Morning Jessie, what have you done so far in relation to this issue? Have you requested/received all the information from Swift on the charges and account? Have you been to anybody like FOS and presented a case?

Evening Jamie, have you looked into your agreement and have you anything further to report on how your case is going?

Congrats, sounds as though you have a decent judge. To go forward I believe you might be in a position to look at clause L in the terms and conditions on your agreement. If you could post up what exactly your terms say we could then go through what it states and then people can give a view on how they read it. I am hoping you have the same agreement as me and most others who have unregulated loans with this company. Term L should be concerning the application of charges and they are on the reverse or second page of the agreement.

You definitely need to SAR them and find out how a £10k loan which would have been regulated has become un-regulated. Unless they are saying you re-financed at some point with loan above the £25k limit then the original agreement would be covered by CCA. If you did re-finance then the circumstances would need to be investigated.

https://consumercreditlitigationanddebtcollection.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/swift-advances-plc-v-daley/ This is from one of the other threads that I mentioned it on so I hope the link works

You certainly need to calculate the PPI but it will be the responsibility of the broker if they are still around, Swift will be very quick to let you know this because it is one of their stock answers. As for some of their charges they have just been through a legal case where a lot of their charges were found to illegal and that was on a loan similar to yours which should be covered by CCA regulations. Make a request for all of the information they have by SAR so you can truly see the fuller picture.

They have been doing this to me and when I have asked why they just state about late payments have caused increases, a lot of these payments were made on time but there system logged them late citing bank transfer delays. Personally I think they incur penalties if they pay there funders late so they are doing what they can to increase their cashflow and we are the ones paying the price.

Andy, being site team I guessed you would know. My reply was more generic for the others who might be reading and might not understand and also to highlight that 1st and 2nd charge are now both covered as mortgages but the relevant authorities have chosen not to include existing products. This has left existing 2nd charge loans ( usually termed as mortgages by the likes of Swift) as totally devoid of regulations of any type because the authorities will not recognise them as mortgages or as consumer loans. The concern we all need to understand though is these are generally long term products which are only just beginning to end and I fear there are a lot of people who are just unaware of the position they might be in.

Andy. a 10 year loan against your property is/was as good as a mortgage in everything but the important eyes of the laws/regs. I say was because it has been recognised and all current secured lending comes under mortgage regulations, surprisingly though existing products are not being included. If I was cynical I would say the regulators are aware of the problem so are avoiding the onus to act being placed upon them. You also asked whether it was an interest only loan, with any of these loans if you have charges added near the beginning it is added to the capital which nullifies the payment, you are soon only covering the interest. If you are unaware of this then the payments are never increased to cover the charges or costs that are added hence the fact you never pay the loan off. Companies like this know there is no requirement to keep you fully informed on an unregulated loan so don't. Read into that what you want.

I wish you luck Fudge, I feel there are a load more of you on Swifts books they just don't know it because they haven't got to the end of their loan yet. The sheer lack of info supplied by Swift over the years allows all the charges and interest to accrue before you have a chance to nip it in the bud. Because of the capital/interest repayment schedule very little is coming off of the capital at the beginning so any charges placed then stop the repayment being any use and once you end up owing more than you borrowed it is a slow downward spiral. The cynical amongst us would say that this is there overall plan, they certainly understand how little help the victims receive from the law and regulators.

A link as been posted on another swift thread on here hopefully you will find it.

Maybe you should request a copy of all calls made which they have a duty to supply. They come on a password protected cd so they make it difficult to access but it can be done with the right programme.

Ok Swift Advances PLC v Daley case no 4PB02756 is a recent judgement regarding issues including charges. Unfortunately this was an un-regulated loan which didn't have the protection supposedly offered on your regulated loan but it might have a few pointers that could help

Ok Swift Advances PLC v Daley case no 4PB02756 is a recent judgement regarding issues including charges. Unfortunately this was an un-regulated loan which didn't have the protection supposedly offered on your regulated loan but it might have a few pointers that could help.

From reading between the lines I am imagining that the mortgage company and Swift are unaware of James's mothers passing and his Aunt has just kept up the payments which if it is the case then getting the required info might be difficult if the account holder is unable to authorise access. The only other answer would be that they were joint mortgages/loans and the other account holder is still around. I cant believe that the mortgage and loan would have been allowed to continue if the lenders were aware the borrower, who the agreement would have been with, was no longer around to fulfil their side of the agreement. The only way the property should have stayed in the estate would have been either an insurance policy clearing the mortgage/loan, a new agreement made which sounds very unlikely or just a grace period for bereavement in my opinion.