Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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 charges unlawful


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2567 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

That's brilliant news Paul. Well done!!! :-D

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

  • 10 months later...

Paul hi,

 

 

I was interested in your comments regarding Swifts unlawful charges for the period you listed, only I took out a swift loan in 2007 for £7500 for ten years that's due to end in October this year.

I have already paid back £15000 and Swift are demanding an additional £18500 IN October FOR INTEREST AND ACCOUNT CHARGES due to some missed payments during the last 10 years.

This amount seems crazy I wondered if it is even legal I would have to sell my house to raise this sort of money. any advice or info would be appreciated.

 

 

Best Regards

J Dallison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ombudsman took a similar view too.

 

Ref:

 

complaint

Mrs M complains that Swift Advances Plc (Swift) has applied excessive fees and charges to her secured loan account.

 

 

The amount Mrs M owes Swift has increased over time rather than reducing as she has made repayments.

 

 

Mrs M is very concerned that she will end up losing her home.

 

background

Mrs M took out a secured loan with Swift Advances Plc in September 2005 for around £20,000 over a 10-year term.

 

The secured loan history shows that some repayments to the loan account have been missed, paid late or made in part since 2006.

 

 

The account has had arrears charges, legal fees and additional interest added to it over the years.

 

 

As a consequence, the loan balance has not reduced in line with a standard loan profile.

 

A number of repayment arrangements have been agreed, however, repayments made have not been large enough to cover charges and additional interest on the account, and have not reduced the loan balance.

 

During discussions with Swift in 2013, Mrs M became aware of the extent to which her loan balance had increased and so she raised her complaint.

 

 

adjudicator’s findings

The adjudicator recommended that the complaint be upheld to the extent that he considered there were a number of fees that should be refunded to Mrs M,

 

 

but, in general, he found that the loan account balance was reflective of the money Mrs M owed to Swift, and that Swift had demonstrated it had made sufficient effort to agree “affordable” repayment plans with Mrs M.

 

Mrs M rejected the adjudicator’s findings and so this complaint has now been passed to me for a final decision.

 

my findings

I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

 

 

Having done so,

I have come to the same decision as the adjudicator and for broadly the same reasons.

 

I note that Swift has now increased its offer to refund charges to Mrs M since the adjudicator’s opinion was issued.

 

 

Swift has offered to refund nearly £3,000 of fees and charges to Mrs M’s account.

 

Swift has also placed Mrs M’s borrowing onto a lower interest rate as part of a 12-month concession agreement, due to be renegotiated later in the year.

 

arrears fees and charges

The approach of this service is that arrears fees and account management charges, also charged by Swift to loan accounts in arrears, should not be charged in months where the loan repayment has been made, or where a contractual repayment plan was in place and the agreed payment made.

 

 

Arrears charges and account management charges should reflect work undertaken by the business in managing those arrears, and multiple fees each month are considered to be unfair.

 

Swift’s offer to refund charges is in line with this guidance. The arrears charges that haven’t been reversed have been applied in months where repayments were not made. I am satisfied that the offer Swift has made to refund fees seems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

interest rate

 

I appreciate that Mrs M had wanted Swift to “freeze” interest on her loan account as she considered that interest was escalating to the point where she would never be able to repay her loan.

 

 

I find that Swift’s concessionary agreement, reducing the rate of interest charged to around 8%, is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

 

I hope that Swift will continue to honour a concessionary interest rate when the current agreement is up for renewal later this year.

 

conclusion

I understand how concerned Mrs M must have been when she realised that her borrowings with Swift had escalated to such a degree.

 

 

Even after the refund of fees offered by Swift, this still leaves Mrs M with a significantly higher balance to repay than the initial sum borrowed in 2005.

 

Whilst regrettable, this balance has resulted from partial, late, and missed secured loan repayments.

I am satisfied that this balance is a true reflection of Mrs M’s loan account.

 

 

I would encourage Mrs M to try to meet her secured loan repayments as per her agreed repayment plan with Swift although I accept that repayment of this debt by monthly instalment will take significantly longer than Mrs M might have hoped.

 

my final decision

My final decision is that I uphold Mrs M’s complaint, to the extent that Swift Advances Plc should make its existing offer in full and final settlement of this complaint by:

 

- Refunding of the agreed fees and charges to Mrs M’s account, with an adjustment of interest; and

- Honouring the lower interest rate already made available to Mrs M to the end of the current 12-month concession period.

Emma Peters

 

ombudsman

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...