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

[I'm the bad guy?]

..indeed, its just a lucid dream?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makaveli

KwA

me we

[I'm the bad guy?]

YOU ALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT, the lenders are relying on you not to act-presently.

 

1. LMC & SPPL NO directors/NO accounts/ NO locus standi.

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 SPML/PML- NO 08 & 09 accounts/2007 accounts not-compliant with s.503 Companies Act 2006.(1985 CA repealed in full).

3. Ms Amany Attia, sole director of SPML/PML under prosecution for late filing of statutory accounts. Also, directly employed by Lehman Bros Ltd(in administration)

4. Major descrepencies between SPML 2006 & 2007 accounts, especially on sale of LMC.

5..add...

 

DONOT worry if you cannot provide, exact statutes of Companies Act etc., THE COMPLAINT AS A CONCERNED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS ENOUGH(you're not expected to have expert knowledge as a layman). Both CIB & CH are under a Parliamentary duty/charter to use the powers they have under the Companies & Insolvency Acts, TO ENSURE THE CH REGISTER IS CORRECT and that companies are solvent in trading. CIB & CH are NOT like the Land Registry(no powers) or toothless as the FSA. Especially CH, where there are regulations which MUST be complied with by companies. For example, the CH system immediately sends a notice out to a company if a sole director resigns/terminated, and the company has 28 days to respond or it will be struck off. CH are prosecuting Attia- they are duty bound to do so. SO WHEN SHE IS CONVICTED, SHE WILL BE STRUCK OFF, THEN SPML/PML WILL HAVE NO DIRECTORS AND THUS NO LOCUS STANDI.

 

JUST TO ADD YOU DONOT NEED TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH EITHER THE CIB OR CH COMPLAINT, IT CAN BE MADE TO THEM AS ANY CONCERNED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. REPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE LENDERS, SO IT CAN BE MADE BY YOU, FRIENDS OR FAMILY ETC. THEY ARE ALL VALID- PASS IT FORWARD.

 

 

..its in your hands, bring the pain.

 

 

 

 

ITBG?

end game.

[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'.

[supersleuth]

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.

 

ITGG,

 

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.

 

However, ITBG also has his opinion and interpretation of how he sees the facts. A difference of opinion does not make him wrong and you right, nor does it make you wrong and him right.

 

Consequently, unless you suffer from bigotry (and I do not say that you do), then in a public forum we should respect differences of opinion. In that regard, you and ITBG have an agreed position - i.e. you agree to differ on your opinions.

 

Therefore, if you believe in your position, you should be able to argue your substantive points without the need to taunt your opposition. Which strategy would benefit all CAGGERs. There's no need to patronise and get personal.

 

So if you believe that others are in error and wish to warn people of their potential error, do make your point but respect and graciously accept that others may not agree with you point of view.

 

Supersleuth

Edited February 21, 2010 by supersleuth

[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

[supersleuth]

ITGG,

 

And having voiced your opinion, credit people with the intelligence to make their own mind up between the two opposing opinions. We are all intelligent adults who will, given the information and diverse opinions, formulate and decide on our own opinion.

 

If people choose to make a complaint as ITBG has suggested, why would you want to stop the complaints anyway? People will make up their own minds whether to do so or not.

 

What does it matter to you if people do choose to follow ITBG's opinion?

[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

[eagleforms]

Super

If ITBG wasn't so foul mouthed and self opinionated I could have some sympathy with what you are trying to suggest. ITGG is entitled to voice her opinion without having to suffer the invective dished out by ITBG, although we should have got used to the fact by now that anyone who posts anything that wonderboy doesn't agree with gets the stupid WUF's, don't do drugs ect. Bully boy tactics always get my goat.

[actionnotwords]

With the greatest respect bad person there is some validity in what has been said by your mysteriously appointed nemesis. As you may be fully aware I am one of your"avid fans" but the fight must be carried to these protagonists with pure and accurate fact "harsh language" is not enough. My group and I intend to make our formal complaints to the bodies you indicate next week and also lobby our member of parliament.I have checked the guidance at Companies House which states the following which I have pasted here below for your valued consideration.

 

 

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).

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 companies in question are in full breach of the Law in having not submitted their 2008 accounts but their 2009 accounts are not due until at least the summer of this year.

 

Would you please confirm the accuracy of this information.It is a triviality given that the thrust of the complaint is perfectly targeted for which full credit for the ingenuity of construction has to be given ,but both my colleagues and I need to be reassured that what we submit is wholly accurate and would welcome your esteemed and magnanimous opinion and guidance without conflict or prejudice.

Edited February 21, 2010 by actionnotwords

[eagleforms]

Mysteriously appointed nemesis. What on earth does that mean? Perhaps you would prefer that I lay down in supplication before wonderboy along side you.

[mrsiphone]

[EDIT] Quote removed.

 

Is that really necessary ?

Edited February 21, 2010 by Rooster-UK
Quote from unapproved post removed.

[mrsiphone]

I came across this which looks conclusive

 

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/companiesAct/pdf/apr2008Implementations.pdf

 

The delivery time for accounts has been reduced by one month (for both private & public limited companies). Private companies have reduced from 10 months to 9 months, and public companies from 7 months to 6 months. Full calendar months for filing periods have also been introduced. Where the accounting period ends on a month end, the accounts filing period will end on a month end, except for the first accounting period.

 

Section 442 ‘Period allowed for filing accounts’, will commence on 6th April 2008. Therefore it will apply to all accounting periods that begin on or after 6th April 2008.

 

Are there any changes to the requirements for audit and auditors in the CA 2006?

 

Yes. For accounting periods starting on or after 6th April 2008 auditors reports will have to state, in the case of an individual, the name of the auditor and be signed by him. Where the auditor is a firm the report must state the name of the senior statutory auditor, the name of the firm and be signed by the statutory auditor in his own name. All signatures on auditors reports must be dated.

[martdj]

Yes some of us on here are intelligent and can make our minds up but IMTBG is clearly not one of these by his use of the anglo saxon. There are people on here who could be misled by his postings and therefore the inaccurate postings should be removed.

[actionnotwords]

eagleforms I get the impression that you do not approve of the only person in almost a year and a half who has actually achieved a radical result, my previous occupation was in psychoanalysis and my professional opinion is that your disapproval is promulgated from the seeds of envy.Just because you may disappove of the bad persons methods his sentiments are the common cause and have bought radical success,where would any of this have gone without his contribution?That is rhetorical.

In words you may comprehend.

 

HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES.

[mrsiphone]

What you say is a 'fact' is merely your interpretation of how you see the 'facts'.

 

Is this open to interpretation

 

The Companies Act 2006 (Commencement No. 5, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 No. 3495 (C. 150)

 

3.—(1) The following provisions of the Companies Act 2006 come into force on 6th April 2008—

2. SPML/PML- NO 08 & 09 accounts

(d) sections 380 to 416, 418 to 462 and 464 to 474 (accounts and reports) (4);

 

The delivery time for accounts has been reduced by one month (for both private & public limited companies). Private companies have reduced from 10 months to 9 months, and public companies from 7 months to 6 months. Full calendar months for filing periods have also been introduced. Where the accounting period ends on a month end, the accounts filing period will end on a month end, except for the first accounting period.

 

Section 442 ‘Period allowed for filing accounts’, will commence on 6th April 2008.

 

(e) sections 475 to 484 and 489 to 539 (audit) (5);

2007 accounts not-compliant with s.503 Companies Act 2006.(1985 CA repealed in full).

 

ITGG?'s facts, or ITBG?'s interpretation.

Edited February 21, 2010 by mrsiphone
Need to copy some posts to make sense of my post

[I'm the bad guy?]

ANW,

 

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.

 

2. This paragraph removed by Site Team.

 

3. If I recall you started a worthy action thread and facebook? if that is right, more power to you..I wish you well in your endeavours to shut the JAWs down. Any further clarification needed, I will post up a reply for the believers.

 

 

 

 

 

Makaveli

KwA

STAN

Edited February 21, 2010 by Rooster-UK
Bypassing swear filter and badmouthing other users.

[supersleuth]

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].

 

 

ITGG,

 

You may have erroneously formulated your opinion on what conduct I do or do not endorse. Is there any particular thing I may have said to justify your false opinion? The question is rhetorical as I do not seek to change your opinion based on your assumption.

 

As you agree that people should make a complaint then you do agree with ITBG on that principle. Whatever the basis of people's complaint's they can be trusted to formulate their complaints intelligently taking into account the facts that you have helpfully posted.

 

I cannot answer your question regarding ITBG's 22 posts (although personally I did not find it helpful), but he has posted 345 posts out of which some people may have found useful. On the other hand, you have posted 17 times out of which you have only made 1 helpful point (so far). The rest are attacks (which personally, I also do not find helpful).

 

For the record: I do not endorse attacks not by you and not by ITBG either (or anyone else). However, I would add that for those Caggers who are suffering under threat of repossession litigation, we could cut them some slack and overlook their sometimes passionate and over zealous posts. Caggers, like yourself who are not under any threat could show some compassionate reserve and not taunt and fuel the temper.

 

Supersleuth

Edited February 21, 2010 by supersleuth

[eagleforms]

ANW

Obviously not a particularly good psychoanalysis if that is your "professional" opinion. What radical result has wonderboy achieved? Envy, you must be kidding. What on earth is there to be envious about? I do disapprove of the sort of language that he uses and the way in which he attacks everyone who has the nerve to disagree with him. I can see that you have now been infected with the nonsense. Apples? Gets us a long way doesn't it.

[actionnotwords]

ANW,

 

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.

 

2. This paragraph has now been removed by the Site Team, for the 2nd time.

Please do NOT make it necessary to remove it for a 3rd time!

 

3. If I recall you started a worthy action thread and facebook? if that is right, more power to you..I wish you well in your endeavours to shut the JAWs down. Any further clarification needed, I will post up a reply for the believers.

 

 

 

 

 

Makaveli

KwA

STAN

 

Thankyou that's all you need to say,the threadstarter has already given you her unequivocal support and I would second that wholeheartedly.As I have previously stated a difference in attitude,approach, methodology or language of which far worse is broadcast should not render someone a pariah when their interests are the common cause.Certain people appear blindfolded to this fact and consumed with prejudice,live and let live.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Rooster-UK
Paragraph removed for the second time!

[actionnotwords]

Mysteriously appointed nemesis. What on earth does that mean? Perhaps you would prefer that I lay down in supplication before wonderboy along side you.

 

I have no wish to enter into an altercation with you over my use of language and would hope that you push this thread forward against our common adversaries rather than belittle "wonderboy's" ;as you solely refer to him;efforts.The reference to "apples" is self explanatory,the problem arising being that "you can't handle the truth".

 

Radical results=full blown investigation into our adversaries,sppl strike off notice,LMC imminent strike off notice.

I believe that deserves everyones' applause rather than criticism for the use of "harsh language".

Edited February 21, 2010 by actionnotwords

[martdj]

Can we all stop this childish bickering and concentrate on facts and actions to bring spml etc to justice

[I'm the bad guy?]

..the record speaks for itself, i have only attacked the jackals, so no debate needed. now cagwatched, so its a case of freedom of speech-just watch what you say...can't imagine any under 16s, being interested in securitisation?

 

 

 

indeed, i see vodafone..

 

 

 

 

 

Makaveli

KwA

Edited February 21, 2010 by I'm the bad guy?

[littledotty27]

To be honest I personally think every avenue has been debated. How much more can be debated?? These arguments are not going to get us anywhere in court,as other cases have been proved.

 

The only way is onward & forward...complain about no directors,unfair charges etc

[actionnotwords]

I agree with you littledotty27 you have been here since the beginning and in nearly 5000 posts all angles have been debated.A huge knowledge bank has been gathered to help people with litigation which has recently been rewarded by hard results in our favour.Litigation however will continue unabated until these companies are fully exposed for the criminals they are and it is my considered opinion that the bad person's way is the only way forward and all should fully support him if they wish to see real change,if you intend to criticise, do it constructively with an alternative or another way forward but never go backwards.