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

[enoughisenough]

.. so which knucklehead, said they were calling from CAG!!!! when specificaly told not to do so.

 

lets just all play by the rules, nicey nicey, and see where that gets peeps.

 

you can be a diplomatic with eloquent prose all you want, truth is you can others cannot as not you not under sus.repo or facing one. Be more compliant, do nothing or do something or was that already done by removing the contact no's?

Get nasty not nice, this is a war, there are no rules of engagement, and we don't take prisoners.

 

..unfortunately, IATWB is being proved right(except those who know), to the foot soldiers, you have my utmost respect.

 

 

the end justifies

the means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

not another

nicey post.

 

Time to clear this up numbskull and then I'll walk. You owe me an apology which you will not give and therefore I am not placed in the awkward position of (none) acceptance.

 

Ryde told me via pm as you did on open that this post was not about me.

 

Give me a break soldier. Don't backtrack. It's quite clear you are referring to me.

 

I wouldn't put myself in the same league as Sue for depth and breadth of legal knowledge, but I think that now I have turned class traitor you'll put me in the jackal category. "Either with us or.." As you said.

 

Post your WUF WUF and then get on with it.

 

Good at recalling the class war of the poll tax riots? Remember Scargill's class war? Where did that get the miners?

 

Pilcher was polite but foaming. What the hell are people supposed to say? I got your number but I don't know where?

 

I'm a concerned member of the public who just happened to have your number? ...shushh don't mention the cag. Absolute bloody nonsense.

 

Needs a bit more clarity and a bit more insight for the "foot soldiers" as you put it. I call it cannon fodder myself.

 

Don't ask vulnerable people to put themselves in the position of calling Pilcher or Hughes before thay have their ABCs sorted. Suicidal in my honest opinion, for what it's worth.

 

Over and out.

Edited February 16, 2010 by enoughisenough

[ryde]

leedslad was your agreement in writing?

[ryde]

These are the standard cop out letters cib and the fsa send out to a complaint,in this case dotty's,so once the complaint is made its out of our hands and totally down to them what action they take,this is their procedure there's not even notification of the results to the complainants.

The fact that sppl is on strike out must mean they have discoverd something quite significant.The time frame must be around 2 months.It gives you an insight how they actually work.

All we can do is keep digging for evidence on the whole group (not just the one you're personally involved with as they're all interlinked)and submitting the complaints.

 

SOUTHERN PACIFIC MORTGAGE LIMITED & OTHER

 

Thank you for your communication dated 27 November 2009.

 

Companies Investigation Branch (CIB) has the responsibility for conducting investigations into companies using the statutory powers of enquiry contained in the Companies Act 1985. When we receive a complaint it goes through a vetting process to decide whether it merits an investigation. I enclose an information sheet on our work.

 

We will be considering your complaint, taking into account any other information we have, will decide whether to carry out a formal investigation. As part of that consideration we may contact you to seek more information.

 

Where the company about which you are complaining is subject to formal insolvency proceedings – that is, administrative receivership, administration or creditors voluntary liquidation – you may, separately, wish to consider bringing your complaint to the attention of the responsible Insolvency Practitioner(s).

 

You will appreciate that for the investigative process to be effective it is essential to maintain confidentiality at all stages. This includes the process whereby we reach decisions regarding the use of our investigation powers. We cannot enter into public debate on the merits of complaints, and we do not confirm or deny whether an investigation of a particular company is taking, or has taken place. Therefore, you will understand that we will not tell you what the outcome of your complaint is.

 

 

 

 

 

Under most circumstances it is not possible to disclose the results of our investigations beyond a narrow range of other regulators (though if we take action in the public interest there will usually be some publicity). I therefore regret that we would not be able to provide you with any information that we obtained.

 

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Bailey

CIB Support Unit

 

And also received this from fsa aswell...both in the same day

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your email received on 19 November 2009.

 

We appreciate the time you have taken to contact us.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulates the financial services industry under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the Act). Our four main objectives under the Act are to maintain market confidence, to promote public understanding of the financial system, to secure the right amount of protection for consumers and to reduce financial crime. If you would like to learn more about us please read our factsheet ¿Just the facts about the Financial Services Authority¿: http://www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/pdfs/about_the_fsa.pdf.

 

We welcome information about the firms we regulate which could highlight wider concerns that could affect our regulatory activities.

 

The information in your email has been passed to the relevant team within the FSA. How they follow up information received, whether it comes from consumers, the Ombudsman, consumer bodies or industry sources, will depend upon the risks posed to our objectives, the quality of the evidence and the seriousness of the accusations.

 

However, please be aware that we do not generally give you any feedback on how we have followed up the information you have given us. This is because the Financial Services and Markets Act imposes restrictions on how we can deal with confidential information that we receive. Also, if we were to tell you about an ongoing investigation it might prejudice the investigation itself. We realise this can be frustrating but would reassure you that all information is carefully considered before we decide what action, if any, we take.

 

However, we periodically post a bulletin on our Consumer Website and this gives general details about the complaints we have received and the actions we have taken. You can find this at Enforcement Press releases

 

Making a complaint against a regulated firm

 

To make a complaint we recommend you contact the firm, in writing, and give them an opportunity to investigate your complaint. If you do not receive as satisfactory response within eight weeks you can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service (the Ombudsman) to review it. It is the Ombudsman's role to investigate complaints, on behalf of the public, against the firms we regulate.

 

We seek to ensure firms treat their customers fairly. We require all firms that are authorised and regulated by us to have complaint handling procedures. I have attached a link to a copy of the FSA guide 'Just the facts about making a complaint' which provides further information about:

 

What to expect from a firm after you complain

What options you have if you are unhappy with the outcome

The contact details for the Ombudsman

Other useful contacts.

 

www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/pdfs/complaint.pdf

 

We recommend that consumers should review this information, as the answers to most enquiries about the complaints process appear online/here. However, if you require any additional help with your enquiry, or you have any further questions, please call our Consumer Helpline on 0845 606 1234 (call rates may vary) between 8am ¿ 6pm Monday to Friday.

 

I trust this is of assistance.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

M Ali (Mr)

Customer Contact Centre

Financial Services Authority

Consumer Helpline: 0845 602 2185

Edited February 16, 2010 by ryde

[Crapstone]

Hi all,

Thanks for all your support - it helped me get through today!

 

It went well. They were represented by a local solicitor who was completely uninformed and was just interested in getting a suspended order.

 

The Judge was reasonable - the usual didn't want to make any decision he didn't have to. He said that he could not take the pre-action protocol into consideration as the original claim was before it came into force, and although he was very interested in the FSA investigation in GMA-RFC, he said he couldn't take it into consideration as there was no concrete info relating it to Capstone/SPML.

 

But the seeds of doubt were sown and he said he was very unhappy that they had created a lot of the problem because of them not providing information or corresponding with us.

 

They tried to push for the suspended order, but he said he couldn't grant it as it was too serious a matter to put in their hands when they had shown that their practices were not up to scratch (basically not unless they put their house in order - fat chance). So he has adjourned it generally with liberty to restore to enable us to show that we can make the repayments and advised them to sort out the arrears figure (ie. get rid of charges).

 

He has told us that if we get to the point where we have paid off the arrears we agree are legitimate, and the FSA has not announced a result of any investigation and SPML have not come up with a more acceptable figure, then to ask the court to list it again and he will look at whether the charges are legitimate. Basically he made it very clear to them that he expected them to sort it out of their own accord to prevent him having to do so.

 

So we now just have to make the repayments which isn't a problem and hope that the FSA come up with a result in the next few months, so that we don't have to go back and fight it out again.

 

Thanks again for everyone's help and good wishes and if I can help anyone else, please ask.:)

 

Fantastic news! Well done..I know it's never easy going before a judge but you kept it together and got a result. Crapstones aren't going to be happy bunnies..

 

Get an SAR off to them..and piece together what you can. Complain, complain, complain....Don't let them charge you again. It might be useful to get a transcript of the hearing so you can use that in your letters to remind them of what the judge said. They have a habit of forgetting and trying to use their own interpretation. Go to the FOS and let them have a look at your complaint. You have nothing to lose and Crapstones hate them with a passion..but make sure you have all the paperwork in order first.

 

Well done...I'm so pleased for you.

[ryde]

originally posted by sced ,further insight into the workings of CH

 

Further to my previous posts about CH and date of filings of accounts. Here is their crap response to my most recent email telling them that I now want my company and that I expect the same treatment as our friends on late filing.

 

"Thank you for your e-mail of 25th November, marked for the attention of

Mrs E Cook. Mrs Cook is not available today, so I am responding on her

behalf.

 

In regards to your company xxxxxxx Limited, may I refer

to your e-mail of 22nd November in which you stated that you were happy

for the company to be struck off as you do not require it any longer.

Mrs Smith informed you in her response of 23rd November that a notice

was published in the London Gazette on 25th August 2009 stating the

Registrar’s intention to remove the company from the Register as it

appeared to be no longer trading or in business.

 

As you have now informed me that you require the company to remain on

the register, the records must be brought up to date. I can advise that

strike off action has now been discontinued, but we will shortly

commence prosecution action against the directors for the outstanding

document. As the company is already in default of its statutory filing

obligations no further time can be given.

 

The following document is currently overdue:

 

Annual Return for 30/04/09

 

Please ensure that the outstanding document is delivered without

further delay.

 

I note your comments concerning Preferred Mortgages Limited and

Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited. I can assure you that we are taking

the appropriate steps to secure the filing of all overdue documents and

if necessary this may include instigating legal proceedings against the

directors. I can confirm that we have written to the directors to

remind them of their statutory filing obligations, but I am afraid that

I am not in a position to be more specific regarding the timing of any

prosecution action.

 

With regard to the other issues you have raised; we have reason to

believe that both the companies are required to remain on the register

and that outstanding documents are being prepared. Companies House

makes no special allowances for any company based on size or status.

Once we have established that the company is required to remain on the

register we pursue all companies in the same way to ensure they fulfil

their legal obligations. Even though a company’s parent company may

be in liquidation, it is classed as a separate legal entity and as such

has filing obligations that must be met. As previously stated,

enforcement action for these companies is ongoing.

 

I am not able to respond to your allegations regarding the companies

carrying out illegal activities as Companies House is primarily a

registry. You may wish to seek advice regarding this issue from the

Companies Investigation Branch. You can contact them in writing at

Ground Floor, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3SS or by telephoning

0207 596 6100.

 

I hope this information has been useful.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Ms S Davies

Enforcement Support Team Leader "

[jetli]

Really confused! Am I contacting Kevin Hughes today or not?

[enoughisenough]

Your choice. Can't do any harm, but it won't stop your repossession either.

 

Have you got Ell-enn sorting you out? You need to think about your application. Have you got the form?

[Guineverewithattitude]

Dear leedslad67

As you will see from my earlier postings I also got sent someone else's details, and have requested that they explain this as well as where my details went (did they go to someone else too?) I have made a preliminary complaint regarding this and their failure to supply info to the Information Commissioner and would suggest you do to, as having that on record, can be useful if you get taken to court as when I went yesterday the Judge emphasized that he wouldn't give them a suspended order because they had not provided info to allow us to be fully prepared.

[jetli]

Your choice. Can't do any harm, but it won't stop your repossession either.

 

Have you got Ell-enn sorting you out? You need to think about your application. Have you got the form?

 

Eviction order just come through for 24th February I need help with the N244 form please

[enoughisenough]

How many times do I have to ask? It saves duplication and confusion. Is ellen helping you?

[ryde]

Really confused! Am I contacting Kevin Hughes today or not?

 

jetli

The situation is as posted.sppl are on 28 days notice to comply with the requirements of companies house ie.they must appoint at least 1 new director and submit up to date accounts otherwise they will be struck off.

I think you will get this reply from CH.

This means they have until probably the end of the first week in March to comply otherwise they will be struck off.

The question only you can ask yourself is are you prepared to gamble on this happening.Its a gamble of last resort in my opinion ,because the debt will come back even if sppl disappear(as its been sold on)

It would be in my opinion and that of all here such as eie a far more wiser approach to try and come to some arrangement with them even if it can only be short term to buy some time and see how this pans out.Question their charges just do anything to give yourelf time if you have no funds at present to satisfy both mortgages and follow Ell-ens advice religiously regarding any legal action taken against you.

updated

If youve got a date then youve got no choice it will happen before sppls time for compliance runs out.

You have to deal with this immediately and forget sppl at present.

[jetli]

How many times do I have to ask? It saves duplication and confusion. Is ellen helping you?

NO

[jetli]

jetli

The situation is as posted.sppl are on 28 days notice to comply with the requirements of companies house ie.they must appoint at least 1 new director and submit up to date accounts otherwise they will be struck off.

I think you will get this reply from CH.

This means they have until probably the end of the first week in March to comply otherwise they will be struck off.

The question only you can ask yourself is are you prepared to gamble on this happening.Its a gamble of last resort in my opinion ,because the debt will come back even if sppl disappear(as its been sold on)

It would be in my opinion and that of all here such as eie a far more wiser approach to try and come to some arrangement with them even if it can only be short term to buy some time and see how this pans out.Question their charges just do anything to give yourelf time if you have no funds at present to satisfy both mortgages and follow Ell-ens advice religiously regarding any legal action taken against you.

updated

If youve got a date then youve got no choice it will happen before sppls time for compliance runs out.

You have to deal with this immediately and forget sppl at present.

I have questioned their fees and have put in an official complant with them to which I a supposily getting a letter from them. Dont want to say too detail as they may be a guest and work out who I am. Think it might be better to PM

[ryde]

jetli

This is an extremely good move as if you can get it to the FOS any court action is usually adjourned pending their decision.They have 40 days I think to reply before referral so it depends when you made the complaint.It is definetely something to include in any defence as gwens case perfectly illustrates.

[supersleuth]

Hi All,

 

Those of you who want to expose the scandals of the banks criminal activity, and who are deafened by the silence of our British Journalists may be interested in this link:

 

Iceland aims to become an offshore haven for journalists and leakers » Nieman Journalism Lab

 

The media is part of the establishment along with the FSA, FOB, OFT, Parliament and the Financial Institutions who all want to keep the crimes concealed and none of them will do anything of real substance about it. Plus, in this country the concealment of institutional crimes is supported by our Defamation Laws that work against free speech. Even this site has regularly been pressurised to censor and remove truthful posts that are (falsely) alleged to breach Defamation Laws (and CAG has had to succumb to that pressure because not even CAG can afford to defend a defamation action).

 

So if Iceland are prepared to publish the real Truth, maybe that's where the truth may have a chance of a real and successful public outlet. After all, the Icelandic ordinary people were, like us, major victims of these crimes.

 

If you watch the video to the link, you may discover a potential reason why the British Press are mute on the subject. It may be that there are court injunctions that gag our press. Apparently, there are between 200 and 300 gagging orders (injunctions) in existence. The orders provide that: you may not talk or report on a subject, and also that you may not talk or report on the fact that the reason you can't talk or report is the gagging order! If this is the reason for the press apathy, it is no wonder there is so much silence!

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

The lack of CH action against the SPML entities is one such scandal that really ought to be exposed....especially when it is clear that the CH take prompt and firm action against any another lesser mortals. Equality before the law? No one is above the law?...Dickens...."the law is an ass"...no rule of law here! Powerful break the law with impunity, for the rest of us the law and courts are used to whip us into submission to those powerful law breakers.

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[ryde]

The lack of CH action against the SPML entities is one such scandal that really ought to be exposed....especially when it is clear that the CH take prompt and firm action against any another lesser mortals. Equality before the law? No one is above the law?...Dickens...."the law is an ass"...no rule of law here! Powerful break the law with impunity, for the rest of us the law and courts are used to whip us into submission to those powerful law breakers.

 

MORTGAGE FRAUDSTER AND TWICE SACKED MANDELSON BEING A PRIME EXAMPLE AND THE JAILED LIAR ARCHER AND THE RETENTION OF HIS PEERAGE ANOTHER +THE EXPENSES ENQUIRY AND BACK DOWN,THE ENQUIRY COSTING MORE THAN THE PAYBACK AND THATS JUST THE ONES WE KNOW ABOUT.FROM THE SEEDS SOWN BY INJUSTICE REVOLUTION SPRINGS or words to that effect.

Edited February 16, 2010 by ryde

[supersleuth]

MORTGAGE FRAUDSTER AND TWICE SACKED MANDELSON BEING A PRIME EXAMPLE AND THE JAILED LIAR ARCHER AND THE RETENTION OF HIS PEERAGE ANOTHER +THE EXPENSES ENQUIRY AND BACK DOWN,THE ENQUIRY COSTING MORE THAN THE PAYBACK AND THATS JUST THE ONES WE KNOW ABOUT.FROM THE SEEDS SOWN BY INJUSTICE REVOLUTION SPRINGS or words to that effect.

 

Maybe CH are paralysed from action by injunctions and gagging orders? Or maybe its the Mandy as the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Business who has ordered that SPML et al may breach the law with impunity...who knows what the reason is for SPML's preferrential treatment is, but one thing is for sure...someone powerful is turning a blind eye to their obvious and criminal breach of law. I find it very hard to believe that Ms Attia would put her name in the firing line (and leave her name in the firing line), unless she is confident in the knowledge that she is protected by powerful people whose influence will protect her from her criminal offences. Even if CH ever do get round to her prosecution (PR to make the public have confidence in the law), I would not be surprised to hear that she will be acquitted.

 

For anyone who needs reminding of Mandy's questionable use of public office, and the potential to ignore the law, see the commentary under "First Resignation" and "Second Resignation" contained in the following link (given his track record, it makes you wonder if maybe Mandy has acquired another interest free loan and perhaps (non repayable) loan from SPML or associated entity?):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth
To add the wikipedia link

[ryde]

super

We know sppl proposal to strike off,lmc,prefferd group and holdings are in breach of the law as no directors.

But all have been forced it would appear(excepting sppl) to recently submit accounts.

spml and preferred mortgages are trading legally on paper with one director.

I do not know how much time they are given to submit their 2008 accounts as napiernuts posted this allowance but deleted all his posts.

I believe CH are going through their normal procedures but PWC are stalling them and buying time with various promises of complicity.

[supersleuth]

Totally agree with you....rhetorical questions...do you know of any mortal being where the authorities have given you a chance to make good once you HAVE committed a criminal offence? Since when did the defence that "oh I didn't mean to do it, oh I'm sorry, oh I'll do it later"...ever constitute a defence at law?

 

It is immaterial that they may in the future submit their accounts but that act will never overcome the fact that the criminal offence HAS BEEN committed. The Companies Act does not say, we'll if you promise to deliver the accounts at some unspecified future date then we'll pretend that you didn't commit the offence - point is - Ms Attia has offended! Hence, Ms Attia and SPML have broken the law with impunity and continues to get away with it (and CH's complicity is itself a breach of their statutory duty to uphold the CA law). Do PWC have the lawful power to dictate to CH to overlook the criminal offence? Seems that they do....rule of law my assssss.

 

BTW...PWC are aiding and abetting the continued breach of the law by lobbying CH ...after all, isn't it E&Y that are supposed to be SPML's accountant? And, note that E&Y are clearly NOT prepared to put their statutorily mandated "accountants opinion" on their letter head. If the accounts appear without the opinion written on E&Y letter head - IT IS NOT an E&Y opinion and CH must reject the submitted accounts

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[not another b----- letter]

Six guests we are popular today.

[ryde]

super

Would you know if there are any specific rules concerning CH and the way they implement these rules or is it down to the sad old chestnut of the investigating officers discretion.If we could throw rules at them we might get a quicker and more positive result.

[supersleuth]

Totally agree with you....rhetorical questions...do you know of any mortal being where the authorities have given you a chance to make good once you HAVE committed a criminal offence? Since when did the defence that "oh I didn't mean to do it, oh I'm sorry, oh I'll do it later"...ever constitute a defence at law?

 

It is immaterial that they may in the future submit their accounts but that act will never overcome the fact that the criminal offence HAS BEEN committed. The Companies Act does not say, we'll if you promise to deliver the accounts at some unspecified future date then we'll pretend that you didn't commit the offence - point is - Ms Attia has offended! Hence, Ms Attia and SPML have broken the law with impunity and continues to get away with it (and CH's complicity is itself a breach of their statutory duty to uphold the CA law). Do PWC have the lawful power to dictate to CH to overlook the criminal offence? Seems that they do....rule of law my assssss.

 

BTW...PWC are aiding and abetting the continued breach of the law by lobbying CH ...after all, isn't it E&Y that are supposed to be SPML's accountant? And, note that E&Y are clearly NOT prepared to put their statutorily mandated "accountants opinion" on their letter head. If the accounts appear without the opinion written on E&Y letter head - IT IS NOT an E&Y opinion and CH must reject the submitted accounts

 

And to prove my point, see post number 4848 above....in particular, the letter from CH regarding another company that CH proposed to strike off. It states:

 

As you have now informed me that you require the company to remain on

the register, the records must be brought up to date. I can advise that

strike off action has now been discontinued, but we will shortly commence prosecution action against the directors for the outstanding

document. As the company is already in default of its statutory filing

obligations no further time can be given.

You see, this particular company was told by CH that the strike off action is discontinued BUT THAT CH WILL commence prosecution against the Directors and CH refuse to allow further time for compliance. And what is the crime of this company: that it failed to file ONE of its annual 363. Whereas SPML et al have failed TWICE to file their annual accounts and yet PWC (who are not their accountants) have the ability to repeatedly pretend that the accounts may manifest at some date in the future get to file whenever they please (if at all)! So because the director in the letter had the nerve and temerity to ask for the law to be applied to his company in like manner that CH apply the law to SPML, CH are going to throw the book at him (and will prosecute him, but not prosecute Ms Attia and SPML). Just goes to show the rot. The main point is, that even if you remedy the breach of the law, the offence has been committed anyway, so SPML et al prosecutions should go forward irrespective of if or when they file. Major difference is that in the case of SPML et al, the commission of the offence is wilful, deliberate and caluclated to conceal the information, whereas in the case of the post no. 4848 company, the offence was probably an innocent oversight.

 

So ordinary mortals are whipped mercilessly when the rule of law is applied to us, but then CH give PWC and SPML permission to ignore the law. And then they all expect the public to have confidence in these capricious institutions.

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth

[leedslad67]

ryde yes my agreement was in writing and i have received nothing to say it has been cancelled.

Guineverewithattitude

i got my details on one side of the paper and it went over on to the back the the other persons starts straight after mine and then goes on to another sheet.

do you have the details of who you complained to

thanks

[supersleuth]

super

Would you know if there are any specific rules concerning CH and the way they implement these rules or is it down to the sad old chestnut of the investigating officers discretion.If we could throw rules at them we might get a quicker and more positive result.

 

The CH Registrar has statutory duties which duties will be set out in the Companies Act. The Registrar must act (and must not fail to act) in accordance with the Companies Act. In the context of a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute, the discretion must be exercised with a view to the public interest e.g., whether it is in the public interest to deter such violations, whether the public are harmed from the violation, whether there is a wilful disrespect for the law (such repeated failing to conform) etc.

 

In the case of SPML there is indeed great public harm whereas e.g., the post no. 4848 company was probably a very insignificant small business and no body ever complained about his late filing which, as I have said, may have been a mere innocent oversight.

 

Anyway, there was an interesting case where depositors to BCCI brought an action against the Bank of England for misfeasance of public office (failure to abide by their statutory duty) that you may find of interest for the principle that even CH must abide by its statutory duties.

 

Other than the existence of that principle, and the fact that there is a Judicial Review procedure on which one can question the decisions, acts or failure to act of public institutions, I don't have any further guidance.

 

Three Rivers District Council and Others v. Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2000] UKHL 33; [2000] 3 All ER 1; [2000] 2 WLR 1220 (18th May, 2000)

 

Do a bailii search for "misfeasance in public office" for other examples.

 

Also, any public official's decisions and particularly their exercise of discretion, must be "Wednesbury Reasonable"...do a bailii search for "Wednesbury Reasonable". If CH's decision to prosecute (or not prosecute) is Wednesbury unreasonable, a person who is affected by that decision may be able bring Judicial Review against that public official's decision. The decisions and exercise of discretion must be soundly reasoned and not based on capricious or arbitary reasons. Point is, that when exercising discretion, it cannot be used because they have favourites. As such, a decision to prosecute the post no. 4848 company just because he dared to ask for the same preferrential treatment as SPML is, in my view Wednesbury unreasonable...and a decision to permit the continued offences of SPML is also unreasonable particularly when view in light of the fact that they have decided to prosecute the post no.4848 company.

 

Well....that's what the law says, but we're all becoming very aware that when it comes to the powerful, they do what the hell they like anyway.

Edited February 16, 2010 by supersleuth