Thanks Landy, But I'm fine just got to go back and have more pictures taken etc but I'm fit and well.. I have a favour and question to ask evryone, well 2 really. Has anyone had a letter from Swift Group Legal Services over the past 2 weeks or so....... if they have could they send me a copy of it by e-mail please ....remove all personal info of course, anyone wants my email address just pm me. Second if anyone has any letter from Eastern Counselling also, will they send me copy of it in the same manner. Your help will be much appreciated. sparkie

I am not a legally trained person but it is my interpretation that should either Swift Advances plc or Swift 1st Ltd issue proceedings against anyone from now on.........due to the fact that their accounts state quite clearly that they sold all loans to the Kestrel companies £266 million worth in 2006 to 2007 and ...£200 million worth in 2007 to 2008, plus the fact that Mr Webster who signed these accounts and then confirmed they were sold by equitable transfer means that you can use the estoppel to prevent him changing his statement...should you use it in your defence in that ....the N244 court claim MUST include the Kestrel Company that the loan was sold to as a joint claimant..................this I can assure you they will NOT do because none of these companies hold a CCA licence an FSA licence nor an ICO licence....... to become joint claimant in a claim they would be committing a criminal offence.............common law of tort states no-one should gain from committing a criminal offence and no-one should lose sparkie Just my view

If you take note of what Mr Webster says below. “The transactions referred to in our accounts refer to loans that were sold by equitableassignment which is a valid and enforceable sale that transfers all the benefits,interest and liabilities of the loans”. and you want to use what he said in your evidence should they take you to Court......you can use this .....The Law of estoppel "estoppel is a rule of evidence (and not a cause of action) preventing a person from denying the truth of a statement he has made previously, or the existence of facts in which he has led another to believe" This will stop him any attempt of trying to change what he said. sparkie

Thanks frettful, Glad to think I help folks abit as well as myself. If I can help in stopping Swift from doing half of what they do ...at least that is something positive. Thank you again sparkie

The judge said be careful with what you ask to disclose because under a proper CPR Application ....note not a request...........under a court CPR 31.16 application for an order to be made....what you ask for has to be specifically stated.... ie ....just underwriting sheet is not enough You have to state " The underwriting sheet appertaining to insurance policy Number so & so taken out for so & so ,,,,with so & so.... on so so agreement on date etc etc. That's how specific it has to be....that's why he said be careful....because if it is not right he MUST refuse to make the order that CPR tells him so. Can you follow?? sparkie

Hi again Michellej1 For your disclosure hearing ...have a good look at CPR31.16 its a tough CPR this one but you may have to use it ....but you have to ge it right. The lender will have all details of the insurance ....so don't let them try to bluff you. sparkie

Thanks Determinator, Your good wishes are very much appreciated. sparkie

Rock on G ...I like that....right on the button........that's exactly what I had had all my pictures taken of intestines, stomach, kidneys the sharp end everything!! sparkie

You will most likely have to omit some to suit your own purpose sparkie Your name address To The Data Controller or Data Compliance Officer Insurance co Date Dear Sir or Madam Ref Insurance policy no if you have it DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST This Subject Data Access Request is made under sections 7, 8 & 9 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and by virtue of the Data Protection (Subject Access) ( Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000 ( S.I.No 191). Please supply me with all data that you hold on m. This includes in particular, but is not limited to, the following:- 1.The original signed, Insurance policy agreement and any terms and conditions that applied at the time 2. Transcripts of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, to and from us or by any other party. 3.Where there has been any event in the account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention. 4.Documents relating to any insurances added to the account, including any title indemnity insurance contract terms and conditions, the date it was added and deleted (if applicable). 5.Details of any collection charges added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers. 6.Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said charges were levied. 7.A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998 and any consent that I/we may have given to those uses and the Data Controllers Licence Number issued by the Infornmation Commissioner to Insurance Co 8.The number of the CCA licence issued to Insurance companies name 9.A list of third parties to whom you have disclosed my/our personal data including Credit Reference Agencies and, a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed, the reason for this disclosure. 10.Copies of any statements of account for the agreement from its inception, not a record of payments 11.Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, the methods used to do so, including dates, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, lease provide a declaration signed by an authorised officer of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data, and the reason for the destruction. 12. Full hard copy print outs of my/our personal and financial information, held in a digital, magnetic or any other format which is held in any archives, backups or other storage systems/devices/locations. 12.Full copies of transcripts of any correspondence in postal, e-mail or any other format which you have entered into with any individual, organisation or third party which contains my personal or financial, or which pertains to me. 13.Details of any third parties which have an interest in our account/policy. 14Any other information that you hold with regards to me/us and/or our account. 15.A complete list of all transactions or statements relating to all account and applications made by me/us to and with your organisation. 16.A copy of the underwriting sheet confirming the amount of commission that has been paid on any and all agreements entered into by me with name the lender agent/broker Enclosed is the statutory maximum fee for this request of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity please let me know by return. However please note that the above address is the one which has been used to make any and all communications with me with regards to my account information from you which has been hitherto found acceptable. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS REQUEST, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY FORWARD IT TO THE PERSON WITHIN YOUR ORGANISTAION REPONSIBLE FOR DATA PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. Yours sincerely

Hi michellej1 I'll post you a good SAR template to send to the INsurance co in a minute or so ...modify it to suit your requirements sparkie

Here's some bulletts for people to use on secret commission........Secret Commission proved will void any contract and you can get any monies paid plus costs plus compensation sparkie § to refuse or agree to this commission paymentNot only is it immaterial whether the parties thought that they were doing anything wrong, but money secretly paid to the agent of the other party is recoverable unless the other party is informed of the payment made (Shipway v Broadwood [1899] 1QB 369). According to Lord Chitty: "The real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it." § According to Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis [1949] 2 All ER 573, for the purposes of the civil law a bribe means the payment of a secret commission, which only means § that the person making the payment makes it to the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; § that he makes it to that person knowing that that person is acting as the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; and § that he fails to disclose to the other person with whom he is dealing that he has made that payment to the person whom he knows to be the other person's agent. § In Anangel v IHI [1990] 1 Lloyd's Law Reports 167, Mr Justice Leggatt stated that the key to the determination of the question of whether or not a payment or other inducement made to an agent constitutes a bribe is whether or not the making of it gives rise to a conflict of interest, that is to say, puts the agent into a position where his duty and his interest conflict. § In Allwood v Clifford (2002) EMLR 3, Mr JusticePark went further, stating: "I do not accept that the Anangel case establishes that, as long as in practice no conflict arises between the agent's duty to his principal... and his interests under his relationship with the third party..., the agent is entitled to retain the payment from the third party." I would also claim that by not declaring that commission was paid was a deliberate misrepresentation by omission, and made for gain at a debtors loss. The gain would be that this commission would have been used in the calculation of the APR to ensure that t was the debtor who paid the initial commission payment and the extra interest would be to the creditors gain. By keeping the payment of commission secret the debtor is not given the opportunity . In Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324, the Privy Council, heard an appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal in respect of bribes found to be have paid to the former Hong Kong Director of Public Prosecutions. Lord Templeman stated: "Bribery is an evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society." Whilst bribery is often associated with there being a corrupt motive on the part of the person paying the bribe, in civil proceedings, there is no need to prove such a corrupt motive. § According to Lord Justice Romer, in Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff (1900) (83 LT 43), if a bribe be once established to the court's satisfaction, then the court will not inquire into the donor's motive in giving the bribe, nor allow evidence to be gone into as to the motive § Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis held that proof of corruptness or corrupt motive is unnecessary in a civil action. He further held that the motive of the donor in making the payment to the agent or donee is conclusively presumed against the person who makes the payment. § In Allwood v Clifford, Mr Justice Park said that it can happen under the law of agency that a payment received by an agent from a third party may be one which the agent is not allowed to keep for himself, notwithstanding that the agent had no consciously improper motive in accepting it, and notwithstanding that the agent may have believed - possibly correctly - that there would be no damage to the interests of his client from what he has agreed to do for the third party. § In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd [2004] EWHC 622 (Ch), Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the payer of the bribe acted with a corrupt motive. Was the person bribed, influenced by the bribe? In civil proceedings, there is also no need to prove that the person bribed was influenced by the bribe. § Lord Justice Romer, in Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff, held that the court will presume in favour of the principal, and as against the briber and the agent bribed, that the agent was influenced by the bribe; and this presumption is irrebuttable. § Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis, said that once the bribe is established, there is an irrebuttable presumption that it was given with an intention to induce the agent to act favourably to the payer and. thereafter, unfavourably to the principal and that it is conclusively proved against the person making the payment that the donee is affected and influenced by the payment. § In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the agent�s mind was actually affected by the bribe. The consequences of the bribe Whether or not a payment should be classified a bribe does not depend upon the consequences of the payment. § The Court has never permitted a finding that the agent acted in the best interests of his principal, notwithstanding the receipt of secret commission, to avail either the agent or the third party when sued in respect of it by the principal (Anangel v IHI). § In Petrotrade v Smith, Mr Justice Steel stated: § Neither common sense nor authority supports the proposition that the payment must induce a contract between the principal of the recipient of the payment and the donor. The secret payment is just as corrupt in the absence of an agreement (though often enough the payment will be intended to achieve such a purpose). In its ordinary meaning, the word bribe includes any reward given with a view to perverting the judgment or conduct of the recipient. § There is no requirement for a contract between the parties to be thereby induced. Indeed to focus on the possible outcome of the payment is to misapprehend the key distinguishing feature of a corrupt payment, namely that the making of it gives rise to a conflict of interest on the part of the agent. § In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the principal suffered any loss or that the transaction was in some way unfair or that the bribe was given specifically in connection with a particular contract, since a bribe may also be given to an agent to influence his mind in favour of the payer generally (eg in connection with the granting of future contracts

Thanks G yes getting better by the day ...just waiting for a last check up and hope I get the all clear.....specialst said I appear OK physically but he wants some more pictures of my insides ...........must look good in there they've taken loads of them:D sparkie

I have been very quiet of late folks, but have not forsaken you all, I would like to post a little bit of information for you all to digest and consider how you use it, IF you digest this ………you will find it useful if Swift Advances plc take you to Court………as it is well known and posted many times before ….Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd sold all their loans to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd and Kestrel Loans No 3 Ltd . 2006 to 2007…… £266 million worth and again in… 2007 to 2008 another £200 million They did this to obtain further funding……that is to say that after borrowing the initial money to lend us folks………..secured on the equity of OUR property, they then sold thes on to the named companies………ie these companies redeemed the loans from Swift Advances plc………….they were paid for them. Mr Webster the CEO of Swift Advances plc in e-mails to me after I challenged him on this said in one email: “There was no legal transfer of the mortgage from Swift Advances to Kestrel Loans no 1 - this was an internal accounting procedure only. The mortgage has at all times remained in the name of Swift Advances plc”. Then when I wouldn’t accept this he said in a later e-mail; “The transactions referred to in our accounts refer to loans that were sold by equitableassignment which is a valid and enforceable sale that transfers all the benefits,interest and liabilities of the loans”. You can see here he is getting a little twist in his typing fingers; I have at last found a legal explanation about this, and you should all read it and really understand what it means in the way of argument against either Swift 1st Ltd or Swift Advances plc if they take you to Court………I will underline the section for you to take real good note of; 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. Mr Webster said “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”. Equitable Assignment: As mentioned above, 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 most significant difference between a legal and equitable assignment arises if the borrower is not notified of the assignment. If the borrower is not notified of the assignment, the new lender will be subject to all equities (for example, mutual rights of set-off) which arise between the existing lender and the borrower, even after the loan has been assigned. I believe that which ever Mr Webster and the 2 Swift Companies involved tries to say either ...the Kestrel Company No 1 or 3 has to take you to Court OR the Kestrel Compny has to be named on the Claim along WITH the Swift.company involved...........Think about this "peeps" I’ll be back sometime sparkie

Paul W has asked me to give my view on the issue of you obtaining the data that the Nat West hold about you and they are blocking your SDAR, with woffle….but the problem is it is arguable woffle under the Data Protection Act. Although I don’t agree with it. They are using the Ltd company aspect and saying that is not YOUR personal information and you are not entitled to it……..as you are the sole Director and you use the company account for personal purposes that element is personal. What they are using to block the provision of information is that they are saying they cannot separate your personal data from the Ltd company aspect……it is a dodge …but a dodge that would stand up in Court for them if you tried to use the DPA 1998 to obtain it. The reason for this is two words in the DPA…”Disproportional Effort” the Act does not define this, so you would have to overcome this under the Act if you went down the DPA route in court However in my opinion you have two other options 1…Making an application for specific disclosure under CPR 31.16. ..but then again this is a very tough CPR, First you have to be absolutely specific and spot on with what you are asking the court to order and convince tha Court of exactly you want the court to order them to supply. Second you have to convince the court that you WILL be taking court proceedings out against them, because if you don’t the court will not make the order and you will be lumbered with their costs. So.. 2…The other way is to use Section 2 of the New Fraud Act 2006 concealment of documents that you are legally entitled to have and have sight of. This they cannot get round and if they tried they would find it very hard indeed. That’s my humble opinion and it is only my personal view …I have no legal qualifications as every one knows I’m am an auto electrician…but everyone is entitled to an opinion, hope this helps sparkie As I said they are blocking supplying you with the info by saying it they can't separate the personal data from the company data ( Company law linked to the DPA Act ....which is rubbish as you are the company...This is what I believe they would attempt to rely on......BUT there are bits in here that would have great bearing on making them supply the data....and I have highlighted them. Where a data controller relies upon the disproportionate effort ground in (a) above, the data controller must keep a record of the reasons why he believes the disapplication of the fair processing requirements is necessary. 3.1.7.6 What is disproportionate effort? The term “disproportionate effort” is not defined in the Act. In assessing what does or does not amount to disproportionate effort the starting point must be that data controllers are not generally exempt from providing the fair processing information because they have not obtained data directly from the data subject. What does or does not amount to disproportionate effort is a question of fact to be determined in each and every case. In deciding this the Commissioner will take into account a number of factors, including the nature of the data, the length of time and the cost involved to the data controller in providing the information. The fact that the data controller has had to expend a substantial amount of effort and/or cost in providing the information does not necessarily mean that the Commissioner will reach the decision that the data controller can legitimately rely upon the disproportionate effort ground. In certain circumstances, the Commissioner would consider that a quite considerable effort could reasonably be expected. The above factors will always be balanced against the prejudicial or effectively prejudicial effect to the data subject and in this respect a relevant consideration would be the extent to which the data subject already knows about the processing of his personal data by the data controller. Argue with this also and I think they will be forced to supply the info 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. sparkie

I'm still around folks .......had some big trouble ...as well as not being too good......But want to post this This is what the ICO Says about sales of debt and assignments. This would meant that the entries by both the Swift companies are in breach of the Fourth Principle of the DPA.........they should be changed to the Kestrel Company that has bought your loan or had it assigned to . Think abpout how you can all use this This for Credit Reference Agecy records...Experian and Equifax sparkie 54 When the debt is sold or assigned, the customer will no longer owe any money to the original lender. If the record is not removed, the sale or assignment should be recorded and the balance should be shown as zero. The customer should still be told who the debt has been sold or assigned to.

Double post sorry folks

No surprises here Deb Their Bankers are The Royal Bank of Scotland their sort code number is 16-00-03 sparkie

As Mr Mcmahon for his Consumer Credit licence issued by the OFT to be able to operate as a Credit/Debt Counsellor ....he has to covered by one .......if not he is committing a criminal offence;) sparkie

Do NOT enter into any agreement with their so called " Field Agent" ............can you post his name and the company he works for ASAP. It has been discovered that at least one of Swift Advances Plc so called "recomended field agents" does not have any OFT CCA licence and is not on Swift Advances Plc OFT CCA licence and is committing a criminal offence every time the visit one of their customers ..Swift Advances Plc by sending this particular "agent" will be classed as complicit in these criminal offences. This agent does not have an FSA licence either....only an ICO licence to process data...but not engage itself in consumer credit business Serves them right they should have checked their "agents" credentials first. sparkie

Just a point for everyone regarding Marky's loan if you take a loan out that is a regulated loan........ then add further borrowings to it irrespective of the amount of the second loan even if it was another £100.000..... it remains a regulated agreement .......this is governed by section 82 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974...just in case there are others who have had a second loan added and their lender has changed it to an unregulated one ....No Can Do it remains regulated;) sparkie

Once we know what they have been forced to supply, then you can make a list...if they still refuse to supply then make a CPR 31.16 request for the specific information ...they won't like that at all. sparkie Second One little thing you should all check if you are disputing and claiming that “Swift’s” Advances Plc & 1st Ltd penalty charges are extortionate and unfair. Request the annual accrual statement of your account and check if they are applying compound interest to the penalty and default charges. It is fact ( we have proof of it) that they are using dual accounting systems to process all these charges the penalty charges and interest are being processed on the “Swift” computer accounting systems, and your actual monthly payment is being processed on the Kestrel computer accounting systems. Ask for both accounts. If you suspect they are charging compound interest it would be worth paying a £100 or so to an accountant to check it all out for you. If it is confirmed they are, you can challenge your account under section 140 of the CCA Unfair Relationship, as only simple interest can be applied to default charges, and by applying compound interest they are abusing their position and deceiving you into making you believe that they can charge compound interest, if you have quite a few of these default charges, and they have charged compound interest it would have unlawfully boosted your indebtedness. Your whole account will be in a mess…..check it out folks sparkie

No probs busterg. sparkie

Hi matey Already noted;) sparkie

I know that everyone has been wondering where I had gone to…....but I have been around and have been doing some DEEP digging for info…have no fear about that. Keeping a lot back for reasons I hope you’ll all understand as it appertains to my on going appeal process. But I came on to post this…….. the important info about what has happened of late which I mentioned before that “certain”people doubted. Swift Advances Plc have had a Full Discovery/Disclosure order made against them SO What!!!!! a lot will say….is that all the big news is?? Let me explain what this means for EVERYONE…...This does not happen very often ..in fact it is very rare. You are all aware of the documents that Swift Advances Plc with hold from every one……..well they are going to be forced to supply EVERY single thing asked for……..even who they buy their paper clips off and how much they pay for them (if necessary) ......this will then be public domain …all of you will be able to demand all these same documents for yourselves….. Title Indemnity Policy,….. Underwriting Sheet,…… records of the sale of your loan how it was done….. who it was sold to…..( they confirm it was ) what was sold, how much did they get for it…….. how much commission and EXTRA commission was paid to your broker….explain who actually pays this commission.....THE BORROWER DOES its allowed for in your interest rate you pay........remember there is evidence of even more than standard commission being paid …the actual true costs of their charges …you name it Swift Advances Plc are going to have to supply it …sit back and think what all this means to each and everyone of you. Remember what happened to Gmac just on their charges issue…£2.2 million fine and ordered to …pay back 7.5 million to borrowers. sparkie

Thank you for the correction Suetonius...on the ball as usual:) sparkie