Swift Advances Plc?

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Good luck Sparkie. Fingers crossed the Judge will see through all of Swift's smoke screens.

Speak to you later.

Regards

[TINKEY2]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi TINKEY2
All I can say to this is......:amen:
Sparkie

I think you maybe right!!!

I think their next computer systems (they won`t be around that long I know) should be named after ducks!! sitting ducks!! cant find a duck,

maybe horses then flogging a dead 1 :deadhorse:

Or pigs MIGHT :flypig:
TT

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Excellent as usual Sparkie!!!

One bit in there that gets me STATEMENT OF TRUTH

Swift do not know the meaning!!!

Lie cheat manipulate YES truth NO

Do you think someone should explain the meaning to them?

TT

Hi TINKEY2
All I can say to this is......:amen:
Sparkie

[TINKEY2]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Excellent as usual Sparkie!!!

One bit in there that gets me STATEMENT OF TRUTH

Swift do not know the meaning!!!

Lie cheat manipulate YES truth NO

Do you think someone should explain the meaning to them?

TT

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This is our First Witness Statement the second is much more meatier...........Swift Advances plc have all this


Sparkie



1. Due to Swift Advances plc failing to fully comply with a previous Subject Data Access Request (SDAR) made by me in June 2009 or thereabouts under The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA1998), for all relevant data held by them on myself, and my partner , I submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) for adjudication as to if Swift Advances plc had indeed failed to fully comply with my SDAR by withholding information from me/us.


2. The ICO reached the conclusion that Swift Advances plc had not fully complied with said request, and advised me to submit a new SDAR to Swift Advances plc, I did this on the 14th Feruary 2011, attached at this point is a copy of the said SDAR as Document 1.


3. To date Swift Advances plc have failed to comply with this further SDAR, nor have they even acknowledged receipt of said request, but have cashed the cheque of £10, the fee for such request, I therefore respectfully asks the Court to make an
order under section 7 of the DPA 1998, for Swift Advances plc to comply with the SDAR shown as Document 1, as it is clear that Swift Advances plc have no intention of freely complying with said request.


4. Attached as Document 2 is a further letter from the Applicant to Swift Advances plc regarding this request.


5. The ICO case worker Mr XXXX, who investigated my complaint advised that, the ICO has made it clear in correspondence with Swift Advances plc, in relation to my complaint and subsequent investigation by the ICO, of the failure of Swift Advances plc to fully comply with my first SDAR, that the information requested does form part of the data that is required to be disclosed under the DPA 1998, and yet they still fail to comply with this said 2nd request.


6. I therefore humbly asks the Court to make the order an Ex Parte Order, as the data is being deliberately withheld, despite being legally obliged to supply it, and that Swift Advances plc have had more than the sufficient reasonable time
specified in the DPA 1998 to supply requested data and information, had they required more time I/we should have at least been advised/notified that more time was required to collect all he data requested, no such advise was ever received.


7. I believe that the withholding of such documents and information, could,
possibly infringe other Statutes and Legislation, but cannot be certain unless and until the SDAR is complied with, and the data and information is examined


8. To assist the Court in reaching its decision, I copy at this point and provide the relevant section of the DPA 1998 that gives the Court the power to make the order requested, and wish to draw the Courts attention to the heavy typed parts.


Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998
“(8) Subject to subsection (4), a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day.
(9) If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under the foregoing provisions of this section that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the request in contravention of those provisions, the court may order him to comply with the request.

(10 )In this section—
· “prescribed” means prescribed by the [F3 Secretary of State] by regulations;
· “the prescribed maximum” means such amount as may be prescribed;
· “the prescribed period” means forty days or such other period as may be prescribed;
· “the relevant day”, in relation to a request under this section, means the day on which the data controller receives the request or, if later, the first day on which the data controller has both the required fee and the information referred to in subsection (3).

9. I therefore humbly ask the Court to use the power available to it to make the Order applied for, a Draft of which is attached, as I am at my wits end as to how else can I make Swift Advances plc supply this information which is so vital without this Order being made.
Statement of Truth.

The Applicant believes that the statement above is to the best of his knowledge and belief accurate and true.

Draft Order



1. It is ordered that Swift Advances plc of Arcadia House, The Drive, Warely Hill Business Park, Brentwood, Essex, CM13 3BE fully comply with the Subject Data Access Request made by Mr XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX (The Applicant) under the Data Protection 1998.

2. That this order be complied with, within 7 days of receipt of this Order.

3. That unless this Order is fully complied with, the possession case Number XXXXXX that the withheld information requested is of vital importance to, that case shall be struck out without the need any further order of the Court being made.

4. Furthermore that a Contempt of Court charge may be considered being brought against Swift Advances plc.




By Order of

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This shows that the unlicensed trading name SWIFT ADVANCES wrote to our First Mortgage holder and deceived them into consenting to the charge on our property......and as you see requested to charged in the name of SWIFT ADVANCES.............But it was registered in Swift Advances plc's name........this again shows another criminal offence of deception
obtaining permission in one name and then using another........just you try obtaining something under a name belonging to someone else ...bearing in mind The Trading name of Swift Advances belonged to Swift Finance UK Ltd in 2007 until November 2009
sparkie

[TINKEY2]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Go get them Sparkie......BEST OF LUCK!!! not that you need it.

And they thought you had gone all quiet on them NEVER

TT:beagle:

[enaid]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Am sorry I can't help with this Sparkie, would be a fool to say I could. I do wish you all the best and come what may you have done yourself proud.
Enaid x

[Doc2527]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Sparkie

All the very best for tomorrow.

Great work as usual......:beagle:

Regards

Doc

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This I would imagine be my final post unless it is to answer comments by members..until late tonight when I will post our two witness statements which Swift Advances plc already have ....so I will not be giving away anything they do not know already ........but will help others to formulate their own statements from in their defences against them should they be facing Swift in the next few days.

1. Even as of today Swift advances plc have not complied with my SDAR made on 14th Fbruary 2011, the fee by cheque was cashed on 28th February 2011,

2 I have received no acknowledgement of receipt of application notice ( which the Court would have sent them.)

3. No acknowledgement of receipt of second witness statement sent by recorded delivery.

4. In fact no correspondence whatsoever. Then again as I made the application for an ex partee order, maybe the JUdge has seen something that he wants me to expand on........and I can certainly do that with prima fascia documentary evidence and proof

Sparkie

[Celestine]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Best of Luck fighting your case tomorrow Sparkie.

Really impressed how hard you're fighting, fantastic effort.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Blimey sparkie I don't many of us can act as devils advocate to what you have posted.............is there anything you have left out??????? this is very very good in my opinion and I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow as I am sure many others will too.

You have been fighting long and hard against Swift and have had to do all the groundwork and I really cannot see how any court or judge can not agree with you.

Then again anything can happen in courts and the tables can turn anytime............but you are determined and strong and believe you are right and I personally believe that that is all you need in life to win any battle your up against.

I know from experience that this is not easy but you have proven that you are not a quitter and the only way out of this that I see is that you are proven 100% right in everything you have found against Swift.

Again I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow and sorry I cannot add to anything as I am still far behind but I can offer my support which I know you know you have always had

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thanks a million for that jumper..........the trouble is as you know will the Judge see that I am right................they have been as slippery as eels so far and as sly as a fox., they have Tom Pepper/Billy Liar as their witness
But all I can say I have prepared well and am ready for any question that is put to me......I know how they think now.

Sparkie

[jumper999]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Blimey sparkie I don't many of us can act as devils advocate to what you have posted.............is there anything you have left out??????? this is very very good in my opinion and I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow as I am sure many others will too.

You have been fighting long and hard against Swift and have had to do all the groundwork and I really cannot see how any court or judge can not agree with you.

Then again anything can happen in courts and the tables can turn anytime............but you are determined and strong and believe you are right and I personally believe that that is all you need in life to win any battle your up against.

I know from experience that this is not easy but you have proven that you are not a quitter and the only way out of this that I see is that you are proven 100% right in everything you have found against Swift.

Again I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow and sorry I cannot add to anything as I am still far behind but I can offer my support which I know you know you have always had

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I would really appreciate anyones comments ........act as devils advocate ......and think of arguments against all I have posted over the last 10 posts or so...........anything that you think they might challenge all this on???

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

At the last hearing where I faced them alone ....they thrust the Paragon v Pender case in front of the Judge........and he accepted that because it was presented by a Barrister & Solicitor......and as usual as an LIP who was designated a " Barrack Room Lawyer" with misconceptions of the law......he accepted that case.........BUT made a big mistake and erred in law...........That dealt with securitisation NOT assignment.......the case I have now specifically deals with asignment and section 136 of the Law On Property Act 1925.
I will disclose the case I am using after my hearing tomorrow.......it is very specific...........and appeal Court ruling....not very well known, by three judges who knew what they were talking about

I have to persuade him he was wrong...........and I am crossing my fingers I can and do.........if I do Swift Advances plc are in trouble all over the place.

STARE DECISIS

Usage: "The court considered that the trial judge erred in law by declining to follow a decision that was clearly on point, thus contravening the principle of stare decisis."

In my uneducated opinion the Judge should have used the powers of the Court under CPR 1 to level the playing field on legal representation and consulted the case laws on assignments............there are three others.
Sparkie