SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

There Are Spies From Capstone Watching This Site,its Posted All Over The Net.

Will Do My All To Bring These Scummers Down.

To Post It Here Now Is To Forewarn Them,so Watch This Space.this Is No Idle Threat.

Anyway Believe What You Want.I'm not looking for praise or to win friends.

Just get on the ITBG train,the brakes off and the steams up,keep the boiler stoked up.originally posted by me.

 

Told you I was gonna do something.

No good ****.n about with them sh.ts at the sweet Fanny S...ing Adams

GO STRAIGHT TO THE GUYS THAT HAVE PUT THE CASH UP AND ARE GETTING BURNT AND GRASS ALL THE B.STARDS UP.

LOOK AND READ WHAT HAPPENED TO SPPL AND IT WASN'T NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FSA.

COMPLAIN DIRECT TO THE INVESTOR YOUVE GOT THEIR ADDRESS SEE THE B.GGERS MOVE THEN

ALL OF YOU.TELL EM CAPSTONE IS RIPPING YOU OFF FOR CHARGES SO YOU CAN'T PAY THEM THEIR FULL AMOUNT ,YOU MIGHT SEE SOME REAL ACTION THEN

WAIT FOR THE FSA AND YOU'LL BE IN YER BOX

WAY TO GO

ILL DO THE LOT OF EM IF I CAN BUT NEED HELP SO GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND GRASS EM UP NOW.

AND KEEP GRASSIN EM ITS THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE

OH AND BY THE WAY DONT GET DEBATING THIS FOR THE NEXT 6 MONTHS AFTER AN AFTERNOON SIPPING TEA AND BISCUITS WITH SCONES AND JAM AFTER YOUVE BEEN TO THE BOOK CLUB.

YOUVE BEEN DEBATING EQUITABLE/LEGAL OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR 12MONTHS, IN 5 YEARS THERELL BE 2 OF YOU LEFT ALL THE OTHERS DONE OVER ,THEN A NEW UN'LL COME ALONG AND ITLL BE ANOTHER 5 YEARS ,PYRAMID SELLING WITHOUT AN END.

GET ON WITH IT NOW ACTION.ACTION.ACTION.ACTION...NOW!

PULL YER WEIGHT

 

EMAIL EM AT WILMINGTON TRUST ADDRESS ALREADY POSTED ON NOTICE TO NOTEHOLDERS THEYRE ALL THERE ALL EUROSAILS THE LOT

CAPSTONE ARE PULLING THE WOOL OVER THEIR EYES AND THEY DON'T KNOW IT.

 

Com'on bruv.

 

You no every1 no's IAMTHEWHISTLEBLOWER is you ITBG?

 

No1 uses "'em" like you do bruv

 

bruv you don't need to continually big yourself up in ya posts. Ya no wat I mean:cool:

 

Yo'all have a ding dong christmas

 

Laters

 

ITGG?

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

chizzle me nizzle

 

me big bad bruv ITBG? will be back in 2010 with even more fun and games

 

BIG UP

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

I AM LEGEND

 

 

IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN YOU FECKERS

CRAWL BACK TO YOUR BOOK CLUB,DEBATING SOCIETY,TALKING BOOKS,SLIPPERS AND PIPE AND SCONES.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL

WHEN THE SH.T STARTS TO FLY AND THERES NOWHERE TO HIDE STAND TALL.

ITS THE LAW O THE JUNGLE AND YOU'RE BOTTOM O' THE FOOD CHAIN SO GET A PAIR AND A SET O' TEETH

 

Yo Cuz ITBG? ya cover so busted.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Why lie my brother from a different mother

 

Stopped using 'em and started using feck'in and jackal

 

Call 50 ITBG? is busted

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Securitisation for the footy fan

 

ESLJ Volume 4 Number 3 Articles

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

 

2. SPML/PML- NO 08 & 09 accounts/2007 accounts not-compliant with s.503 Companies Act 2006.(1985 CA repealed in full).

 

 

2007 accounts not companies act 2006

2008 accounts were due 30/09/09. They be nearly five months late

2009 accounts ??????????? not yet due cuz

Edited February 16, 2010 by I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

2007 accounts not companies act 2006

 

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/pdf/gba4.pdf

 

A report to the company’s members on the auditable part of the directors’ remuneration report and whether the company has properly prepared it in accordance with the Companies Act 1985 or 2006.(The 1985 Act applies for financial years beginning before 6 April 2008, the 2006 Act for later financial years).

 

 

2008 accounts were due 30/09/09. They be nearly five months late

2009 accounts ??????????? not yet due cuz

 

Companies House

Life of a Company - Part 1 Annual Requirements - GP2

 

Private companies have 9 months and public companies 6 months to submit their accounts to Companies House after the end of each accounting reference period

 

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

..to the pseudo street jackal with redundant DNA, adopting the identity of the ITGG!, your fate within GATTACA parallels that of the p**s poor attempt of starting your own thread.

 

having done so, and managing to achieve ZERO replies to your inane thread, only proves that 199 viewers/kaggaz are in agreement; THE OTHER ONE BEING YOUR DUMB ASS BY HAVING TO BUMP IT HERE.

 

 

 

YOU ARE ONE SADDO MAGGOTFARMA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

o.g.

 

Come on Bruv you be forgetting what Companies House has to say

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Sorry don't do drugs

 

WUF WUF

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Seriously ITBG?,

 

If you are going to post the same 'guide', now for the 22nd time, why not at least make the 'guide' accurate?

 

Everything about your second point is wrong. That is not my personal opinion, I have posted the links to Companies House to show it is fact.

 

Take a deep breath before you WUF WUF me.

 

If lots of people make the same complaint which is partly wrong, what do you think will happen (or going by your own and littledotty's posts already has) ?

 

CIB, Companies House etc will just write one standard template letter and file the complaint with the rest.

 

We all hear your call for action not words and we all know you have the best intentions. ITBG? Time to blow the whistle here on your repeated posts.

 

If you are going to post the same for the 23rd or more times, at least amend it so that it is accurate. Otherwise it is not as helpful as it could be.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

ITBG?

 

I am not Edward Fox or Bruce Willis. Today is not my day either

 

Show a little common sense and amend your 'guide'.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

This forum is for all opinions no matter how diverse they are. What you say is a 'fact' is merely your interpretation of how you see the 'facts'. That is your opinion and is welcomed here as a contribution to the debate.

 

Not my interpretation Super. It is what is says very clearly:

 

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/pdf/gba4.pdf

 

(The 1985 Act applies for financial years beginning before 6 April 2008, the 2006 Act for later financial years).

 

Life of a Company - Part 1 Annual Requirements - GP2

 

Private companies have 9 months and public companies 6 months to submit their accounts to Companies House after the end of each accounting reference period

 

The above is the position of the very people ITBG? advises to make a complaint

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

How does posting incorrect information 22 times help anyone.

 

I agree that people should make a complaint. At least make a complaint based on fact rather that assumption.

 

I am surprised that you are not more supportive of that idea. Equally surprised you appear to endorse Caggers being told to [EDIT] go away!

Edited February 21, 2010 by Rooster-UK

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

 

1. Posted a number of times previously, that its either under s.236 under CA 1985 or the equivalent s.503 CA 2006. For sake of brevity and confusion, as 1985 CA repealed in full, posted under CA 2006. Nevertheless, s.236 1985 is still valid, and can be confirmed by Mark Youde(CH). Any complaint, would be adjusted to the relevant act(as 4 JAWs/different ARD), and explained by each representative body in any reply, that is their function and they are obliged to do do.

 

Everyone can check for themselves

 

236.—(1) The auditors' report shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them. CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young

 

(2) Every copy of the auditors' report which is laid before the company in general meeting, or which is otherwise circulated, published or issued, shall state the names of the auditors. CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young

 

(3) The copy of the auditors' report which is delivered to the registrar shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them.CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and Signed Ernst & Young

 

(4) If a copy of the auditors' report—

• (a) is laid before the company, or otherwise circulated, published or issued, without the required statement of the auditors' names, or
  

 

• (b) is delivered to the registrar without the required statement of the auditors' names or without being signed as required by this section,
  

the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.

 

CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and Signed Ernst & Young

 

(5) References in this section to signature by the auditors are, where the office of auditor is held by a body corporate or partnership, to signature in the name of the body corporate or partnership by a person authorised to sign on its behalf.

 

CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and as a body corporate the signature is in the name of the body corporate Ernst & Young.

 

 

Looks like s.236 is complied with in full.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

A number of interesting points Super.

 

1) There is no statutory requirement for the opinion to be given on letterheaded paper.

 

2) s.236 specifically requires a body corporate signature to be in the name of the body corporate a.k.a some random E&Y (name unknown) signature.

 

As demonstrated all of the statutory requirements of s.236 have been met, have they not ?

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

If either you or ITBG? are able to show how the opinion does not comply with statutory requirements, I would very much appreciate it.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

No, don't think so. If you look again, you may see that the provisions concerning the auditor's signature states that it must give the name the person signing unless it is written on the letterhead. In this case, neither the auditor is named nor is it written on letterhead. And besides, the statute doesn't need to say it must be written on letterhead because, if its not on letterhead, its not the opinion of that partnership. Do you honestly believe that a court would hold E&Y legally responsible for that opinion when it is not on their letterhead?

 

Plus note also, that there's no compliance with the partnership statutory requirements for partnership letters. E.g., no address on the opinion, no reference to the names of partners etc., which are required analogous to requirements of an incorporated company which must state its co. registration number and address on its letterhead.

 

There's nothing on the alleged "E&Y" opinion to authenticate it as a bona fide and lawful E&Y opinion. In fact, how do you know that I didn't write the E&Y opinion - any of us could have written and signed that as E&Y. What is there on that blank sheet to authenticate as E&Y at law.

 

 

Could you please confirm which provisions your refer.

 

"Auditors' report"

 

Auditors' report.

235.—(1) A company's auditors shall make a report to the company's members on all annual accounts of the company of which copies are to be laid before the company in general meeting during their tenure of office.

 

(2) The auditors' report shall state whether in the auditors' opinion the annual accounts have been properly prepared in accordance with this Act, and in particular whether a true and fair view is given—

• (a) in the case of an individual balance sheet, of the state of affairs of the company as at the end of the financial year,
  

 

• (b) in the case of an individual profit and loss account, of the profit or loss of the company for the financial year,
  

 

• © in the case of group accounts, of the state of affairs as at the end of the financial year, and the profit or loss for the financial year, of the undertakings included in the consolidation as a whole, so far as concerns members of the company.
  

(3) The auditors shall consider whether the information given in the directors' report for the financial year for which the annual accounts are prepared is consistent with those accounts; and if they are of opinion that it is not they shall state that fact in their report. Signature of auditors' report .

 

236.—(1) The auditors' report shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them.

 

(2) Every copy of the auditors' report which is laid before the company in general meeting, or which is otherwise circulated, published or issued, shall state the names of the auditors.

 

(3) The copy of the auditors' report which is delivered to the registrar shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them.

 

(4) If a copy of the auditors' report—

• (a) is laid before the company, or otherwise circulated, published or issued, without the required statement of the auditors' names, or
  

 

• (b) is delivered to the registrar without the required statement of the auditors' names or without being signed as required by this section,
  

the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.

 

(5) References in this section to signature by the auditors are, where the office of auditor is held by a body corporate or partnership, to signature in the name of the body corporate or partnership by a person authorised to sign on its behalf. Duties of auditors.

 

237.—(1) A company's auditors shall, in preparing their report, carry out such investigations as will enable them to form an opinion as to—

• (a) whether proper accounting records have been kept by the company and proper returns adequate for their audit have been received from branches not visited by them, and
  

 

• (b) whether the company's individual accounts are in agreement with the accounting records and returns.
  

(2) If the auditors are of opinion that proper accounting records have not been kept, or that proper returns adequate for their audit have not been received from branches not visited by them, or if the company's individual accounts are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns, the auditors shall state that fact in their report.

 

(3) If the auditors fail to obtain all the information and explanations which, to the best of their knowledge and belief, are necessary for the purposes of their audit, they shall state that fact in their report.

 

(4) If the requirements of Schedule 6 (disclosure of information: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others) are not complied with in the annual accounts, the auditors shall include in their report, so far as they are reasonably able to do so, a statement giving the required particulars."

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Hi Super

 

If you look again, you may see that the provisions concerning the auditor's signature states that it must give the name the person signing unless it is written on the letterhead.

 

1. Could you please confirm which provision you refer too.

 

There's nothing on the alleged "E&Y" opinion to authenticate it as a bona fide and lawful E&Y opinion. In fact, how do you know that I didn't write the E&Y opinion - any of us could have written and signed that as E&Y. What is there on that blank sheet to authenticate as E&Y at law.

 

2. Can you please confirm which statutory requirement confirms that a letterhead must be used to authenticate an auditors opinion.

 

If a "body corporate" is taking responsibility for the opinion, then the body corporate must put it on their letter head if they want to sign it as the body corporate i.e. sign as E&Y. If its not on the body corporate letterhead, it is not an opinion of the body corporate.

 

3.Can you please explain on what factual basis (legal requirement) you reached this conclusion.

 

Note: 236 (3) The copy of the auditors' report which is delivered to the registrar shall state the names of the auditors AND be signed by them.

 

5. Note 236 (5) References in this section to signature by the auditors are, where the office of auditor is held by a body corporate or partnership, to signature in the name of the body corporate or partnership by a person authorised to sign on its behalf

 

The Auditors report has been signed by the body corporate, in the name of the body corporate has it not

 

The E&Y is signed (allegedly) by E&Y, but where is the E&Y name expressly "stated". Normally, this would be the letterhead. Do you read the signature as a conflation of both stated and signed?

 

6. You can see it quite clearly just below the signature.

 

I firmly believe that if this came on top for E&Y, they would say, not us, not on our letterhead. And that would be a sound reason for them denying anything to do with the opinion. As long as they can deny the opinion (if indeed it is their opinion), it is in my view, not an E&Y opinion.

 

7. Naturally, you are entitled to your opinion but it is important to take into consideration it is not reflected in the statutory requirements.

 

In my personal opinion a letterhead it not a valid form of authentication. I say this because, to copy a letterhead, you need to only fold the paper and photocopy it. Hardly high security.

 

If either you or ITBG? are able to show how the opinion does not comply with statutory requirements' date=' I would very much appreciate it.[/quote']

 

Many Thanks Super

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Here is a test, hold out both of your empty hands in front of you.

 

Put all of the statutory requirements for letterheads in your left hand and all the evidence that SPV's own the legal title in your right hand.

 

When you open both hands they will both still be empty.

 

Unless someone can post anything (not opinion, evidence) to say otherwise.

Edited February 22, 2010 by I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Hi Super

 

 

 

Hi ITGG,

 

So from a security point of view, you believe that writing the opinion on a blank sheet is a higher form of security?

 

Now now that is not what I said was it;)

 

The statuory requirement under the applicable legislation is for a signature and not a letterhard is it not

 

 

If you received a legal opinion on a plain sheet signed in the body corporate name of a law firm, would you trust it as authentic?...in preference to a legal opinion on the letterhead of a law firm signed as a body corporate? That seem to me to be bizarre as I would only trust the letterheaded version but accept that you would prefer the plain sheet.

 

Again, what is the statutory requirement Letterhead or Signature

 

By the way, do you know of any cases where a body corporate has been held legally responsible for its opinion written on plain sheets?

 

I have never looked, as the statutory requirement is for a signature and not a letterhead

 

 

can you offer an explaination as to why E&Y have suddenly changed to writing opinions on plain sheets rather than letterheaded paper as was their norm?

 

As i don't work for E&Y, any comment would be pure guess work and worthless.

 

 

Lets both be frank and honest with the other Caggers at least, ITBG? was wrong in relation to both s.503 & s.236, the wording and applicablity of each is clear for all to read.

 

 

I will ask for the third time though:

 

If either you or ITBG? are able to show how the opinion does not comply with statutory requirements' date=' I would very much appreciate it.[/quote']

 

Why are there efforts to mislead Caggers ? Not exactly helpful is it.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

Lets both be frank and honest with the other Caggers at least, ITBG? was wrong in relation to both s.503 & s.236, the wording and applicablity of each is clear for all to read.

 

In my defence, I would not normally take such exception to incorrect information being posted.

 

In this case though it was posted 23 times. That in itself gives reason for it to be corrected.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

I believe that I do not speak for the original author of these words but at the great personal risk of being outcast as a shill jackal I would wish to use the same words to the elderly gentleman Suetonius who's integrity has been vouched for by the irrepressible enoughisenough,I believe I speak for the majority here.We happy few,we band of brothers.

 

Whatever I said, whatever I did I didn't mean it

I just want you back for good

Whenever I'm wrong just tell me a rap and I'll verb it

You'll be right and understood

 

I guess now it's time, that you came back for good

 

The badperson has shown considerable courage in facing up to his accusers and has offered martydom for the thread,his actions should be given the credit they deserve and it should not matter to him if his imagined adversary returns as his and our real adversaries are watching from the wings .The thread could indeed be full of shill jackals but now it matters not,they are all around,though I walk into the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil.

I have steeled myself for the bad persons slings and arrows but know I have done the right thing as his mentor Supersleuth may well concur and endorse.

 

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself.

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

.... wrong medication

 

...... didn't think you took medication

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

.....Tick Tock, TICK TOCK.....

 

.....Time to correct point two of your guide

 

WRONG information is of no help to any man, woman or child

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

 

1. STILL need the 09 accounts, as Lehmans went down in Sept.08, so the accounts which will show that there is bugger all in these 2 JAWs, are the 30/11/09 due in August this year. 2 securitisations took place in 08, so this has just added to the net assets, but both made massive losses on

Makaveli

KwA

 

2009 accounts due in August this year ;-)

 

Everyone hear that ???

 

That was the penny dropping for ITBG ? (finally)