Miss Muddle's UE Diary

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Thanks SXGuy for this. If you look up the Companies House rules on dormant companies which are dormant they may not participate in ANY commercial activity whatsoever. A number of the banks themselves operate debt collection companies which are on the register as "Dormant". Mercers the animals which belong to Barclays Bank plc are one of the notable ones. They are all committing serious offences against the Companies Act 1985 and 2006 and the authorities and regulators all turn a blind eye. If we did the same thing we would have long been arrested and imprisoned with the maximum penalties but as usual Banks and this filthy industry are untouchable and above the law.

regards
G

[SXGuy]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Your right, but i wonder if they are using a loop hole of sorts, one in which i will try and find out.

As far as i am aware, if the directors statement in the accounts says that the company is non trading/dormant, then the company status must also be changed to reflect the accounts. However that would mean that companies house would likely write to the company and notify them that no further accounts are needed, and will contact them again within 4 years to check the status of the company.

Now, by submitting accounts showing £0 balance sheet every year, could be some sort of loop hole to keep the company active, yet remain non trading. This to me, sounds logical, since the company isnt incurring expenses, or receiving a turnover, so is therefore not trading, however, its left open to trade should they wish to.

Although that being said, i do believe that this in itself is misleading, and is not the correct process under the Companies Act.

Either way, no one should receive any letters from MDB at all, who paid for the letter to be typed up? who paid for the letterhead stationery? if Miss Muddle paid MDB some money for example, would it be shown in the accounts? who would cash the cheque?

I do not believe that DLC could argue MDB incurred no costs or have gained no profit from issuing letters in their name.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

They do not have a CCL either. That's the killer.

See my letter to DLC - that spells out their breaches

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Its an interesting one really because a number of these companies are actually shown on the register at CH as "Dormant" and the rules are absolutely clear. I was told in skirmishes with Mercers that they and Barclays were I quote" Above the Law and no judge or court will dare move against us or our parent company". Pity I didn't record that. It clearly shows the arrogance and disregard for the law by the financial sector. That was the reptile I told to get up bend over and stick his head through his anal sphincter muscle so that he could talk less shite. I do hope that they produce that recording.

regards
G

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Lol Garlok. Classic

[Miss Muddled]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Guys.

Just did a company number search on WebCheck and MERCANTILE DATA BUREAU LIMITED 01829604 says, the status is "active" but the company accounts submitted 30/04/12 says its dormant.

They have until 08/09/2013 to file an annual return and change its company status, so be interesting to see if its dormant or trading.

But im wondering if DLC are trying to mislead you by saying, the company is active (when it techically is) without admitting the trading status is dormant/non trading.

Thanks SXGuy for this. If you look up the Companies House rules on dormant companies which are dormant they may not participate in ANY commercial activity whatsoever. A number of the banks themselves operate debt collection companies which are on the register as "Dormant". Mercers the animals which belong to Barclays Bank plc are one of the notable ones. They are all committing serious offences against the Companies Act 1985 and 2006 and the authorities and regulators all turn a blind eye. If we did the same thing we would have long been arrested and imprisoned with the maximum penalties but as usual Banks and this filthy industry are untouchable and above the law.

regards
G

Your right, but i wonder if they are using a loop hole of sorts, one in which i will try and find out.

As far as i am aware, if the directors statement in the accounts says that the company is non trading/dormant, then the company status must also be changed to reflect the accounts. However that would mean that companies house would likely write to the company and notify them that no further accounts are needed, and will contact them again within 4 years to check the status of the company.

Now, by submitting accounts showing £0 balance sheet every year, could be some sort of loop hole to keep the company active, yet remain non trading. This to me, sounds logical, since the company isnt incurring expenses, or receiving a turnover, so is therefore not trading, however, its left open to trade should they wish to.

Although that being said, i do believe that this in itself is misleading, and is not the correct process under the Companies Act.

Either way, no one should receive any letters from MDB at all, who paid for the letter to be typed up? who paid for the letterhead stationery? if Miss Muddle paid MDB some money for example, would it be shown in the accounts? who would cash the cheque?

I do not believe that DLC could argue MDB incurred no costs or have gained no profit from issuing letters in their name.

They do not have a CCL either. That's the killer.

See my letter to DLC - that spells out their breaches

Its an interesting one really because a number of these companies are actually shown on the register at CH as "Dormant" and the rules are absolutely clear. I was told in skirmishes with Mercers that they and Barclays were I quote" Above the Law and no judge or court will dare move against us or our parent company". Pity I didn't record that. It clearly shows the arrogance and disregard for the law by the financial sector. That was the reptile I told to get up bend over and stick his head through his anal sphincter muscle so that he could talk less shite. I do hope that they produce that recording.

regards
G

Lol Garlok. Classic

You folks are just incredible, a minefiled of information, and even what you don't know you make it business to go find answers to help people like us, incredible people on here, we wouldn't even know where to start to look for this kind of info.

Unfortunately can't get my head round all the info, basically what DLC are trying to convince us, is yeah its states active on CH, however what they haven't mentioned is that the Accounts submitted is Dormant. Obviously DCL are trying to decieve us at some point and maybe thinking theyvcan pull wool over our eyes type of thing.


Also as said they have sent new copies of T & C's completely different to the ones Hillesden Securities sent to us in 2010, are Hillesden Securities and DLC same companies....we haven't a clue which companies belong to who or where, sure they do this just to confuse peeps like us.

Will send the copies of CCA and new T & C's to Niddy tomorrow, need Daughter here to help me, as you have realised not to techi on computer...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Hillesdon own DLC & MDB, yes

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Guys --- I have just checked the register up to date at close of business yesterday and the data available for free from CH.

Mercantile Data Bureau Limited is a NON-TRADING COMPANY, i.e it is NOT allowed to participate in any shape or form in ANY commercial activity whatsoever.

It has two previous names: surprise surprise!!!!!

HILLESDEN FARMS LIMITED
NEATHOLD LIMITED

This is all a try on by Hillesden after being forced to back down under their own name it would seem. My reply would be along the lines of the infamous quote from Arkell v Pressdram.

regards
G

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Guys --- I have just checked the register up to date at close of business yesterday and the data available for free from CH.

Mercantile Data Bureau Limited is a NON-TRADING COMPANY, i.e it is NOT allowed to participate in any shape or form in ANY commercial activity whatsoever.

It has two previous names: surprise surprise!!!!!

HILLESDEN FARMS LIMITED
NEATHOLD LIMITED

This is all a try on by Hillesden after being forced to back down under their own name it would seem. My reply would be along the lines of the infamous quote from Arkell v Pressdram.

regards
G

Yea we know this mate - we sent two letters to DLC arguing this exact point - telling them to go forth and multiply lol

Thing is they won't do anything, if they do we'll royally screw them

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

somebody also mentioned in the past year or so that:- Vardi (Ireland) have been selling account over to A.K. as their consumer credit licence had not been renewed for about 6 months and the purchase was therefore illegal) how true I do not know?

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Yea we know this mate - we sent two letters to DLC arguing this exact point - telling them to go forth and multiply lol

Thing is they won't do anything, if they do we'll royally screw them

Now that will be worth buying tickets to see.

One thing I didn't look at though which is something Mrs G normally does, is look at what purchasable reports are available from the CH database. You can often glean a lot from that in a timeline like who resigned and when and who was appointed/reappointed without actually buying the things for a quid a time | think.

I'll try and find a few minutes today to have a look. The CCL thing combined with trading a non trading limited liability company is a real problem for them.


regards
G

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Cloggy is the man to ask if you want any company records mate

Put another way, if you're dodgy he'll find it

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Cloggy is the man to ask if you want any company records mate

Put another way, if you're dodgy he'll find it

l l

regards
G

[Miss Muddled]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Wasn't too sure if Hillesden had connections with DLC and MDB its been a while since we heard from Hillesden, I'm sure they have all these different names/companies to try and confuse people and guess what they certainly managed to do that to us....totally unfair how they are allowed to try and deceive people who are really vunerable (which we were until we were guided here by Elsa).

Cheers everyone for your help and input, its all greatly appreciated.

[Miss Muddled]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Oh dear, me been scattered brain again or what....was about to email letters and CCA to Niddy but cant find the link in his post, has it disappeared or am i not looking hard enough....or am i missing something since upgrade.