I see you are having another good go at me "OLD SPARKIE" so I will stay away as I did when I was attacking SwiftAdvances plc. I leave you with is link. http://consumercreditlitigationandde...-for-the-case/ CatchTheMonkey........ aka Sparkie

It appears that you are much more knowledgeable than the solicitors ...and Barrister the appellants legal team plus a very eminent QC who has taken extreme interest in the case who all agree that McGuffick is no longer worth much........ as that was a High Court ruling this is case law ......... McGuffick isn't/wasn't. The saga of this case has not ended yet...this is just the beginning. I will take their view over yours every time

This makes the Fourth Principle real powerful now IMO.

Just to put matters absolutely in perspective Dodgeball.........I know much more about this case than ANYone................I know exactly when the arrears occurred, how they occurred and the default made........... .consider why I have said that..........what is stated in the judgement as alleged facts........ does not mean they are correct.......Sorry to say

Dodgeball, I must disagree with your interpretation that the Judges found "Mr Grace didnot default before the agrement was declared unenforceable" The default occurred some 12 months before the agreement was deemed ......"iredeemably unenforceable" and I am sorry it nullifies McGuffick......its in the bin............

GRACE v BLACK HORSE LIMITED [2014] EWCA Civ 1413 30/10/2014 Sort of upsets McGuffick a lot

A VERY BIG DAY for SWift in the Appeal Court in N.Ireland on Wdnesday 6th November 2013........take it from some one who knows.......and they are in for a pasting IMO

A1..........100%.........more to come......you can be assured of that...from some one who knows:madgrin:

In support of great shot jacks post.. CTM Did you take out a mortgage with Swift? Do you feel you were treated fairly? Many customers were not and it's something that has caught the attention of the industry regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA). In September 2011 Swift 1st Limited (or Swift as it is commonly known) was fined £630,000 by the FSA for what was described as unfair treatment of customers facing mortgage arrears. Customers who are facing arrears are vulnerable, worried and struggling. The financial regulator deemed the way in which Swift handled these customers to be inappropriate. Swift has agreed to compensate customers who were affected; something that is likely to cost the lender £2.35 million. What did Swift do wrong? According to the regulator Swift is guilty of a number of serious failings in the way that it dealt with its customers who had fallen into arrears. The first of which related to several charges that were applied to the accounts of customers in arrears. The regulator believed the charges, which are said to cover 'administration costs' involved with handling arrears, to be much higher than they should have been and not reflective of the actual costs involved. Swift charged a monthly management fee to customers in arrears, called an 'arrears management fee'; a 'default notice fee' which was charged as soon as an account fell into arrears; an 'unpaid mortgage payment fee' for when a cheque, direct debit or standing order was not honoured by the customers bank; and a 'litigation fee' when court proceedings were started. Customers who were, or had been, in arrears were also charged excessive early repayment charges. But the failings don't end there. According to the regulator Swift did not send all of its customers in arrears the necessary documents providing information on what options were available to them. This means customers who were already struggling, concerned and confused were left in the dark. The lender was so concerned with getting its money back it failed to proactively engage with customers to work out what is known as an Arrangement to Pay, a payment plan based on their individual circumstances. Finally Swift was fined for having inadequate systems and controls in place to deal with early redemptions, which resulted in some customers who redeemed their mortgages overpaying. The fact that the regulator has stepped in validates those customers who believe Swift treated them poorly. The lender was under obligation, as part of the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly initiative, to do right by its customers. Evidently, it did not do so.

Ho Great shot jack. Nice post........you might like to ask the people that know people who work in Arcadia House ......how many of them are working for the Kestrel Companies these days.......... They used to lend as much money as Swift......or so their audited accounts say. CTM

THank you Determinator. Just a Few Further facts & Information about the way “Swift” operate. Fact 1 Up to and including the month of October 2010 They used Swift Group Legal Services to conduct legal activities and business “ Outside” their lawful remit under the Solicitors Code of Conduct. Fact 2 One of the solicitors Mr Mathew Payne used and uses TWO different signatures. One of his signatures is used in correspondence signed by him to borrowers on the headed paper “Swift Group Legal Services”, many thread members will have had these, but he used a different signature when he signed Witness Statements of Truth, and Court Repossession Claim Forms. This is deception In My Eyes, and my personal opinion. Fact 3 Mr White uses the same method, he also signs letters on behalf of “Swift Advances” using one signature (with his name stated underneath that signature). However he uses another signature when he signs Statements of Truth. Fact 4 Under oath in 2 Court Cases Mr White swore that “Swift” Do Not Pay Commission as “Such” only a documentary fee of £100, in one of these Court cases 2 independent Witness have provided Witness statements wherein they confirm that they heard Mr White Say this under oath. Fact 5. Under oath again Mr White swore that their agreement rate of interest is governed and linked to the LIBOR rate of interest. Fact 6 Under oath again Mr White admitted and confirmed (and it is recorded in a judgement summary) that the costs of their funding referred to in terms agreement is solely governed by the LIBOR rate of interest. Fact 7. Since the LIBOR rate scandal Swift have now denied that their interest rate is governed by LIBOR and is not linked to LIBOR or the BOE base rate, or any other Bank base rate. They now claim they set this themselves. Fact 8. They used to call their second charge loans …Mortgages, exempt from regulation by way of Section 16 of the CCA 1974, but now because I discovered that they did not hold the necessary Certificate issued by the Secretary of State. They now call them “ secured” loans exempt …not by way of section 16 of the CCA….but by way of section 8 (2) of the CCA. But by claiming this…… it makes ( in my opinion ) these loans regulated by way of Section 8 ( 1) and coud be strongly argued it is a MONEY Lenders agreement.It is a personal loan for any amount This last paragraph is not a Fact as are the others but is my opinion and not to be taken as a legal opinion I am not qualified to give a legal opinion

I do not often post on CAG ..........I used to post as Sparkie and was not liked very much........SWIFT CERTAINLY do not like me in fact I have been classed in Court by hem as "A DIFFICULT BORROWER TO DEAL WITH FROM THE OFFSET" ........however I believe that this post is essential reading for ALL Swift borrowers not the few that are aware of this.........You may take it or leave it but if you doubt the sincerity and accuraccy of this post ..check it out yourself.....this has been sent to the OFT to place in my Personal complaint file and the SWift complaint file in general. All this is in the pubic domain if you care to check.....but more of the general public should also be made aware of it all. I have been in dispute with this lender for some 6 years during this time I challenged their respectability and began my own personal investigation into their Business Operations and Business Plan. I began looking into their audited accounts and by some simple “Sums” I discovered the following discrepancies in the way their whole group have presented their accounts and had them audited by KPMG ( world known accountancy firm). I discovered the following. The Ultimate parent company of this group of 11 companies is Kestrel Holdings Ltd. Each year each individual company submits their own yearly accounts to Company House. The Accounts submitted by Kestrel Holdings is an amalgamation of all the company’s financial accounts. This set of accounts should tally/match the total of each individual company accounts with of course a small degree of slight error(s). However with this particular group this “appears” not to be so. These accounts are in the public domain for anyone to check and carry out their own little sums as I have done. Below you will see why I say something serious is wrong with these accounts and I believe it should be brought to the Publics attention in general and the question should be asked how is this allowed to happen? Company House say that it is not their responsibility to check accounts for accuracy only to ensure that they are filed correctly and on time. These findings are my personal findings and are not official ……BUT …anyone can check to see if I am wrong or right I believe I am right in my sums. I believe the public should be made aware of this as the loans that these accounts relate to affect a lot of members of the public who have borrowed money from them. There “ Appears” that fraud is taking place which affects a fairly large section of the public. Kestrel Holdings Ltd Account 2007 to 2008 are the amalgamated accounts of The Two Fully Active Kestrel Companies and Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances PLC Briefly the main run down points are as follows.....this what Kestrel Holdings Ltd Accounts say. New Loans are stated as…………………………£369. Million. Total Loan Book is stated as…………………….£776. Million Turn over………………………………………£129.2 Million Wages and Salaries ( does not include Directors fee and emolments)……£5,095.487 Million DWP Costs…………………………………… £ 528.899 Private Pension Contributions ……………………£ 210.959 But when each individual Companies accounts on these figures are checked and amalgamated manually as I have done, …….this is what shows up Total New Loans are stated as………………………………………………….£ 662.0 Million Total Loan Book is stated as……………………………………………............£ 957.5 Million Turn over………………………………………….£145.5 Million Wages and Salaries……………………………....£5,583.206 Million DWP Costs……………………………………….........£ 579.708 Private Pension Contributions……………………………£ 230.611 Notice the differences in heavy red highlight. There is about 300 Million that is missing in the loan records not accounted for,...... that I have always claimed, these accounts cannot be altered and furthermore every single account after this wouold appear to be false also and KPMG the auditors are as much to blame ….if I can pick it all up so should they ……. These are all done by simple basic sums from the figures shown in all their accounts, I have not carried out the analysis on the figures of the previous year(s )..its a lot of headwork .....maybe someone else could check them out, I have taxed my brain enough I think. But I am certain they will be out also. This is my personal post and CAG have no responsibility for its content. CatchtheMonkey

How many fighting Swift??????? I can advise that there is a lot ......................my estimation on information I have received 200 plus. The link Pam56 referred to is this one I believe at least http://www.google.info/forums/showthread.php?18501-Swift-Advances Sparkie ( a once very active member of CAG).....is the one that knows more about Swift than anyone....but was severely restricted from posting on CAG .........which has been a big loss to CAG and all Swift customers who post on CAG

Hi M & M Re your post that says this Hi Pam56, Yes - if it's a secured loan then it's a 2nd mortgage. Unfortunately I must completely disagree with your statement that because it is a secured loan it is a 2nd Mortgage. I say this for reason Swift categorically state and confirm that their secured loans are NOT mortgages exempted by way of section 16 of the CCA 1974 They have to say this for reason the do not hold an exemption certificate required to claim this exemption under “The Consumer Credit and consumer hire (Exempt Agreement) agreements Order 1989 (SI 1989/869)” They claim there exemption under Section 8(2) of the CCA which also makes then fall under Section 8(1) of the CCA ….They are personal loan Consumer Credit Agreements secured by security charge. This is all well documented in correspondence from Swift. I just thought I’d put the record straight. This post has been made from documented evidence.

It is on the grapevine that a certain Swift customer has just obtained a Judgement ( Friday) against Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd ...one of the companies that Swift had sold all their loans to..........this judgement although in the county court............is a very important Judgement............no Defence was attempted to be filed and was out of time by 3 weeks. This will impact on Swift Advances plc severely.......so take heart.

It is on the grapevine that a certain Swift customer has just obtained a Judgement ( Friday) against Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd ...one of the companies that Swift had sold all their loans to..........this judgement although in the County Court............is a very important Judgement............no Defence was attempted to be filed and was out of time by 3 weeks. This will impact on Swift Advances plc severely.......so take heart.

Hullo Richard, I have followed this oersons case and your own very closley and I can asure you that 90% of is is an EXACT mirror of your case ........even down to the fact the initial dispute that has protracted into the big claim it is now .......began from a laptop bought on the HP the similarities are amazing. I can contact that person and ask him to contact you direct .....if that is OK you will be startled at its similarity to yours, very complex and very malicious actions being taken by the Defendant against this LIP......going as far as even fabricating documents that have been verified by independant expert as fabricated Could you let me know by PM? P.S by the way the £96,000 does not include costs...........he has spent over 2,000 hrs fighting this case, about 15 hearings case mangement house keeping etc etc....no date has been set for final heaing..he has been put under the hammer by the creditor/Defenedant .......and the fact is at this moment in time I believe he is in the driving seat.

Yes Paul, I'm very familiar with this case and tracking it closely seems that the LIP is very close to winning his case as the default that occurred in this case is admitted without reservation it was an absolute false default and has the admittance from the creditor it was.....the fight is how much damage has been done over a 3 year period....the creditor is trying every trick in the book to stop this case being heard.......case has been in progress for over 2 years........final hearing date has been delayed and no new date fixed as yet. The Durkin summary of damage is being used by the LIP which so far the Judge has accepted is submissable. The creditor has now changed their Counsel and engaged a big hitter against the LIP, and he faces a real fight

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 ( the Act) before any data controller can supply information to any third party and that includes Credit Reference Agencies.( the CRA’s) They must obtain the data subjects permission, to supply sensitive information such as personal financial/banking information the data subjects specific written permission must be obtained. This is the First Principle of the Act, which also states that it must be supplied lawfully. Under the old Data Protection Act 1968 the CRA’s are deemed to be a data processor, however under the Data Protection Act 1998 the CRA’s are deemed to joint data controllers with the specific supplier of any information each with a responsibility to the data subject and to each other. Under the Fourth Principle of the Act data is incorrect as to any matter of fact, the argument that the CRA’s may attempt to use on this is that they would argue that the basic information that the money was obtained and used the information is correct. This does not override the fact that as the loan agreement that contains the Fair Processing Notice (The Data Protection Act Declaration) was not signed by you, that declaration is void and is a Misrepresentation of Fact under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. In my view The CRA is guilty of negligence in not checking that the data was being lawfully supplied, as a joint data controller they have this duty to you and themselves, in failing in this duty have left themselves open to the charges to be laid against them. As the agreement is a forged document it falls foul of Section 2 of the New Fraud Act 2 Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— 2 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of— (a) the person making the representation, or (b) any other person. (4) A representation may be express or implied. (5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey It also falls foul of the Forgery and Counterfeit Act…..it also follows that it is contrary to the Defamation Act. This is my opinion and as such should not be taken as legal fact proper legal advice should be sought if to be considered being used.

Unfortunately Bankruptcy only clears unsecured debts after a period of time................. all secured debts are still payable to the creditor, that is why Swift are pursuing their claim.

I have heard a rumour that a major National media company has now begun investigating this issue, which will be a major blow for the owners of Nat West .....the infamous RBS as well as the Nat West

Swift Advances plc latest update CCA Licence Historic Individuals that run the organisation: Position NameJohn Webster OFFICER Bernard Robert Barwick OFFICER Mr Dennis Edward Myers OFFICER Mr Robert Alan Rosenberg OFFICER Mr Sunny Ho Sun Lo Company Secretary Mrs Patricia Anne Myers OFFICER Nigel Ingram OFFICER Simon Woolcott OFFICER Sunny Lo OFFICER Terrence Gateley

Hi basa48. I think it falls into this category, because the copy is not a copy its a reconstructed one, which they are claiming is a copy of the genuine one......also decption IMO, but I'm not a lawyer or a copper. 2 The offence of copying a false instrument.E+W+N.I. It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. Hullo basa48,

Would not the admittance that the agreement document was the result of an act of forgery by admittance? it would be difficult for the Nat West to produce the document as evidence in support of any claim or defence. It would be deemed an offence under the Forgery and Counterfeit Act of 1981, would it not? Just my personal view and question, perhaps a more learned person would give an opinion. Offences E+W+N.I. 1 The offence of forgery.E+W+N.I. A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 2 The offence of copying a false instrument.E+W+N.I. It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 3 The offence of using a false instrument.E+W+N.I. It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 4 The offence of using a copy of a false instrument.E+W+N.I. It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

This does not look too good for the Nat Wests latest costly TV Advert:roll: