Has anyone noticed that one set of Kestrel Accounts say they sold loans back to Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd to the value of £50million and another set says they sold £5.2million.............remember these refer to the same "block" of loans..not different ones .......discrepancy of £200,000 where has this gone:?:...how can they fix this? If these accounts are out ........so are the rest:?:. just a passing note...check these accounts out....you'll see it straight away, they are in the public domain.

sparkie

Some info for all to think about and how to use it.....

What is an in house lawyer

a solicitor employed by an employer that is not a solicitor's firm or an authorised non-SRA firm (in commerce or industry, in central or local government, in the not-for-profit sector, or in a trade union or other association) acts only for the employer, subject to limited exceptions which allow, for instance, a law centre solicitor to act for members of the public; "pure" in-house work, where the solicitor cannot be said to be working for the public or a section of the public, is not affected by the Act; most organisations whose solicitors currently act for sections of the public, such as law centres or insurance companies, will eventually need to be licensed as ABSs under the Act

What is an in house solicitor

An in house solicitor is the same as an inhouse lawyer

a solicitor employed by an employer that is not a solicitor's firm or an authorised non-SRA firm (in commerce or industry, in central or local government, in the not-for-profit sector, or in a trade union or other association) acts only for the employer, subject to limited exceptions which allow, for instance, a law centre solicitor to act for members of the public; "pure" in-house work, where the solicitor cannot be said to be working for the public or a section of the public, is not affected by the Act; most organisations whose solicitors currently act for sections of the public, such as law centres or insurance companies, will eventually need to be licensed as ABSs under the Act

All Swift Group Legal Services solicitors are stated to be employees of Swift Group Legal Services, their registration with the SRA, the Law Societies shows this quite clearly, which is admissible in Court of Law as a matter of fact. 7.—(1) The common law rule effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(a) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968 (admissibility of admissions adverse to a party) is superseded by the provisions of this Act.

This is an argument to consider using against them. As there is no such legal entity as Swift Group Legal Services and they are now firmly stated to be a “trading name” on OFT licenses……………….. a “trading name” cannot take legal action to act in court it must be an actual entity upon which liability can be placed.

(2) The common law rules effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(b) to (d) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968, that is, any rule of law whereby in civil proceedings—

(a) published works dealing with matters of a public nature (for example, histories, scientific works, dictionaries and maps) are admissible as evidence of facts of a public nature stated in them,

(b) public documents (for example, public registers, and returns made under public authority with respect to matters of public interest) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them, or

© records (for example, the records of certain courts, treaties, Crown grants, pardons and commissions) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them,

sparkie

Has anyone noticed Mr Webster no longer signs any accounts filed with Companies House....wonder if he is still there?????!!!

Me know a secret...... me no tell...has someone lost his pen????? ....well well well

sparkie

Hi Sweetjane,

I regret that to get this info you will have to spend another £10 as it is all the solicitors info that they will not supply under your SDAR to either Swift Advances plc or Swift 1st Ltd.............this is another little bit of evidence that helps to prove that Swift Group Legal Services are a "seperate entity" to Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd...and up till now hid behind Legal Privilege....cannot any more.

They have claimed that they are just another department within Swift Advances plc......if that was indeed correct then everyone would receive the information you are now requesting.

Send your SDAR's in everyone....it will be a TENNER well spent because if they do not comply......then ring the ICO and tell them they wont.

sparkie

It has been ruled by the European Courts that in house solicitors are not covered by Legal Privilege ...I would there fore suggest that all "Swifties" submit a SDAR to Swift Group Legal Services asking them for all information they hold on you, transcripts and copies of correspondence e-mails etc etc of internal corespondence in Swift Advances plc Arcadia House.......copies of all correspondence between Swift Group Legal Services and outside solictors ,agents, and Barristers........

sparkie

Examples of situations where you will be practising as a solicitor, and will therefore need a practising certificate, include:

(a)you are employed as a solicitor;

(b)you are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer;

The above is something for debate and to think about ....all the solictors listed on the letters headed Swift Group Legal Services hold practicing certificates.....but here is where they come unstuck....their employers are Swift Group Legal Services...who are an Organisation not a law Firm......but now they have decided to become a Trading Style....in any event they can only act for their employers who are not Swift Advances plc ....So they cannot act for them, because they cannot have " OUTSIDE CLIENTS" they are acting unlawfully.

sparkie

7.You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided:

(a)the letterhead or the signature makes it clear that the stationery is being used by an in-house solicitor or in-house*REL on legal professional business and that person is responsible for the contents of the letter; and

Look at your letters from Swift Group Legal Services, remember One they are an organisation and Two they are now a trading style....look at the signatures at the end of the letter.....I bet it looks as if it was signed by a 2 year old on the vast majority of them ......I've got loads....but all this is ammo for later in my Unfair Relationship Claim

By the way this is what the OFT guidance states at the end of the Guidance,

Consumers may find section 140 particulary useful in defence of possession claims.

sparkie

I'll be posting how Mr Mathew Payne posed as a Commissionaire of Oaths later on and post the document he signed as a Commissionaire of Oaths ....he can act as one as long as he is not involved in the document he is signing and does not know the persons involved on a personal basis ...another fine mess really!!

You never know who views these threads??????? someone might pick this up and take some action

sparkie

Well! well! well! ...welcome back sparkle72

very close to my nickname isn't ...you do not shine as bright that's how we tell the difference

sparkie

I'll be posting little bits of other stuff about Mr Paynes antics as the days go by ...you won't beieve what he has been doing.....you will soon....

sparkie

Dishonesty..now here is word that "conjures" up some ideas for me....The second page of our possession application by Swift Advances in the statement of truth says this..... Signed .....Mathew Payne.... position......"Assistant Solicitor" ......he was/is the Senior Solicitor in the employ of "Swift Group Legal Services"....in the box which asks name of Solicitor he has put " Swift Group Legal Services"............according to their registration with the Law Society Public Record....... Swift Group Legal Services are registered as an "Organisation"........not a Law firm regulated by the SRA, ........now Swift Group Legal Services have gone and registered themselves as a trading Style of Swift Securities Ltd, it appears that they do not know who or what they are..........so how can anyone else know.....they are in a bit of a mess really.

The SRA do regulate the solicitors though, and no matter who they are the solicitors themselves can be charged with bringing the profession into disrepute......no one has done more to do that than this man in my opinion.

He has pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes for so long, he must have knitted more" wooly" sweaters than Val Doonican ever had ......if you can remember him....shows how ancient I am.

Have people noticed he does not sign many letters these days .....he gets Swift Group Legal Services to sign then...how they get a non existant entity to sign letters in biro I don't know... but.... they achieve it somehow:rolleyes:.

sparkie

Hi Sparkie

Sorry thought you meant the court could not enforce. For this of course there would have to be a breach of section 127(3), which would mean that the APR would have to be listed as a prescribed term in schedule 6 of the 1983/1553 regs.

I was aware of the case you sited, lack of APR is a definite section 65 breach but the creditor can apply for an enforcement order under section127(1).

The judge may decide that this is a serious deficiency, based on the amount of prejudice caused as on the case sited, he May also decide it is de minimis.

Peter

Agree absolutely Peter.....but it is a good argument for unenforceability I think....well worth considering

must take the oportunity here to add about Loans Made Simple ....their CCA license lasped January 2009 ....any loans obtained via them after this date ( not Just with Swift ...with anyone ) would be unenforceable..........so if you are a LOans Made Simple customer check the date of your Loan.

sparkie

You use the above in case they btried to argue that they did not notice at the time that you had altered the agreement if they had they would not have agreed to it........That's their lookout they accepted it as you said

sparkie:cool:

Estoppell

Where one person (‘the representor’) has made a representation of fact to another person (‘the representee’) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time, and in proper manner, objects thereto.

sparkie

yes i thought that and considering they bumped me for a higher rate of intrest when we took out the second agreement, and on the first agreement we have simmallar intrest mis calculations ,they will not send any agreement, especially the second agreement because i scored out at the bottom where it says they can share my information etc.. i wrote in do not share my information with any company whatsoever..they accepted that lol

That one they cannot get out of ...Use my favourite the Law of Estoppell!!!

Thats a breach of the contract on their part

sparkie

The calculator I use is American............ it uses dollar signs instead of pounds.............. but is is accurate to the 4th decimal point...and it does 2 calculations before it gives you the APR and use the OFT/ world wide APR calculator formula....it is spot on mate ...that I can assure you Sorry agin for the bad news.#

sparkie

Hi Patrick,

Sorry mate just used the Best calculator there is and your APR is spot on ...in fact you are underpaying by 5 pence a month.

sparkie:mad:

me finks you pee d off wiv swift sparky hehe

can some look at my thread above

I have only just been getting started with Swift Advances plc.

Where is your thread Patrick???

sparkie

Perhaps I had better expand on why I ask about LOANS MADE SIMPLE .........they do not concern me but more than likely people from N.Ireland who have both CCA regulated and unreguated agreements with Swift Advances plc....NOT First Charge Mortgages.

This broker firm has ever held a CCA licence issued by the OFT.

LOANS MADE SIMPLE

Company Type:

Non-Limited

Company Address:

LOANS MADE SIMPLE

Loy Buildings

18 Loy St

COOKSTOWN

BT80 8PE

The OFT rules on credit licences and brokers state that if your loan was introduced by a broker without a licence, the borrower has the right to cease making payments as the agreement is unenforecable ....the OFT licensing rules say this

Unlicensed trading is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

In addition, if any of your customers were to default on a payment, you would not be able to enforce a credit agreement that you had made while unlicensed, or where an unlicensed credit broker was involved.

I have one agreemnet so far totally unenforceable by this rule....if anyone else had their loan set up by this broker ....it is unenforceable...... Swift do not know what is goingbto hit them next and there is a LOT more to come believe me;)

sparkie

WANTED.....Information ...has anyone had their loan set up by a Broker Firm LOANS MADE SIMPLE?? Post it up please

sparkie

Hi Sparkie sent an email to you could you have a lool please

 

Thanks

 

LL

Hi LL

Haven't got your e-mail .....didn't get your last one either..

sparkie

This is taken from the OFT guidelines on subprime lending

“There should be full transparency about the circumstances in which any

variable rates or charges may change, in particular where they are not

linked to Bank of England base rate”.

Has Swift Advances plc ever told anyone BEFORE they signed their agreement that their loan rates were not linked to the BOE base rate…..I only found out after we had signed ours and then had to go searching for what LIBOR meant…..that’s their kind of transparency

Sparkie

Does anyone know if the information below applies to unregulated loans too. The first line says that ALL LOAN AGREEMENTS MUST CONTAIN, just wandering if anyone knew and would appreciate any help or advice. Thanks

 

All loan agreements must contain the following terms and conditions in order for the contract to be valid:

 

• The full amount of the loan
  
• The full amount of the loan repayable with interest
  
• The rate of interest (APR)
  
• The amount of interest charged
  
• The cost of PPI
  
• The amount payable in each instalment
  
• The total number of instalments to be made
  
• How the borrower will make the repayments
  
• The dates of when the agreement starts and ends
  
• Full terms and conditions
  
• Signatures from both the debtor and creditor
  

If your existing secured/unsecured loan, credit card, store card, car loan agreement was not fully explained to you, and does not contain the above information, then you can mount a legal challenge to your creditor and potentially undo the loan. In short, the contract between you and the lender becomes unenforceable.

Hi fretful,

Just spotted your post............In my view whether the APR rule applies to unregulated agreements is a bit of a grey area the 1983 and 2004 Regs start off by referring to regulated agreements....but then only refer to "credit agreements" it is therfore unclear if they do or not...a ruling has not been made as of yet on this particular fact.......as far as I can find out,

so until then you will have to rely on the Misrepresentation Act 1987 and the 1983 Consumer Protection Act ..Section 20.

On a variable rate loan as far as the total inerest and amount an example must be shown on the agreement as to how much if the interest should stay the same for the period of the laoa or should it go up by a particular amount.....but again this appears only to apply to regulated agreements.

But don't take my view as fact I'm just a dumbo auto spark as I have said before

sparkie

"

There is timescales for criminal charges to be brought of 1 Year and 3 Years but in any event it can possibly render the agreement not only unenforceable but .....Void.

It falls also under the Misrepresentation Act 1987....its a misrepresentation of fact...........the arguments would have to be..... was it "deliberate"?...... or was it "recklessly negligent"? or negligent by "ommission of material fact"?

sparkie

Hi

Been watching this excellent thead, a bit confused by this though why would the lack of an APR render the agreement unenforceable, it is not a prescribed term.

 

Peter

Hi Peter,

I think this will answer your question...........If it is not stated as an APR....or other type such as a nominal rate... how can you calculate it is correct and your payments are correct?.

sparkie

Regina -v- Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 320.

4 Apr 2000

Admn

Consumer, Crime, Financial Services

A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract.