Jump to content

Sparkie1723

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    3,272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Sparkie1723

  1. Swift Finance (GB) Ltd.....Swift Finances Ltd....Swift Finance (UK) Ltd..........Swift Financial Services Ltd ...none of these companies have any connection with Swift Home Loans Ltd or any of the Swift/Kestrel companies referred to on this thread Swift Home Loans Ltd is at present an active company with dormant accounts ...if that makes sense to folks ...it doesn't to me I must thick like I say!!!!) "Swift Finances" is merely a trading style/name of Swift Home Loans Ltd if & when they resurrect it...hope this makes things a little clear LFI. sparkie
  2. It should also be noted that the Swift Finances (UK) Ltd licence lapsed early in 2009. The conclusion I have arrived at ( along with others) as to why they use trading styles that are not registered is......................That Swift Advances, Eastern Counselling Swift Group Legal Sevices etc are not legal entities and in truth cannot be touched by the law.......now if action is taken against Swift Advances Plc and their licence is revoked by the OFT?????? they will cease trading and liquidate BUT .....think about this ................as all our loans have allready been sold to the Kestrel companies, these companies will come forward ( especially the Dormant company Kestrel Loans No 2 Ltd) and carry on as if nothing has happened ....Swift have no assetts .........they exist on borrowed money their creditors get nothing......... in fact there is a concensus that there is approx £200 million adrift "somewhere" in their accounts, this has not been verified as of yet but I believe it will be in the VERY near future by forensic accountants;) BY the way LFI just for "Information" Swift Advances PLc And Swift 1st Ltd are 69% owned by Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd sparkie
  3. Long read this .......just extracted this from last years treasury select committee meeting on subprime lenders, I think there is a lot of food for thought in this and how we can use it. sparkie 10. Consumers of these products will variously and typically experience the following: (a) failure of notification of the fact that their mortgage has been securitized usually within three to six months; (b) absence of consent to a disposition of property as mandated by law © failure to lawfully perfect the sale of the mortgage (d) Failure of notification that by default any sub prime mortgage is placed on a block building insurance policy even if the consumer of the mortgage product has valid buildings insurance; compound interest is charged thereon; (e) alleged none payment where payment has been tendered; (f) alleged late payment where payment has been tendered upon date due; (g) falsely alleged shortfalls in payments; (h) failure to change payment due date to reflect that not all consumers are paid on regular dates or even the same date as collection is deemed due; (i) false entries onto consumer accounts regarding alleged failed payments; (j) failure to correct such entries after complaint; (k) failure to amortize the debt with payments made over and above the interest due, thus creating a higher level of compound interest over the term of the mortgage and increasing over time the likelihood of default; (l) failure to acknowledge consumer complaints; (m) failure to respond within a reasonable time scale to consumer complaints; (n) failure to comply with Data Protection Subject Access Requests; (o) willful ignorance of duties under CPR 31.6 in respect of planned or listed litigation; (p) commission of ffences against both the Telecommunications Act 2003 and the Harassment Act 1997 in the form of unwarranted and intrusive telephone calls often designed to cause embarrassment for example with frequent calls made to the consumer’s workplace; unlawfully threatening repossession via a telephone call; (q) routine monthly access to and entry upon consumers credit reference files; ® Unlawful and punitively raised charges with no prior notification of their application; compound interest applied thereon; (s) Failure to provide a breakdown of solicitors cost; dumping said costs onto arrears and applying compound interest thereon; (t) undue haste in litigation and claiming to observe the CJC pre action protocols but failing absolutely to do so. (u) Threatening consumers with costs which are at the discretion of the court; (v) Breaches of the FSMA (2000); Mortgage Conduct of Business (MCOB) rules; the UTCCRs (1999) The Unfair Consumer Practices Directive (2008) and where applicable the Consumer Credit Act (2006); breaches of the criminal law in failure to register that a disposition of land has taken place (s.2 Property Act, 1989, s.127 Land Registry Act 2002); breaches of s.1 and s.5 of the Fraud Act,2006. (w) In litigation, failure to seek possession only as a last resort; failure to serve documents upon the defendant; failure to offer to capitalize genuinely constituted arrears; failure to accept temporarily reduced payments without inferring delinquency; failure to accept payments from customers in arrears where the full alleged arrears is not tendered, failure to refund unlawfully applied charges and compound interest applied; failure to waive charges where a performing arrangement for arrears clearance is in place; (x) In suspended cases, the application of charges without notice in excess of the overage paid by consumers to clear their arrears; misrepresentation to the courts that such arrangements will clear the arrears when typically they will not, as a consequence of yet further charges disguised with various nomenclature as arrears management fee, litigation fee, arrears interest, interest charged and so on; (y) Willful exaggeration of the consumer’s genuine level of arrears, which may be typically half of the overall total claimed. Post possession treatment 11. The willful mistreatment of consumers does not end with possession. Rather this is just the beginning. Consumers will be faced with costs in respect of: eviction; clearance and storage of goods; locksmiths; often unnecessary “improvement” to the property; valuation fees; estate agency costs and ancillary legal fees; finally there is the grossly excessive “early redemption figure” which in absence of a true redemption should not be charged at all but in practice is used to strip the remaining equity out of the property; post— possession harassment of consumers is sadly as common as the harassment endured pre-possession. 12. Multiple anecdotal evidence of such treatment is available in the form of often desperate postings made to consumer web sites. Such information is readily available to committee members; see for example the consumer action group’s website. Regulatory failure 13. A strange conundrum arises when one considers the regulatory framework that binds the operation of consumer contracts including mortgages. Historic and recent legislation and regulations, prima facia, provide the consumer with a great deal of protection fromunfair terms, contractual irregularities or breaches and unlawful conduct by the credit provider. The conundrum is a simple and powerful one. How is such treatment of consumers even possible? 14. The FSA took on responsibility for mortgage regulation in 2004. FSA Statutory objectives include securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Part 1, Section 3) 15. The FSA also regulates by reference to its own principles of good regulation amongst which are that a firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and integrity; observe proper standards of market conduct and pay due regard to the interests of its consumers and treat them fairly. Finally a firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment. 16. The FSA’s own performance report has nine high level indicators by which to assess performance in achieving its strategic aims. Indicator four is particularly instructive: (4)Firms are financially sound, well managed and compliant with their regulatory obligations; 17. Furthermore in reference to the FSA Treating Customers Fairly—outcomes for consumers, July 2006.“Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture. Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale”Further: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint. 18. If a firm breaches FSA’s rules, enforcement action may follow. If enforcement action is taken the FSA has a range of disciplinary, civil and criminal powers which it can use against regulated and non-regulated firms. The sanctions include financial penalties, removal of authorisation or even criminal prosecution in cases of misconduct. 19. Additionally, The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD 2008)40 seeks to protect consumer interests from unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices. In particular, commercial practices will be unfair if they are misleading (this includes both acts and omissions) or aggressive. 20. Further the UTCCRs (1999) provide that: (a) a consumer may challenge a standard term in an agreement on the basis that it is “unfair” within the Regulations and therefore not binding on the consumer. 21. The scale of consumer detriment by consequence of the practices identified in paragraph 10are part of the corporate culture of the so called “sub-prime” market. Such practices represent clear contempt for the rules and regulations the FSA in conjunction with the OFT and the FOS have laid down. Regulation is clearly insuffcient. Only the FSA, together with the FOS and the OFT can give consumer protections real effect. Qui custodientipsoscustodes? 22. There has been much recent discussion elsewhere that the regulatory systems and authorities have failed in their primary duties of oversight and compliance and that better governance is needed. It is submitted before this committee that where the law is clear then observation of the various laws and regulations must be enforced. In absentia the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament are subjugated to the will of the finance industry, a clear case of the tail wagging the dog. 23. The regulatory instruments are clear but seem unable to prevent breaches so as to lack e The FSA seems unable to sanction firms breaching its own regulations, often arising from EU directives, which if inadequately applied lay the state itself (or various emanations thereof) potentially open to damages claims, chiefly under the Francovich principle. The role of the County Courts 24. The FOS may take many months to investigate individual complaints against tradersand since the process of repossession is often very swift, it invariably falls to the courts to ensure the application of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules. 25. In many, if not all instances, the consumer is a litigant in person, in ignorance of the law. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the litigant in person does not receive fair treatment before the courts, with defence statements summarily dismissed in some cases. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!!!!!! 26. In possession claims the courts rely on four outmoded assumptions. These are as follows. (a) that repossession doesn’t benefit the lender and that therefore the lender will avoid it whenever they can; (b) that only people who have built up unsustainable arrears will be repossessed; © that the alleged arrears are always accurately calculated; (d) that where breaches of an arrangement are made these are borrower breaches and never lender breaches. 27. Under [2000] EUECJ C-240/98 courts are mandated by operation of this decision to assess the fairness of the terms of a contract on the consumer’s behalf, even if the consumer does not ask the court to do so. On this premise alone the legality of many thousands of possessions which have already taken placeis subject to challenge. There has been a visible error in law where courts have not assessed the fairness of the terms of the mortgage contract. 28. The courts also fail in the primary duty to place claimants to a strict burden of proof that they retain locus standi following securitisation of mortgages in the mortgage pool. Possession is a drastic measure of last resort and should only take place where the locus standi of the claimant is fully satisfied. THIS NEVER HAPPENS References to the Land Registry entry of charge and the mortgage deeds are insuff cient given the practice of securitisation,where the originator of the loan clearly states in their offering Circular that they do not “currently intend to effect any registration at the Land Registry of England and Wales.”47 29. Further the court sanctions an abuse of its own process when it allows suspended orders to be made or suspended orders to become full possession orders.Without full satisfaction of the claimant’s locus standithere can be no right of claim. C onclusion 30. This submission has been presented in a personal capacity by the witness, as a consumer of a “sub-prime” mortgage product. 31. The overall impact of these widespread practices is that consumers are being serially and unlawfully overcharged, treated with contempt and subject to reprisals when making complaint. They are then ultimately (and often unlawfully) repossessed, in addition to which the equity is then stripped from their homes with hugely disproportionate early redemption charges, following on from repossession. Often their only valuable asset is knowingly undersold in order to realize any cash value remaining, in an uncertain property market, not for the benefit of the former owner, but for the benefit of the possessing party, and on the behalf of those for whom they act, as a consequence of the securitization process. 32. Furthermore, the Financial Services Authority and the OYce of Fair Trading have failed in their dutyto regulate effectively these firms, the Financial Ombudsman Service is too slow to act on consumer complaints and enforce the regulations in this area, and the courts themselves consistently fail in their duty to examine the fairness of standard terms in the terms and conditions of the relevant mortgage contracts as they are mandated by virtue of Murciano Quintero (Environment and consumers) [2000] EUECJ C-240/ 98 (27 June 2000) 33. The courts place too much faith in outmoded concepts of the “honourable” wronged lender seeking a last resort lawful remedy for breach by a “delinquent” consumer, when in fact it is the lender that is delinquent in origination and subsequent operation and performance of the contract.
  4. Hullo T.I.E. I am the one and the same....................in truth it is the RBS case that started over 10 years ago that is the reason I am in the clutches of Swift Advances Plc.......the RBS stole/misappropriated over £3500 from my accounts in 1998/99 which had a devastating consequential flow of effects on my business and my personal life...that fight is continuing and will continue until the RBS are brought to account .....I would not be in the position I am with Swift were it not for the RBOS another ....."Right Bunch of Shysters". Should any Swifties want releif from Swift stuff and want to see what the "OLD Git" sparkie looks like and want something to watch and learn about the RBS and their methods of operation ................I have uploaded clips from a 75 min DVD that I distribute outside the RBS bank from time to time..................they do not like that and have called the police who have told them I'm doing nothing wrong.........some of us Swifties are seriously thinking of making a similar one about Swift Advances Plc in the very near future we have ALL the evidence required to do this now. That one will be much better quality and content than my RBS one Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVUNDhtpMJY sparkie
  5. Come on you guys ........who has not jumped the gun more than once in their lives ....just like I did on my abrupt answer post..... lets help the man understand if he is genuine but for NOW give him a chance....we can see he is trying to grasp the issues (at least I can) ....if he has not come across a company like Swift himself ..........which it apears he hasn't .......then let him now find out how vicious these people here are and he will return to Canada??? bearing all this in mind and maybe just maybe he will discover that things are not quite as rosy as he thinks over there and if he does again "maybe" the whole worlds finances will get back into a sound secure and trustfull area. I'll shut up now I'm back on Swifts case already:D:D sparkie
  6. This is interesting also Paul from same report........RBS have sated that the Router System is also a monitoring system:) They admitted it was flawed....... so........why didn't the auditors pick it up?............because it was an extra specially designed system for the RBS to do what it did for so long without being discovered until " Starskey & Hutch" began investigating :grin: sparkie Monitoring James A. Hall (2004) stated that monitoring is a process to design internal controls and to assess the operation of the organization. So, auditors monitor the organization activity by using separate procedures to test internal controls and report its strengths and weaknesses to management.
  7. This shows that RBS could possibly be found responsible for the two types of fraud explained in this document Paul without any doubt in my mind and opinion but....... as I have said before I have been wrong before ........and will be wrong again .....BUT not this time I don't think:cool: sparkie
  8. Paul You will no doubt recall what Mr Hemsey said in front of your MP Mr John Healey when first .....admitted that the Router accounting system was flawed, and two that book debts were assets. With regard to your Router account they made the alleged total debt to be a "Book Debt" .....in my case turned the total debt into TWO "Book Debts"...........This is the exact process of manipulation referred to in the above document you have put the link to. I suggest that the flaw was deliberately placed in this Router program to do exactly what this document refers to,and when we discoverd what was happening ...then said Oh we have discovered the flaw .....who on earth do they think they are trying to con ?...The Flinstones? This is how Fred the shred Mr Mcpillock and the other greedy w******r Pell have got their fraudulently obtained pensions and bonuses.........I am sending this Document to Inspector Rees who is looking into my complaint and allegations against the RBS of false accounting and fraud this will be of geat assistance to him I think;) sparkie
  9. Well said Gallahad I applaud your explanation. sparkie
  10. I accept your points takeiteasy it is more than likely that you have not read and digested what is actually happening with this/these companies...I am aware that to fully understand why the customers of this/these companies are so incensed you would need to spend many many hours reading the threads ..that is a task I would not like to commit even myself to at this period in time it, would be a massive task ...but I must add that it was very insensitive of you to burst on to the scene and make the initial comments you did...... you should have ( and I mean this in the best sense of the words) " TOOK IT EASY" at first:D:D My own situation is as you will soon discover is that there are no such organisations in this country you relate to in Canada and the USA that have any backbone or should I say power to intervene in cases such are on this thread.........and again in my particular case I still truly beleive that the possession order on our property was obtained unlawfully due to the lack of support Litigants in Person receive from the British Judicial system.........the British legal system was once held as the fairest and finest in the world.... no longer I am afraid to say...... even Robert Mugabes regime is more fair that the British system as it is now when it comes to money..........SOUR grapes ...maybe ....maybe not!! sparkie
  11. Removed for security purposes hope folks will understand. sparkie
  12. OK takeiteasy let the OLD GIT Sparkie put you in the picture ...You are right We could not get a high street loan for reason our ages, we are one of the community of this country called expandable old age pensioners....this old age pensioner git fought in the Jungles of Malaya patrolled the Streets of riot torn Hong Kong and Sinagapore in order that the rich rubber planters ( British of Course mainly) and the fat cat bankers of Hong Kong could all get richer WE applied to borrow £30.000...that is what I asked for, but was told by the broker.agent of Swift that fees and charges would be taken from that loan ....So We were persuaded to increase the loan amount to " Take care of these fees and charges" OK no problem.................Oh yes there was .......what was done "outside " the agreement was that these fees and charges that were to be taken from the loan were ADDED to it and we therefore were forced to borrow £46,955.00 it is was a noncancellable agreement and if we had cancelled it there and then we would have lost not only the fees and charges but another £ £6000 approx. In answer to your other argument I offerd to repay the loan if they returned these fees and charges and reork the monthly payments down from £616 or so to £ 546 which is what I had expected to pay...result offer rejected I have since made an offer to turn it into an interest only loan as there is plenty of equity in our property result ....No response. So Mr takeiteasy take it easy in the comfortable surroundings you must be in and have not been in the position of say losing your job becoming too ill to work again losing a loved bread winner or such tragedies as these, get amonst the staedy rock of this country and find out for yourself the problems this greedy % society of lves on & off the misfortunes of others...get out in the jungles i referred to and learn how to live propery and not try to cut people down because they do not fit into your narrow view of life, remember it may happen to you sometime, I have borrowed money before many times in my 73 years of life and provided I have been treated right paid every penny back, but if I get conned wheter I spent the money or not I WILL KICK BACK even if it off my best friend Just my cool view of things I'm a real cool person.:cool:
  13. To substantiate the fact that even under unregulated agreements a lender MUST send a default notice ...it does not have to conform to the strict requirements of a CCA regulated agreement .........never the less they have got to send one ...the paragraph below is taken from Mark Whites statement of truth he submitted to the Court 28. On 9 June 2008, with arrears standing at 2.0 months, Swift sent a Default Notice on an Unregulated Agreement to the borrowers. Mr George telephoned Swift on 11 June 2008 and advised that the Direct Debit had been cancelled and that he was taking advice from Cheshire Trading Standards. Who is this Mr George by the way:) I'll have to get a copy of the recording of Margarets ex husband poking his nose in:(
  14. I have sent this email to Mathew Payne at "SWIFT GROUP"???? LEGAL SERVICES the attached default notice was in fact the one they altered!!!! Dear Mr Payne, Re Swift Advances Plc v Ourselves I attach a copy of the default notice that was submitted in the Court Bundle supplied to the Chester County Court in the possession proceedings taken out against myself and Mrs "Sparkie" by Swift Advances Plc. Will you please confirm that this document is a True identical copy of one of the default notices we both received in our separate names. I ask you to bear in mind the lawful meaning of a true copy. I have copied Mr White in with this request as he was the witness for Swift Advances Plc in that claim proceedings. I ask for this signed clarification to save the cost of our solictors requesting same, therefore could you please both confirm this in writing to me. Yours sincerely
  15. I know its Pauls thread but I have his permission to supply a little info ...he is atready aware of this .........my complaint to the FOS about RBS false accounting fraud theft misappropriation of funds etc etc ( sent them a copy of my DVD) is now in progress and I have been advised by the FOS that RBS must be given 8 weeks to put matters right with me or the investigation starts properl. But guess where the FOS paper work goes before it finally gets to the destination it is supposed to? The address it is suposed to go to is the FOS Team RBS 56 South Gyle Crescent Edinburgh .......BUT it goes to CMS Telford first..................now we can all wonder what happens to it in that building can't we? if they can manipulate accounts etc its nothing to fix up pre-empt responses to try to the pull the wool over the FOS. Problem for them I have all the docs from 1997 to back up my claims;) her is info about Pauls case in that complainto FOS. sparkie
  16. HI Lookin for info this is the "pecking order" Alchemy Partners LLP are the main company. Within the group They are the owners of Kestrel Holdings ltd [was Swift Advance Ltd Holdings ] Ultimate Holding company of the group) Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd ...(own 70% of Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd as of 2004) Kestrel Loans No 1 Kestrel Loans no 2 ..................Dormant Kestrel Loans no 3 Kestrel Advances ltd,...............Dormant Swift Advances PLC Swift 1st Ltd [aka Swift First ] Swift Homeloans Ltd................Dormant Swift Securities Ltd.................Dormant
  17. Docs post This document doesnt tell everyone and companies house that Kestrel Holdings Ltd were registered at Hornchurch Road at the same time as being reisterd at the London address does it??;) Check out the dates with companies house again doc and tie that up as well .........give you something to double check and verify;) Also check out Amanda Brooks using this married name as a director of Swift Advances Plc and using her maiden name as company secretary of the Ltd company of her parents as up to 2009 the last time I checked. MI6 is looking for more agents:D:D:D sparkie
  18. Not stuffed at all it is still being administerd by Swift Advances and by doing this...... that is a CC licencable business activity in any event your "Mortgage" as they refer to it is actualy a regulated consumer credit agreement secured loan as it was for £12,000, and once again all loans and mortgaes were sold to the Kestrel companies Mr Webster confirms that in his signed directors report in their accounts;) even better still ....certainly not stuffed at all. sparkie
  19. HI Killerschick It is absolutely necssary for people to play Devils advocate and I for one appreciate this very much, we may not agree with what others say but it must be taken into consideration. I will only add that the setting up of Swift Advances Plc actual Credit Agreements and the issuing of Default Notices by and in the trading style/name of Swift Advances for two points would and must be considered as licencable business, but again this is only my interpretation of the facts ...........I could quite easily be wrong ...not for the first time I must add:) With regard to incorrectly issued and/or formatted default notices rendering an agreeent unenforceable I am privy to the fact that only today a The County Court in Reading has thrown out a Claim by a Bank who presented a "templated" default notice in thse proceedings the Judge would not and did not accept it. The point about these ...."Swift"????? default notices is that they are altered from Swift Advances to Swift Advances Plc ....VERY deliberately......not by accident sparkie
  20. Not sure if I posted this Copy of E-mail from the OFT about trading styles and names.....if you want to check Swift Avances Plc OFT licence out go to the OFT public register for CCA licences sparkie Ref: E/E/E/79822 Dear In reference to your email to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), a licence will be issued in the name of a partnership, limited company or other type of organisation. If a sole trader, the license will be issued in the sole traders’ own name. If a licencee conducts licensable business under any other trading name(s), they must apply for the name(s) to be added to their licence. Please note it is a criminal offence to carry out any activity that requires a consumer credit licence under a name that is not on a licence. I hope this information proves helpful, Yours sincerely, Ferdus Ahmed Enquiries and Reporting Centre
  21. HI fretful, Yes I did see that......I am so glad you did not go to them sparkie
  22. This is for lesterlass, Did you know that your Mortgage with Swift First Ltd is being processed and administered by SWIFT ADVANCES..........an entity that does not legally exist .....PM me or E-mail me....had a word with my leagl team the default and copies I posted will more than likely render my whole case VOID by DECEPTION.........something else for the Swift spies to report back .........OFT have copies of them.......everyone should look at the default notices sent to them to see if they were issued with the heading of Swift Advances on the default notice ..............and check to see if the copies that were supplied to the courts have been altered to deliberately mislead the court into believing they were issued by Swift Advances Plc when they were not. Just like the ones I have posted sparkie Doc I have Pm'd you
  23. You have to realise its Rolf Harris's "WOBBLE BOARD"....he is a bit of a Bard:D sparkie...............and his magic piano .....or violin ensemble not sure which
×
×
  • Create New...