frank galler - kubic investments ltd

[rush1]

Hi I to have been DONE by mr galler and, i was a freind. £5400, he took from me, he lives not far from me and im always at his front door. He has not left, and he will be found. TRUST ME................. speak soon.

[MARTIN3030]

Ok welcome to the site.

I have to say that experience has shown that in these situations we will see some inuendo half truths spin and trolls.

It is essential that there is proof and substantive evidence here of anything that is posted.

I see we have some new subscribers and that is great.

The way forward is not simply to be deliberating or guessing-but to take assertive action and one that can be supported by hard evidence.

I repeat again my appeal for anyone with info to report this to site team.

We can then collaberate things and make a push.

I dont need to say that this thread will be viewed with much interest from those who look for scapegoats and excuse.

This has shown to be taking quite a bit of unravelling,yet we have uncovered already a few things.

The task of finding more-remains but relies on solid evidence which needs more than a post here saying you have been ripped off.

So lets have all that you have-it will make for a better result.

[Oreogal]

I to have been advised by the MOJ to send a letter to the Sketty Park address asking for my money back, have been advised to send it recorded delivery. Though i feel it's a waste of time as company will more than likely be dissolved in a few days!!

 

I haven't received a letter from frank stating these new phone numbers..? Though obviously it will be a waste of time anyway as no one answers the calls!

[Senor]

Hi I to have been DONE by mr galler and, i was a freind. £5400, he took from me, he lives not far from me and im always at his front door. He has not left, and he will be found. TRUST ME................. speak soon.

The MOJ and the Police are on to him, MOJ have retrieved some files som if you get in touch with them and send your details that you submitted to Frank they will be able to tell you where your "case" was/is up to.

Do you know anything about his Spanish address? Villamartin, apparently this is his European base?

I have passed this on to MOJ.

[Senor]

Hi I to have been DONE by mr galler and, i was a freind. £5400, he took from me, he lives not far from me and im always at his front door. He has not left, and he will be found. TRUST ME................. speak soon.

 

Sorry omitted contact number for MOJ (very helpful) Bob Hook 01283-233329.

[MARTIN3030]

Good work-its nice to see that things are moving in a positive direction.

[MARTIN3030]

I also think that its time to move this thread from the General Debt forum into the Legal issues one-and will do this now.

[Senor]

I also think that its time to move this thread from the General Debt forum into the Legal issues one-and will do this now.

 

I agree with you entirely.

1. We need to get an update from MOJ as to which files they have and advise the "clients" of the sattus because without this we dont know which way to go.Some may have been processed partlyor even completed.

2. Although we paid a Ltd Company I am hopeful that IF the Company did not act within the regulations and there are no Company assets then maybe we can collectively make a claim against the Director on a personal basis.

It would appear that the Director may have many assets in property, and would also appear to maybe have assets in Spain as I have had letterhead showing a Spanish office and I was also paid a "commission" for introducing a client which was paid through a Bank in Spain.

Really need to compile a "total" of monies paid to Kubic through this forum, although I doubt if it would be an exhaustive list.

[princess5]

Thanks MARTIN3030 for all your help much appreciated, im currently awaiting a call back from bob at moj at the minute,

[Oreogal]

i spoke to Bob Hawke at MOJ today and reported Kubic Investments Ltd, he didn't seem to want to tell me much...is this normal? Suffolk Police are aware of this and my details are being passed to them...he said highly unlikely i will get any money back, though it's what i expected!

[MARTIN3030]

Yes if they are investigating,then they are unlikely to be giving much out-they will be more interested to know what info people can give to THEM.

Which of course will assist them to move things forward.

[MARTIN3030]

Ah I see we have a new user responding.

If its who I think it is-we look forward to an explanation here.

[natasha123]

I do know the "Company" National Finance was trading from Metropole Chambers, Salubrious Passage, Swansea SA1 3RT bur as my previous quote the Company has changedits Registered Office on 12th Feb so it will not be there anymore.

Also I have shown the Spanish (on previous quote)address fot the same Company but trading as Finanzas Nacionales.

I would suggest that as our monies were taken by the Company, there may not be any assetts but many liabilities.

Might I suggest that anyone who has their money taken and wish recourse (independently of the Ministry of Justice/ or Trading Standards is for those interested to state how much they have paid and we caould then collectively go for Mr Galler, because if he is deemed to have traded illegally we could claim from him as an individual, and maybe he has "some assetts" that we could get our monies back.

 

 

Hi All,

 

Suffolk Police have sent a letter to myself last week, they are stating that apparently Mr Galler has done nothing unlawful, which I think is unbelievable. Frank Galler has failed to make payments to myself, and when he did, the cheque bounced which left me in debt. I have submitted so much evidence to the police ( i.e the way he sold it etc.) and I cannot understand why he can get away with this. I am trying to help as many people as I can, but since there was no payments from Frank it has become very difficult, I have worked for Kubic Investment, but I do not want to be associated with this man or his company anymore.

You can email me with you questions, and I will try to answer all the questions you have.

[MARTIN3030]

Welcome back Natasha.

Our members would, I am sure prefer any information to be on the table.

I therefore respectfully ask that you answer questions here to those who have posted their stories and concerns.

Thanks for understanding.

 

To Cag members I would ask that you do not encourage off site discussion since it is important that information is posted freely which may benefit others.

If you get such requests then please report these to site team.

[natasha123]

Hi,

 

I think it is important that every person involved in this mess should know exactly what has been going on. I worked for Frank Galler and Kubic Investments Ltd, I was instructed to request agreements from lenders on behalf of the clients. I used the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to request the agreement. When agreements arrived I analysed if they are enforceable or unenforceable, those agreements then should have been passed on to a Solicitor in Ipswich, I cannot name this Solicitor for legal reasons, but there ar a few people in this forum who know about this Solicitor.

 

Kubic made unrealistic promises to clients, and I only found out about this at the beginning of december, when a client accidently send me the contract she made with Kubic, then I also realised that Kubic charged £600 per card which shocked me, as he couldnt even be bothered to pay me on a regular basis. I confronted Kubic about several things, such as that they sold a system which cannot be used in the UK as it is US law.

 

I refused to use this system, and only worked with the consumer credit act 1974, but he told clients something different then that. I also told Kubic, that not every card and loan is unenforceable, and therefore there should be an alternative such as partial settlement offers or debt management, so that the client will not loose out, again that was disregarded. Soon christmas arrived, and I could not get hold of Frank Galler, let alone being paid, dispite promises, needless to say that I had the worst christmas ever with my Son.

 

I kept trying to call him without luck. Then suddenly in the New Year he called and I confronted him about his disappearance, he replied he was in the sierra nevada over christmas.

He agreed to meet me to clear things up, I had a witness with me at the meeting, and he handed over a cheque, which I had to take to cash converters, as I had no means to even pay my rent. After about 7 days I received a call from cash converter who told me the cheque had bounced.

Now I still owe money to cash converters, and he gave my parther the promise that he would reimburse the cheque, he never did.

 

If he has told people that I am a Solicitor he is lying, I have a dgree in law, have worked for a law firm for numerous years but I am not a Solicitor, and I never ever claimed I am. He also told people that the Swansea Branch is big , which is not true at all.

 

I would like to help everybody, but it is impossible without being paid, and I do not want to take more money of people as I think we all have been ripped off by Kubic, however if people email me I will try my best to give ideas or help when I can.

 

As for his new Business address, my guess is that he wanted to use this girl just like he used everybody else to feed his greed for money, and pass on the bug.

 

The reason why I am not available on the phone is simply because the phone lines could not be supported anymore, because of the lack of payment. I have passed everything to the police, e-mails etc. but the outcome was not good, as you all know.

 

It seems to me that if a company holds a licence the company can vitually do whatever they want.

[natasha123]

thanks iam doing that now and seeing what happens as half of it has been done ie affadavids and s78 forms sent, i wouldnt pay another company for this again ever!

natasha i would avoid as shes been using office angels allegily also as i have found out, and shes a paralegal not a solicitor![/quote)

 

 

Hi,

 

I am sorry you feel that way, but Office Angels are a recruitment company and I have nothing to do with this company. I can say that I have never used any name in an unlawful way, whoever told you that should proof it, and sue me.

 

I have explained that I was not paid by Kubic just like a few other members of staff. I have no intention to take any money of anybody for help, however if I have to send letters and negotiate with lenders, this will cause costs, which I cannot cover as I have no income at the moment whatsoever.

 

I therefore hope you understand that I am in a difficult position.

[Senor]

Hi

Natasha,many thanks for the info as supplied.

I have one question, not just for you but all on the Forum and this is how did we get to this stage? We are all assuming that "something has happened" I still dont know the full facts as to how we are now where we are?, and according to the forum subscriber the Police have said that he (Frank) has done nothing unlawful so where are we with this?I certainly can prove that a lot of the "wording" in some agreements of authorising Kubic Ltd to take on the challenge has been ommited, which in my mind has got to be "non-compliance" with the regulations as laid down by the MOJ. So where does this apply. He has taken £600 per card x ? persons appears to have not paid anybody (Natasha, and maybe even the Solicitor)

Can sombody enlighten me, please.

I am now concerned about a lot of what has actually being going on in the background, that we are not privy to.

I was told by Frank that it didnt matter when the Cr card was issued "he" could still challange it, so regardless of April 2007 and prior this according to Frank was not a problem.This to my mind has to be "misleading" and surely does not comply with OFT/MOJ regulations.We really need to establish exactly how Kubic Ltd (Director Frank Galler has not done anything "unlawful" if so why is he not accountable to all of us individually and collectively as to where our money has gone?

 

I await some news.

[cerberusalert]

natasha123 as he couldnt even be bothered to pay me on a regular basis........He agreed to meet me to clear things up, I had a witness with me at the meeting, and he handed over a cheque, which I had to take to cash converters, as I had no means to even pay my rent. After about 7 days I received a call from cash converter who told me the cheque had bounced.

Now I still owe money to cash converters, and he gave my parther the promise that he would reimburse the cheque, he never did.

 

Obtaining services by deception

 

Section 1 (as amended by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996), provides:

(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, it is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan."

 

There must be a deception which, according to s5(1), has the same meaning as in section 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968, i.e.

any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in deception offences). The defendant must obtain a service as defined in s1(2), i.e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant (or another). The 'services' must be non-gratuitous, i.e. the benefits must be provided by the victim of the deception in the expectation that they are to be paid for at commercial rates (see s1(2)). It must be conferred by the doing, causing, or permitting of some act. A failure to act that confers a benefit is not sufficient. Thus, a person who employs a lawyer or accountant without ever intending to pay, may commit an offence under s1. But a person who lies to a neighbour to secure the loan of a power drill does not commit an offence because the benefit is not obtained on the understanding that it has been or will be paid for. In R v Halai (1983) Crim LR 624, the defendant made false statements in an application for a mortgage and thereby obtained a survey, the opening of an account and a mortgage advance. Note that the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 introduced s.1(3) specifically to provide that a loan amounts to a service. This dispenses with that part of the decision in Halai (which had, in any event, been overruled by R v Graham (1997) prior to the Act) As to the opening of an account, contrast R v Shortland [1995] Crim LR 893 in which the Court of Appeal held that, on the evidence presented, opening bank accounts under false names did not amount to the s1 offence, but suggested that it might have done if evidence that it had to be paid for had been presented. The mens rea for all offences is dishonesty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1978#Obtaining_services_by_deception

[natasha123]

Hi

Natasha,many thanks for the info as supplied.

I have one question, not just for you but all on the Forum and this is how did we get to this stage? We are all assuming that "something has happened" I still dont know the full facts as to how we are now where we are?, and according to the forum subscriber the Police have said that he (Frank) has done nothing unlawful so where are we with this?I certainly can prove that a lot of the "wording" in some agreements of authorising Kubic Ltd to take on the challenge has been ommited, which in my mind has got to be "non-compliance" with the regulations as laid down by the MOJ. So where does this apply. He has taken £600 per card x ? persons appears to have not paid anybody (Natasha, and maybe even the Solicitor)

Can sombody enlighten me, please.

I am now concerned about a lot of what has actually being going on in the background, that we are not privy to.

I was told by Frank that it didnt matter when the Cr card was issued "he" could still challange it, so regardless of April 2007 and prior this according to Frank was not a problem.This to my mind has to be "misleading" and surely does not comply with OFT/MOJ regulations.We really need to establish exactly how Kubic Ltd (Director Frank Galler has not done anything "unlawful" if so why is he not accountable to all of us individually and collectively as to where our money has gone?

 

I await some news.

 

Hi,

 

I agree with what you have said, I think the reason why he took on loans and credit cards after 2007 is pure greed, because most agreements after 2007 are fine and should not be touched. He wanted to go the American way, where you can ask the Bank 100' of questions and in America you can do that by law, and if the bank does not comply, you dont need to pay it back. However this is not working in the UK and I have told him that and went the UK way The Consumer Credit Act way, but he did not like this one bit, he told me that this is not what he sold to people.

But Law is Law you cannot apply US Law in the UK end of story.

 

I also challenged him about people who stopped making payments, but he often told me, that these people couldnt pay anyway so it didnt matter.

 

I have told Suffolk Police all of that, I submitted evidence, I have spoken to them on the phone, I even talked to people in Spain who also had problems with FG but it just wasnt enough. The reason for that is simple, he was clever in a way, as he didnt give a timeline in his agreements, so the police said that every case is individual and because some client were sucsessful they couldnt do much.

 

It is true that I achieved success cases, where the lender did admit that the debt as unenforceable, but like I said it cannot work in every case.

 

As for the money, I suppose he piled it all up, at the beginning he did pay me, but it was nothing. Depending on how many cards a person had, sometimes as little as £16 a card, then the avarrage was about £50 a card. but to be honest it often only covered all the administration ( i.e phone, paper, office, postage etc.) and he didnt even pay me that on a regular basis I always had to be for the money. Until Autum time, and thats when he started not to pay me for certain clients, allthough he claims he did pay, so I had a meeting with him and said that we start a fresh and dont argue about clients being paid or not (my fault).

 

 

I want to make clear I can support everything I am saying in this forum.

[natasha123]

Obtaining services by deception

 

Section 1 (as amended by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996), provides:

(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, it is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan."

 

There must be a deception which, according to s5(1), has the same meaning as in section 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968, i.e.

any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in deception offences). The defendant must obtain a service as defined in s1(2), i.e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant (or another). The 'services' must be non-gratuitous, i.e. the benefits must be provided by the victim of the deception in the expectation that they are to be paid for at commercial rates (see s1(2)). It must be conferred by the doing, causing, or permitting of some act. A failure to act that confers a benefit is not sufficient. Thus, a person who employs a lawyer or accountant without ever intending to pay, may commit an offence under s1. But a person who lies to a neighbour to secure the loan of a power drill does not commit an offence because the benefit is not obtained on the understanding that it has been or will be paid for. In R v Halai (1983) Crim LR 624, the defendant made false statements in an application for a mortgage and thereby obtained a survey, the opening of an account and a mortgage advance. Note that the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 introduced s.1(3) specifically to provide that a loan amounts to a service. This dispenses with that part of the decision in Halai (which had, in any event, been overruled by R v Graham (1997) prior to the Act) As to the opening of an account, contrast R v Shortland [1995] Crim LR 893 in which the Court of Appeal held that, on the evidence presented, opening bank accounts under false names did not amount to the s1 offence, but suggested that it might have done if evidence that it had to be paid for had been presented. The mens rea for all offences is dishonesty. Theft Act 1978 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Hi,

 

 

Thanks for that!!

[MARTIN3030]

But according to the OFT Consumer Credit public register,Kubic Investments dont appear to be licenced-so how could any work be undertaken that relies on having a CC licence ?

[natasha123]

But according to the OFT Consumer Credit public register,Kubic Investments dont appear to be licenced-so how could any work be undertaken that relies on having a CC licence ?

 

Kubic has a MOJ Licence, but as far as I know, as soon as a company starts to negotiate payments etc. with the lender then they need a cc licence. In Kubics case there was no negotiation involved. and later on there was a solicitor involved who is regulated by the SRA, so I guess thats why Kubic got away with it.

[Senor]

It would appear that this "licence" to practice is common in many areas of Finance , in spite of there being "regulations" that you have to have the o.k to do so you can go under the "umberalla" of one that is licenced to overcome this obstacle which in my mind defeats the whole exercise in being allowed by licence to conduct such a business, and you are relying on the third party being privy to the "licenced" party's actions, which I am assuming the "Solicitor" in Ipswich was NOT aware of any "non-compliance" on this issue, otherwise they (the Solicitor) is certainly in breach of compliance.

[natasha123]

It would appear that this "licence" to practice is common in many areas of Finance , in spite of there being "regulations" that you have to have the o.k to do so you can go under the "umberalla" of one that is licenced to overcome this obstacle which in my mind defeats the whole exercise in being allowed by licence to conduct such a business, and you are relying on the third party being privy to the "licenced" party's actions, which I am assuming the "Solicitor" in Ipswich was NOT aware of any "non-compliance" on this issue, otherwise they (the Solicitor) is certainly in breach of compliance.

 

To obtain a MOJ Licence is not a difficult task, after my experience with Kubic I think companies like this should be monitored.

If a Solicitor only makes one step out of line he/she would be struck of very quickly by the SRA. It wouldnt have been so bad if Kubic would have offered an alternative for clients, but simply not refunding money is not an option.

[Senor]

Natasha

When I spoke to someone about my being involved as an introducer to Kubic I was told wahy dont you do it yourself? It only costs £400 to get a licence and find yourself a Solicitor to take care of the "legal" aspects of the operation. (QED)

Yes I agree it should be monitored but unfortunately we are not in a perfect world.

Anyway how did this all come about? It would appear that Kubic didnt go into administration so "somebody" notified somebody in any event it does'nt change the present situation but I still dont know what this is.

Did F.G just cease trading or did someone from outside raise the alarm bells?