to make sure they do some research themselves outside of the forum and make sure it's correct.

 

Come on KC, we each need to take responsiblilty for ourselves. it's clear that this isn't a legal advice board/centre it's just full of peoples experiences and information they have obtained. It's up to each of us to make sure what ever action we take is with the full research and knowledge that we each undertake. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a VERY serious note, isnt KFC gravy just the best thing ever? Its got to be thick though - not runny like some outlets make it.

 

I have been in secret meetings with Colonel Saunders, and I am about to reveal the recipe!!!

 

Tick tock Colonel, tick tock!!!

 

ha ha ha :D:D:D

 

If you get no joy with the Colonel, try Svengali or his Black Magic Woman ;)

 

But please bare in mind that whilst on this quest for the roundtree time is ticking away .....tick tock....tick tock. lol:p

Edited by busterg
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4086 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...