Heres the library edition Swift 1st Limited fined over mortgage arrears failings and will pay an estimated £2.35 million in customer redress Tracey McDermott Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly. FSA/PN/079/2011 08 September 2011 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Essex based mortgage lender Swift 1st Limited (Swift) £630,000 for unfair treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears. The firm has also agreed to carry out a programme to provide redress to customers who were in arrears, and who were charged certain arrears fees and charges that were excessive. Swift will also provide redress to customers who redeemed their mortgages early where it miscalculated the interest on the redemption balance. It is estimated that the total cost of the redress to customers will be approximately £2.35 million. The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Swift which occurred between June 2007 and July 2009 in relation to its arrears fees and charges, and in its dealings with customers in arrears. These include: Swift applied certain charges to its customers’ accounts that were in arrears which were excessive in that they did not reflect a reasonable estimate of the cost of administering an account in arrears. These were: Arrears management fee: a monthly management fee applied to a customer in arrears; Default notice fee: a default fee applied when a customer’s account fell into arrears; Unpaid mortgage payment fee: applied when a cheque, direct debit or standing order was not honoured by a customer’s bank; and Litigation fees: fees applied to customers’ accounts when Swift started legal proceedings. In addition: Swift applied excessive early repayment charges to the redemption figures of customers who were, or had been, in arrears; Swift failed to send all its customers in arrears certain prescribed documents, providing information on the options available to them; Swift focussed on the collection of arrears without always proactively engaging with customers to establish an appropriate “Arrangement To Pay” based on their individual circumstances; and Swift also failed to have adequate systems and controls in place to deal with early redemptions which resulted in some customers who redeemed their mortgages overpaying. The FSA considers that Swift’s failings are serious as under FSA rules, a firm must consider the interests of its customers and ensure that they are treated fairly. Swift’s failings continued over a significant period of time and impacted about 2,500 customers. As Swift specialised in the sub-prime sector, a number of customers who already had an adverse credit status were put at further risk of financial detriment. Tracey McDermott, acting director of enforcement and financial crime, said: “Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly. Many of Swift’s customers were already in a vulnerable position, having fallen into arrears on their mortgage payments, and they could ill afford excessive and unfair fees. The FSA will take robust action to ensure not only that firms are fined for such failings but also that they identify and compensate customers who have been disadvantaged. The costs of doing so are often much more than the fine.” Swift reported its failings in relation to early repayment charges and redemption balances to the FSA. Swift also agreed to settle at an early stage and therefore qualified for a 30% reduction in penalty. Were it not for this discount the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £900,000. Notes to Editors Read the Final Notice for Swift 1st Limited. Swift is the fifth lender referred to enforcement following the FSA’s thematic project on mortgage arrears handling. Final notices were also given for GMAC-RFC, Kensington Mortgages, Redstone Mortgages Limited and DB Mortgages. In June 2009, the FSA published the results of a review which found continued weaknesses in the way specialist lending firms were handling mortgage arrears and repossessions. In July 2010, the FSA published proposals to establish stronger standards for responsible lending in the mortgage market and to provide extra protection for vulnerable consumers. Consultation on these proposals closed in November 2010. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.

BTM if only the powers that be had the courage to do the same here. The latest filip is the FSA fine of Swift Ist for exactly the same crimes as perpetrated by the shower the subject of this thread.Are they next,how long have we all been waiting? see here for the final notice : http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/swift_1st.pdf

Fellow sufferers I have no doubt youre aware of this but could anyone please post up the Swift tarrif of charges which led to this fine,we have exactly the same problems with Capstone that was now renamed Acenden and if the charges are comparable we have a strong and precedental case with the FSA and the OFT as to why this oufit has completely escaped any sort of punishment for crimes of an identical nature. Anyway great news for you,hope swift don't drag their feet refunding that which was never really theirs in the first place(don't forget to claim interest as well!) Swift 1st Limited fined over mortgage arrears failings and will pay an estimated £2.35 million in customer redress Tracey McDermott Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly. FSA/PN/079/2011 08 September 2011 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Essex based mortgage lender Swift 1st Limited (Swift) £630,000 for unfair treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears. The firm has also agreed to carry out a programme to provide redress to customers who were in arrears, and who were charged certain arrears fees and charges that were excessive. Swift will also provide redress to customers who redeemed their mortgages early where it miscalculated the interest on the redemption balance. It is estimated that the total cost of the redress to customers will be approximately £2.35 million. The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Swift which occurred between June 2007 and July 2009 in relation to its arrears fees and charges, and in its dealings with customers in arrears. These include: Swift applied certain charges to its customers’ accounts that were in arrears which were excessive in that they did not reflect a reasonable estimate of the cost of administering an account in arrears. These were: Arrears management fee: a monthly management fee applied to a customer in arrears; Default notice fee: a default fee applied when a customer’s account fell into arrears; Unpaid mortgage payment fee: applied when a cheque, direct debit or standing order was not honoured by a customer’s bank; and Litigation fees: fees applied to customers’ accounts when Swift started legal proceedings. In addition: Swift applied excessive early repayment charges to the redemption figures of customers who were, or had been, in arrears; Swift failed to send all its customers in arrears certain prescribed documents, providing information on the options available to them; Swift focussed on the collection of arrears without always proactively engaging with customers to establish an appropriate “Arrangement To Pay” based on their individual circumstances; and Swift also failed to have adequate systems and controls in place to deal with early redemptions which resulted in some customers who redeemed their mortgages overpaying. The FSA considers that Swift’s failings are serious as under FSA rules, a firm must consider the interests of its customers and ensure that they are treated fairly. Swift’s failings continued over a significant period of time and impacted about 2,500 customers. As Swift specialised in the sub-prime sector, a number of customers who already had an adverse credit status were put at further risk of financial detriment. Tracey McDermott, acting director of enforcement and financial crime, said: “Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly. Many of Swift’s customers were already in a vulnerable position, having fallen into arrears on their mortgage payments, and they could ill afford excessive and unfair fees. The FSA will take robust action to ensure not only that firms are fined for such failings but also that they identify and compensate customers who have been disadvantaged. The costs of doing so are often much more than the fine.” Swift reported its failings in relation to early repayment charges and redemption balances to the FSA. Swift also agreed to settle at an early stage and therefore qualified for a 30% reduction in penalty. Were it not for this discount the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £900,000. Notes to Editors Read the Final Notice for Swift 1st Limited. Swift is the fifth lender referred to enforcement following the FSA’s thematic project on mortgage arrears handling. Final notices were also given for GMAC-RFC, Kensington Mortgages, Redstone Mortgages Limited and DB Mortgages. In June 2009, the FSA published the results of a review which found continued weaknesses in the way specialist lending firms were handling mortgage arrears and repossessions. In July 2010, the FSA published proposals to establish stronger standards for responsible lending in the mortgage market and to provide extra protection for vulnerable consumers. Consultation on these proposals closed in November 2010. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.

Back on the subject of authorisation again. Have looked at dotty's letter from LMC which has some scrawled illegible signature on LMC paper transferring administration from LMC to Capstone. If LMC has no directors or personel who is actually giving authorisation for this and who are the mystery administrators for lmc prior to transfer to Capstone.?? Have capstone been the administrators all along and because of the fuss created are now coming out of the woodwork? We really have to start getting some things nailed down now ,give CH one last chance to do something then if they don't go to their adjudicator, otherwise collectively we are going nowhere and just giving the **** the chance to reorganise which they have done already, as I have said I will draft a letter which everyone can participate in and then it has to be punched into their faces with the threat of going up until we get some result. If we sit back we're gonna get picked off 1 by 1 and Lord Caggers and all our work will have been for nothing ,we've tried and debated everything this is the last way forward. Look at the posts here 5000+ and 165000+ views thats twice wembley at capacity, that alone shows the depth of this problem.

So the FSA register as we know is completely out of date attia having resigned some time ago last year,arent they under an obligation to tell the FSA this.The second point being that they say spml are responsible under the FSA for the actions of their agent and that sppl is therefore not regulated by them which asks the question that any agreement made with sppl is therefore NOT a regulated agreement?. Aren't all agreements after a certain timeline regulated under some act?

Jet A slightly personal question which it is obviously up to you to answer but after everythings been paid off,how much equity do you think you have left in the property,I'm asking this as it seems to me you've been through a living nightmare for little if any reward and the last thing you want is creditors on your back after going through this lot. There could be ways to back them into a corner.

eie 2 down 2 to go and as sppl are busted out in reality 1 to go.

Dotty, It therefore follows that your current situation and litigation is an identical situation with that of MWSPML and Jetli in that the unauthorised Capstone are actually bringing proceedings against you as LMC have no personel including directors to either bring or in fact authorise any proceedings against you. It would be worth putting this in your defence along with a print out from CH showing this.You could also ask CH directly for confirmation that LMC have no directors which would be even more damming.. LMC and SPPL borrowers have the strongest case of all for this,unfortunately because LMC have not submitted 2008 accounts it is not so easy to prove off the CH website,but with SPPL we have the parent RESETFAN accounts and the notices to noteholders,so the evidence is concrete. Another big question that arises from this is who is Jetli supposed to pay now she has sold her house? only sppl can give a valid receipt and remove the charge but they have no personel to give this instruction or authorise this or any other action in their name.

eie they've all gone,you remind of the great chinese sage and philospher K.YOU reviled in his time, the very mention of his name to a stranger often resulted in violence and fisticuffs,try it in the street or in a pub to a stranger when someone speaks to you and see, it still applies today.There was also his brother K.OFF similary reviled. Enough of these teenage witterings. We need an action plan of objectives. 1)The purpose of this site is to shut 'em down 2)Initiate viable defences against them,as good as done. The objective is to draft a template letter and keep up the tirade to CH and now above,the Cable guy etc which all MUST participate in and in the absence of ITBG carry the fight to them,Lord knows we have enough ammunition and Company Law on our side. I will have a go at drafting something this weekend but since LC'S absence the initiatives gone and been handed back to them.

any mention of the "bad" coming back seems to quadruple them,wonder why?wonder if they're frantically scribbling notes for next weeks case list?

Throw the kitchen sink at the b.stards you never know anything might click. eie Bads been renditioned(hopefully temporarily) so are you the "good" or the other one, its been bugging me all day will have to ask ANW assuming of course she means us as we were the last and most prolific posters.

The first step is to ask mwspml to post the text of the letter without personal details then we can see if we can take it any further. Just the mere casting of doubt can be a lifesaver sometimes. Crapstone posted about it being in the mortgage contract that capstone were administrators but both sced and I never found this with PML so if anyone who is with the other 3 ie sppl/spml/lmc and has their contract at hand can they check this. I would think the administrator would have to be actually named.

eie This is a great idea providing mwspml is prepared to have his personal details disclosed as any other court would require case no,court and DJ I would think. There is also the apparent disclaimer proviso that this is not an instruction of the court, that needs careful examination as the **** would jump on this at any other hearing. Don't wish to be a damp squib but it sounds as though this decision may apply particularly to this set of circumstances and this case and DJ but I would love to be wrong,so please correct me.

I have heard from the CC today saying that the statement made by the DJ as regards to capstone was to be dealt with by spml's solicitors before any future cases were presented in front of him. So in fact this means that in future cases he will ask same and not deal until responded to by spml but this was not to be taken as an instruction of the court, im confused, mwspml This is very important because it questions the authorisation of capstone to act in any capacity for the lender. In the case of sppl they are bringing claims illegally when it is physically impossible to have such authorisation as sppl have no one to give it!!!! jetli's recent case is a perfect illustration of this Is there any chance of posting up the letter word for word from the CC minus of course your personal details. It also shows the gross inconsistencies between DJ's, if uneverdid had got the same DJ she would not have ended up with a suspended repo. The tragedy is that this judgement is not citable being county court.

The governing body that refers fraud etc to the SFO in our case is CIB who have been hammered god knows how many times with complaints and still apparently do ..kall. How LMC is still active despite having no directors in clear breach of the Companies Act 2006 is anyones guess,Dotty told them about this 5 months ago and according to the Act they are supposed to have 3 months to put it right. Theyre not even on a strike out warning.