Hi All, Well firstly let me say what brilliant news this forum has brought over the last few days - things appear to be actually happening which bring renewed hope to all of us battling against these bandits. The recent FSA ruling relates to unfair charges once in arrears, has anyone been able to pick out of this anything which can be used against them for people who are not in arrears, but are struggling because of the fact they are maintaining artificially high interest rates? Perhaps if they had charged a fair rate and changed it in line with reductions in LIBOR they might not have had so many fall behind in the first place?

Hi pk, I understand completely what you are saying and agree to a point, however a couple of things I would say to counter your argument; 1. If anyone has had any sucess against Swift I am sure its on a firm legal basis - because this company will not have settled out of any sense of goodwill or compassion because they do not have any of either. As such would that not be deemed a legal precedent to enable others to persue them with the same action? 2. If we are all here to let people know whats happening then lets let them know what is happening!! - That will enable us all to go for it - this is after all a consumer action/group not a consumer action/individual. Surely we would be stronger acting together than individually? I know many people talk about OFT and similar bodies without much apparent success - dont know if this will make a difference but I have reported this company to BBC watchdog - have any of you done this? - If a weight of evidence is presented it might be nice to see Mark White et al squirm on camera? Just a few thoughts to throw into the mix!!

Hi, I dont know if they are breaking the law - I am not an expert - but my point is that if they were, surely it would be common knowledge by now? Insofar as not mentioning any wrongdoing on Swifts part on CAG - eh? - what are we here for then? I am not a lawyer either but I am sure that something could be said in such a way as to not render CAG liable?

Hi Fellas, I know and understand what you are saying. I have logged a complaint with the OFT. But has anyone taken Swift to task over this? Ultimately is there anything we can effectively do apart from whinge on consumer forums? Does anyone know of a law firm in Manchester who are experts on CCA and consumer rights regarding this? If after reading the various threads I thought for one minute that there was an effective action I could bring to bear I would do it in a heartbeat, but I dont seem to be getting any definitive answers, and absolutely no disresepect intended to any of you consumer chamions out there. I would offer my complete support to any of you in taking these b*stards on but at the moment I am as confused as being put in a barrel and told to p*ss in the corner!! I have done the Rule of 78 online calculator, and its inconclusive as the interest rates have been raised on a number of occasions (drops in LIBOR not withstanding of course - bless them they have to make a profit) so it has confused me more than answered any questions - roll on May 2010 but if I was a betting man, I am sure Swift will somehow turn the new regs on their head to their advantage, so not holding my breath too much!!

Ok, so what law are they (alledgedly) breaking? If we could get this out in open forum then lets join hands and go for them!!

Hi All, Please dont misunderstand me - I take my hat off to you peeps who have tried to challenge Swift for the immoral business it is, but with respect, all the forums go round and round, discussing regualted v unregulated, fair v unfair etc etc but nothing of any substance is the result. Swift are acting within the law - without any common decency and with complete disregard for the hardship and difficulties they cause, they rip people off but it is within the law - if it was'nt, then someone would have had them by now?? As far as anyone in my situation is concerned, hang fire until May 2010 - the Rule of 78 is being removed by Swift to calcualte early settlement calculations, not because they are having a change of heart, but because they are being made to - no choice. Once again, my only hope is that because of the posts on this forum, Swift are denied many new customers, get into difficulties and go down the pan which they so richly deserve.

SE, The fact is, Swift can justify their margins however they want to, and there is nothing any of us can do about it apart from warn others not to get involved with this terrible company. They expalained their rates were dependant on LIBOR; now that no longer fits, they are quoting 'costs of funds' in that the government wants companies like this to have a low risk/high capital situation. Face it dudes, we are stuffed.

Hi All, I am still not sure what difference it will make if my loan+futher advance is deemed regulated by the CCA '74 or not - can someone clarify that please? As I mentioned in my other thread, my origianal loan was regulated by the CCA 74 but the new loan I took out a few months later had at the top "'Agreement modifying a credit agreement and regulated by CCA1974' so even though my total borrowing was £27,500 is it still regulated and if the answer to that is yes, is there anything I can actually do regarding this brutally unfair situation?

Hi All, I have no direct involvement with FP but check out my thread called Swift advances PLC and in terms of nightmare early settlement calculations Swift make FP look like pussycats! Swift do use the Rule of 78 ( I took my loan out in 2003) but this is being removed in May 2010 as part of an overhaul of the regulations.

Hi Landy, I have recently spoken to the FOS - see the thread I started recently about Swift. The chap I spoke to was reasonably helpful, and when I asked him about regulated/unregulated loans his words were 'Its a grey area' which, with respect to him, did not help too much. He has however agreed to write to Swift regarding the early settlement figure, a copy of which I received in the post today. As soon as I get a response I shall post it.

Ok, I have done some digging and to my surprise I have actually found everything. The origianal loan was for £18k over 10 years taken July 2003. It was regulated by the CCA 1974. The top up for 9K has at the top 'Agreement modifying a credit agreement and regulated by CCA1974' On it the original loan was repaid at £18,478 plus the extra 9K making this loan £27,580 (a couple of fees were added) over 15 years. I will see if I can get the T&C scanned into here.

Hi Smarterchick. Thank you for the reply. I am not sure exactly waht you mean - I do not have the original documents to scan but now I am official 'Swiftie' I do intend to get very, very busy with it and get all the information from them. The original loan for 18K over 15 years was taken out in June 2003, as a secured second charge, my main mortgage being with the Halifax. It was a standard variable rate loan. The further advance I took in October 2003. Apologies for the scanty information. As an aside, after reading other threads regarding this dreadful company, I do have hope that one day thanks to people like yourself we can either get a fair deal or bring them down - preferably both.

Hi All, Firstly thank you all for the interesting thread regarding [EDIT] Swift Advances. I am currently trying to digest the information on here. I have started a thread called Swift Advances yesterday about my situation and it would be brilliant if any of you peeps on here could take a look and let me have your thoughts.

Thanks 42. I actually had a letter from Swift today in response to my query about LIBOR rates and as you mentioned, they now have changed their excuse to their 'cost of funding'. One sentacnce is the letter which made me chuckle was "A decision not to follow a base rate reduction does not imply that Swift is profiteering, simply that base rate is not a fair measure of our costs of funds" Profiteering at peoples expense should be their company's logo.

Hi All, I am not sure if any of you can help me here, but even if you are not able to, perhaps this post might help prevent others from falling into the same situation as I find myself in. In 2003, I took out a secured second loan via Ocean finance. They arrnaged it with Swift Advances in Essex. It was for £18K for home improvements, but after only a couple of months I had to top this up by £9K to make my total borrowing £27K. It was for 15 years, no insurances, PP or anything. It was a variable rate loan. I have never missed a payment, always paid right on time. I recently asked them for a settlement figure, and was absolutley horrified when, despite having paid them over £27K in repayments over the last 6 years, still owe them over £31K!!!! I made enquiries as to how this can be possible - I have recently referred this to the Financial Ombudsman who will be writing on my behalf. It is something to do with the Rule of 78 which Swift are removing in May 2010. In addition, my repayments have increased from £350 pm to £404 per month - I called them last year to see if ths would be reduced as base rates were radically coming down only to be told that it had nothing to do with that - it was to do with LIBOR rates which were still at the same level. I heard on the news that LIBOR is now at a low level, and surprise surprise Swift are still not going to reduce their rate although they were quite prompt in increasing it. I feel totally locked in and trapped - the more I pay the more I owe!! Is there anyone out there who can offer any help or advice?