THIS SCANDAL IS BIGGER THAN PPI & BANK CHARGES

We are pleased to announce a new service for disgruntled consumers.  We have recently obtained judgments against both telephone and internet providers who have taken money from Consumers for Services they have unilaterally withdrawn and not provided but charged for.  Under English law this is breach of contract and the courts have agreed as those companies have failed to give "consideration" to the customers for that which they have charged.   As this is common practice we are now offering a service to recoup such fees in similar cases. Check your bills to see if you have fallen victim to such corporate activity. The biggest culprits are  within the telephone, internet and television subscription providers. These  judgements have been given on "consideration" having not been given. "Consideration in English law is one of the three main building blocks of a contract. Consideration can be anything of value (such as an item or service), which each party to a legally binding contract must agree to exchange if the contract is to be valid. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is not legally a binding contract. In its traditional form, expressed as the requirement that in order for parties to be able to enforce a promise, they must have given something for it (quid pro quo): something must be given or promised in exchange or return for the promise. A contract must be "met with" or "supported by" consideration to be enforceable; also, only a person who has provided consideration can enforce a contract. In other words, if an arrangement consists of a promise which is not supported by consideration, then the arrangement is not a legally enforceable contract. Mutual promises constitute consideration for each other. ("I promise you that I will do X, in consideration for which you promise me that you will do Y")." Contact Mike Ripper on:  Tel:0845 868 2810 Shitstirrers of Wessex www.wessex.me.uk/shitstirrers.html

THIS IS A  SCAM THAT HAS REARED ITS UGLY HEAD!!!!! CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT

A friend has forwarded this story........ I had bought a bunch of stuff, over £150, & I glanced at my receipt as the cashier was handing me the bags. I saw a cash-back of £40. I told her I didn't request a cash back & to delete it. She said I'd have to take the £40 because she couldn't delete it. I told Her to call a supervisor. Supervisor came & said I'd have to take it.. I said NO!  Taking the £40 would be a cash advance against my Credit card & I wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!!!! If they couldn't delete it then they would have to delete the whole order. So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order & re-scan everything! The second time I looked at the electronic pad before I signed & a cash-back of £20 popped up. At that point I told the cashier & she deleted it. The total came out right. The cashier agreed that the Electronic Pad must be defective. Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered me the £40 at the beginning. Can you imagine how many people went through before me & at the end of her shift how much money she pocketed? Just to alert everyone. My co-worker went to Milford, Sainsbury’s, last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt. She asked the cashier for a receipt and the cashier was annoyed and gave it to her. My co-worker didn't look at her receipt until later that night. The receipt showed that she asked for £20 cash back. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR CASH BACK!

My co-worker called Sainsbury’s who investigated but could not see the cashier pocket the money. She then called her niece who works for the bank and her niece told her this. This is a new scam going on. The cashier will key in that you asked for cash back and then hand it to her friend who is the next person in the queue. Please, please, please check your receipts right away when using credit or debit cards! This is NOT limited to Sainsbury’s; they are one of the largest retailers so they have the most incidents. I am adding to this. My husband and I were in Sainsbury’s and paying with a credit card when my husband went to sign the credit card signer he just happen to notice there was a £20 cash back added. He told the cashier that he did not ask nor want cash back and she said this machine has been messing up and she cancelled it We really didn't think anything of it until we read this email.  To make matters worse .... THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE, AT ANY RETAIL OR WHOLESALE LOCATION!!! BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT........CHECK YOUR RECEIPT!!!!! Tell  your friends

Taxing Americans took us to war and lost us part of our Empire. Will we ever learn?

Table of Featured articles. Click on them to read

Freshwater Polluted - Large Property Group deprives Tenants

CMI deprive Widow  of £40,000 + by changing investment without authority

FSA Question Informed Investor

Do You Seriously Want to be Defrauded ?

The Truth - Why Endowment Policies are Failing

Inland Revenue use nasty tactics

Islington Borough Council - Legal abuses

The Pimps of The Financial World

 Ally Soper's Political Corrections

cacWhere is the money Invested in the Life Assurance Company of Pennsylvania ?

Benefits Fraud ? This is being caused because of the Benefit Laws

PENSIONS THE REAL REASON FOR THE FAILURE

But despite his apology, David Hartnett's career last night hung by a thread after a senior Cabinet minister publicly failed to back him.

Four times yesterday, Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander sidestepped a question over whether the official had his full confidence.

The row began when Mr Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for tax at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, refused to say sorry for the breakdown in the tax system which has left millions with incorrect tax codes. Up to 1.4million ordinary families are being landed with unexpected tax demands of around £1,400.

In a pre-recorded interview, broadcast yesterday, Mr Hartnett had told the BBC's Moneybox programme: 'I'm not sure I see the need to apologise'. But nine hours after his comments were broadcast on Radio 4, Mr Hartnett was forced by George Osborne into a climbdown.

Yesterday, as the row raged on, Mr Alexander welcomed the apology. However, he stopped short of backing the HMRC boss. Asked whether he had 'full confidence' in Mr Hartnett, the Treasury minister said: 'I have got full confidence in HMRC's ability to ensure that these issues are dealt with appropriately under his leadership.

'He was right to apologise. This is a problem we inherited from the previous government and of course it's very unfortunate and I'm sorry that some people have got an unexpected tax bill.' But Mr Alexander sidestepped three more chances in a Sky News interview to say Mr Hartnett had his full confidence.

Today, Mr Hartnett faces a grilling in the Treasury from Exchequer Secretary, David Gauke. He will also be brought before MPs on the Treasury select committee when they conduct an inquiry into the tax shambles. On the BBC, Mr Hartnett had also said taxpayers owing large amounts would be given less time to pay it back than those owing a small amount.

He added that claims of 'blunders and IT failure' were not true – despite a report from the National Audit Office which painted a dismal picture of HMRC's ability to collect tax efficiently.But on Saturday afternoon, he said: 'I am deeply sorry that people are facing an unexpected tax bill.'

He apologised if his remarks had come across as 'insensitive', adding: 'I am working flat out with my colleagues to ensure everyone's tax is correct and the new computer system will help us do this.

'It was this new system that revealed the extent and size of reconciliations required and will help us be more accurate in future.

Table of Featured articles. Click on them to read

Freshwater Polluted - Large Property Group deprives Tenants

CMI deprive Widow  of £40,000 + by changing investment without authority

FSA Question Informed Investor

Do You Seriously Want to be Defrauded ?

The Truth - Why Endowment Policies are Failing

Inland Revenue use nasty tactics

Islington Borough Council - Legal abuses

The Pimps of The Financial World

 Ally Soper's Political Corrections

cacWhere is the money Invested in the Life Assurance Company of Pennsylvania ?

Benefits Fraud ? This is being caused because of the Benefit Laws

PENSIONS THE REAL REASON FOR THE FAILURE

Liberty is "when some perfectly respectable person gets up and says something everybody agrees to, " while "license is when some infernal scoundrel, who ought to be hanged anyway, gets up and says something that is true." 

So  it was John Wilkes—radical journalist, member of Parliament, outlaw, prisoner, lord mayor of London, and self-described libertine in the 18th century. His life and career go a long way toward dispelling the superstition that liberty must advance hand in glove with order, guided by men of sterling moral character. Probably born in 1726 (the exact year is uncertain), Wilkes clashed with George III and his ministers  .  In John Wilkes, his new biography, Arthur H. Cash shows us  why lovers of liberty, at least, should celebrate this colourful Englishman. Cash tells his readers from the outset, "If you think the police have the right to arrest forty-nine people when they are looking for three, shut [this book] now."

With this in mind Watchdog read this notice from the Hampshire County Council to ourselves amongst others and realised that so-called "freedom of speech" and action is once more being challenged. So much in the spirit of John Wilkes's No 45 The North Briton we are hereby challenging the Hampshire County Council in their authority to try and curb freedom of speech and we are hereby writing about them for the first time because they have served such a notice on us. We have informed them and their Chairman of our actions and will publish any response or legal action that ensues. Being legally ordered to cease doing something we have never done is something to be judged by the public and the good people of Hampshire - for this is being done in your name. At present we just publish their letter and our response.
The relevant Members of Parliament in Hampshire are who  invited to look into this are: Aldershot    Gerald Howarth (Con), Basingstoke    Andrew Hunter (Con), East Hampshire    Michael Mates (Con), Eastleigh    David Chidgey (LDem), Fareham    Mark Hoban (Con), Gosport    Peter Viggers (Con), Havant    David Willetts (Con), New Forest East    Dr Julian Lewis (Con), New Forest West    Desmond Swayne (Con), North East Hampshire    Rt Hon James Arbuthnot (Con), North West Hampshire    Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt (Con), Portsmouth North    Syd Rapson BEM (Lab), Portsmouth South    Mike Hancock CBE (LDem), Romsey    Sandra Gidley (LDem), Southampton  Itchen    Rt Hon John Denham (Lab), Southampton, Test    Dr Alan Whitehead (Lab) and Winchester    Mark Oaten (LDem). Every Local Councillor  in Hampshire should question such action too.

Our Response

Email: drummondco@drummondco.idps.co.uk Website: www.ukinformedinvestor.co.uk    A.Havlin Esq. Legal Practice,Chief Executive’s Department The Castle WINCHESTER Hampshire SO23 8UJ Thursday, 20 November 2008 Ref: CL54080AH Dear Mr. Havlin YOUR NOTICE We thank you for your posted Notice received today   We still do not comprehend your blanket notice as most of the sites you mention have no mention or reference or carry any images in regards to Hampshire County Council whatsoever. Please inform us of any specific image or information that you consider unlawful. As the sites www.ukinformedinvestor.co.uk, www.wessextouristboard.co.uk and www.mercia.me.uk carry no mention of Hampshire or show any images of Hampshire other than one of many 1000s of click throughs to websites I cannot understand any relevance in this matter other than to intimidate. In fact the only page on all our sites that made any reference to the Hampshire County Council is www.wessex.me.uk/HampshireAttractions.html  We, shall comply with your notice in regards anything you specifically request to be changed or removed on that page as a courtesy, even though we did enquire in regards to this in 2003 before it was written and we acknowledge your assistance. The site was www.chardnet.co.uk at that time. So please identify that which you consider is your intellectual property and we will re-write and /or replace images. We await your further & better particulars on the relevant sites and then we will comply within 14 days on any proven breach of intellectual property  However we are quite prepared to accept legal proceedings and get a legal decision on the other matters, which we believe have no legal standings whatsoever. We have placed the following on the page mentioned above as follows: “This section has been a feature of this part of Wessex since it was written 4/5 years ago ( when our site was www.chardnet.co.uk). Unfortunately the Hampshire County Council has issued a NOTICE TO CEASE & DESIST IN USING AND/OR HYPERLINKING TO HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL'S TOURIST INFORMATION AND IMAGES ONTO/OR BY THIS SITE and others  & tried to influence 3rd parties. They claim that unspecified parts are their "intellectual "property & must be removed. But have failed to specify which parts. It is our intention to continue to show this search engine to assist visitors and defend our right of free speech. We have, until now, published an acknowledgement to Hampshire County Council just here and referred people to their site. This it seems has created offence as have our other sites, which have been specified, which are financial, legal and commercial and have never shown anything pertaining to Hampshire County Council. Our sites have been on-line since 1999 and date back through other means of media to 1972. These thumbnails are a means of direction to the various websites and are not a copy of "War & Peace" lifted from Tolstoy! No charges have ever been levied for our information services. We shall be publishing the correspondence for readers to judge on our Shitstirrers of Wessex page and the UK Informed Investor will now be mentioning it on their Watchdog page. It shall also be brought to the notice of people of influence. We always name names. Details of our breach(es) of "Intellectual" Property "MAY BE"  available from the Tony Havlin, Jeff Pattison and Andrew Smith at The Castle Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UJ. Tel:01962 841841. Fax: 01962 840215 Email: Tony.havlin@hants.gov.uk. Once identified they will be replaced by this notice as requested and all the thumbnails will be rounded off. We apologise to the attraction owners if this means they have fewer visitors as over 35 million page visits to our sites  have been made, and over 25 million in 2008 so far. The domain names of www.wessex.me.uk and www.wessextouristboard.org.uk have been properly registered. There is no legal definition of the words "Tourist Board" or prohibition for the use of such titles  or a law to prohibit hyper-linking from the site as they have tried to intimate. If so we note they are listed on many other search engines with hyper-links. Maybe the Government will stop the "Ministry of Sound" nightclub or the "Ministry of Cakes" in Taunton, Somerset.  We also point out that we have complied with The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations by placing the “contact us” hyperlink on each page and that hyperlink goes to the page where the details are lodged. As for the name Wessex Tourist Board. This has been properly registered and accepted. We shall not desist from using the name unless so ordered by a Court of Law. Please advise us of any legislation that you believe enhances your telling us to desist from using that name.  We have for many years now been assisting readers both by email and on the telephone with information in regards to Tourism in both Wessex and Mercia. Especially when local tourist offices are closed on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. This has been done free of charge and courteously.  We fail to see what this has to do with the Hampshire County Council. As we do not charge the matter of fees is immaterial. We are a firm of European Tax and Legal advisers who have created reference pages as a service and it is in the fields of legal and tax advice that we have charged since 1966. The fees are dependant on the advice we give and the work done. Interference with us carrying on our legitimate business , if this continues, will be counterclaimed if you continue to proceed with legal action. It has always been our intention to work in harmony and co-operation and a simple call or request in the first instance would have been dealt with to everyone’s satisfaction. You made no such approach . We are still open to constructive discussion. We do reserve the right to publish the correspondence on our sites for the consideration of our readers, as we always do whether it be with large corporations, local councils, Insurance Companies, Government Offices or the public. We have a “Watchdog Column” on our financial site, which is usually picked up by the media.  Assuring you of our services at all times. Faithfully yours, Drummond & Co.

 

The practice of intimidation and negligence does not only take place in the private sector.
A disturbing case involving Islington Borough Council has also been brought to our notice. This involves a tenant of over 15 years standing.

Obviously every lease with a council has a clause in it whereby the landlords must keep the premises in good repair and once notified of a defect should repair it. Such a defect are holes in the roof. In the case we are going to relate the holes in the roof were reported to them in August 1999 and now, FOUR years later, as of September 5th 2003 the repairs have not been completed.  Although a Mr Hudson actually turned up on September 4th 2003 to inspect the property.  In that time considerable damage has been to the tenant's property, her heating bills have increased and she has ended up under the local health authority for stress and anxiety which made it impossible to work.

Now the Islington Borough Council are taking her to court to evict her for not paying £2.70 per week of her rent. Over a period of over a year the legal department of Islington Borough Council have refused to deal with her representatives on the pretext that they have no authority to do so. Such authority was sent by the tenant over a year ago.

Further they have a practice of erroneously serving council tax summons on people and they refusing them access to defend their cases in front of magistrates.
This they did to the same tenant in June 2000 and although the tenant and her representative immediately went round to Islington Town Hall and lodged a complaint no action has been taken.

Even the Mayor of Islington, Joe Trotter, at that time informed the tenant that he was passing the matter to Louise Round, the head of the legal services at Islington Borough Council. Louise Round has failed to respond in the same way as her department has failed to respond to the tenant's claims for damages to her property, excess heating & cleaning bills and compensation for the stress caused and the medical condition created by their actions.

The tenant's claim is for in excess of £30,000 whilst the eviction is over £2.70 per week! The people who are guilty of this state of affairs are :
Louise Round- Director of Law and Public Services and her assistants
Raj Pathak and Ms Thalmarajah as well as Chris Brunning in their  Northside Housing Office. 

As of the 18th of November 2003 an agreement was reached whereas the London Borough of Islington withdrew their eviction order and agreed to pay £3000 to the tenant. Further a recorded conversation was held between the legal department  of Islington Borough Council and the tenant's representative in whichthe Council agreed that the tenant retained her parking space outside her abode and any amounts outstanding were to be taken from the £3000. 
Unfortunately for the tenant the document she signed on November 18th 2003 just said that she could re-apply for her parking space. 

Throughout the period of dispute there had been a sign on the Citroen car saying that the parking space was subject to a dispute and any action was sub judice. The so-called parking representative a Mr Riley in the Northside office was kept informed about this by the tenant's representative

 He was also contacted by the legal office of Islington Borough Council about the agreement and the price to be paid. So what does this Riley do? He orders that they car is to be taken away and crushed.
This happened on the morning of November 21st , just three days after the agreement was signed.

On noticing the car was gone the tenant phoned round and also spoke to the police. The Police were so disgusted that their officer stated that he would use it in police lectures. Riley's first comment was that " He had forgotten to order the crushing to be stopped!" The legal office of the London Borough of Islington also tried to ascertain what had happened.

The legal office have now written to state that they take no responsibility.  

Around the estate where the tenant lives one can regularly see burnt out cars, smashed telephone boxes and the Lamb Hotel ( established 1855) has had to shut because of the local vandals. 

It is obvious to our reporter that those vandals are only taking their example from Mr Riley, the car smasher from Islington Borough Council.

He had been clearly notified of the legal position over many months, but feels that he can bypass the legal system and both remove and smash third parties' possessions. In case our article is considered racist by Ms Round ( see below) we must protest that we are unaware of Riley's colour, creed, political bents or his sex. We only know that, with the knowledge of the tenant's medical condition and the efforts made by all to assist his actions are not in tune with this season of goodwill.

This article is being sent to the Islington Borough Councillors, the local Member of Parliament and the Mayor of London.  We want to know how Islington Borough Council can explain why this man still works for the London Borough of Islington, or if they condone his actions. If any readers of this article can give further details of this type of action in the London Borough of Islington please call ourselves.

The following is a letter received by fax on our article!!!

Dear Mr Davey

Re: LBI v Tenant — CKI 13900

I have been passed copies of your recent correspondence with Mr Raj Pathak.

You should note that cases in the Magistrate’s Court regarding Council Tax matters are dealt with by the Finance and Property Services Department and, accordingly, your complaint to the Mayor dated the 8th February 2002 and received by me on the 9th February 2002 was referred to that Department by me on the 10th February 2002. Similarly, Right to Buy issues are the responsibility of the Housing Department and I have passed details of the allegations you have made to that Department.

Notwithstanding that many of the issues you have raised in your article do not relate to the work of this Department and have little or no relevance to the proceedings for possession instigated by the Housing Department, I will endeavour to provide you with a response to all the issues you have raised in your article on the website by the end of the week.

The article on the website is defamatory of the four named council officers. The words "Have you tried that amazing restaurant in Highgate Village? It’s called ‘The Last Days of the Raj’” cause me great concern. Not only are they defamatory of Mr Pathak but they are threatening and suggest that serious harm may befall Mr Pathak. They also amount to harassment within the meaning of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997. I believe your comments may also be motivated by race which would render the harassment under the 1997 Act racially aggravated pursuant to Section 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Council has a duty to ensure the welfare of its staff and is unable to tolerate the comments made on your website.

The following information is provided pursuant to Paragraph 2.3 of the Practice Direction to CPR 53 and this letter should be treated as a letter before action prior to a defamation claim being made.

1. The Council alleges that the words “The people who are guilty of this state of affairs are…”, together with the general tenor of the article, convey the notion that the named officers have behaved improperly or negligently in the course of their employment;

2. The Council alleges that the words ‘The last Days of the Raj’, together with the general tenor of the article, and apart from being pejorative and insulting, convey the notion that Mr Raj Pathak has behaved in a way which has been improper and/or otherwise negligent so as to put his contract with the council at risk.

If you do not confirm by 5.00 p.m. on Wednesday the l0th September that these defamatory/racially motivated comments have been removed from your website, the Council will take such action (including an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and for defamation) without further notice to you.

Mr Pathak is no longer dealing with this case and you should address no further correspondence to him. Mr Jonathan Wragg is now dealing with this matter and all further correspondence should be addressed to him.

Yours sincerely,
 

Louise Round
Director of Law and Public Services
 

Response to Louise Round
From the Editor: www.ukinformedinvestor.co.uk

As editor of the Informed Investor I have read your letter to Michael Davey and can only presume you have some sort of racist fixation. Our article was completely based on fact and we have seen the full correspondence on this matter.

It is obvious that until August 20th 2003 no one in your department had  dealt with any of the points put to the London Borough of Islington both by the tenant  and Drummond & Co. If that is not negligence or something far more serious then please advise us what it was.

Whilst you select the staff that work for you telephone calls to both Ms Thalmarajah and Mr Pathak were dealt with in an arrogant and offhand way and we have the right to comment on this. If it is defamatory it is because their actions have warranted such. As for your paragraphs about harassment we have no idea about the ethnic background of your staff and even if we did it  would never alter anything we write about the facts. My own background would actually make it impossible for me to utter any racist feelings against Mr Pathak or any other minority race. We believe that you are so busy trying to 
bluster your way out of the way this case has been conducted that you are  just
trying to sidetrack onto a non-existent situation. 

If you can not tolerate the comments made on our site then we shall be  pleased to report that you have corrected the situation and we shall then be pleased to commend you on admirable actions. I look forward to doing such, for I am sure that you too want to see a fair and just outcome.

Martin Geppert
Editor www.ukinformedinvestor.co.uk
and syndicated sites

Send your grouses to:

Help Other Consumers !

Help other consumers avoid the same pitfalls that you have experienced... 

• Email your grouses to the Private Enemy No.1 column totally public, free, searchable database

The entire world can read your grouses !
 

See the  Selected Grouse

Help Yourself !

Send your complaints to businesses... 

• You provide the e-mail address (you must register with an informed investor email account)

• The business is notified that your complaints have been posted for public view at Private Enemy No.1

Giving you, the consumer, greater clout in getting a better result to your grouses !

You may remember some time ago that we promised you more about landlords who utilise the law to maximise profits. One such group has for many years become the scourge of the elderly.  They are Daejan Properties Ltd. part of the Freshwater Group.     Those who are a little older may remember that William Stern, who was married into the the Freshwater family was the biggest bankrupt of his time.  We mention this because the case we are relating to you included the unfortunate elderly lady losing her savings with Mr Stern's failed insurance company Nation Life.
 

An elderly widow had lived in her flat in central London since 1951. Throughout that period she had always paid her rent on time. Originally she had a series of leases but in the latter years of her life she had become a statutory tenant. She had always been on good terms with her landlords and had found them helpful. As with older blocks of flats in Central London these Victorian blocks came under the eye of the new breed of landlords.  In 1987 the widow's husband passed away. He had always looked after the family arrangements. At that time the block of flats, known as Bickenhall Mansions covered a large area in Baker Street with over 200 flats.

In the early seventies the then landlords split the flats up under groups of about 30 and created different owning companies.
 Those companies were then sold on and each flat had a 125 year lease on it. Here the fun began because there were three different types of residents. There were those who had purchased their flats, those who were owning flats and letting them, and there were leasehold and statutory tenants. Each of these had different involvement's, which created many problems.

Without going too deeply into that we shall now concern ourselves with a group of 32 flats, of which our widow's was one. They had in 1987 belonged to a property group called Local London. At that time the Housing Act, which gave tenants the right to buy was in place. Local London desired to sell the 32 flats and offered them for tender in groups of 5/6.  Our Widow and another neighbour approached the selling agents with the intention of purchasing their flats. However Local London did not wish to sell them individually. The tendering did not reach the required amounts and Local London went about trying to sell all 32 flats at a cut-down rate to another property group.

In 1988 they sold the 32 flats to Daejan Properties Ltd. At no time did they offer the flats to the tenants as proscribed by law. It was ascertained that the widow's 6 room flat had been sold for £120,500. This was with the widow as a statutory tenant. It's open market value without the widow's tenancy would have been in the region of £500,000 at that time.

 The Widow and her solicitors wrote to both parties stating that she wished to purchase her flat as proscribed by law. The then solicitors for Daejan Properties Ltd (who were later struck off by the Law Society) stated erroneously that statutory tenants had no such rights. The law stated that they did. Then a majority of elderly tenants approached Daejan Properties Ltd. to purchase under their rights. Daejan's reply was to state that they had not bought 32 flats but 32 single flats and they did not have to offer them to the tenant's group.

This was again untrue and substantiated by the selling agents.   The plan was obvious. Most tenants were elderly and there would be substantial profits if they were to leave or die. Further to the inconvenience of the tenants extra penthouses were being built on top of the building. The weight of which were to cause problems at a later date.

In the meantime the widow was 75 years old. Her flat was being neglected by Daejan Properties Ltd. and she had to get a court order for the landlords to rewire the flat because of dangerous electrics. Eventually the workmen came to rewire. At the same time, because of the penthouse development, the flat was on the outside covered with scaffolding which had an outer tarpaulin and all outer windows were then sealed with a see-through polythene. The result of this was that for some nine months the tenants had no air and were subject to dust and debris.

The workmen, who had come to rewire, ripped up expensive carpets and broke expensive chandeliers causing some £20,000 worth of damage. They assured the widow that all this would be put right. It never was. For two years the widow's pleas went on deaf ears. The destruction of her flat had been witnessed by local councillors, who visited the flat whilst campaigning to be re-elected.

After 2 years the widow took legal advice and was advised to refrain from paying rent until the cost of the damage had been recouped. This she did under s.4 of the Defective Properties Act. In turn Daejan Properties Ltd. sued the widow for rent which was well under the £20,000 damage caused by their agents. At this time the widow, now well into her eighties, was suffering from Alzheimer's disease and was medically and legally judged not to be able to look after her affairs. Her son was appointed " guardian ad litem".

Her son answered the summons with a counterclaim for some £370,000. This was made up of the £20,000 owed for damage to her property under the Defective Premises Act and a further £350 of equity in her flat, which Daejan Properties Ltd. had deprived her of (The difference between the purchasing value and the open market value). From the moment that her son was made guardian ad litem he had received no communication whatsoever from either the courts or Daejan's solicitors.
 

Then one day in November 1993 both the widow and her son were informed by the resident agent that Daejan Properties Ltd. had received judgement to have her evicted. The son appealed against this decision as the counterclaim had not been heard, but was informed by the judge that it was his duty to find out.  So after 43 years an 82 year-old widow with Alzheimer's disease was evicted from her home. Daejan Properties Ltd. had in a few short years of harassment scooped an extra £350,000 plus of value. Nice work if you can get it? Multiply this by the other 31 flats and the many thousands of properties on their portfolio and you start to dream of the profits that have made the Freshwater family the 26th richest in Britain. ( Sunday Times list).
Both before and when the widow was moved her son provided their solicitors with a forwarding address for any future dealings. This address was provided twice both in 1993 and 1994. Again the son heard nothing from Daejan Properties Ltd. or their agents. The Widow moved to another flat near Hyde Park for 12 months and then to a house with her grandchildren from April 1995 - December 1996, eventually passing away in April 1997 after a short spell in a residential home.

Once more however, unbeknown to the son, Daejan Properties Ltd. had obtained in January 1996 from the court a bill of costs amounting to £11,968.66p .  Did they forward this account to her son at the address provided. No, instead it appears they sent it to the address that the widow had vacated in March 1995. So when her son was discharged of his duties as guardian ad litem in April 1997 he had received no word whatsoever of the outstanding amount.

Once a person has passed away all dealings are passed on to the executors of the diseased. Therefore her son had no control over his mother's assets after she passed away. His term as guardian ad litem had by the nature of her death terminated. The document from the courts states that the costs should be paid by the son (guardian ad litem for the widow).  But do Daejan Properties Ltd. go to the executors ? No in the following October they send a processor to the house where her grandchildren are and served a Statutory Demand on her son for the costs. Such a demand can lead to bankruptcy.

Once again Daejan Properties Ltd. had changed solicitors and the son still had no contact from their solicitors at the provided address until the beginning of 2001. He carefully explained the situation and denied responsibility. But did Daejan Properties Ltd. change spots and proceed properly? No in June 2002 they served a statutory demand on an unsuspecting janitor in Somerset. The son accepted the demand, provided an affidavit in reply and attended the Royal Courts of Justice on September 10th 2002. Guess what? Daejan Properties Ltd. nor their agents appeared. The statutory demand was dismissed.

Down in sunny Somerset, where the cider apples grow, there is growing concern in regards to Benefit law. You may have seen all those adverts in regards to benefits fraud, and that you should shop someone who has not declared their earnings.

But take heed before you shop them. For it must be easier and cheaper to take them to court than to do the paperwork if they declare their earnings.

There is in operation a system called "One". This has combined all the benefits agencies together. So whether its income support, job seekers allowances, housing and council tax benefit or child benefit the various agencies inform each other.

So we have Mr X who is on job seekers allowance and housing/council tax benefits. He has no work and signs on every fortnight and our welfare state pays him and his landlord. Then fortunately he gets offered two hours work for £200. Being truthful and honest he declares it. Suddenly the job centre lists him as self-employed and do not pay him any allowance for that week, but continue to pay him thereafter. He does not lose his long term benefits and remains on the the job seekers register.

All very simple. No it isn't for it seems that down at the South Somerset District Council Offices he is now listed as no longer being on benefits. So when he gets his benefits the following week he has to make a completely new application for housing/council tax benefits. This entails filling in an elaborate form, enclosing identification, bank statements, employment statistics. The Council Staff then have to completely reprocess the job seeker as a new applicant.  In the interim demands for the full year's Council Tax go out and his landlord is informed that housing benefits have stopped.

To earn £200 and then because of your honesty to get a Council Tax demand for £640 and the prospect of having to pay an extra £300 per month in rent as well as not receiving the £50+ per week job seekers allowance is frightening. This is without the hours spent filling in forms, if they can be understood. Is this the Peter Principle gone mad?

This has been taken up and letters have been written to the head of the UK Job Centres, the Director of Resources at South Somerset District Council and with the local MP David Laws. Acknowledgements have been received by all. 

The local job centre stated that they had informed the South Somerset District Council that the applicant's claim for job seekers allowance was not terminated and there had been a continuous claim for some ten months. The Benefits Manager in Yeovil for South Somerset D.C states " I agree that this red tape conspires against those genuine people who are prepared to take work whenever they can. Those honest people become entangled in a bureaucratic web of nightmare proportions. I, and many of my colleagues, have made representations to Government about this, and other aspects of these regulations, on many occasions."

The local Member of Parliament, David Laws MP states " I think that there are two problems here- firstly it seems that an error has been made between the Job Centre and the South Somerset District Council Offices. Secondly, you are right in saying that the Government rules for benefits and incomes are very strict and they often make it difficult for people on benefits to earn small amounts of supplementary income. This is actually an issue that the District Council Benefits Manager has highlighted to me, and I have written to the Government about this matter."

If you follow what is happening down the line it is obvious that the cost of this in terms of people hours and wages etc. far outweighs the amount of revenue lost if the applicant had been dishonest.

Further evidence of the comprehension of company law and disclosure has been shown recently when an "investigator" from South Somerset District Council came without appointment to question the aforementioned Mr X, a housing benefit recipient in his 60s,  renting two rooms in a house owned by a property company.

This investigator, appropriately named Peter Fear, did not enter the the recipient's premises but the general vestibule. On the wall of that vestibule were a list of registered companies belonging to the Directors of the property company.

Mr.Fear is demanding from the tenant full details in regards the companies, their telephone accounts, their bank accounts and their accounts. These have nothing to do with the tenant who answered honestly.

Come back Arthur Daly you are a bargain to the tax payer. 
Please take this to your MP this state of affairs is ridiculous.

CAUSE FOR CONCERN £41,868 LOST THROUGH INVESTMENT BY DEFAULT

^{DRUMMOND & CO. have in the past introduced many plans to professionals who wish to find the right tax efficient plans for their clients. DRUMMOND & CO. do not give any investment advice under the Financial Services Act.}

From Roger Harrison- Investigator, Statutory Investigations Department, financial services Authority.
December 22nd 2000

Dear editor,

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986 ("THE FS ACT") AND THE BANKING ACT 1987 ("BA87")

Thank you for your letter dated 24th November 2000 and I apologise for the delay in my reply. I have noted that you have reproduced my letter to you dated 10 November on the " Informed Investor" web site. It would be helpful if the errors in transfer to the web site are corrected so that there is no misunderstanding by visitors to the site of the FSA's concerns. I have noted errors in your transcribing of my paragraphs 4,5,and 6.

thank you for confirming in your letter that Drummond & Co does not accept deposits. The FSA does need however, as explained in my letter dated 10 November, to fully understand the other arrangements with regard to:-

Pension Annuities ( which I now understand to be the new pension product) and
Capital Redemption Policies

In my letter i informed you that under section 3 of the FS Act any person that conducts investment business in the UK must be authorized or exempt. I went on to explain that Investment business is widely drawn and includes, making or offering or agreeing to make, deals in investments ( schedule 1 paragraph 13 of the FS Act). This might include for example, referral to a third party to advise upon the transaction. This example would appear to apply in the situation whereby Drummond & co introduces investors or potential investors directly to insurers or to other advisers who are not Independent Financial Advisers authorized or exempt under the Act. The exemption for introductions for the purpose of independent advice is contained in note 6 of Schedule 1.

As the Drummond & Co web site also appeared to be an investment advertisement I also explained that in general terms " an investment advertisement" means any advertisement inviting persons to enter or offer to enter into an investment agreement or contains information calculated to lead directly or indirectly to persons doing so. I further explained that section 57 of the FS Act provides that an authorized person must approve an investment advertisement. In this connection it appears that an authorized person has not approved the 2 Drummond & Co" website. I would add that the exemption mentioned above in note 6 to paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 of the Act does not apply to investment advertisements.

on the above points I have noted that the " Drummond & Co" web site states:

If you would like us to introduce you to the lawyers people who devised this product on an exclusive basis then please contact Drummond & Co" in respect of editorial about the new type of pension annuity.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT HOW YOU OR YOUR CLIENTS COULD OWN, rather than rent, the assets of their pension- more effectively- then please contact us in respect of the new pension policy.

"for further details contact Drummond & Co" in respect of the Capital Redemption Policy.

I have reviewed the Drummond & Co warning under the new pension annuity announcement that " drummond & Co just identify Assurance Companies which are currently writing such business to qualified financial advisers and other professionals such as accountants". Similar wordings appear for a with profit annuity. Allowing for these warnings your reply does not fully address our concerns. It does seem from the editorial comments above that any individual requesting further information about the arrangements for the various products listed above would not necessarily be barred from receiving the requested information or introduction. The terms " qualified financial advisers" and " other professionals such as accountants" in the warning quoted above appears does not seem to apply exclusively to authorized or exempt persons that provide independent advice.

I would therefore like to receive your comments on the FSA's concerns outlined above together with your suggestions on how the site can be modified to deal with them.
I look forward to your reply by 8th January 2001.

Reply from the Editor of The Informed Investor.

Dear Mr Harrison,

I did not see your last letter dated 22nd December until 12th of January. as I stated in my last letter we will be pleased to alter any part of the Informed Investor that you feel might be confusing or open to mis-interpretation.  We note your concerns in regards to the statements you have fears about and have changed the to read as follows  "For further details on legal, taxation and non FSA advice on this page Contact". This makes it very clear that we do not deal with any item that comes under the UK FSA".

However you must realize we produce an international website which covers five providers throughout the world and we are operating to satisfy many authorities like yourself. Whilst I used to be an authorized person under the FSA act I personally am now covered by another European body as as a " demarcheur Financier". My own experience of the Financial Services trade goes back to 1964 and in that time I have run the UK Branch of a Life Assurance Company, A Friendly Society, 2 Firms of IFAs and this journal in all its forms since 1972. It was Drummond & Co who introduced discount purchase of investments. In those days we were chastised for doing what is the norm and recommended  today. In turn we have also warned about the mis- selling of Pensions in the late eighties, the danger of home release policies, the problems that would be created by the second-hand policy business and many more ills of the financial services trade. That is why we are here- these are not ADVERTISEMENTS.
Section 3 of the FS Act

You should know full well that most " off the peg" insurance policies and investments usually have heavy charges included so as to pay for advertising and commissions. We stopped recommending such plans many years ago. Our publication went up-market and is there for people who are AUTHORIZED either by the FSA or other such world bodies. Quite simply anyone with a bit of savvy in the Financial Services industry knows you don't go to Saville Row for an " off the peg" suit. That's why our Fimbra registered IFA company was called. Bespoke Portfolio Ltd.
 

In creating a tax efficient international vehicle for a discerning taxpayer it is imperative that that person understands the full implications of purchasing any type of investment anywhere. Therefore he needs to utilize the services of lawyers and accountants who can create the vehicle to maximize profits. Those professionals create trusts and other tax efficient vehicles offshore. 
Those offshore creations DO NOT COME UNDER THE FSA jurisdiction. Therefore you must not be concerned with what those offshore ( from the UK) bodies decide to invest in.  In regards to the use of Capital Redemption Policies you must realize that each policy has to be specially constructed and agreed by lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. All of these are highly qualified and are authorized completely within the jurisdictions they act in. ( This, of course, includes those authorized by the FSA).
Drummond & Co have no agreement with any  provider to pay them commission if a product is bought. We do however have introductory agreements with lawyers, trustees, accountants and others who create the vehicles . Those activities, however, are completely outside the FSA.

 Section 57 of the FS Act 
As there is no actual " off the peg" product there can be no advertisement for something that has not yet been created. Section 57 applies to the advertisement of a product that comes under the FS Act.  As explained before what we are "advertising" to authorized personnel is the service to create tax efficient circumstances. This in turn will only be of use to the profession. As I stated before we NEVER mention any investment provider of any sort or an actual product. We speak in generic terms. (* Except in our watchdog column for critical purposes).

In turn the Pension Annuity can only be created through an agreement between the shareholders of an insurance company and an individual. It is not an "off the peg" product. The shareholders have to agree to forfeit their shareholding rights. In arranging this the lawyer is not contravening the  FSA..

In regards to modification we would be happy to act on any suggestions you make, but it is our opinion that what is written is both very clear and not in contravention. Whilst 3 of our sites are UK  based- 4 more are in the USA. We also cover Europe and Australia as well as the Middle East.

For further details on the same page as Capital Redemption policies pertains to all the items on that page. The actual Capital Redemption plan is a legal contract that pertains to a situation and is a generic term. I doubt whether any two contracts are the same. Those contracts have to be prepared by a top lawyer for an authorized intermediary. It is the intermediary who is registered under the FSA ( if the deal comes under their authority) who would as he is permitted recommend an investment. That intermediary would be the existing adviser to the client, not one recommended by the Informed Investor or the lawyers.

The Informed Investor just tells intermediaries that such legal and taxation systems exist. WE KNOW OF NO COMPLETED CAPITAL REDEMPTION POLICIES or ANNUITIES that have been created by our introductions. The
only further details we have on Capital Redemption Plans is an article from a well established newspaper whose comments we do not re-publish because of copyright.

As for the Annuity Product we are again talking in the generic terms that such contracts exist- we do not recommend the product as their is NO specific contract that we know of- just that several assurance
companies have them. It is up to your member to identify them and choose. We have just made him aware.

As I previously mentioned I will be pleased to change any words that you feel are confusing as a courtesy- as we do with all other authorities. We note the dates and times that you have viewed our sites. Would you
please in future either email or fax your epistles to me as I keep in contact from afar and most of our websites are operated outside the UK. Normal mail takes time to reach me.

Rest assured that Drummond & Co only introduce ( in the loose sense of the word) people who are authorized under the FSA to others who are authorized under the FSA in the very small amount of queries received
that come in or through the UK proper. We are not prepared to constantly answer questions which are completely inappropriate to what we are doing and are of no consequence but to waste our time and money and the fees
payable to yourselves by those who are authorized.

Remember one introduces to lawyers to create contracts - and tax efficient methods. That is the service being provided NOT INVESTMENT BUSINESS. Most of the content is discussing the legal position- there is
NO MENTION of a specific provider in the Informed Investor except through our watchdog column where we criticize companies.

As you find the Informed Investor such compulsive reading please recommend it to your friends and colleagues. The Pattifun and Jewish Jokes pages may be of more amenable reading.

Happy New Year

Editor
0870 794 2180

Reply from Roger Harrison at the FSA 

Dear Editor, 

Thank you for your email of January 20th 2001 and for your clarification that you only introduce persons authorised by the FSA to other persons authorised by the FSA. I have also noted the changes made to appropriate pages on the Informed Investor web site that informs enquirers to contact Drummond & Co. for "further details on legal, taxation and non FSA advice".

Thank you for making the modifications to the Informed Investor internet web site. I can advise you that the FSA now considers this matter to be closed.

Yours Sincerely,
Roger Harrison

SOME INTERESTING FORMER ATTEMPTS TO CON US HAVE INCLUDED:

·  1.THE MONEY WASHING CON

·  We were approached by a person who wished to utilise our BVI company operating through Switzerland to pay certain lawyers. We were offered $30,000 a month to do this. When we asked for details of the monies back seven steps we heard no more.

·  2.THE TOILET DOOR OFFICE

·  Through the good offices of FIMBRA we were introduced to a French Character who claimed to be representing both a leading French and German Bank in Paris. He wished to manage investments from British institutions on the French bourse. We met him at the offices of the German Bank in Paris at 12.30pm and he took us on a guided tour of the offices. Even pointing to his office door with his name on it. The door turned out to lead to a toilet and the staff of the bank were out to lunch. We had previously checked with the bank who had no knowledge of him.

·  3. JOHN WAYNE RIDES AGAIN

·  We were approached by a character to arrange mortgages to buy two houses- One was Cubby Broccolli's home in Denham and the other was a Manor House in Oxfordshire where the TV drama Titmus Revisited was filmed. His con was to create an inflated valuation and then borrow more than the purchase cost. 

·  4. The FAKE TURNSTILE

·  We were exhibiting at the Royal Show at Kenilworth in Warwickshire when two lads cut a hole in the perimeter fence and created their own entrance turnstile collecting £8 a head to enter. This was like the lads that set up their own till in Harrods during the sales.

Attn: The President/CEO.
Dear Sir, 

I have received a useful and vital information about you and your organization, I am satisfied with such useful information. 

Very pleased to be in contact with you, for the possibility of accepting my urgent proposal to you. Please note that I don't have anything to hide from you, regardless that I have not seen you before but because of the person who introduced your particulars to me. I know that He will never introduce me to any person that will hurt me.

My name is Mr. Bronwen Manby, I am the chairman/Director of Civil Liberties Organization, a committee for the Niger Delta Crisis involving the foreign oil firms { Mobil oil, Elf oil, AGIP oil,L.N.G}, and the Federal Government of Nigeria on the Delta Region. By venture of my position in this committee, I am my colleagues has been able to negotiate out for our self a total sum of thirty-two million United States Dollars, {$32,000,000}, which we want to transfer into a reliable/save account outside Nigeria. 

This money accrued as a result of continued violence in the Niger Delta region, kidnapping of Foreign expatriate by the communities, in this area and their demand for compensation To their farm lands which has been ecologically destroyed by the activities of these companies. 

The Government on it's part submitted a Bill of 14% support derivation for the Niger delta which the National assemble passed into law. The oil
companies on their part will compensate the communities on an agreed percentage {%}. Which we negotiated between the oil firms and the community's representatives. 

Though the payment will be made install mentally through a period of six months under our supervision. During the process of negotiation with both parties, we were able to cut out the thirty-two million Dollars {$32’000’000}, because we also need to enjoy Governments money and it is a very good means for us to make money with our immediate position. 

If you would want to discuss with me in person first, then you can arrange to come to Nigeria for face to face meeting. If you will play this role, of providing the receiving account, and at the same time pledge your honesty not to double cross us at the end of the transaction, we will be willing to give you only 30% of the total sum at the successful conclusion of the transfer.

Please do sent to me via e-mail the details,particulars of your bank and also your acceptance, so that I will have room to give you more information and my private lines for you to contact me directly.

Please also feel free to send your question or inquiry to my e-mail address for further clarification, if needed. Finally, this transaction is classified and
confidential and must be treated as such.

Please do feel free to visit www.hrw.org/hrw/press/1999/feb/nig0223.htm,
for verification.

Since this matter demands an utmost secrecy, I would not want you to contact me through the phone number on the website, rather I shall send to you a private contact phone number for you to contact me as soon as you show your interest to assist me in this transaction.
Thank you for your anticipated co-operation.

Yours Faithfully, 

Mr. Bronwen Manby.
N.B., Remember to include your private telephone and fax number to enable me contact you easily.
-- 
Manby Bronwen
manbybronwen@onebox.com - email
(713) 590-2340 x7489 - voicemail/fax

PENSIONS THE REAL REASON FOR THE FAILURE 

WANTED FOR FUNDAMENTAL BREACH OF CONTRACT
REWARD £ billions of Pensioners money

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LETS
A 10% RETURN

INFOSEEK

THE TRUTH
WHY ENDOWMENT POLICIES ARE FAILING POLICYHOLDERS

BACKGROUND
FROM GEORGE TO GORDON BROWN

TAX & PENSION COMMENTARY

Read commentary & ideas on:

Capital Gains Tax

Inheritance Tax

Pensions

HAS THE INLAND REVENUE ANY RESPONSIBILITY?

COMPUTER TRAINING

E-COMMERCE

NEW UK WEBSITE GUIDE

PATTI'S FUN PAGE

This plan is a tax-free investment plan utilizing the top 24 Chateaux in Bordeaux.  Each portfolio  (Minimum $4000/£2,500) is invested in specially selected Bordeaux Clarets.

These are selected by a board of management which is advised by the renowned Master of Wine, David Peppercorn - an authority on Bordeaux and author of the definitive book on Bordeaux wines.

All growth is free of all taxes and unlike ISAs there is no upper limit on holdings or amounts invested each year- but like all such investments the value can go down as well as up. Charges are very reasonable being between 0.25%-0.5% per annum to cover storage in a bonded warehouse, insurance and management.

Other wine features include an article on the
Language of the Label ,
Bordeaux Vineyard News,
Wineline Community Buy & Sell Wines,
Croxtons Grapevine Scheme 
and the Ask Vinny columns
 
 

Click here to go to :