Landy - pm box full..please empty some:wink:

Just one final thought cosytoes, if you are using a solicitor and he/she requests a full disclosure under the request for a detailed breakdown of their figures, ensure they make sure all the % rates and back-up documents to support any and all figures they have applied are supplied to your solicitor as they have a habit of supplying rounded off figures, no interest % rates and no supporting evidence as to what exactly the charges represent IN DETAIL - which is exactly what you want..

Do not be fooled into thinking they are correct and acceptable - they are not. If you do not understand exactly what a charge is - then ask for the supporting evidence. It's not what they supply you need to worry about, it's what they don't and get EVERYTHING explained even if you have to ask a hundred times and you are told everything is 'irrelevent' which is their favourite word from previous account holders experience, my advice to you is get the detailed back-up evidence.

Cosytoes,

I don't know you so I don't know how much resolve you have to handle all of this, but you are now not alone and you will be supplied with information we need you to be able to handle. First things first - try not worry, take control over this and put yourself , if you can back into the driving seat. The ride might be bumpy, but you can pull through this if you can hold your nerve. Swift are not an easy customer to deal with as you have just established, but they are beatable and you can keep on top of them.

Keep telling yourself that YOU are not the guilty one here and Swift are testing you with a certain degree of intimidation which you are actually going to win through. You might not believe it just now, but you will.

Ask yourself why they keep your rates at 12% when all other banks reduced their rates in the same way you ask about their repossession figure and you will start to find your resolve.

We have the answers, we just have to sell them to the judge and it can get very complex and their defence can be a trifle er?....how can I say?.....economical with the truth in some peoples experiences (allegedly) seems to aptly cover the words I am looking for.

Next, I have made it plain above that you really need to get the figures from Swift about the settlement figure they are asking for. You won't get them from Swift as they refuse to supply them so you have to ask for the Judge to order them and what you are asking him to do is to get The Judge to ORDER a Full disclosure of their charges, but there are a few other things you need to get working on when presenting this to the Judge. Getting this together is important and getting to know exactly what it is you are asking is also important.

You are going from being on the defence of their intimidation to being the attacker and putting them on the spot - they don't like it, but....needs must, just watch for costs as this is what they use to intimidate and they will try. They will try and do a deal ouside the court perhaps, but get the court to support anything you do.

I am not legally trained, lets get that clear so you take whatever legal advice is necessary, but what is provided to you along with others contributions is what needs to be given to your CAB or 'anyone else' legal advisor who presents this to the court.

What you are going to do is what we call 'Putting Swift to Strict Proof' - Asking for FULL DISCLOSURE FROM THE JUDGE...what we mean (forgive me for keeping it simple as if you know nothing, but it helps not insult your intelligence, but lets me spell it out as it is) by that is asking Swift to explain EXACTLY:

a) what they are charging you and a full statement, and I mean a FULL STATEMENT

b) what those figures are based upon,

c) what interest they are applying and from when to what,

d) how they arrived at the figure which states you are in negative equity,

ie; what Valuation was done and when and by whom

e) what the redemption figure would have been should you have asked for it at this time?

You also need to get 2 valuations like 'yesterday' from local estate agents giving the valuations as of today or if that is not possible get the latest prices of similar houses being sold nearby. http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/?from=propertyupdate

Once you have those and you have removed the Early Repayment figures they would have added to the settlement figure being asked for and their charges you will find that the negative equity figure is not so negative after all potentially and you can afford the repayments in line with the FSA Regulations.

This is a link to the FSA Mortgage calculator which you should use to calculate the whole equation.

http://www.moneymadeclear.org.uk/tools/mortgage_calculator.html

There will be more to come. Hold on in there. If you need anything just yell....I'm not too hot with court procedures & CPR so others might help you on that...Don't worry, you'll be okay I am sure.

Suzie

no i just burst into tears and walked out!!

can I not just use another N244 and ask the court to postpone the order whilst I get the info from The morgage company.... I can't see them hurrying to post me a breakdown of charges out

Cosy

You may need the court to make an order for disclosure by Swift of their charges and to quantify the figure they are demanding in settlement. There may be many items you were un aware of and there is also the European Court of Human Rights Article 8

ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
   
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
   

hang in there cosytoes and keep your faith, the cavelry are working to help.

Cosytoes, demand a complete breakdown of the charges and a statement of account from Swift detailing the exact repossession figure claimed. Apply to the court and dispute the amount if you have to. Your solicitor seems to be on the right track, but get that statement and analyse it. Do you get statements from Swift 1st Ltd?

Also, get the names of the people who attended the court and made the statements you quoted above, you should be able to ring the court and get the names of who represented them on the day from their receiption sign-in. This is important. Get a transcript of the hearing from the court too. Ring the court office or get your solicitor to do it for you.

Do anything to hang on. The FSA have already had a go at Swift 1st Ltd for their charges in the tune of many millions in a fine I believe so USE IT.

As I have found with other companies I have investigated and put pressure on and even professionally supplied people to work on behalf of clients, when these type of companies are held to account or set out to circumnavigate their responsibilities one only has to follow the money to find out eventually exactly what they are doing. Had they addressed many if not most of these issues herein described in this thread when they first were made aware of them, then doubtless none of these pressures from the OFT FSA (or even Sparkie) would have emerged. But they didn't and they will suffer the consequences

 

Justice and truth always catch up in the end - they are a wounded animal and it is only a matter of time before they realise there was always a sensible way out if only they had taken the bait. It's still there if they want it, but Swift being Swift have an arrogance which is hard to climb down from - reality will soon take precident - or so I am told.

 

Keep the faith...

You're damned right A1. How many of us have lived in denial over one thing or another in our lives? Once the reality sets in then and only then do you get to the core of the problem. Swift are in denial and have been for years. They live by stealth taking people to court, repossessing them by throwing big time lawyers and barrister at us because they have the money to do it and get away with intimidation.

If only they'd face reality and admit their errors like any other business then they may have protected those poor staff in Brentwood who they have and their families who rely upon them for their own livlihoods - I wonder if they ever think of them? How many staff will lose their jobs in that building if the OFT whip their licnece off them because of their business practices - it'll all come back to bite them on the bum shortly you wait and see.

Sparkie and all the rest deserve bl***dy medals for the work they have put in barrack room lawyers or not, they have worked damned hard to find out what they have and I know some are suffering dire financial pressures just to see this through so a big thank you to all of them seen or unseen, but Swift will not prevail in all this unscathed as the reality has not yet reached Brentwood or Bedford St...when it does, then the ****e will hit the fan.

SC

If the case against Barclays was successful in that they gave bad and inappropriate financial advice, surely we have the same claim to that argument against Swift.

I wonder who'd be daft enough to take financial advice from Swift? You'd need a lie detector in your pocket.

Actually, it would be against the broker anyway rather than Swift as they would claim they do not offer any advice (which is probably just as well given the lies they tell in normal life) to the account holder. So no fiduciary duty hangs on Swift. You'd be better to look into what they do and how they do it than trying that on as they'll wriggle out of it like a snake in jelly.

Thanks for that, I'll get onto it asap.

It all began in September...There was no mention of Limitations, that's was peed me off. This was just company 'policy' !

I will go legal, I have no hesitation, but having spent the best part of two years in and out of court preparing documentation I would rather have been treated in a civil way and not put through all this - I have a life too lest they forget. - I get fed up of all this winning! LOL Why can't they just own up and pay up - they will in the end, but they use these intimidatory tactics to scare people off.

I am actually getting a trifle miffed that these companies actually know they are wrong yet continue to get away with these things hoping the masses will never raise a query. They should be made to accept they are wrong and AUTOMATICALLY have to repay people, not make each and every one claim whilst pocketing the rest. There's something wrong with the regulatory process that allows this to happen.

I complained to the OFT once about the fact they should stop all repossessions by a company when their licence was being investigated when it ran out - 'not our place to do that' they said - madness, it's no different if an athlete gets dope tested and stopped from running until the investigations over, why are these finance companies so different?

Money and politics, that's the difference.

I wrote to Egg asing for PPI back because I was self employed at the time and they charged PPi on the card which I could never have claimed against. It's not a lot of money, but compounded at the 15% rate at the time it comes out at over £1000 going back to 2001/2.

They wrote back saying it is egg policy not to repay if the claim is for money which is more than 6 yrs or more after the complaint.

Policy or not it's my money. They are referring me to the FOS, but is there anyone here who has successfully claimed pre 6 yrs? This is not a Limitations issue as it's when you find out, not how long ago the offence took place.

Anyone any thought about how I should go about this? Do I just issue an N1 and risk court and the hanging judges who hate debtors or go the FOS route and wait for the next year or two while they make up their minds?

There must be a way....?

And another point, on this card account I was written to by Egg in 2006 stating that under s.18.2 of the card conditions they had now transfered their rights and the Egg card account to Capquest Investments Ltd - does that mean I should be claiming from capquest as it goes on to say my existing relationship with Egg in respect of the account has now ceased and my account is now the sole responsibility of capquest?

SC

Smarter are you just going to ask for that info or are you going to 31.16 it.... I am asking because I suspect that I will notbe given it when I do my SAR.......and was thinking of using that to get it........

 

any and all thoughts fgreatly appreciated.

To be honest, I'm just going to write and ask them outright. They have answered my letter omitting the answer to this, so it seems logical to just write back and ask them directly - KIS - Keep it simple..LOL

I could never make out exactly what they'd charged on their redemption statement, they are a bit confusing even for someone like me, so I'll get to the bottom of this with straight forward question/answers until they become evasive then I'll give em the 'treatment'! LOL

SC

This is the letter I received after asking about their charges and discharge of loan fees when I took out another loan which paid this one off:

Following our acknowledgment letter of xx/xx/xxxx I can confirm I’ve now completed my investigation into your complaint. Thank you for your patience whilst I’ve been looking into this for you.

I’m sorry to read you’re unhappy in regards to administration charges applied to your account.

Please find enclosed a copy of your welcome letter which has ‘A Guide to our Fees’ enclosed.

The Repayment Administration and Discharge Fee is an administration fee charged for the work required to process the final payment of your loan and legal costs associated with the discharge of our security at Land Registry. This work costs us £200.00, which we pass on to you, which is clearly stated in the copy of the fees that was enclosed in your welcome letter. This confirms that the Security Discharge Fee in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is £200.00.

I can confirm that the amount of your mortgage discharge was £147.12 for Administration Discharge Fee plus £52.88 for the Solicitors Discharge Fee.

For each direct debit that is returned unpaid, various costs are incurred. There are the administrative costs of using the BACS system, the cost of advising you of the returned direct debit, either by telephone or letter, as well as the charge from our bank for each returned direct debit.

The £40 arrears administration fee is applied every month your account is in arrears with us. This charge is applied to recover the costs we incur in relation to your account being in arrears.

The charges are applied to your account when the arrears reach a certain level and reflect the general cost to us of maintaining a dedicated department for accounts in arrears. The costs of this result from contacting you by telephone, setting up arrangements, monitoring your account for payment and sending letters about your account status.

GE Money Home Lending undertakes an annual review to ensure that these fees are in line with the costs that it incurs in carrying out the related activities. In view of this, we are satisfied that the administration charges have been correctly applied and therefore will not be refunded.

I’ve also enclosed a copy of your credit agreement, which confirms in section D on the front the £500 broker fee. (I'd asked for their payment to the broker, which of course they haven't supplied!)

If you have any questions or feel you would like to discuss my letter further, please contact me.

Alternatively, if you feel I have not investigated your complaint thoroughly, you may refer it to our Escalations Team, at the same address, who will carry out a further review. I have enclosed a copy of our Complaints Leaflet “How To Make A Complaint”, which explains what to do and how you can refer your complaint to the Citizens Advice Bureau should you ultimately be unhappy with GE’s proposal for resolution.

Please note that if we do not hear from you within eight weeks of the date of this letter, your complaint will be closed.

Be interesting to see what they say when I write back and ask for the hidden broker fees they paid?

Hi, I've been trying to get some sense out of SWIFT regarding my secured loan. I've put my house on the market [4 months ago] without any luck yet. The only reason I've done this is to clear the Swift loan as I am shortly [Jan] only going to be able to pay £100 per month instead of £228. I wrote a letter of complaint to Alan Loblack who sent me a hard lines letter. When I asked for more details I have been ignored [2 months] and a chaser [both sent recorded] has also been ignored. Does anyone know what is likely to happen when I start sending half payment? Merry XXXXX Xmas

Joe, you posted a while back that you had a letter from Eastern Counselling...can you depersonalise it and post it up for us to see...? Ta..

Good advice from Sweet Jane - hang on in there if you can..

SC

Sorry to jump in here...can someone tell me the difference between and expempt agreement (s.16 CCA) and an Unregulated agreement?

More specifically, a £47,530 loan from a finance company, secured by 2nd charge taken out in June 2005.

what would this loan agreement come under? I know it's unregulated, but is it an 'exempt' agreement? They are 2 distinctly different things I am told...anyone?

Thank you. Bit of a read, but it is helpful in something else I am doing too...most useful and I thank you. SC

ps sorry i dont mean to be harsh its just my personal opinion

..and that in a nutshell is what Cag is all about Partick and long may it be so....just a personal opinion, but coming from the heart...we are all in this together to find the end game and so we shall! Swift won't know what's hit them one of these days, we've just been tickling them to date

.and look..no guests !! - they must all be in the accounts department trying to get their figures fixed for their very late year end accounts

you can wait forever and a day the oft wont do nout, toothless and faceless bunch

That's encouraging!

To a degree, yes and I'd expect that, but since it has all been concluded then why the secrecy? Surely, any documentation with my name on it I should be a party to now?

If a document has redacted information on then would it not be proper to send me the document with the redactions, rather than remove the whole document altogether?

I just find it ' uncomfortable' that a solicitor gets their hands on my file and 'sorts it' before I get what they want me to see...I'm splitting hairs Donkey, but the devils in the detail sometimes and I'm after the detail...as we are prone to be doing on CAG...

About a year ago I did a deal with my bank who I had a disagreement with over my mortgage.

They used a large firm of solicitors.

I recently applied to my bank for a Sub ject Access Request and found when it arrived that it had come from the solicitors via the bank, not directly from the bank. Now this dispute was settled between us and we have all moved on, but out of curiosity I asked the solicitors for a statement of truth that they had not removed any documentation or redacted any information before sending me these files and this is what they said:

"

Following on from my other letter from Eastern Counselling ' Department' take a look at this one which is an earlier attempt to cash-in on fees. Note the first line of this letter " Swift Advances plc have instructed us...............???? Instructed us??......WT*? They tell me they have issued a Default Notice, which they had under 'Swift Advances' but this was an unregulated loan....mmm why the DN then?

On the other hand I should be grateful they were offering to help me shouldn't I? - I'm such an ungrateful, selfish bitch...

Eastern Counselling 2.pdf

Swift seem to think that everything they do is ' relevant' and everything we ask is 'irrelevant' I wonder how they feeling right at this minute? They must be stretched for staff in their accounts department too, haven't filed their accounts yet - naughty boys and girls. maybe they told Companies House they're ' irrelevant ' too

Swift Group name belongs to another company

 

This is the real Swift Group website

 

http://www.swiftleisure.co.uk/swift-group

That's Swift Group Limited.....Swift Group is used by Arcadia House residents..Precision is what makes this fun! If you are going to make legal complaints you need to be spot-on perfect which we are beginning to get the hang of quite well now... Maybe they'll all be living in caravans soon eh?

Trading Name(s) (Historic): straight off the OFT Public Register:

Eastern Counselling Agency

Eastern Collection Agency

Take a look at the name on the headed notepaper :Eastern Counselling department.pdf

Eastern Counselling 'department' is but a department and has no right to charge a fee, it is nothing more than a telephone extension on the credit control departments desk.

It has to be looked into like everything else, absolultely everything as I was mentioning above and Lesterlass is right, it was registered under one guise or another, but all these names are figments of managements ego before they understood about running a business and abiding by rules, regulations or licenses. Take 'Swift Group' that's just a sign outside their building and what someone thinks is a name to make the company sound bigger. If they were selling bricks or soap it wouldn't have made a happeth of difference, but these people deal with financial products and it certainly does make a difference because the licences restrict and dictate what they have to do and they are only now just beginning to realise that as is evidenced on their NEW applications to add the names to their licences from October this year - bit late my friends.

Swift Advances... the OFT licence belonged to another company altogether, nothing to do with Arcadia House Swift. It belonged to Swift Financial UK Ltd a broker in the sticks until November 2009 so our Swift have been using an unlicensed trading name since inception....Mistake? - No, stupidity, complacency, ignorance and one mighty big ego.

Oh, and as also mentioned, but not to be forgotten - it is a criminal offence to use a trading name which is not on an OFT Licence in their profession.

Ouch! that's a lot of money, however, if you were not told about the payment it would have been deemed secret commission, but if it's in the agreement document were you aware of this before you struck the deal and would you have gone elsewhere if you'd have known.

As this is an FSA regulated mortgage I would suggest you had a quiet word with them.

As for Eastern Counselling charges I might suggest that you also have a word with Swift 1st and ask them under what authority they had to charge you these monies.

Eastern Counselling is a 'department' within Swift Advances Plc and is not licenced so cannot charge, this could, in my belief almost be consrued as potential fraud to be charging this along with those charges for the attendance of a solicitor in court when they didn't show up.

Shoop, you have some 'interesting' characteristics about your repossession that really needs a professional eye over it and I mean a 'serious' eye over it backed up by some of the revealing things being found on here in relation to the licencing issues attached to the solicitors which have been touched upon here (and even a lot of those can't be publicised, but I'd love to scream your way!) . You really need to 'keep it simple' because this is not technical wizzardry here, it is just basic, follow the steps, dates and actions all the way along the line from Swift and their set-up. Everything is in the public domain, they've just cocked up and are doing everything they can to cover their tracks left right and centre, but we have it all, it's just joining up the dots in a legal way that will provide you with the answers you need and once you understand the full picture it's a matter of finding out the remedies and executing them - it's not that difficult once you have the bit between your teeth and the paitience of a saint because Swift employees are so complacent and have been so for so so long that they actually believe their own lies (alleged lies!). That's where they are tripping up time and time again, covering their tracks and their lies - but they never believed for one second that 2 or more account holders would ever talk to one another and compare notes, court notes, file notes or dig as deep as some have into every aspect of their business lives.

It's a clumsey process when you are having to guess a lot of things and you don't have legal or business experience like they have, but that has just given rise for clear clarification in laymans words which has actually provided the ammunition and they provided some of it themselves by boasting about what they do.

Dig Shoop, get yourself a file and begin the process of working your way back through the whole process and keep everything you can, read everything you can and do what you have begun on here, follow it through and you might surprise yourself.

You already have a couple of things to question. The broker fee, Eastern Counselling, Swift Group Legal Services as a trading style of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc...familiarise yourself with the OFT Public register CCA Search and read the details, the FSA too, DO NOT get the FSA and OFT Confused, OFT Deal with Consumer Credit Act Regulated Loans (under 25k second charge loans) - FSA deal with Mortgages, but there is a cross casting on some things with the OFT.

Follow them up and keep coming back here and the penny will drop, when it does I'll buy you a drink! tick tock swift, tick tock......

Well we'll have to wait and see won't we? I know if I was driving my car without a licence whether it had run out or just never applied for and the boys in blue caught me after I'd just run over someone then chances are I know where I'd end up...same with any license - why should any company be different, that's what makes me laugh about the OFT and their regime of not issuing licenses at the date the current one runs out...how can they just leave it open indefinately? Makes a mockery of the whole licensing regime. You either have a license or you don't. I'm sure those nice people working behind the scenes will get this sorted, after all - collecting debt without a license is a criminal offence is it not? Criminals go to the scrubs..!