Back on the "forged/tampered with Default notices" will Swifties take another look at my posts 2675 & 2676 on page 134. Just to add more evidence that these two default notices are not the same. Take a good look at the bottom of the "true copy" ...(as it should be)...... submitted to the Court in Chester All reference to the trading style and all that info that is shown at the bottom of the original has been deliberately left off/removed/deleted. If you compare the Bar coding you will see that the Post Code is overlaid by the bar code on the Swift Advances original, But on the first one ......the "Swift Advances Plc" doctored one there is no sign of the post code in the Bar Code. Therefore there can be no doubt that the Swift Advances Plc "COPY" is not a copy ...it is a fraudulent reconstructed one......just adding more weight to my argument that Swift Advances Plc know that the originals are worthless as a document to put before the Court..... as they have been issued by way of a criminal action ....issued by a trading style that has no authority to issue them.........every one who has had a Default notice and has been subject to Court Action with a doctored copy... can apply to have the order and proceedings squashed and the legal process for possession would have to start again ...IF they dare to. sparkie

It is my understanding that this was a case of Equitable transfer sale .....not a complete sale which included sale of title. sparkie

Cannot seem to get over this fact. 1 Mark White has stated that Banks (who ever they are and I imagine he means the securitising banks) will only lend about 70% of the equity...that is Andrew 1's Equity transfer...he keeps on about. Swift Advances Plc accounts they sold £200 million of mortgages and loans ....if that was done as an equitable trasnfer deal only Kestrel could only have borrowed £140 million......BUT they were able to borrow the full amount Swift wanted ....HOW because the titles were transferred also ...it could not have been an equitable transfer of rights but a full transfer sale. Absolutely ..SIMPLES Grasshoppers Look at a problem simply and you will arrive at a simple answer....look at a problem and interject problems that do not exist and you will have a hard time finding the answer. The new "Confuchious"......sparkie :D:D:D

Hi LFI Your new bank takes over all aspects and responsibities of the old bank assets and debts etc etc etc. ITs the new Bank that should be taking you to Court sparkie

This LIBOR crap they put out is just what it is crap.........the interest rates are CONTROLLED by the securitiser ....they are the ones who put your rate up they CAN do what they like ....they set the rate..........and it gives them more profit which the securitisating Banks remunerate the Two Swift comanpies Swif 1st Ltd and Swift Advances Plc for administrating the loan accounts...........Do you get it now??? sparkie

Irrespective of any letters etc ...Mark White finally admitted under oath that ( got that in my first judgement summary).....The cost of Swift Advances Plc funding and Swift 1st Ltd funding was governed by the LIBOR rate ONLY .....nothing else!! sparkie

HI marky, The LIBOR rate began to decrease from May 2007 frm around 5.78% I think if you check it properly. it then reached a low of 0.67 in Dec 2009. ( the 0.25% you refer to is the BOE base rate Not LIBOR) This points to the fact that Swift Advances Plc HAVE securitised and its the securitisers who dictate the rates ...thats why SWift Advances Plc NEVER put their rates down because they have no power to do so.They are controlled by the Securitiser.....nothing to do with Swifts actual rate they pay to Barclays Bank ( who Swift Advances Plc first borrowed their money from ) that was obtained at a fixed capped rate as Mr Webster stated in his directors reports . sparkie sparkie

Below is another extract from hearing of our case transcript....Can anyone explain PLEASE to me any of the following...........this is a prime example of how a LIP is treated with utter contempt by the Courts ...we are the dregs of society in the eyes of Courts. sparkie How the Judge could tell me and rule 1 That everything I said in our Defence against possession had ALL been heard before, when the Barrister for Swift had just said what I have highlighted in blue. 2 How was it OK for Swift Advances Plc to submit Mark Whites witness statement TWO days before the hearing and yet it is not acceptable for me to do that (high lighted in pink) 3 What were supposed to do ....( highlighted in red) nothing. not file a defence or pleadings they call them what were we supposed to do. 4 The Judge said it had all been heard before but the Barisster had himself just told him (highlighted in lilac) that we "put forward fresh grounds for Defence" What the learned Recorder was hearing was the following. He was not hearing the claim for possession because at that stage the defendants had brought their arrears up-to-date so the hearing for possession or the application for possession was adjourned with permission to restore. Instead the hearing was of the counterclaim and counsel who appeared for the claimant typed a detailed note of the judgment and the learned judge then actually signed counsel's note and that note is exhibited to the witness statement of Mark White which is dated two days ago which I am hoping is on the court file. DISTRICT JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, I have read it. BUT To ME later on he says "You have raised this in a document just two days before a hearing and that is not good enough MR WILLIAMS: I am grateful. Now, it is probably not — I have gone through the details of the judgment, but just so that I can assist the court it is probably necessary to go through the detail of it now and that can be summarised as follows. The learned judge went through every one of what I put as the four prongs of the defence and counterclaim and found against the defendants on every single point, both as to fact and as to the law. For that reason the counterclaim was dismissed. What has happened in the meantime is the following. I will see if I can provide the court with a date for this. On 25th November, so just over a week ago, a week and a day ago, the defendants filed - the defendants who are now acting in person - a document headed "Joint defence statement." It reads as though it is a cross between a witness statement and a pleading. There was no permission to file either a witness statement or a pleading although I would have to accept that I would struggle to oppose an application to admit in evidence a witness statement bearing in mind that somebody's home is at stake, whereas I rather suspect I would find it much easier to oppose this being a late substitution of a defence. What this joint defence statement does is the following. It raises fresh grounds of defence. District Judge Newman

Looks like sparkle may be viewing as a guest so cannot be recognised???

Sorry mate you don't speak "scouse" to a "scouser" its "edge wise" remember we are a long way from Buckinham Palace and the Queens english8-):D sparkie

That's a good girl doggie "buster".....g. not your spelling but your description of how "QUIET" you are....no chance ......can't get a word in edge wise on the phone .........you go off like an out of control machine gun.....don't suppose a whale bone would last you long!!!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D:lol: sparkie.....

"Secrets Baby" you just keep 'em to yourself Yes you are QUITE a person ...definately Not a "QUIET" person:p:D:D:D sparkie:lol:

Had an email reply to my copied e-mail to Mr Webster I sent to David Blocksidge at the OFT......it came from Anna Christy ....thanking me for keepinhg the OFT updated and my comments had been noted;) sparkie

What I beleive what Swift Advances Plc are doing....they do what I have put to the OFT...... what I called and explained as a "reverse equity" deal..............they sell/transfer the Title Deed, ( a form of securitisation) to enable the Kestrel Companies to use to borrow money on their behalf from other Banks...........then "Kestrel" securitise again......using the title charges they have bought from Swift 1st Ltd & Swift Advances Ltd. Swift Advance Plc keep the Equity side..... i.e the charges fees defaults etc etc etc ........this is shown by the fact that the two Swifties who were "mistakenly" supplied a computer account run off supplied in their SAR's showing Kestrel Loans No Ltd receiving the monthly payments loan payments and Swift Advances Plc receiving all the default and account running penalties charges......... one account we have showing over £2000 in default charges in just over 12 months.. Mr Webster has stated that they carry out an Equitable transfer..............they most certainly DO NOT sparkie

All I can say is what the RBS has comng to them will be justly deserved, this is just ANOTHER case of secret false accounting and extortion in my personal opinion. Forward as much information to Paul as you can sparkie

Now I wonder why she asked you "if you were writing to someone"? methinks they are being got at 8-) HOw come she went to great lengths to explain the links to LIBOR and then said she doesnt know anything about interest rates ....why mislead you into making you belive she did............must work in Mark Whites office!!! sparkie

I came on to help anyone and everyone.................All my problems I lay at the feet of the Royal Bank of Scotland dating back to 1998 sparkie

Quote from LFI Post The SPV does inform its investors that the bank sold its legal title to the SPV (to whom, the right to register the legal title tothe mortgages is important). Consequently, the bank appears to be the legal owner, but it is not. I put this in the exact form in the Defence at our possession hearing, This is taken from the judgement summary summarywhat the Judge said about that ME....The charge is improperly registered your honour Judge Newman.... All right so it is an improper----Kestrel have sold it and its an improper charge Me ....No Swift sold it to Kestrel Judge Newman Yes, Swift sold it to Kestrel He had not got a clue who sold what to who and he wasn't particulary interested all he wanted to do was bring the hammer down and get off home or something Me.... Yes I have got evidence that documents are tampered wth I have got evidence my loan was sold---- Judge Newman ...Why does that make it bad? Me ...Its concealed your Honour its concealment. Its concealment under section 2 of The New Fraud Act, concealing documents that were entitled to see is an offence your Honour.... He then goes on to say You have raised an issue that Swift sold your loan to Kestrel. You seem to think that that creates some sort of defence. I'm afraid it does not They are entitled to sell it. It goes on all the time. It is a perfectly normal transaction. It happens with all lenders, secondary or primary in fact, from time to time. There is nothing sinister about it despite your belief, and it does not affect the title of Swift to bring this action because they are the registered proprietors of the charge. You then allege that the charge itself is wrongly registered because the wording does not precisely conform to some guidance given by the Land Registry on their website. I respectfully disagree with you. Had it not been registerable the Land Registry would not register it, ( the Land registry no longer chechk that an entry is correct they say if it isn't that's the chargors problenm not theirs if they slip up and make a entry that can't be enforced that is their hard luck) that is their duty. Once it is registered, once it is registered it is a matter that it is a registered charge and it is the presumption in law that it is an accurate document. Only because Swift Advances Plc had not changed the entry in favour of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd I presented him with the accounts showing that they had sold them You charge people with false statements but you don't bring any evidence forward for that today. I am afraid also that all these issues are effectively disguised issues which were earlier dealt with by Recorder Little in great detail, and I have read his notes of judgment by- Me: Because I didn't have the information— How could I have presented evidence of false statements at the previous hearing when it was in that hearing he made them and I only found out afterwards DISTRICT JUDGE NEWMAN: They are disguised points raising the same issues again effectively. Recorder Little dealt with them. These are res judicata. They have been dealt with by the courts in the main and putting new words behind the same allegations does not make them new allegations. I am afraid that you really are at the end of the road on this one, , so far as this court is concerned. Me: Your Honour, I couldn't make the allegations in the previous hearing because Mr White made the statements at the hearing. I have only been able to find out afterwards to make these allegations. BUt They were all in the documents I placed before him which he didn't even bother to read. I placed enough in front of him to cause doubt and that should have been enough for an adjournment Talk about being stitched up :mad: The whole judgement is on all these similar lines

Thanks Apollo, I intend to agree that I am right ....they are cheating everyone. I am also just sending this of to David Blocksidge at the OFT ....I am of the belief that every interest calculation is miscalculated on everyones agreement they have with BOTH of the SWIFT companies. From Sparkie To Mr David Blocksidge The Office of Fair Trading Dear Mr Blocksidge, I wish to copy you in with this e.mail I am sending the two named people at Swift Advances Plc with regard to the incorrect misleading APR stated on our agreement, calculated as shown, another fact that the courts believed Mr White when I challenged that APR, again showing how Mr White misled the Court. I have many many Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd agreements where the APR is miscalculated Yours sincerely sparkie Dear Mr White, You made the statement in your witness statement of truth submitted to the Court in the proceedings Swift Advances took out against usthat you had checked the APR on our agreement and found it to be correct (9.84%) ....that was not only and incorrect statement but an incorrect recalulation...... calculate it again in the manner it is supposed to calculated legally, not the Swift Advances Plc ...."special way". APR Calculator Loan amount (£) Starter / admin charge (£) Monthly repayment amount (£) Number of monthly repayments Extra final charge (£) Results APR15.4% You will see above that the APR is 15.4%. not the 9.84% shown on our agreement Then please note below. Thank you Yours sincerely sparkie Regina -v- Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 3204 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. Consumer Protection Act 1987 20 - Consumer Credit Act 1974 170(1)

I believe this is the exact reason that Swift Advances & Swift 1st Ltd NEVER reduce their interest this says it all. Mr White babbles on in the witness stand about rising costs etc etc nd then finally tries to say their rates are governed by Libor, but as is stated in their accounts they pay a fixed sum to Barclays Bank the main funders and ....when they sell our loans to an SPV ...the SPV puts the rate up Swift still pay the fixed rate to Barcalys ......Swift and the SPV then split the extra profit earned from the hike in their interest rates with the SPV ...a pure money making machine that is why it is put up EVERY 2 to 3 months From the Banking Crisis memo 6. This is because, the banks have sold the mortgage contracts to the SPVs and it is the SPVs alone, that have the contractual power to determine the borrowers interest rates. Consequently, it is the SPVs that decide whether or not to pass on the interest rate cuts. It is the SPVs that have decided not to pass on the interest rate cuts. 7. This fact is evidenced by the various and respective Prospectuses that the SPVs file at the UK Listing Authority. In general, the bank that originates the loans will make a True Saleof the mortgages to the SPV which means the contractual power to set the borrower’s interest rate is vested in the SPV. 8. Following the bank’s True Sale of the mortgages, the bank’s contractual relationship with the borrower is extinguished. The SPV, as assignee, becomes the party that is in privity of contract with the borrower. However, neither the bank nor the SPV inform the borrower of the SPV’s ownership of the mortgage contract. The SPV will remain concealed. The borrower is unlikely to discover the SPV’s ownership of their mortgage contract because, following the sale to the SPV, the bank and the SPV enter into a contract wherein, the bank agrees to administrate the mortgages on behalf of the SPV and in return, the SPV remunerates the bank for its administrative services. Consequently, whilst the bank has extinguished all its right and title to the consumer’s mortgage contract, the bank’s connection to the consumer’s mortgage is through its administration agreement with the SPV only.

Excellent Paul ....the reason why SWift Companies NEVER pass interest rates on is not the reason Mark White explained under oath to the Courts in many cases is answered in this document ............they do securitise and DO NOT have the right to sue as I have been saying from the beginning, I am making my Counsel aware of this document;) sparkie

The Swift Group in Hull East Yorkshire build Caravans ....wonder if this is where Mr Webster has been since December 2009 .....building himself a get away piece of transport???? sparkie

Just sending this e-mail off to Mr Webster sparkie Dear Mr Webster, I refer you to the e-mail you sent to me on 11th March 2010, I would like you to clarify one or two points that have arisen of late, I am privy to a recorded telephone conversation between one of Swift Advance Plc staff and a customer of Swift Advances Plc, who when asked if you could be spoken with, informed the caller that you were no longer with Swift Advances Plc and had not been since December, it is not illogical for me to question if this is so, how is that you replied to my email as copied below? In another telephone converstaon another Swift Advances Plc customer had with Mr Mathew Payne he stated that you were still ( as you have claimed to be) the Chief Executive Officer of "The Swift Group" It would, in my view be appropriate and prudent for you to make your staff also aware that you are still with Swift Advances Plc and in what exact capacity you are with them, in order that they supply callers and customers with the correct information Could you therefore reconfirm that is correct and will you define which of these Groups you are actually Chief Executive of; Is it this one? Name & Registered Office: SWIFT GROUP LIMITED DUNSWELL ROAD COTTINGHAM EAST YORKSHIRE HU16 4JX Company No. 00832994 or is it this one? The Swift Group Global Wealth Management 150 FOURTH AVENUE NORTH Suite 1700 NASHVILLE, TN 37219-2417 Phone: (610) 320-5455 Scott K. Swift, CFM(615) 747-5748Financial AdvisorKathleen S. Schwartz, CSNA(610) 320-5484Financial AdvisorStephen R. Bealer, CFP®, ChFC, CLU(610) 320-5453Financial AdvisorJohn C. Minnich, CFP®, ChFC(610) 320-5479Financial AdvisorAprile D. Seitz(610) 320-5483Client AssociateLindsay L. Dillingham, CRPC®(615) 747-5637Registered Client Associate Or is it the "Swift Group" that does not legally exist?. Thank you Yours sincerely W.B Grace ( SPARKIE)

Thanks Blackie ...BUt you keep fighting....I have some information that I just CANNOT tell folks about at this moment but ....I can say you will all be taken so far aback that you will two weeks to catch yourself up that's a promise;);):):D:D:D sparkie

With regard to my own particular case....I have just pointed out to my legal team that the Default notice issued by Swift Advances was issued prior to the proceedings on the 25th JUne 2008 prior to the possession application because we had brached the agreement by getting in arrears....how ever we rectified tha breach by paying off the arrears and paid a further month in advance. This rendered that default notice invaild as we had rectified the breach that default referred to and Swift withdrew the possession application When Swift re-instated the possession proceedings in NOvember 2009 they did not issue another default notice........I have submitted to Counsel that this prevented Swift Advances Plc from enforcing the agreement and the security they held if I am correct then Swift Advances Plc have had it at my appeal the possession order will be squashed .....fingers crossed for us everyone please sparkie