01516680386

Did you give this information to Downs? Who is the "other gentleman" Downs mentioned?

With respect, it would seem you have acknowledged Miss Brooks was 100% correct about the 100k to Thurlstone. Have you given her evidence the 1.2 m is not missing?

i  most certainly did not ignore anything at all . all monies paid to metis law were intended for the investment in store first ,approx 10.1 million was paid to them . it is now and i repeat  we believe  now that metis may have received  an instruction to pay to thurlstone  the sum of 100 k  but in fairness this is only taken from information given by miss brooks not by metis law . they will not provide this information , why i do not know . with  regards to the other gentleman , i am sorry but i must not give you his name. i offer again please telephone me and i am sure that i can answer your questions

i am sorry to disagree but i have not confirmed anything about miss brooks ,i cannot do that without confirmation  from metis law . she does not need evidence concerning  the 1.2 million , i promise you it was a spurious claim at the outset . bearing in mind that the 1.2 then became  2.2 million  with extras as she put it., now we are back to 1.2. this has been checked by a government agency  and they have found that there are no missing funds . paul t sent me a list that miss brooks had provided and i proved to him and to the agency  that nothing was missing . once again please phone.

Just a thought, but if you had proved it to Brooks when she first brought this up there would be a hell of lot fewer pages on this thread.
What action is ITSL going to take against the maverick director what doesn't live in Bromley then?

That, I can assure you will be dealt with ASAP. As far as miss brooks is concerned she has no position in all of this . Please remember that what I said before that her claim was totally unfounded,infact it was total nonsense but as you can see she still does not accept it . Why I do not know .

What a women who dosent repeat herself....Why thats just one of them there urban myths. Surley

If Downs (and Perkins and Fowler) had cooperated with independent accounts and audit months ago this would all have been sorted by xmas.  Downs actually has no position in any of this as Imperial was removed as administrator back in October.  Imperial was never trustee, only administrator - and deemed by the Pensions Ombudsman to be guilty of maladministration in December.  The other "gentleman" is Perkins, Salih's business partner (Premier Pension Transfers who handled all the Capita Oak transfers).  Downs has known about the 100k to Thurlestone for months and deliberately ignored it on the instructions of Perkins because they didn't want it to come out.  Now it is out, there should be immediate disclosure, not more excuses.  Dunlop was appointed by Payne (who had the Companies House pin number) and Downs was instructed by Payne.  All this bluster is just a smokescreen.

I notice you haven't mentioned James Hadley in any of this is it that obvious that your not allowed to speak about your employer and you haven't answered the questions on your other two schemes isn't that a surprise !!!!

Well it's obvious to the rest of us.....

I don't think anyone could employ Ms Brooks.

For once in your life stop spouting absolute rubbish .you really are the limit. Just admit you are wrong and let us get on with it .perhaps your friend is unhappy with you for not getting your own way on this one .why don't you concentrate on your two companies where you are a director .u

Who else would have had PIN number could it be the same person who could appoint directors to Highgate & Thames. and did. Sorry but it's crystal to me, everything keeps going back to one person. Add to that the links to scc ...

Other gentleman...?? Perkins . ?? Ward...?? Nope...everyone  seems to know...but for some mind boggling reason you don't. ...I said a while back that things don't make sense...this is the one that jumps up and bites me and (I only post  like this when things completely wind me up because they're ridiculous)....loads of people who've been on this for a year now don't get it either...
The answer to your question of earlier ?
Yes...and the other gentleman but that blindingly obvious

Question why would Payme appoint Dunlop? Better someone who has a relationship with Dunlop appoint him....

Bloody Hell just had 5 pages without the name Ward being mentioned....and you have to...... At least we can all see the real culprit, but for whatever reason you can't...

Payne owns this company. If someone is appointing people without his permission then he needs to do something about it. What a complete shambles. I hope the authorities are following this. You could not make it up. This is supposed to be a trust company looking after millions of pounds of other peoples money.

Bloody mobile devices , you can't see Angie not Paul....

Why did Payne remove Brooks instantly as director but allow Dunlop the Hadley stooge to stay in place? If Payne did not remove Brooks, then Hadley must have done.

Who 'owns' Highgate or Thames ? And would they have authority?