Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim in Swift Advances Posted August 1, 2010 This has gone by e-mail to Swift Advances plc....I have removed some personal details from the copy of the e-mail about agent brokers.....otherwise it is as I have sent it..........folks may find it useful. sparkie Civil Procedure Rule CPR 31.16 This request for information is made under Civil Procedure Rule CPR 31.16 in relation to the preparation of a Claim being drafted under Section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 amended 2006, by Mr and Mrs, hereafter referred to as “The Requestees” 1… The Directors and or the Chief Executive Officer ( CEO) of both Swift Advances plc and Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd are requested provide the legal records and documents appertaining to the transaction referred to on page 2 of the History Notes supplied in the data supplied in response to our Subject Data Access request, which refers to the transfer of their account to Kestrel 1 timed at 8.56 on 18th April 2007 2… The Directors and or the Chief Executive Officer ( CEO) of both above stated companies are also requested to confirm that the Kestrel No 1 mentioned in this document is in fact Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd company number 05143638 and not Kestrel No 1 Ltd company number 04345744. 3…Will the Directors and or the CEO of Swift Advances plc and Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd reconfirm that the statements made in; a) The companies audited accounts regarding the sale of all loans and the acquisition / buying of these loans are both accurate and true. b) The statement made in an e-mail to Mr W.B Grace relating to the sale / transfer / assignment of their account is both accurate and true. 4…Will the Directors and or the CEO of Swift Advances plc ensure that the following information is supplied in the response to this CPR Part 31.16 request that was with held from the Subject Data Access Requests made to Swift Advances plc and Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd who it was confirmed do not process personal data; a) A copy of the statement of their account and all other data information, including History of Account that is being processed on the computer system programs called the “Emperor” system or “King” system, or any other computer program that may be being used by the two afore mentioned companies, Swift Advances plc and Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd. b) A full explanatory key code as to the meaning of any abbreviations used on these documents including what each of the analysis codes that appear on these History Notes c) Ensure that entries are not removed or deleted from these documents as has been on previous data records. d) A copy of the Title Indemnity Insurance Policy which is referred to on their credit agreement and for which they have paid for. e) Confirm that the payment for this insurance was a stipulation that unless this was paid for by the borrowers the loan would not have been granted f) A copy of all information extracted from a CD that was passed on to Olympian Finance Ltd, as the information that was downloaded onto that CD must still be on a computer system being run by either and / or both of the afore mentioned companies. g) An explanation from Mr Mark White the Risk Manager of Swift Advances plc as to why he stated under oath in two Court proceedings that Swift Advances plc do not have any agents, nor do they pay commission as such to any and all brokers/agents used by Swift Advances plc, and provide the documents from which he made his statement from which he formed his professional opinion that convinced him to make such statement. h) Will the Directors or CEO of Swift Advances plc and Mr White confirm or refute this statement made by Mr Peter Lewis the managing director of one of Swift Advances plc designated, named and appointed agent/broker representatives; To: ???????????@live.co.uk Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:37:20 +0000 Subject: Re: Hi Peter From: [email protected]??????????? Hi ??????? Just to confirm when i was managing director of the funding network loans ltd we had a full agency agreement with Swift Advances PLC and placed both first and second charge business with them. regards Peter Lewis i) Will the Directors and or the CEO of Swift Advances plc explain the statement in their yearly audited accounts of 2007 to 2008 that commission and brokers fees of £19.2 million was paid to brokers, and provide a full explanation and full breakdown of what proportion of this £19.2 million was brokers fees and what proportion was commission. j) Explain why the brokers fees in these accounts are claimed as a tax deductible expense, when it is fact that the Requestees of this CPR request who paid the brokers fees appertaining to their loan, as do all other borrowers , and who are charged interest on them for the period of their loan. k) Explain that if it is true that Swift Advances plc pay these brokers fees why are the borrowers forced to pay them. l) Will the Directors and or the CEO of Swift Advances plc provide the written instruction given by the Requestees to Swift Advances plc that is stated to have been given in the letter received along with their cheques for their loan. m) Will evidence of the request for two separate cheques to be made payable to each loan separate applicant, when their application was a joint application, be provided as this means that each borrower is only responsible for 50% of the loan amount separately and severally and not jointly, as is stated in the terms and conditions of the credit agreement and therefore each are responsible only for 50% of the repayments. n) Will an explanation be given as to why the monthly payment to the true legal company owners of the parties loan is constantly and consistently being refused to be accepted as payment by that company o) Will Mr Webster the CEO of Swift Advances plc explain exactly what he meant in the statement below; “The transactions referred to in our accounts refer to loans that were sold by equitable assignment which is a valid and enforceable sale that transfers all the benefits,interest and liabilities of the loans”. Taking the following into consideration; Equitable Assignment: an equitable assignment is created when one or more of the provisions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is not met, provided the intention to assign is present between the parties. In contrast to a legal assignment, the new lender, as the equitable assignee, must join the existing lender, as assignor, in any action on the debt. The mostsignificant difference between a legal and equitable assignment arises if theborrower is not notified of the assignment. If the borrower is not notified ofthe assignment, the new lender will be subject to all equities (for example,mutual rights of set-off) which arise between the existing lender and theborrower, even after the loan has been assigned. Novation: Novation is the only way in which a lender can effectively 'transfer' all its rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement. The process of transfer effectively cancels the existing lender's obligations and rights under the loan, while the new lender assumes identical new rights and obligations in their place. Therefore the contractual relationship between the transferring lender and the parties to the loan agreement cease and the new lender enters into a direct relationship with the borrower, the agent and the other lenders. o) It would appear that the actual transaction surrounding the transfer of the account referred to in this CPR request is actually neither of these and yet it is or appears to be a combination of both. A full and proper explanation is required as to which of the above is the transaction that actually took place as the explanation by Mr John Webster CEO of Swift Advances plc is confusing to say the least. p) Will Mr Mathew Payne Solicitor in the employ of Swift Group Legal Services explain why he stated in his witness statement of truth on the Court Possession application form stated himself to be an assistant solicitor, when he is held out to be a qualified solicitor. p) Will he also explain that because he is in the employ of Swift Group Legal Service and for whom he can only act for and call them their clients, submitted the aforementioned Claim form on behalf of Swift Advances plc who cannot be the clients of Swift Group Legal Services under the Solicitors code of conduct for in house solicitors. q) Will an explanation be given as to why Swift Advances plc believe that the use of unlicensed trading styles is irrelevant and used in correspondence in Consumer related business despite it being a criminal offence under Section 39(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has been confirmed as a criminal offence by the Office of Fair Trading r) Will an explanation be given as to why Swift Advances plc used another unlicensed trading style to mislead borrowers, including the Requestees of this Part 31.16 request into believing they were dealing with a bona fide company, and explain why this trading style used the company registration of Swift Advances plc at the bottom of their headed note paper, which does not suggest that they are a trading style but a legitimate registered company. The name is of this company is “Eastern Counselling Department” the name of which has not been used for over 10 years. The Requestees of this CPR 31.16 request reserve the right to submit a further CPR 31.16 request should the need arise. The Respondent(s) are reminded that the response to this CPR request must be accompanied by a statement of truth, and reminded again of the Law of Estoppel and its intended use of.