Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

386 Excellent

About Killerschick

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Dellboy, There are some second charge lenders out there who have an unpublicised policy of withholding action if there is no equity in the property as they would stand to lose not only the original loan, but also the costs spent on enforcement. They will make a big fuss when you first fall into arrears as they want to try and keep you paying but the letters they send are generally standard and they often operate diallers to make large volumes of calls. If you get further into arrears and clearly don't have the money as you haven't responded to their threats with payments then they
  2. Hi spot,Interested to hear that we might know each other (and curious as to how?), send me a message if you want to tell me who you are in real life and how you know me (obviously don't post it on the forum!). The OFT does not have the power to fine a business straight out like the FSA, they can only impose fines for breaches of requirements but first they would need to impose requirements. The public register (which you can access here http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/Default.aspx the licence number is 391618) shows that the OFT are Minded to Impose Requirements so I guess that's what they are tryin
  3. Hi Janis, It's not entirely clear what you're asking here which is maybe why you haven't had a response. You are currently paying in excess of your contractual payments but this is not an arrangement that has been agreed by GE. Is this the amount required under a suspended possession order? Or is it just an ad hoc arrangement by which you pay £1000 without any particular basis for it? If the arrangement has not been agreed by GE they are likely to be adding monthly charges to your account so it would be wise to get the arrangement on a more formal footing to avoid this. You can
  4. Hi borolad Sorry to see you've had no response to date, I know a little about this from mortgage trade press etc. According to statements made in their latest accounts, Swift (Swift 1st Limited and Swift Advances plc) are subject to investigations by both the FSA and OFT. Details were reported in the mortgage trade press, you can read more here:- http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/distribution/swift-investigated-by-fsa-over-arrears-handling/1023883.article Nothing is concluded, contrary to what some may be believe, the FSA have not fined Swift or announced any finding against them at
  5. Hi Mr ZI'm sorry to say that they are absolutely right in this instance.London Scottish Bank plc went very publicly into administration in December 2008 as a consequence of their failure to meet the FSA's capital FSA's capital requirements. You can check Companies House records to confirm this or just Google it and you will return plenty of press coverage from the time.I have to admit I wasn't sure of the position on suing companies in administration but after a bit of research I found that the moratorium on legal proceedings against companies in administration is found in the Insolvency Act 1
  6. Given that she's a politician herself (Tory councillor in Braintree http://www.braintree.gov.uk/Braintree/councildemocracy/Councillors/ClaireSandbrook.htm), is she accusing herself of failure? She certainly doesn't mention much about educating the public on the consequences of not paying debts in her profile!
  7. Hi mag60, If you are currently in a debt management plan it is probably not a good idea to be looking at borrowing more money and securing it against your house but there are lenders out there who still deal with people with poor credit. These sort of lenders generally do not deal direct with the general public but accept applications only via brokers (who will charge you 1-2% of the loan value for arranging it). The interest rate will be as high if not higher than most unsecured credit and you risk losing your home if you default but if you still want to go ahead (and I hope it is clear
  8. Found an interesting judgment on Bailii while looking for any cases involving Swift (sadly, no successful CCA S140 actions) . Link below together with the full text. Good news for anyone wanting to defend possession proceedings whose property has been vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Ch/2011/2.html Swift Advances Plc v McKay & Anor [2011] NICh 2 (10 February 2011) Neutral Citation No. [2011] NICh 2 Ref: DEE8070 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 10/02/11 (subject to editorial corrections)
  9. As I said Andrew1/Sarah, it's just my view and I am happy to stand corrected either if others have had proven success with contacting first mortgage companies, or, if anyone knows of a criminal case being brought against Swift Advances plc in relation to the trading name issue.
  10. Hi Junior, The short answer is yes in theory the creditors can claim against any property you have including the house if in your name. In pratice the debts are not large and the costs and risks of them taking action may prevent them from doing so, particularly if you start paying again. They can do this in several ways, the usual is to get a county court judgment and enforce by way of a charging order against the property. It is then possible to apply for an order for sale but for the amounts you are talking about they wouldn't stand much chance. You would also have plenty of opport
  11. Hi Maybelline, Do you mean the Mortgage Code rather than MCOL? If so you can find more on the CML website here including the a link to the code which was supseded by FSA regulation:- http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/policy/issues/111 The first thing you might notice about this is that it was voluntary so while your big high street boys, Nationwide, Halifax etc might have complied you are less likely to find compliance with the 'alternative' lenders. As most 'alternative' lenders dealt only with brokers they did not have the reputation concerns of the high street lenders so had very lit
  12. Hi Jacqui, As Dougal says it was from a post by PKelly here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284157-Swift-Advances.-Secured-Loan-Charges-reclaim-2&p=3266855&viewfull=1#post3266855 number 131 on this thread a few pages back. There was no template letter as far as I am aware unless one has been circulated by private message. For what it's worth I don't think it's worth the price of a stamp to pursue this. In the unlikely event that your letter landed on the desk of someone at your first mortgage company who had an earthly what you were talking about (e
  13. This sounds the same as another post I have responded to but nevertheless, the position is that if you do not comply with this latest court order by 14.1.11 then the lender will be able to apply for a new Warrant on 15th. This means you will get some notice of new eviction date.
  14. Hi brigit, On 14th April if you have not complied with the court order the lender can apply to the court to enforce the by way of a Warrant for possession i.e. they will need a new bailiff's appointment and you will be given notice of the date and time of the new eviction. I hope this gives you some comfort and breathing space, you might want to contact your local authority's homelessness department about procedures for being rehoused although they may not be able to do much until you have an eviction date. KC
  15. Hi Maybelline, Prior to 31 October 2004 (known as M Day) when the FSA started regulating them, most first charge residential mortgages were completely unregulated. There are some very exceptional cases which fell under Consumer Credit Act regulation but they are VERY rare due to the limits on the size of loans which the CCA covered. If you mortgage was CCA regulated it would say so on the agreement. Other than that if any of the terms of the mortgage were particularly unfair you might be able to challenge them under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations which were o
  • Create New...