Good evening all, Painful though it is, I am convinced that the most practical and sensible approach, and almost certainly the most 'cost effective', is to await the OFT decision. That way we will have a more 'complete' approach, and I believe working together we will be successful - what the Banks and others rely on is mis-information and disruption in our 'ranks', leading to errors of judgment by claimants, and losses (financial) which are unneccessary. We MUST work as a complete team and not be disseminated by 'blind alleys', and 'golden pots at the end of the rainbow'; this matter will take time - maybe another two years, possibly more. At least then there will be a definitive result, hopefully in our favour. I rest my case (and my fingers - this keyboard is killing me!!!) Best wishes to all Dougal

Thanks Alan, Again VERY well said, and from my own point of view, those who cannot abide by the law must expect to be dealt with accordingly! Best wishes Dougal AND if it is not too early all the best to everyone for Christmas

Good evening VERY well said SC....!! Best wishes to all Dougal

Good afternoon Any reason(s) given??? Dougal

Morning again ...and in CPR 38(3) Best wishes Dougal

Morning all Perjury Act 1911 Perverting the Course of Justice (Archbold 28-1 to 28-28) The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:- does an act or series of acts; which has or have a tendency to pervert; and which is or are intended to pervert; the course of public justice. The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or proceedings have started or are about to start. In (R v Cotter and Others [2000] TLR) it was held that 'the course of public justice included the process of criminal investigation following a false allegation against either an identifiable or unidentifiable individual.' The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. The words "attempting to" should not appear in the charge. It is charged contrary to common law, not the Criminal Attempts Act 1981: (R v Williams 92 Cr. App. R. 158 CA). It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:- the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes; the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification; the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination; the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it; the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed); giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution); concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned); a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence; the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate. Perjury (Archbold 28-152 to 28-174) By section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:- a lawfully sworn witness or interpreter in judicial proceedings wilfully makes a false statement which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and which is material in the proceedings. The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and/or a fine. A conviction cannot be obtained solely on the evidence of a single witness as to the falsity of any statement. There must, by virtue of section 13 Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence is sufficient if supported by a single witness. Perjury is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration of justice":- Chapman J in (R v Warne(1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42). It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case. In most cases, an offence of perjury will also amount to perverting the course of justice. If the perjury is the sole or principal act, then it will be normal to charge perjury. If the perjury is part of a much more significant series of acts aimed at perverting justice, then a charge of perverting the course of justice would be more appropriate. A charge of perverting the course of justice cannot be brought simply to avoid the requirements of corroboration of the falsity of the evidence as required by s.13: (Tsang Ping Nam v R 74 Cr. App. R. 139 PC). Perjury by a Defendant If a defendant is convicted despite giving perjured evidence, the decision to prosecute must take note of the sentence imposed for the original offence. If you think a conviction for perjury is unlikely to result in a substantial increase in sentence, then the public interest probably does not require a prosecution. Consider also the possible consequences to the original conviction of an acquittal of the defendant on a charge of perjury arising out of the earlier proceedings. You should, therefore, be satisfied that the evidence of perjury is exceptionally strong before instituting proceedings. Evidence of premeditation is an important factor in coming to a decision on whether or not to prosecute. If the defendant's lies have been planned before the hearing as opposed to arising on the spur of the moment during cross-examination, the public interest in prosecuting will be stronger. Where a defendant is acquitted, wholly or partly because of false evidence given by him or her, a prosecution for perjury might be appropriate. Where there is clear evidence of perjury, which emerges after the trial, and which goes to the heart of the issues raised at the trial, a prosecution for perjury may be appropriate. A prosecution should not be brought, however, where it may give the appearance that the prosecution is seeking to go behind the earlier acquittal: see dicta by Lord Hailsham L.C. in (D.P.P. v Humphrys [1977] AC). Perjury by a Defence Witness The decision to prosecute a defence witness for perjury partly depends on whether the defendant in the earlier trial was convicted: If the defendant was convicted, and there is no clear evidence of collusion, a prosecution would not usually be appropriate; If the defendant was convicted and there is clear evidence of collusion between the witness and defendant to give perjured evidence, a prosecution may be appropriate. Where it is in the public interest to prosecute for perjury others involved in fabricating false evidence with the defendant, then the defendant should also be prosecuted, except in exceptional circumstances; In the event of an acquittal, in the absence of clear evidence of collusion, the evidential test for a prosecution is unlikely to be met. Where there is clear evidence of collusion, and where the perjured evidence is sufficiently material to the case, then careful consideration should be given to a prosecution. Offences Akin to Perjury (Archbold 28-175 to 28-190) There are a number of offences akin to perjury in the perjury act 1911 which, though not detailed in this charging standard, should be considered, including:- false statements on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding: s.2; false statements etc with reference to marriage: s.3; false statements as to births or deaths: s.4; false statutory declarations and other false statements without oath: s.5; false declarations etc to obtain registration etc for carrying on a vocation: s.6; subornation of perjury: s.7. Thought this might help.... Best wishes as always Dougal

Morning all, Brilliant advice...I wish I'd said that! Well done SJ!!! As always the very best to each and every one of you Dougal

Hi Sparkie, I think an immediate application for set aside of the possession order is called for. Reasons: (a) Non-compliance by Court with CPR 55 (b) No compliance by claimant with Mortgage Arrears Protocol © No receipt by you of Default Notice, Swift to be put to strict proof of the sending of this very important piece of paper, and strict proof of your receipt of same to also be provided by Swift (I know they can't provide this!) Please read the following: 'How the Mortgage Arrears Protocol affect mortgage proceedings.' By District Judge Peter Jolly published in Law Society Gazette, 19th January 2009. [DJ Jolly sits at Portsmouth combined court] If you 'google' the title it will bring it up for you....I know you knew that!! I assume you are on or have applied for legal aid - your new barrister will doubtless help you.....so can those of us at CAG - [me at least with moral support!] As always Kind regards Dougal PS If you wish you can send me the EXACT wording of your possession order. I will be able to compare it to mine and then possibly find a way to stop it!

Sparkie What EXACTLY does your 28 day Order say? I had one made against me....kept the property BUT paid nothing!! Please PM me and let me know - I MAY be able to help. Cheers Dougal

Good morning everyone.... Well we have been busy......The Meadows case is a particularly interesting one, [and well worth a read!] - (I am such an anorak!!) - as the company was ruled against in Court and there were numerous 'irregularities' and 'unusual practices' involved on the part of the lender!!! Turning to Webster now departed from Swift - it is VERY important to note that liability for Criminal Acts can follow anyone wherever they go. If you leave a company, or home, or country - the liability still follows you - it's a bit like your shadow, it never goes away completely and will often reveal your location when you least want it to!! Let us now consider the terms of the Fraud Act 2006........need I say more?? Finally please remember this : the Police are duty bound (under the regulations governing the Police Service in the United Kingdom) to investiagte all complaints that a crime has been commtted. [This has been a public service announcement]. As always Best wishes to all Dougal

BRILLIANT WHAT A GOOD MOVE!! I am currently battling HSBC and say WELL DONE to you. I would not give them the dirt from my boots! Best wishes Dougal

A very good morning to Sparkie, PKelly and all, (except Sparkle72...?) Like the humour very much. As I have said my case against Swift is one to be heard under the Unfair Relationships legislation (Section 140B of the CCA 2006). This piece of legislation provides : 'IT IS FOR THE DEFENDANT (SWIFT) TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NOT AN UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP, IT IS NOT FOR THE CLAIMANT (ME) TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS.' BASICALLY I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME TROUBLE PROVING 'THAT THERE WAS NOT'....ANY COMMENTS ANYONE?? [RUDE OR OTHERWISE ALWAYS APPRECIATED!!! ] In the meantime my VERY BEST wishes to our NI LADS....thinking of you and will be with you in spirit (NOT alcohol!!), if not in person on the 3rd. Best wishes as always Dougal

Hi Sparkie, and everyone, I have decided Sparkie that I will NEVER upset you!! As always my very best wishes for the 3rd of December. Kind regards to All Dougal

Good morning all, This is NOT over yet........whilst it may appear so, remember that the Judgement leaves the way open for the OFT to consider other avenues. I expect a statement from them shortly. Those who have negative views on this site are, in my opinion, 'not wanted on voyage'. The only way forwards is to have a concerted action with support from the OFT. To all my fellow caggers : DON'T GIVE UP YET! Best wishes to everyone Dougal

EVENING ALL and SPARKIE, So, it's still good luck and very best wishes to the NI Boys, and don't count your chickens for the rest of us..... Remember this though : 'He who laughs last, laughs longest'. As always Dougal

Best wishes from Dougal for 18th Dec to the NI Boys All the best to everyone else, and let's hope tomorrow at the House of Lords is what we have been waiting for....!! Dougal

Best wishes from Dougal to the NI Boys All the best to everyone else, and let's hope tomorrow is what we have been waiting for....!! Dougal

Good morning, Thanks to Sparkie and pkelly for the humour...made my day! I have now just issued proceedings against Swift for Section 140B of the CCA 2006. I'll keep you posted...... Best of luck Sparkie and pkelly..although I don't think you are going to need it from what I have seen and heard! Best wishes to everyone...it's not over yet...... Dougal

Afternoon everyone, Count me in as well, just for info, Peter Mahy has already told me that if I can get enough people together... Here is an extract from an email in the last three weeks, by Mr Mahy to yours truly.... I think the chances of getting an agreement re-opened are not good but as previously advised I would need to look at this in more details and get counsels opnion [as things move so quickly] to give firm advice. The question is whether you want to spend money on what is likely to be negative advice. If there are a number of you costs may be low and it might be worth it. If not you may want to put it behind you. ([email protected]) Howells are the Sheffield solicitors who were successful against Swift as reported in the Sheffield Star {April 24th 2006.} Perhaps he would be worth approaching jointly? Kind regards as always Dougal

Morning all, Nice one Doc, let's hope our legal boys don't 'faff' around as they are prone to do, and put their teeth in before going to work! Thought I might send a copy of your latest post with the Fraud Act 2006 laid out in plain language to Mr Webster.....I'll think about it! As always Best wishes Dougal

Good evening, The simple answer (which suits my tiny brain!!) is to print off the form which has been completed with the charges/dates/interest and send a copy of it to anyone who needs it!! Hope this helps!! Best wishes Dougal

Good evening all, My fault - - it doesn't work exactly like that - somewhere on this site is a bank charges interest calculator. If you can't find it let me know. You enter the date the charge was made, the amount of the charge and the calculator works out how much the interest is, for the period starting when the charge was applied tup o date. It is very easy and you will be surprised at the interest. The calculations are made at the current County Court rate of 8%. You can always amend particulars of claim later if you are going to go for Contractural Interest. Again apologies Best wishes Dougal

Morning Doc and all, I expect that the redemption figure will be much more than you think. Mine cetaiinly was! Two letters which I have sent to Swift are set out below: edited out are my details. Letter 1: Swift Advances plc The Swift Group Arcadia House Warley Hill Business Park The Drive Brentwood Essex CM13 3BE FOR THE ATTENTION OF TONY STRICKLEY First Class Recorded Delivery 29/10/2009 Dear Mr Strickley, Refund of Charges Request – SECOND APPLICATION LETTER BEFORE ACTION ACCOUNT NUMBER (S): RXXXXXXXX Second Mortgage with Swift Advances plc - Secured on XX XXXXXXX Road, Hailsham, Sussex, BNX XXX Further to recent correspondence, I am unable to accept your persistent delays in dealing with this matter. I enclose a revised schedule of fees and charges which will be reclaimed from you. Please note you may be required to personally attend any hearing in this matter. You now have 14 days from the date of this letter to reply, in the absence of a response I shall file a claim immediately thereafter, without further notice. A copy of this letter has also been sent to Swift Group Legal Services by recorded delivery today. Yours sincerely, xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Letter 2 Swift Advances plc The Swift Group Arcadia House Warley Hill Business Park The Drive Brentwood Essex CM13 3BE FOR THE ATTENTION OF TONY STRICKLEY First Class Recorded Delivery 29/10/2009 Dear Mr Strickley, LETTER BEFORE ACTION ACCOUNT NUMBER (S): RXXXXXXX Second Mortgage with Swift Advances plc - Secured on XX XXXXXXX Road, Hailsham, Sussex, BNXX XXX Further to recent correspondence, and in the light of the decision by the FSA in relation to GMAC‑RFC Limited [GMAC-RFC], (copy FSA press release enclosed, and also the Cardiff High Court decision in Bentley –v – Blemain, I am writing to put you formally on notice that I intend to issue proceedings under Section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 I believe that I was placed in a position where your company had an unfair advantage. This has already been set out in correspondence with you, but I re-iterate the following I applied for a loan via Central Capital for £15,000, I now know they were acting as your agents, and that you paid to them a commission. Documents arrived from your company (Swift Advances plc) appearing to show that you had deducted Central Capital fees, and other sums from the advance. The loan was to last for 180 months Excessive fees were then added by your company (Swift Advances plc) to the loan during the term it was in existence resulting in a repayment (after less than 3 years) in excess of £30,000 for a loan which was originally applied for as a sum of £15,000 No notification was ever received either verbally or in writing from any person informing me that the loan would actually be for £16,500. I relied on your broker and ultimately your company to provide truthful and accurate information at all times No explanation has ever been given by any person, either verbally or in writing, in relation to the various excessive charges which were added to the loan, in particular a fee of £250 for a consultation with a company owned by the Swift Group, Eastern Counselling Agency. No such contact was ever made by that company with myself and no counseling was ever received or provided in any form In accordance with the CPR, and Annex A of the Pre-action Protocols you now have 14 days from the date of this letter to reply, in the absence of a response I shall file a claim as indicated above immediately thereafter, without further notice. A copy of this letter has also been sent to both John Webster and the Swift Group Legal Services by recorded delivery today. Yours sincerely,XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX cc John Webster CEO Swift Group (Enc copy of FSA release Stephen McConnell Swift Legal Services (Enc copy of FSA press release The replies (if they arrive) might be interesting........ Best wishes to Doc and everyone Dougal

Good morning, Thanks for the compliment - I'm no star- just keen to helkp. I would apply the 8% now, and remember you can always apply to the Court for leave to amend the claim, and alter the interest rate to contractural interest (i.e.: 19.5% - the rate the bank are probably charging you), if neccessary! Best wishes Dougal

Good evening I have added/altered your letter a bit...I thought it might help. Any questions or comments please let me know. Dear Sir/Madam, ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxx My request I am writing to ask you to refund the fess and charges and related interest which you have levied on my account from (date) to (date) The High Court has recently decided that your charges are subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I consider that the regime of charges you operate is unfair within the meaning of these Regulations as they are not individually negotiated, they operate in much the same way as charges operated by other High street lenders and therefore there is little alternative to myself but to agree to the charges. Furthermore the charges are contrary to the requirement of good faith and fair dealing as they lack basic standards of commercial moral practice and take an unfair advantage of the weak bargaining power of the consumer. They impose a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations between the contracting parties which is to my detriment. I also consider that the charges may be unlawful at common law Your responsibilities: I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with **UK** law. I am frankly shocked that you have operated my account in the manner that you have to date, as I had always placed my confidence in your integrity and expertise. I consider that your repeated representations that your charges are fair and reasonable to be deceptive and that those representations have deceived me into agreeing to pay them ]Your concealment of the true nature of your charges has prevented me from asserting my right until now What I require I calculate that you have taken £**XXXXX I enclose a schedule of the charges which I am claiming with this letter My targets to resolve this matter I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you will prefer to do this rather than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets. I am fully aware of the waiver which you are presently relying upon and which was granted to you by the FSA. This is due to expire in January 2010. However, this is an internal industry matter and has nothing to do with me. It is one-sided and I note that you continue to levy charges and to enforce them despite the weight of judicial and popular opinion against you. I will give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment If you dispute that I am entitled to a refund of these fees and charges, then please let me know within the above timescale the basis upon which you dispute together with the reasons why you consider your charges to be fair If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments. After that, there will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline Yours faithfully As I said, I hope this helps... Regards Dougal