Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

SWIFT ADVANCES, IMO LOAN SHARKS! VERY HIGH SETTLEMENT FIGURE - any help out there?


Wayne2001uk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3147 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

So I am another vulnerable victim that was stupid enough to take out an unauthorised secured loan on my house. Here are the facts:

1st Mortgage with Halifax = £170,000 (interest only)

Secured loan from Swift = £40,000 (interest only)

 

Payments made to Swift since 2007 = £35,000.

Payments made to Halifax since 2004 = £72,500 approx

Settlement figure from Halifax = £170,000

Settlement figure from Swift = £86,000

 

Halifax total cost of borrowing £242,500 borrowed 170k, as a fraction 1.42%

Swift total cost of borrowing £121,000 borrowed 40k, as a fraction 3%

 

So I'm very curious why I borrowed 4 times more with Halifax yet their profit from the loan is £72,500 yet Swifts works out at £81,000

I use the word profit lightly because of course I understand there are other factors in the cost of borrowing however it still feels like I'm being ripped off by Swift.

 

I've been through the mill with both loans, court hearings twice, remortgaged both times and now I'm about to sell my house and was shocked to receive the Swift settlement figure, they claim it is compound interest.

I have been to financial ombudsman who I don't think can help because it is an unauthorised secured loan, which meant and still doesn't really mean anything to me, from what I can gather it's pretty much like loaning from a loan shark and it would seem they can do what they want.

I was offered by Swift to put a full and final offer in which I did for £60,000, it was rejected, I re-offered at £75,000 again rejected, I just want some of my original £50,000 deposit back because as it stands I am set to lose £110,000 (86,000 to Swift).

 

The sale of my house is due to complete in 7 days and although I can only just manage to do that, I have lost my 50k and the 100k equity because of Swift.

 

There must be some help out there what can stop these crooks from just demanding these ridiculous settlement figures, I will be very interested in any advice or pointers please.

 

Thank you for reading. I'm hoping one day the government and FCA steps in and looks at the older loans like these that were taken and now struggling homeowners like me being forced to sell before being too deep into the ever increasing debt and interest.

 

Thank you in advance

Wayne.

Edited by Wayne2001uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing you can really do is look at reclaiming charges, ppi and possibly hidden commissions but you've got a long fight on your hands if you go down that route.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOS are as much use as a chocolate tea pot. They told me that Swift would not be charging me interest while the FOS were investigating my case, guess what they were wrong and I had another 18 months of charges added because that is how long those idiots took to investigate!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

what you have is an unregulated agreement, which is why the fos cannot help

 

I presume you already have sent a SAR to swift, to identify everything that has occured by way of charges etc

 

Do you have a copy of your agreement and t&cs

 

Your only route is going to be via the courts

 

Have the negotiations been via your conveyancing solicitors?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what you have is an unregulated agreement, which is why the fos cannot help

 

I presume you already have sent a SAR to swift, to identify everything that has occured by way of charges etc

 

Do you have a copy of your agreement and t&cs

 

Your only route is going to be via the courts

 

Have the negotiations been via your conveyancing solicitors?

 

Please Wayne, don't go near the courts. I am not going to post my circumstances suffice to say that going via the Court with Swift is a waste of time and your money, if they can't win fairly, they'll win unfairly and the Judiciary will not be on your side. All costs, to the penny that Swift accrue will be put onto you account and they'll fleece you rotten.

 

When Caro says your loan is Unregulated if you are unaware of the terminology, it means it is not Regulated by the CCA, this explains: http://www.finance-law.info/financelawinfo/2008/04/the-big-event-removal-of-the-cca-financial-limit.html

 

So with a 40k loan before the changed date you have an unregulated loan which more or less says Swift can do what they like and you can do diddly squat and dare you challenge us we will, as a term and condition of your loan, charge you for us to employ extremely expensive barristers, whilst you are struggling to pay us, and to fight you off so bog off!

 

That about sums it up and Caro will confirm I know what I'm talking about.

 

You can go down the Unfair relationship route using Section 140, but believe me, if I could look you in the eye and give you one really good piece of advice I'd say pay the feckers and go live your life because I spent the best part of 5 years of my life taking them on and they are slipprier than a worm coated in grease.

 

I still have pangs of anger knowing what they did to me and how they did it and got away with it, I know far too many people who have spent 10's of thousands of hours researching and fighting, mostly to no avail. Pay them off, get your life back into shape and then if you want to go back from a position of strength to challenge them, then that's the best way to do it and you can annoy the hell out of them without their wanton charges being plied to your account like they did mine..be free of them first, then go back cos you'll get nothing from them while they have your home hanging in their trophy cabinet.

 

They are asset strippers believe me.

 

I don't know you, so I have no reason to be biased one way or another, but that's just about as much as I can give anyone these days - my experience and show them how I wasted so much of my valuable time fighting these dregs.

 

I hope that helps, but nobody will take you as being weak for just getting the hell out of their grips - quite the contrary.

 

Good luck.

 

A1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say that I can confirm that Andrew knows from bitter experience what swift are like and fought hard. It isn't the advice you want but you should give it serious consideration.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

could we not form a gang against swift.

and gang up on them.

there must be someone higher up who can deal with them,

they did not give anything of value because so called money is just promises to pay its not worth the paper its printed on.

where as you put in hard labour to get your house and they just come and take it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fighting the devil (male or female as satan has many guises) always a challenge and all waiting for the deliverer from evil. I tend to go along with the tentacle idea as where does the ladder in Swift lead too? Nose in trough springs to mind and we know not who that is involved. You have a new house to buy and it seems no time to take on Swift. When they are tackled from within the system, you can come back to it rather like what is happening to VW.

 

A class action is a great idea. I believe there's awareness of Swift in certain places but the cogs in the wheel turn slow i'm afraid. I like to believe the work continues to eradicate toxic unregulated loans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take comfort that when you are out of their clutches they can't keep fleecing you. If you then decide to take them on you will be in a much stronger position as they won't be able to charge you more and the sword of Damocles will no longer be there. It'll be in your terms.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...