01516680386

How do I rise to this....? I don't.
It was not a print screen it was the original document

So you have a firm of solicitors confirming in writing who did what. A firm of accountants carrying out an investigation under the watchful eye of the Insolvency service and an Ifa who verifies the contents of documents, don't rise to it Paul, any member/interested party who has dealings with you would not doubt your word.

Somewhat odd comments. I meant a printscreen of his comment on this forum is not evidence, I did not mean a printscreen of a document!!!!! It would need to be an original. How that got twisted into suggesting anyone was not telling the truth is beyond me.

Glad for you to confirm he's telling the truth and why should you need an original document, I'm sure the relevant authorities have..

What is it about this site? I did not say he was telling the truth or otherwise. I have no idea if he is or not. I just referred to a comment on a forum as not being evidence and I did not ask for it for myself.

Then you truly are clueless

I will explain.
screenshots have been used before to be shown as evidence.That have lead people up the garden path. I am sure that it is the reason for the response you have had and I am sure no offence was meant by "evidence" or anyone else

http://www.ssauk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/StoreFirstMediaRelease.pdf

14 million?

absolute spot on mate .

Everything that needs to be done will most certainly be done to recover the 1.6million .

have yuo called the police yet?

The police have known for months

kick ass then sir , get the 1.6 million

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/908999515
Assets of 52M Liabilities of 55M simple maths the whole lots only worth -3M
Doesn't help when you take 4-5M in Divs a year

Good afternoon Brian,
A few points I think are worth asking,and request your response.
Who gave Hadley authority to act? ITSL,must have been aware of where the money was being invested,they are legally responsible for the investment, therefore why allow Hadley to act?
Who holds the title deeds for the pods? I'm officially requesting copies off all title deeds,of all pods.
Can you confirm who the scheme advisors are, currently and previously,if different ?
Can you forward a copy of the scheme agreement, between ITSL and storefirst?
What information as already been received? This was not and as not been communicated to members.
And lastly but most importantly.why have the police not yet been called in as it is most apparent that the 1.6 million has been at the very least lost,and more likely diverted away from the scheme.
I trust you will get back to me BY e-mail by end of play today,Brian.

The implication seems to be that the fact the assets are not in ITSL’s bank account should in some absolve them or give J.S. reassurance.  But they remain trust assets, care of which is wholly ITSL’s responsibility as trustee.
I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE THAT ITSL IS GENUINELY ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THE MATTER. And ITSL’s failure, whether through inability or, far more probably, unwillingness to provide J.S. with the information he has requested as to the status and security of his pension constitutes maladministration.  Although I have not seen a formal request from J.S. to transfer to a named scheme which meets the prescribed requirements under legislation, thereby acquiring him a statutory right to payment, it appears inevitable that J.S. would now wish to transfer his pension back out of the Scheme.  ITSL say that this is an unwarranted assumption but it is consistent with J.S.’s original complaint letter in which he said that he had been “robbed of £xxx,xxx”.  POS Determination 11.5.15 No. 5038

I seem to recall a post by "Informed" that said pretty much the same, which was then rubbished. I am  Referring to the responsibility part of this. ( I am not Informed before someone jumps on this )
Do Imperial seriously think that this Mr S does not want to transfer? How can this be an unwarranted assumption, truly amazing if correct.

Think this is the beginning of the end and is only going to be a disappointment for the members

Same guy who said it was a pension scheme. ..
So not problem from Widows or Legal and General...
Only one set of people holding things up...Storefirst

Did you call the police as Joe asked?