Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please also take photos of the sign at the entrance as well as any signs inside the car park especially any that are different. Please take them from a distance where we can read them and if there is a payment machine, the sign on the machine or very close to it that explains their T&Cs for the machine.
    • Thanks for getting the signage posted up so quickly. The sign on entry should explain their T&Cs. As they don't it means that  what they have given you is  an offer to treat, not a contract. For there to be a contract they would have had to put their offer at the entrance.  You cannot put a notice saying that their T&Cs are inside the car park and expect motorists to be subject to those T&Cs when they are unaware what the terms are.. They have to be able to read them and understand them before they can accept them. My feeling is that the sign that includes the charge of £100 is too small to be acceptable On top of that the sign at the entrance is for Parking Control Solutions while the signs inside are from HX Management-a completely different animal. To strengthen your case for not paying them is the fact that their PCN is not compliant.  Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there are certain wordings in  the NTK  that by Law must comply with the Act. They don't  have to quote that part of the Act in their PCN but the relevant wording has to be included. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 [2]   the notice must  [f]   warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;   Your  NTK does not include  [if all the applicable conditions  under the Schedule have been met ]thus rendering the NTK non compliant.  
    • I agree its about time but why has it taken for the National Crime Agency to flag this up for then to take action and not Ofcom.   Yet again a Government Agency that is meant to deal with this hasn't Ofcom but flagged by another Agency NCA.   If the telephone companies have this facility in place already to do this then why hasn't Ofcom been pushing them to stop all these scam calls and giving them massive fines for not doing so.    
    • Hi   Send this to them:   Dear Sir/Madam   Formal Complaint   Reference:            (insert their complaint reference number here)   Thank you for your response letter dated XX/XX/2021 which I received by email on XX/XX/2021 that contained your Original Email sent that showed due to your Maladministration that you had sent the Original Email containing my Personal Data to an incorrect email address due to spelling errors in the email address.   a)      Due to this Maladministration of this email being sent to the incorrect email address this email contained my Personal Data which is a Data Protection Breach therefore I require clarification from yourselves that this Breach has been reported to your Data Protection Officer and what action is being taken to ensure that my Personal Data contained in that Original Email has not been read by the recipient that you sent that email to with the incorrect email address.   As the email was sent by yourselves to my correct email address containing the original email showing the incorrect email address was due to spelling errors (maladministration) your IT Department will be able to obtain those emails sent.   If I do not get a satisfactory response that this has been dealt with by your Data Protection Officer, I will report this Data Breach to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/   b)      Due to this Maladministration I failed to receive your Stage 1 complaint response within the allocated time limit for a Stage 1 response therefore this complaint should be dealt with as a Stage 2 Complaint and if you refuse to treat this as a Stage 2 Complaint, I require Full Clarification for your refusal.   I was placed in this Tenancy via the Rough Sleepers Initiative and I find your response about damaged/destroyed items that you would not be able to look into this as this happened 2 years ago but all tenants regardless of private or social housing are responsible for arranging their own contents insurance totally unacceptable as again, I was never notified nor informed of this requirement on taking up this tenancy.   I require clarification from yourself that when a New Tenant takes up a Tenancy Agreement with yourselves why are the not informed of this requirement of Contents Insurance which you should be duty bound to inform all tenants on taking up a tenancy agreement if such a requirement and it should also be noted within that tenants Housing File which you have full access to as dealing with complaint so I require clarification as well if this is noted in my Housing File.   You state multiple properties throughout the area were affected by sewage flood on the same day and the issue will have stemmed from the mains which is not your responsibility.   a)      You have failed to take into that the above statement from yourself blaming the Mains is without any actual evidence from yourselves to back up this claim therefore I require clarification as to what actual evidence you have and to be provided with copies.   b)      You also failed to take into account that in my initial complaint letter that on 12th July 2021 basement flats 1 & 2 were flooded by sewage exacerbated by blockage in the property’s drainage. The blockage has been confirmed by two contractors after the flooding including CCR who were subcontracted by Pyramid Plus that it was the properties drainage that was blocked. Also, while I was decanted from this property, I was contacted by CCR who confirmed that the drain was blocked but they could not access manhole as it was inaccessible as it is located in a utility cupboard underneath carpet, floorboards so how could this be the Main and not your responsibility when it is within the properties boundaries.   Your response about how complaints have been made by residents in relation to this issue is that your system does not allow you to find that information is completely unacceptable as your Housing Association should be able to produce these as part of ongoing repairs and maintenance/procurement processes to present these to your Board for there yearly Budget meeting if not why not.   Then you state you are under no obligation to share that information; therefore, your organisation is not being Open and Accountable to your Service Users and under which Article of the General Data Protection Act (GDPR) are you using for this refusal.   You have also failed to mention that I can make that above request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and what is your process for such a request again not being Open and Accountable.   I await your response.
    • RE: EC261 Compensation   It's normal they won't have asked you to contact them . Your initial rescheduling was obviously done by a bot - and there was no human to notice the mistake, as far as the bot knew your scheduling was perfectly normal so there was no need to ask you to contact them.   As long as that was done 2 weeks in advance the carrier's liability to notify you is fulfilled.   (You could have contacted them there and pointed out that the new schedule was impossible. Unfortunately you didn't. Claiming you didn't notice is not likely to work in your favor)   The bot who sent you the 24h confirmation didn't notice the mistake either, obviously.   At some point a human or another bot finally identified the problem and that's when they called you. As far as they are concerned neither you nor them had noticed the scheduling mistake and they took it on them to notify you so you don't have a bad surprise when you try and check in.   However as far as I know, neither flight was delayed or cancelled. You could have taken both flights, if you had the power to be in two places at the same time.   So I don't think there is any scope to claim for EC261. But claim forms are free so feel free to try.     Then, you can certainly make an old fashioned claim (directly to BA)   What could perhaps play in your favor:   It's the carrier's responsibility to ensure that they don't sell you a ticket where the flyer cannot meet the minimum connection time or MCT.   This situation mostly applies to situations where the flyer doesn't know and gets caught. For example say you connect at LHR and you are given 35 minutes to connect. This may look just fine to an unsuspecting tourist, but in reality there is practically zero chance to make the connection, therefore the airline is liable here for selling you this ticket resulting in you missing your connection   In your case though it could be argued that even an unsuspecting tourist should be able to tell that it is not possible for them to depart 5 minutes prior to disembarking and therefore that you should have checked your notification more carefully.   The fact that the bot allowed such a glaring mistake to happen is certainly an argument in your favour shall you decide to make a complaint.     What doesn't play in your favor:   The airline obviously did their best to get you to your destination as soon as they noticed their mistake. They offered you more than one alternative (the first alternative would have got you in time at your destination, but you declined) and you then accepted another alternative, and fully travelled the ticket. That is a very strong position for them.     What did you lose and what do you intend to claim for?   You took the overnight connection so obviously you had to stay at an airport hotel. Is that correct? Did you keep the receipt for your hotel and meals?   You certainly should have asked them on the phone when negotiating your re-route that they provide a hotel. Within 20hrs of the flight it's something they would most probably not have denied to you (but airlines will generally avoid offering off the bat. Why lose money when a customer is just going to roll with it and pay for their own stay anyway, right?). After the fact it's going to be a lot more difficult to claim.   I do certainly think it would be reasonable to try and write them a polite but firm letter to claim for that. Not 700 euros, not damages and hardship and all that jazz, just the extra expense you incurred following a scheduling mistake that they made (that should have never happened) and that they didn't notice until way too late in the day , with your categorical inability to leave 3 hours earlier (you had very important business meetings or something critical, it certainly wasn't just convenience) and the extra costs incurred, and asking that they kindly provide compensation for the hotel and meals, which you feel it was their duty to offer you and you are politely disappointed that they didn't, and thafully you happen to have kept all the receipts. Put Alex Cruz on copy for good measure.   No guarantee but I feel it has a fair chance of success. Most probably you will be offered a heap of Avios instead of cash. It's then up for you to decide whether you want to accept that. Personally I wouldn't bother going further, but that's just me. See if anyone here disagrees, and do let us know what you decide and keep in touch with how it went.            
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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 3998 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

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Back in the loop folks.

 

Need some mathematical experts accountant what ever here... I'm a dumb auto spark

 

sparkie

 

Subject:

Amalgamated Accounts.

 

In all of the companies accounts in the Kestrel Holdings Ltd group it shows each companies annual turn over.

 

It also states that this is shown in the amalgamated accounts of Kestrel Holdings Ltd, i.e the combined added totals of all the other companies turnover..

 

Below are the separate totals of each of the other companies, and the amalgamated totals shown in Kestrel Holdings Ltd.

 

These totals are for the year of “trading” of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd.2008 to 2009

 

Company Name Company No Year Credit Limit Total Turn over

 

 

KESTREL HOLDINGS LIMITED 05055802 31-03-2009 96 £3,050,000 £110,713,529

 

- KESTREL ACQUISITIONS LIMITED 05055827 31-03-2009 94 £60,000 £0

 

-KESTREL LOANS NO.1 LIMITED 05143638 31-03-2009 84 £180,000 £25,252,327

 

KESTREL LOANS NO.2 LIMITED 05143608 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

KESTREL LOANS NO.3 LIMITED 06217844 31-03-2009 48 £59,000 £2,030,870

 

- SWIFT ADVANCES PLC 01800474 31-03-2009 93 £800,000 £83,452,713

 

- KESTREL ADVANCES LIMITED 02807869 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

SWIFT HOMELOANS LIMITED 02807874 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

SWIFT SECURITIES LIMITED 01559494 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

SWIFT 1ST LIMITED 05020019 31-03-2009 93 £305, £19,145,358

 

My simple mind cannot cope with the scale of it all…Below is an example of 1 years accounts of the 10 companies in the group 2008 to 2009.

Kestrel Holdings Ltd accounts are stated to be the amalgamated accounts of the 9 companies it is the parent company of.

 

Their accounts state that the total turnover of the 9 companies is £110,713,529 million it is an easy task total these accounts up from the brief details shown here ….

It is quickly seen that the total turnover should be shown as £129,881,268 million.

 

This means that the total declared turnover is false/incorrect..

There is a deficit of £19,167,739 million…This is not declared in these amalgamated accounts.

Question is where has it gone.

 

Is it just a coincidence that this £19,167,739 million in years accounts Swift Advances plc of 2007 to 2008 matches the £19.2 million claimed as paid in Commission and brokers fees, and was claimed as tax deductible???

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparkie

 

Before you fly the coup, Just wanted to clear up the CCA point you've raised here. YesSwift Advances can't collect money but that is in relation to Swift 1st Ltd customers. They can of course collect their own. I think people should make sure they get that clarified with the OFT themselves. The possession proceedings issue is still to be clarified so I wouldn't like to say either way until such time as it is.

 

I don't want anymore jibes about missinformation and such coming your way. I can only think of making sure everyone gets this qualified for themselves. It's no hardship. If it's that important then its soemthing you make sure you do for yourself. I know alot of us on cag do that anyway.

 

Hi Sparkie, any thoughts on this....... if they have no liscence they cannot collect there own money either?

just PMd you

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please disregard this in the above post ...this will be subject to a further post on this issue just to show folks what i mean.

sparkie

"These totals are for the year of “trading” of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd.2008 to 2009" Should have read Kestrel Holdings Ltd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sparkie, any thoughts on this....... if they have no liscence they cannot collect there own money either?

just PMd you

 

LL

 

What it means in fact ...I did not make myself clear enough ....is that as Swift Advances plc have no licence to collect debt neither do Swift Group Legal Services...........in order to collect their own debt they have to instruct outside solicitors to then instruct Counsel..........what they have been doing in the past has been unlawful and the courts attention must be

drawn to that fact.......remeber the OFT licence is accepted as evidence of Fact under the Criminal Justice Act....they just have not got debt collecting licence to collect their own debts they have to instruct a proper legal entity ...not a make believe one they have used.................Swift Group Legal Services are registerd with the SRA as an organistation who the SRA do not regulate.....fact. confirmed by the SRA ring them up yourself and have it confirmed to you...remember Swift Group Legal Services cannot instruct the outside firm Swift Advances have to do it...there is more to come than just this have no fear

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

LL

 

To enlarge on one of the issues above I copy here a section of a letter I wrote not TO "Swift Group Legal Services" but to each individual solictor in the "employ" of "Swift Group Lega Services".

You may find you can use tjis in your Defence

 

sparkie

 

The Guidance notes you refer to also states at 1 (b);

You are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer;

The registration of “Swift Group Legal Services” with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority states that the solicitors on the headed paper are employed by “Swift Group Legal Services”

Guidance Note 7 a) states;

You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided :the letterhead or the signature makes it clear that the stationery is being used by an in-house solicitor or in-house REL on legal professional business and that person is responsible for the contents of the letter;

The letter head does not make it clear that the stationary is being used by in house solicitors nor is there a name at the end of said letter.

Guidance note 9 states;

If you are an in-house solicitor the address of your employer's legal department is the place (or one of the places) where you practice and must therefore be notified to the SRA. Surely I do not have to remind you that this is how “Swift Group Legal Services” are registered with the Law Society as an Organisation, I do not think an internal department can be an Organisation. Who are not regulated by any regulatory body.

 

SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES - Head Office

 

Phone Number: 01277 359466

Fax Number: 01277 359706

Email Address: [email protected]

 

At this office:

 

PAYNE, MATTHEW WILLIAM Employee

PAYNE, LORETTA - Employee

PURI, RAJIV - EmployeeWALSHE, LYNDA MARIEEmployee.

I question how an "internal department" within any company can have a head office of its own.

As it is clear from the above that the 4 solicitors are employees of “Swift Group Legal Services”, who in any event if the registration was correct in every detail, the Solicitors Code of Conduct would only allow them to act for their employers, who are “Swift Group Legal Services”. I have made extensive enquiries with many customers of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc if any one has ever previously been advised of this now"alleged" internal departmant of Swift Advances plc to date only one person has, and this was only a few weeks ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LL

 

To enlarge on one of the issues above I copy here a section of a letter I wrote not TO "Swift Group Legal Services" but to each individual solictor in the "employ" of "Swift Group Lega Services".

You may find you can use this in your Defence

 

sparkie

 

The Guidance notes you refer to also states at 1 (b);

You are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer;

The registration of “Swift Group Legal Services” with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority states that the solicitors on the headed paper are employed by “Swift Group Legal Services”

Guidance Note 7 a) states;

You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided :the letterhead or the signature makes it clear that the stationery is being used by an in-house solicitor or in-house REL on legal professional business and that person is responsible for the contents of the letter;

The letter head does not make it clear that the stationary is being used by in house solicitors nor is there a name at the end of said letter.

Guidance note 9 states;

If you are an in-house solicitor the address of your employer's legal department is the place (or one of the places) where you practice and must therefore be notified to the SRA. Surely I do not have to remind you that this is how “Swift Group Legal Services” are registered with the Law Societyas an Organisation, I do not thinkan internal department can be an Organisation. Who are not regulated by any regulatory body.

 

SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES - Head Office

 

 

Phone Number: 01277 359466

Fax Number: 01277 359706

Email Address: [email protected]

 

At this office:

 

PAYNE, MATTHEW WILLIAM Employee

PAYNE, LORETTA - Employee

PURI, RAJIV - EmployeeWALSHE, LYNDA MARIEEmployee.

I question how an "internal department" within any company can have a head office of its own.

As it is clear from the above that the 4 solicitors are employees of “Swift Group Legal Services”, who in any event if the registration was correct in every detail, the Solicitors Code of Conduct would only allow them to act for their employers, who are “Swift Group Legal Services”. I have made extensive enquiries with many customers of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc if any one has ever previously been advised of this now"alleged" internal departmant of Swift Advances plc to date only one person has, and this was only a few weeks ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LL and everyone

If you check the history of their licence you will note that two categories are “retained” which means these are the ones they had.

All other categories and personel named on the licence and application for Swift Advances & SGLS ( Swift Group Legal Services) to be added as trading styles are “pending”.

Whist a licence is be reviewed and considered the applicant can carry out the business it previously held the licence for as if it still had one under the categories it held.

That is what “current” means.

If a licence is refusal or the renewal of it, the applicant has a right to appeal against the decision, not very many succeed in this appeal from I can find out.

Therefore as you an see they did not hold a debt collecting licence and they still do noy have one…….with regard to having the trading style of Swift Advances to be added is in my opinion a clear sign that Swift Advances plc know full well that to have used that in the past was as I have alleged a criminal offence and are trying to put it right.

You will also see that Eastern Counselling Department is a historic trading style that they dropped years ago a….but have been using it to threaten people and charge fees for letters etc that is something every one wants to attack

Just my view

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fretfull were you asking about blenheim not sure if i posted you data via pm ?

If it was nt you its ok

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

ok will post the data i have ,when i can find it again lol its succesful cases here the judge ordered them to pay back all the intrest and charges

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

Unfair relationships

An “unfair relationship” could include the terms of an agreement, the ways in which enforcement is being carried out, or anything else. The new rules are retrospective and will make lenders responsible for the transgressions of their brokers, even when these do not fall within the antecedent negotiation rules.

The method is the same as for extortionate credit, and there is no doubt that anything that is extortionate will also be an unfair relationship, but hopefully a lot more will be.

Any Court can re-open any credit agreement, whether regulated or not, where it considers that the bargain was an unfair relationship. The debtor must raise the matter and it is for the creditor to rebut it (s.171).

Successful cases are below:

A debtor has secured a five-year block on repossession in a claims management case against his lender, after using consumer credit law to challenge his secured loan agreement. Peter Bentley, of Bridgend, Cardiff, used the meaning of unfair relationships under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 to claim that his loan contract with Blemain Finance was an unfair one. Blemain also agreed to charge no further interest on the £40,000 loan and cut his repayments from £550 to £150 a month. At the High Court in Cardiff, Judge Milwyn Jarman also prevented the lender from levying any charges or legal costs "whatsoever." The judge barred Blemain for enforcing repayment via repossession for five years, but even after this period, it can only bring repossession proceedings if there are at least 12 months? arrears on the new level of payments. Bentley's lawyers, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS), successfully argued that Blemain had loaned the money to Bentley irresponsibly and that the agreement took advantage of his desperate situation. CCLS argued that shortcomings in the decision making procedure on granting the loan, such as in the under writing, affordability checks and valuation processes, led to the credit agreement being unfair. Andrew Settle, solicitor for CCLS, said: "The relationship between the parties was an unfair one within the meaning of Section 140A of the CCA 1974. CCLS is utilising a significant number of legal arguments, like those used on behalf of Mr Bentley, in thousands of cases on behalf of our clients." CCLS successfully demanded to have the loan account re written, which is believed to be the first time a loan account has been rewritten under settlement, as a result of the unfair relationships test. Bentley's case was taken on by claims management company Cartel Client Review. Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel Client Review, claimed that Blemain made the offer to Bentley in a bid to prevent a judge in a High Court setting a legal precedent against its lending practices. He added: "A legal precedent could have driven a coach and horses through all its loan accounts. The consumer credit rule book is being rewritten as a result of High Court settlements like Blemain Finance v Bentley." Bentley's financial problems started when his mother died in 2007. He began part-time work to look after his father, who was suffering from Alzheimer's, and then took out a £40,000 secured loan in February 2007 to alleviate his financial predicament. His caring responsibilities led to a drop in working hours, and therefore a fall in income, and he then fell behind on his repayments. Blemain later chased Bentley for repayments on the loan, which by the time of this case being heard in court, had increased to £47,000.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

hope this helps

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

Thanks for that P frettful and I are aware of the bentley case and are both looking to pursue Blemain

on unfair terms as well as secret commission. I trust you are looking after yourself and your health is improving.

Kepp up the good work.

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that P frettful and I are aware of the bentley case and are both looking to pursue Blemain

on unfair terms as well as secret commission. I trust you are looking after yourself and your health is improving.

Kepp up the good work.

G

 

Thanks patrick, yes me and gallahad appreciate any help or advice you can give. Blemain are just as ruthless as swift and we need as much ammo as we can to defend ourselves with.

 

As for the unfair relationship route, there are many many things that we can use and slowly but surely I am getting there.

 

If you look at the Bentley case he used the unfair relationship test and things went a lot in his favour and he just had one argument. I on the other hand have arguments that the courts would not even know where to begin as my agreement is I believe in favour of Blemain more than 100% .

 

Thanks for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaws Last Activity 8th August 2010

Take it easy Last Activity 9th August 2010

strange all of a sudden when caught out both off the face of the earth at once

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to folow this thread. At the moment I have just found out that as a result of Swift Advances reporting to equifax and neglecting to mention the time order and reduction I won against them in 2009 feb my wife's perfect credit rating is now so bad we have had to put our house on the market to get out of the swift loan. The time order proved an expensive route even though I won because they charged me via Eastern plus they hired lawyers which I was forced to pay for. Something like £3500 was added plus the credit rating problem makes me feel desperate. At 69 I could do without this. I have witness statements signed by Mark White if anyone's interested

Edited by JOES MY LANDLORD
see last sentence re m white
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to folow this thread. At the moment I have just found out that as a result of Swift Advances reporting to equifax and neglecting to mention the time order and reduction I won against them in 2009 feb my wife's perfect credit rating is now so bad we have had to put our house on the market to get out of the swift loan. The time order proved an expensive route even though I won because they charged me via Eastern plus they hired lawyers which I was forced to pay for. Something like £3500 was added plus the credit rating problem makes me feel desperate. At 69 I could do without this. I have witness statements signed by Mark White if anyone's interested

 

Hi JML So sorry to hear about you problems with SWIFT..........I know it takes authorities a while to look into, but I just dont get why SWIFT are still trading.

 

Would like a copy of the statements please...........and good luck..

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3998 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...