Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • more detest the insurrectional ex variety dx
    • Laura, I was surprised that the Director said that you hadn't appealed twice. I thought that the letter you posted on 24th June was the second appeal and that was to the IAS. And they did say that there was no further appeal possible. Could you please explain how many times you appealed. I am going to read your WS now. PS  Yes I meant to say that the keeper did not have a licence therefore it was wrong of them to assume he was the driver and the keeper. Thanks for picking that up.
    • In answer to your questions yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK. Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed. In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued. It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site. A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period. I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way.  All they have mentioned is  the incident time which is insufficient. There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself. The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes. if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed. You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.
    • I recently bought some trainers from Sports Direct and was unhappy with them and their extortionate delivery and return postage charges. I tweeted about being unhappy, and received a reply from someone claiming to be from Sports Direct asking me to send my order number and email address by pm, so a claim could be raised. Which I (stupidly) did. The account used Sports Direct's name and branding, and a blue tick.  The following day I received a call from "Sports Direct Customer Service", and with a Kenyan number. They asked for details of the issue, and then sent me an email with a request to install an app called Remitly. They provided me with a password to access the app then I saw that it had been setup for me to transfer £100, and I was asked to enter my credit card number so they could "refund" me. I told them I was uncomfortable with this (to say the least), and was just told to ring them back when I did feel comfortable doing it. Ain't never gonna happen.  I just checked my X account, and the account that sent the message asking for my details is gone. I feel like a complete idiot falling for what was a clear scam. But at least I realised before any real damage was done. if you make a complaint about a company on social media, and you get a reply from someone claiming to be from that company and asking for personal details, tread very carefully.   
    • The good news is that their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4.. First under Section 9 (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; The PCN does not specify the parking period. AS you rightly say the ANPR times do not include driving to the parking space and then from there back to the exit. And once you include getting children in and out of cars especially if seat belts are involved the time spent parked can be a fair bit less than the ANPR times but still probably nowhere near the time you spent. But that doesn't matter -it's the fact that they failed to comply. Also they failed to ask the keeper to pay the charge.  Their failure means that they cannot now transfer the charge from the diver to the keeper . Only the driver is now liable. As long as UKPA do not know who was driving it will be difficult for them to win in Court as the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Particularly as anyone can drive any car if they have the correct insurance. It might be able to get more reasons to contest the PCN if you could get some photos of the signs. both at the entrance and inside the car park. the photos need to be legible and if there are signs that say different things from others that would also be a help.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

frank galler - kubic investments ltd


princess5
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4975 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 772
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems as if Frank was in bother in Spain in July 2006 too, my Spanish is non existent but by what I can gather it's something financial.

 

http://www.carm.es/borm/documento?obj=bol&id=30064

 

Consejería de Economía y Hacienda

Agencia Regional de Recaudación

 

9703 Notificación a obligados tributarios.

 

De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el art.º 112 de la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria y habiéndose intentado la notificación al interesado o su representante, sin que haya sido posible practicada por causas no imputables a la Administración Tributaria, se pone de manifiesto, mediante el presente anuncio, que se encuentran pendiente de notificar los actos cuyo interesado y procedimiento se especifican a continuación:

 

Página 21946

 

Jueves, 20 de julio de 2006

 

Número 166

 

GALLER FERENCZ LASZLO X3292463J 2005 257444 Providencia de Apremio

GALLER FERENCZ LASZLO X3292463J 2005 4704300 Providencia de Apremio

 

Rough Translation;

 

In accordance with the provisions of Art. No. 112 of Law 58/2003 of 17 December, General Taxation and having tried notifying the person concerned or his representative as possible without being practiced by no fault of the Tax Administration , is evident,by this notice, which are yet to notify interested acts and proceedings which are specified below:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems as if Frank was in bother in Spain in July 2006 too, my Spanish is non existent but by what I can gather it's something financial.

 

http://www.carm.es/borm/documento?obj=bol&id=30064

 

 

 

Rough Translation;

 

In accordance with the provisions of Art. No. 112 of Law 58/2003 of 17 December, General Taxation and having tried notifying the person concerned or his representative as possible without being practiced by no fault of the Tax Administration , is evident,by this notice, which are yet to notify interested acts and proceedings which are specified below:

 

Surprise surprise.

 

Is this why he did not use reputable law firms to conduct his activities? They would perhaps have checked him out.

This has gone round and round in my head for months and this is the explanation surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinkers did have my paperwork, i just want to know what dealings they had with FG, and why they pulled out so suddenly, they are as im told a good law firm , was FG about to pull them in to, when we suddenly got the police involved. Any good law firm would at a glance see that these Affidavits are a crock of s**t, but they dident, why , easy its a good earner. What route was tinker going to take, there was no route only 1 in 50 will make it. IF THAT, this i was told at court. MONEY..................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinkers - come on and explain. I think Rush thinks you are a law firm. Have I missed a post on here which states Tinkers is.

Rush, Natasha did the Bill Of Exchange Act system. Frank passed the work to her.

 

Yes, after referring the whole process to a lawyer, and after a certain precedent by a judge, the whole process is exactly as you so eloquently put it.

 

I kept telling Natasha it is not working, where did you get this system from, etc etc.

 

She just was blase about the whole matter and said the banks would walk away. She was insistent it would come off the credit files etc etc.

 

The problem is she takes no responsibility. Initially, she blamed Geoff Lloyd and now Frank. She ran with this system and ignored concerns raised that it was problematic.

 

I guess it is a learning experience, not to trust anyone.

 

Natasha was part of City Legal Services, now you tell me does that or does not sound like a law firm? This firm of Natasha and Geoff also had letterheads stating New York, London, Paris.

 

Has anyone else out there been in receipt of this early last year?

 

What a joke!!!! The problem is if you are used to dealing in a professional environment, you do not expect to encounter this kind of deception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Natasha was part of City Legal Services, now you tell me does that or does not sound like a law firm? This firm of Natasha and Geoff also had letterheads stating New York, London, Paris.
Surely not a subsidiary of 'Trotters Independent Trading Co.) :rolleyes:

 

It is a criminal offence under s.21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to impersonate a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely not a subsidiary of 'Trotters Independent Trading Co.) :rolleyes:

 

It is a criminal offence under s.21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to impersonate a solicitor.

 

I don't think Del boy will be too pleased at having his reputation tarnished either :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely not a subsidiary of 'Trotters Independent Trading Co.) :rolleyes:

 

It is a criminal offence under s.21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to impersonate a solicitor.

 

 

Yes, I like you. I think we have the same sense of humour!!

 

You really could not make this all up if you tried, really.

Except that, it is so serious. My credit file is wrecked, my clients have had their's wrecked and I am having to refund. Natasha never offered to refund her fees.

 

Surely with Frank's clients she should at least refund her fees as they paid for something that did not work. The same for mine.

 

With regard to the balance, well I understand that he is employed part time as an air pilot. Well he was, not sure if he is.

 

If he is then could some of his earnings be attached to refund. I wonder if there is a legal way to do this. Legal advice is required here. I don't think it is enough just leaving it to the fraud squad, no offence but a legal brain is required here, no not you Natasha, a real legal brain.

 

The problem is our government departments are somewhat laidback. If anyone knows a lawyer who would take this on. I think there has to be a way to get his earnings deducted regularly.

 

See, all may not be lost.

 

Now anyone know a good lawyer in this field?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Can i ask tinkers, what were you doing with my paper work, had you to had meetings wiyh FG. You had had these papers for 2 or 3 weeks, You returned them to natasha with nothing done, why... My wife and i rang the police and the officer came to my home , this was around the same time you had my paper work. We gave him the lot, he returned and in writing said nothing could be done, go down the route of the moj..

 

I don't have any paperwork, I never said anything of the sort, why would I when I am in the same boat as you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

me too what with trotters and fg in a golden micra i know im laughing!!:D

 

 

What? Trotters and FG in a golden micra on their way to see City Legal/Tate Lloyd/Natasha Tate based in London, Paris, New York and what is that other big city? Oh yes, Swansea!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BOE,my home is safe thankyou, all my creditors are happy. FG has serious money probs here in england, else where dont know yet but i will soon . He has just let a property and i am told has 11. i know of 5 and i am checking them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...