AS the TV advert says SIMPLES:D YOU pay it through the APR that's what secretly increases yor interest rate, .....Baskets:-x sparkie

Can you clarify the name of the Company ...you say Southern Mortgages? Can you provide their address. the first point that jumps out on me is that you appear to have made it clear that you wanted the loan to start up a business........that would mean you requested a business loan ...is that correct? If so Swift should not have lent you the money they are excluded from making business loans.....contact the OFT by phone or E-mail and explain this to them .......this issue spells even more trouble for SWFT ....it is highly likely that you will get all your interest and charges back on this one and possibly have your agreement declared unlawfully mis sold...you could also have a case for a complaint to the legal complainrts Service about the solicitor ....he should have spotted that it was a business loan and that SWift are barred from these types of loan. sparkie

For Folks who are thinking about using the New Fraud Act 2006 against Swift, must realise that this Act did not come into force until 1 January 2007. Therefore if you took your loan out with Swift before this date you must consider using the Theft Act 1968 and this particular section, this has not been repealed by the New Fraud Act in any event . sparkie 17 False accounting (1)Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,— (a)destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or (b)in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular; he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. (2)For purposes of this section a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document. 18 Liability of company officers for certain offences by company (1)Where an offence committed by a body corporate under section F1. . . 17 of this Act is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence, and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (2)Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, this section shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate. Annotations: Amendments (Textual) F1Words in s. 18(1) repealed (15.1.2007) by Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35), ss. 14(1)(3), 15(1), Sch. 1 para. 4, Sch. 3; S.I. 2006/3200, art. 2 Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1S. 18 applied by Theft Act 1978 (c. 31, SIF 39:6), s. 5(1) 19 False statements by company directors, etc (1)Where an officer of a body corporate or unincorporated association (or person purporting to act as such), with intent to deceive members or creditors of the body corporate or association about its affairs, publishes or concurs in publishing a written statement or account which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, he shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. (2)For purposes of this section a person who has entered into a security for the benefit of a body corporate or association is to be treated as a creditor of it. (3)Where the affairs of a body corporate or association are managed by its members, this section shall apply to any statement which a member publishes or concurs in publishing in connection with his functions of management as if he were an officer of the body corporate or association. 20 Suppression, etc. of documents (1)A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security, any will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in, any court of justice or any government department shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

Hi Honey, You can get the code of conduct here. www.sra.org.uk/rules/ Personally I would cash the cheque ...but get other opinions as well don't just take my view as it is a personal view and not direct advice.............. it is only what I would do in your position.............and wait to see what the solicitor does ......in the meantime make a complaint to the legal complaints service. www.legalcomplaints.org.uk/ sparkie

HI Honey, That being the case you can protect yourself against this solicitor with the solicitors code of conduct...and the Unfair Relationship section 140 of the CCA. sparkie

HI Honey1932 Quote fornm your post "The cheque expired so I asked sol to let it run its course, but I will have paid the loan off in full by the time it gets to court. The sol is now saying that due to recent test cases , I have very little chance of success so I should just accept the refund, cut our losses and pay up." Banks will usually reject cheques that are more than six months old but, in fact, it's at their discretion. They can choose to cash it if they want to so don't assume that if you wrote a cheque to someone over six months ago that you're off the hook from paying it! Cheques actually remain legally valid for six years - yes, I did say six years - and the only way to cancel a cheque is to ask for a 'stop' to be placed on it. However, cheques backed by a cheque guarantee card cannot be stopped. Being as it is a Bank Cheque the Nat West MUST inform you in writing that it is no longer valid until they do its still valid sparkie

HI fretful, If Blemaim operate the same as Swift then they are also in trouble............but I do not think that Blemaim sell to/ transfer/ securitize with " Invisible" companies. sparkie

This is only my opinion reached by what I have found out since my fight in Court with Swift Should anyone receive a possession application by Swift dispute it on the fact that you do not owe Swift any money.......you owe it to a Kestrel Loans company.........Mr Webster has inasmuch said so. He has said in an email to me " The transactions referred to in our accounts refer to loans that were sold by equitable assignment which is a valid and enforecable sale that transfers all the benefits, interest and liablities" "Legal title remained with the Originator no legal transfer took place" What he is actually saying here is that they say they own the Title to your property BUT................ you owe the money to a Kestrel Company ....he's just said so...............and as they are suing you for money..................Then surely the Kestrel Companies name must be on the Court Documents. Just my view.......needs a good barrister on this one...but I believe that I am 100% correct.......not that's anything to go on :D sparkie

This is how my letter to the OFT and the FSA is looking so far .......can folks follow what I am trying to make clear?? Dear Mr Blocksidge I write to you further with regard to the complaint about Swift Advances and the Kestrel Companies. I would like to enlarge on what I and many other Consumer Action Group ( CAG) members are seriously concerned and utterly dismayed at, and I therefore write on their behalf also, this would make it a matter of concern of a large section of the consumer public and not an individual complaint…Swift have some 20,600 or more borrowers, or so they stated to the BBC in 2007 each with an average loan value of £25000. A lot of these issues I have placed before you in my personal correspondence, I would like to place the following before you in a manner I hope will make these particular issues and concerns a little more clearer. I copy here a section of a published article by the FSA "There has been growing concern at the number of regulated mortgage books being sold by mortgage firms seeking to limit their losses or raise funds. These sales are typically at a discount and have attracted hedge funds and private equity firms." Swift Advances state in their accounts that they “sold all loans and mortgages to fellow/sister companies in order to obtain further funding.” The Kestrel companies accounts state that they acquired loans and mortgages from Swift Advances. There can be no argument against these statements of fact. The argument the Swift members of the CAG ihave is that the Kestrel companies did not have the funds to purchase these loans as they have only a £1.00 share issue. The question arises is where did these Kestrel companies obtain the funding to purchase these loans and mortgages? It appears what happened is, that a syndicated funding application was made along with Swift Advances to these other funding banks using the title to the properties that they had already used to borrow the initial funding to lend to borrowers from Barclays Bank Plc. In order to obtain this further funding due to the fact that the Kestrel companies had no funds to purchase the loans Swift had to transfer the Title & Equity to the Kestrel companies in order for them to obtain this further funding, bearing in mind Swift received the full value of the Title and Equity packages i.e £ 200.000.000. If Equity alone was used they would not/could not borrow the sums required as we are led to believe that funding will only be granted on 60% equity, so where did the other £80.000.000 come from? certainly not on the assetts of the Kestrel Companies they have none The Chief Executive of Swift Advances Plc Mr John Webster on being questioned many, many times about these transactions has stated that only the equity was transferred and that Swift retained Title to all the properties. This we could accept if it were true, but the question arises, the equity value appertaining to these loans do not amount to the sums borrowed by the Kestrel companies in order to purchase the loans and mortgages at full value and pay Swift the full value of them. To do this the Title equity of and in the properties MUST be used, that means the transfer of Title. Swift deny this. However this leads to the biggest questions of all. If equity assignment/transfer was all that was done, and this is all of what was used by the Kestrel companies to borrow these further funds, 1.…Why did Swift Advances Plc not borrow these extra funds themselves on this basis? 2.…Why involve other companies? 3.…Why resurrect a dormant company ( Kestrel Loans No 2 Ltd) to borrow funds in this syndicate and once borrowed return this company to dormant state with these mortgage loans outstanding on their books? It appears that Swift could not do this as it would be seen by the funding banks (who were the same banks the initial borrowing was with) that the same security instruments was being used again by Swift to borrow again this would be seen as an attempt to “ double borrow”. Swift therefore use their own internal companies to carry out this double borrowing for them, this in our view is extremely serious Fraud. These companies are deliberately concealed from the public and the FSA and OFT and ICO, for the specific purpose to carry out these transactions All the companies involved are involved in fraudulent double borrowing on a massive scale. Finally if it is true that the Kestrel companies bought these loans and liabilities then Swift have no right to sue anyone on their own should any borrower default on their loans, as the Kestrel company whichever one bought the loans, owns the rights and liabilities, they therefore must be included on any Court documents as they are the ones the borrower owes the money to not Swift Advances It therefore must follow that any and all present and past proceedings that are and have taken place and the possession orders have been unlawfully obtained and the Courts have been deliberately misled and deceived. Yours sincerely sparkie ----------------------------------------------------------------- IF and When I have thought of more I'll post it sparkie

Copied from another thread.very interesting. sparkie Other possible strategies for you to consider in addition to EIE's (that he posted earlier this evening) 1. Caggers who are in litigation - make a CPR 31.6 or 31.12 application for disclosure of the Mortgage Sale Agreement 2. Make an application to the Land Registry on form AP1 for correction to the inaccurate and incomplete Land Register. Use the SPV's Companies House form 395 filing as proof of them being assigned legal title - use s.27, s.58(2) and s.123 of the Land Registration Act 2002. ***************

I think it is time that section 140 of the New Consumer Credit Act ought to be looked at with the view of using it against the CRA's They do charge money and you sign an agreement to subscribe to their on lne service .they charge for supplying a credit report so a financial contract is in existence..if this can be used this will cause the CRA's BIG BIG problems any legally trained minds view on this would be appreciated. This section has no time limit sparkie

HI Fret, It is only a small shot ...and it goes even more blurred if I try to blow it up. BUt the facts are there.......even down to the Adv being shown as £43.000...not what Swift made us borrow £ 46.955 sparkie

Swifts SECRET COMMISSION Mark White said in Court under oath that Swift do not pay Commission, Mr Webster said in an E-mail to me that Swift do pay Commission from time to time. ....But ....not on our particular agreement This is the screen shot from Promise Finance Ltd's computer bank ref our loan Please note everyone where the box Brokers Fee is and there is an entry and in the box Commission note that there is also an entry. I would say not only is it "secret commission" they attempt to conceal it by swearing under oath they do not pay any;). sparkie

I have just had reply from the OFT acknowledging the e-mail I sent them posted above. It does suggest that they are working on Swifts complians case still sparkie

Quote from Dougal PS: Criminal case looms on the horizon for our friends........at last they will be named and shamed! I can assure all that there is a far bigger shock coming to Swift Advances than they could ever dream of very soon.......as I said I will say no more..........but it is a FACT.....even without the OFT and the FSA .......... all the money they have extorted from customers will not be enough to protect them. sparkie

HI bethsophie, As overdone says start your own thread....in the mean time I have taken the liberty to send a copy of your post direct to Mr David Blocksidge at the OFT ....I hope you do not mind I copy below exactly what I have sent him Re Swift Advances PLc Dear Mr Blocksidge, I copy below a post that has been made on the Consumer Action Group forum, this is a prime example to show how ruthless this lender is, and as I have said before their Consumer Credit Licence should be revoked immediately, it is appalling and disgusting that this Lender should still be allowed to continue to act in a manner such as this example . I would like to point out that this is not an isolated case, there are many many more. Yours sincerely sparkie "QUOTE" Hi I am new to this forum. My brother died last year leaving a property on which he had a mortgage, and a secured loan with swift advances orginally for £7000, took out 3 years ago. I have just received a letter from the court that an order for posseision had been granted for the property because my brother did not attend to defend it, Swift Advances failed to tell them that he had died, and I did not get any notification of the court hearing. they are now demanding £25,597.58. My parents are still living in the property and have been for 47 years also there is a mortgage on the property and if the house was sold there would only be £15,000 left. Can anyone help where can I go for help Cheers

Quote from sweetjanes post "There has been growing concern at the number of regulated mortgage books being sold by mortgage firms seeking to limit their losses or raise funds. These sales are typically at a discount and have attracted hedge funds and private equity firms." ....Hello Alchemy Partners! Have now started to complile a commentary to submit to the FSA on what Swift and the Kestrel Companies do with their buying, selling, transfer of accounts and loans and double accounting sytems and double borrowing. Main issue ...How can a Ltd company with only a pound share borrow massive sums of money to buy loans off Swift and why ....why do Swift attempt to convince us that they sell these loans without the TItle charge ......and how Kestrel can borrow without the Titles of property for security for this borrowing...... then say they have a loan book ..........when they do not lend money....I will post up exactly what I send ...even for the benefit of Swift......so that they can dig themselves in deeper by making more false misleading statements in attempts to justify their irregular financial dealings ...............I will be making the FSA aware also of the unsigned and undated "audited" accounts lodged at companies house and ask them to refer to them all within the Kestrel Group. If Swift retain the title why do they not borrow the money themselves......because that would show double borrowing right away by doing it the way they do the double borrowing is concealed. They further conceal it by returning Kestrel NO 2 to a dormant non trading company status with outstanding mortgages within their accounts which are then "hidden" I do not think the FSA will like this one little bit sparkie

This may be of assistance and enlightment for Blemaim Customers. sparkie Debtor gets five-year stay on repossession - 30/10/2009 A debtor has secured a five-year block on repossession in a claims management case against his lender, after using consumer credit law to challenge his secured loan agreement. Peter Bentley, of Bridgend, Cardiff, used the meaning of unfair relationships under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 to claim that his loan contract with Blemain Finance was an unfair one. Blemain also agreed to charge no further interest on the £40,000 loan and cut his repayments from £550 to £150 a month. At the High Court in Cardiff Judge Milwyn Jarman also prevented the lender from levying any charges or legal costs "whatsoever." The judge barred Blemain for enforcing repayment via repossession for five years, but even after this period, it can only bring repossession proceedings if there are at least 12 months’ arrears on the new level of payments. Bentley’s lawyers, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS), successfully argued that Blemain had loaned the money to Bentley irresponsibly and that the agreement took advantage of his desperate situation. CCLS argued that shortcomings in the decision making procedure on granting the loan, such as in the under writing, affordability checks and valuation processes, led to the credit agreement being unfair. Andrew Settle, solicitor for CCLS, said: "The relationship between the parties was an unfair one within the meaning of Section 140A of the CCA 1974. CCLS is utilising a significant number of legal arguments, like those used on behalf of Mr Bentley, in thousands of cases on behalf of our clients." CCLS successfully demanded to have the loan account re written, which is believed to be the first time a loan account has been rewritten under settlement, as a result of the unfair relationships test. Bentley’s case was taken on by claims management company Cartel Client Review. Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel Client Review, claimed that Blemain made the offer to Bentley in a bid to prevent a judge in a High Court setting a legal precedent against its lending practices. He added: "A legal precedent could have driven a coach and horses through all its loan accounts. The consumer credit rule book is being rewritten as a result of High Court settlements like Blemain Finance v Bentley." Bentley’s financial problems started when his mother died in 2007. He began part-time work to look after his father, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s, and then took out a £40,000 secured loan in February 2007 to alleviate his financial predicament. His caring responsibilities led to a drop in working hours, and therefore a fall in income, and he then fell behind on his repayments. Blemain later chased Bentley for repayments on the loan, which by the time of this case being heard in court, had increased to £47,000.

HI lesterlass & All, Things are afoot;);) sparkie

I hope everyone realises also the implications & effect it will have on all Nat West agreements .......as they are owned by RBS and also...... the fact that in CMS Telford Nat West and RBS employees work at desks next to each other,...... each knows what the other is working on and access each others customers credit files accounts etc at will .....and pass on information about them backwards andforwards without the customer knowing anything about it all. sparkie sparkie

I do not think it is longer necessaryfor Paul to get any more evidence.....he has enough. sparkie

Knowing what I know ......because Paul & me work so close...........it is more heavy than what Paul has hinted at ...I too will say no more than that.........except that it will have a profound effect on other RBS customers dealings with RBS.....to say the least mine. sparkie

Hi landy can't remember where I got it from but it was sometime BEFORE it became actual law. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you the whole paper ..................in other words I,ve lost your e-mail address .AGAIN.............I can't help it if I'm in the twighlight zone:) sparkie

Hi ulsterman, As Triton (who are based in Telford) are involved it is more than llikely that your account has been passed to CMS Telford and that your account(s) have been allocated what is called a "Router Account" write to Triton and ask them if you have been allocated a " Router Account" and ask them to supply you with all the details of this Router Account including its Number. This is RBS's achilles heel and is of severe embarrassment and trouble for RBS. If and when you receive this infomration both myself and/or Paul Walton would appreciate copies of this information if you would kindly agree to supply it to us. Call them first and record the conversation and ask Triton about the Router Account ...I have a feeling that this will stop them in their tracks regards sparkie That will cause them a few problems

EG Simple Interest Example £1000 @10% simple interest Month 1 £100 Total £1100 Month 2 £100 Total £1200 Month 3 £100 Total £1300 And so on Simple Interest Compounded £1000 @10% compound interest Month 1 £100 Total £1100 Month 2 £110 Total £1210 Month 3 £121 Total £1321 and so on