TCF also brings the Banking Code into play and the Principles laid down by the Banking Code Standards Board. Even though they are not a deposit taking Bank. "sparkietuculius??" or as some may say .."sparkieclueless";):D

"YIPPEE I YAY".... YIPPEE I OOOOHHHH!!!! sparkie

Double post sorry... sparkie

Hi Killerschick, Whilst I concur that you have a much greater knowledge of the law than I do, and have more knowledge about Assignments and the legalities of them. What I am in dispute with is the following. Swift Advances Plc transferred £200m of loans and mortgages to the Kestrel Companies in the year my loan was sold. They did this to obtain further funding Point 1 Why did they do this? …….Because they had reached their funding limit with Barclays and could not draw down any more. Point 2 Mark White stated in Court that lenders will only lend up to 70% on Equitable value, which meant if it had been an Equitable assignment would have realised only £140m. Point 3 Kestrel obtained the full £200m and passed it on to Swift Advances Plc. In other words Kestrel did not buy them from their own funds ( they had none) …they borrowed the money first and then paid Swift the full £200m. The only way that was possible is that Swift Advances Plc had to have transferred the Title Equity as well as the Equitable value…..without the titles to all these loans, they could not have borrowed the full value only a maximum of £140m. This is my argument and the reason why I have always advocated that Swift Advances Plc And Swift 1st Ltd have no right to sue…the Land Registry entries are all incorrect, but because Swift will not divulge this information and us (the consumer) are having are property unlawfully repossessed. The Kestrel name cannot be stated on these title deeds as they are in fact “Ghost” companies set up under a smokescreen of their Principle Business activity as lending money to the domestic market, when in fact they do no such thing, except borrow on behalf of Swift Advances Plc, that is all they are used for……that is why Mr Webster & Mr White state that they do not securitise, all records and dealings are kept on the internal accounting systems of the Kestrel group the deals etc etc etc never leave them and why I claim are fraudulently manipulated. Securitisation is complicated and hard to understand, ….but what this whole small Group of companies do is VERY VERY clever. It is this reasoning why certain people think I am loopy.......but until someone explains how they can do this I willcontinue to be Loopy. sparkie

Hi again Killerschick. I do not think this can be accepted as it would mean that contracts are not binding and are a waste of time anyone signing them, I do not understand you saying this. Notice of any assignment must be given to the debtor, the debtors agreement to it is not required but notice MUST be given.....all other creditors have to give notice of assignment that is a presumption of fact in all cases as has been ruled in countless cases....Can you explain why should Swift not be required to do so? sparkie Quote; £3. Regardless of what the contract says if an assignment of a debt is only equitable i.e. notice is not given to the debtor, the right to sue remains with the assignor. It would be down to a court to determine whether Swift had exceeded it's contractual rights in conducting an assignment in this way. In my view (for what it's worth!) the wording is wide enough for a judge to go either way"

Good advice LFI.....there is another very good easier calculation site that is 99.9% accurate its called Prudent Minds shows very clearly how to calculate APR's from the loan agreement details ....in court M White stated that he had considered the APR on our agreement ( shown as 9.84%) and found it to be correct....the Judge accepted his word over mine....I had used this calculation and checked and double checked it and the calculation came out as 15.4% Of course this is a prime example that LIP's are looked upon by the COURTS as Duck Eggs........having now had this APR independantly checked by an accountant....my calculation is correct Mr Whites calculation is wrong.....is this as TIE says is just "my bad luck or another fairy story" Oh I have done what he/she does not like .....emphasising in bold type ...sorry!!!!...........he does not like the symbols either sparkie

HI mate, The reason I disagree is in your own argument 1....Swift Advances Plc categorically state that they do not securitise ANY of their loans. 2...Their accounts state clearly that they have SOLD them ...not assigned them ...I can assure you nowhere in companies house is there any records of what they have done EXCEPT to selling them 3...The term in their agreements says as follows " we may transfer our rights under this agreement to another firm" It does not say "Part of our rights" it does not say " Any of our rights" it does not say " Some of our rights" ....as do the vast majority of other lenders agreements state. Having some knowledge of the law ( which I haven't.)..I base my views on pure logic) surely you must agree under these circumstances when this term is invoked as Swift Advances Plc have invoked it ....it means ALL their rights and that includes the transfer of the title also they cannot split it as and at their whim and decide what and which they transfer ...it must be all or none. Anything else would/should be considered a unilateral altering of the agreement and considered a grossly unfair action. What further makes me believe this is that to borrow the amount of money that Kestrel did they could not borrow it on Equity value alone ...they must have held Title.....even if they only did for a short space of time .....evryones title entry on thie deeds was incorrect it should have been changed to Kestrel and the changed back IF Kestrel GAVE the titles back .... but they must have held them at one time....I believe they still do. Unless my logic is wrong................I have brought this aspect to the attention of the OFT for them to consider along with Swift Advances Plc licence renewal application. I do welcome ANYONES contra arguments it helps to get to the bottom of what they are exactly doing, which is a very dificult task. sparkie

Sorry to disagree KC ........but Swift have not assigned their loans and morgages they have sold them OUTRIGHT ...there is on record in an email from Mr Mark White that "Swift"????? do not securitise their loans, their . company accounts state that they sold them. Also with regard to Swifts renewal application this will be considered....so you see they are not home and dry on this iisue YET In assessing fitness we focus on: • evidence that raises doubts about the personal integrity of individuals running or controlling a licensed business, and business activities that because of either their nature or past association with high levels of complaint have a greater potential for consumer detriment any breach of other consumer protection law, including that relating to misleading advertisements, price indications and product descriptions, harassment of debtors, unfair contract terms, and distance selling • any breach of the rules or principles of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) Business activities for which we are likely to require a CRP include secured sub-prime lending and lending in the home. One of the OFT's main regulatory interests in these areas will be to ensure that lending takes place responsibly. 'Irresponsible lending' is now cited specifically in the fitness test as a business practice that we may consider deceitful or oppressive or unfair or improper. Lending irresponsibly will therefore call into question your fitness to be licensed. When considering your fitness, we may ask you to explain the policies and practices that you intend to follow, for example, in assessing ability to repay a loan. sparkie

Unfair Relationship Enforcement Ation under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 2.7 Section140A(4) provides that a determination may be made by the court even if the relationship has ended. WARNING!!! WARNING!!! Be careful this may be misleading information;) sparkie

Please note everyone Swift Advances Plc OFT licence expires at 12 p.m. tomorrow night.... As for news from N.Ireland I have been advised by those concerned to post this and no more HALLELUYA!!!!!........AMEN!!!........Tick Tock!! Tick Tock!!! TICK TOCK!!!!!:D:D:D:D:D Pick the bones out of this post TIE sparkie

It was goodnight from him and now its goodnight from me. sparkie

I listen to everyones advice and consider it sometimes I accept it and sometimes I don't...........I ask you ...I have been a member of CAG since November 2006 I can say I have differences with a few members ( there are over 250000 of them ) but I have not really upset any memeber in the way I seem to have got under your skin in how long 3 weeks is it. You do not seem to have a sense of humor that is unfortunate, as sense of humor in life is a very important part of anyones life. For example EVERYONE knows the reference to "super duper special secret agent guys" is and taken by all as a joke ....J.O.K.E. sadly you do not see the funny side. I take all your remarks as a joke.....I do need new glasses this requirement befalls a vast majority of people of my age ( of which I am not ashamed of)...nothing anyone can do about that I hope it does not happen to others as it is expensive but unavoidable.......Milk I have allways drank it as I like it, no problem here also.....and strangely enough I support Liverpool and do have a red phone by the side of my bed. can't argue with that fact either. sparkie

So you admit that you are 10 years out of date?? Sorry folks had to say that. I'm off for my warm glass of milk now. Big day tomorrow " UP THE IRISH" Come on the lads in green!!! sparkie

Does anyone recall Mr TIE placing this on post 2759 Sparkie - you deserve better. I live in Canada and am on business in the UK. In Canada they have various support groups for military veterans. Probably a dumb question, but have you seeked assistance from something similar in the UK? Wouldn't the British press be interested in your story and the story of the rest of the group? I'm sure Swift wouldn't like that. I recently read an article about a technicality in one of the states (Florida I think) Then he says this I have worked in the UK capital markets for 10 years and generally know my way around the mortgage market and inter alia know many of the players including funders, servicers, regulators and many others. I rest my case. I am the one giving out all the misleading information sparkie

And its Goodnight from him:D

Quote from TIE This makes no sense at all. You have mixed leasing equipment with CCA activity. This is possibly your most wacky statement I've seen. What could the two possibly have to do with one another? the answer is simple, nothing. Is it possible they have leased equipment in their office? Are Swift 1st actuallt barred from CCA activity or do they simply not make CCA loans through Swift 1st? I bet you it's the later. This is false and misleading information. I'll be posting this block discounting debenture for Mr TIE to view 1....CCA leasing agreements is a CCA activity. ( Fleet Hire agreements example) 2...Must have leased a lot of office equipment. In any event they can't obtain funds if they pay another leasing company for leasing the equipment...Its not their Equity in this case as TIE appears to think. 3....Swift 1st Ltd are barred from CCA activity and cannot make CCA loans of any description. 4....All office equipment is claimed as purchases on all their accounts no mention of lease except for Arcadia House itself.....they do not own it its leased. So how can they present the agreements as equity for the block discounting? Just to get TIE's explanatory brain cells working. sparkie

You have to remember pkelly TIE has no sense of humor.....be careful you might upset him............he will end up calling you the devils disciple or something. sparkie

Hullo there pkelly I see you are back how are your mates getting on ...thought you'd be out having a pint of guiness with them:D:D Good to have you back!! sparkie

TIE Note the FSA does not regulate second charge lending institutions such as Swift Advances Plc. ............Swift 1st Ltd is regulated by the FSA. Or is this more misleading information that I am giving out??. Secondly contrary to your statement about the non importance of trading styles being on a Consumer Credit Licence, as I have made members aware that Swift Advances Plc have asked for a renewal of their licence with the OFT. This time they have asked for the trading styles Swift Advances and S.G.L.S. ( the old Swift Group Legal Services). The reason that Swift Advances are being asked to be added is because they act as an intermediary in setting up all Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances Plc loan agreements. The regulations that govern this ..........states that any credit agreement that has been negotiated on behalf of a creditor whilst not being registered or on the license of the creditor/firm/organisation it is conducting business for can only be declared a legally binding agreement on the Decision and direction of the Director General. Before the Director General makes that decision, the creditors history of conduct is put under close scrutiny, including the number of complaints and the seriousness of those complaints made by consumers about the particular creditor. Swift will encounter dificulties in this area, as there are as we all know that many many complaints have been made about both of the "Swift Companies". Today a phone call was made to Swift First Ltd about the position regarding the sale of a First Mortgage agreement to one of the Kestrel Companies, the caller wanted the details of the Kestrel companies account so that the direct debit account details could be changed to the Kestrel company. The caller was put through to Mr Strickley who began the conversation quite polite but as more questions were asked he started getting more agitated as the minutes passed by ....on being asked about the loan sale, the caller was told that it was just an internal accounting procedure that had nothing to do with the caller. Caller was also told that the Kestrel company Bank account number was the same bank account number as Swift Advances Plc ( that I find strange). The question was asked as to why a letter about arrears and posssible court action being taken was recived from Swift Advances when the mortgage was with either Swift 1st Ltd or Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd an attempt was made to say that this was a computer error......however the caller informed Mr Strickley that he was the person that had actually signed this letter personally it was not acomputer generated letter. Mr Strickley began to get more abrupt, he was asked if Swift Advances Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advaces Plc were all the same firm ...caller was told that he was not in a position to answer that question ..........the caller then asked as he had promised a written response would the caller be receiving the letter on Swift 1st Ltd headed paper, Swift Advances headed paper, Swift Advances Plc headed paper or ..........Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd headed paper. That really upset Mr Strickley. With that Mr Strickley put the phone down on the caller. That is TCF in operation the Swift version again Much more later when I will be joined by a close friend of the two N. Ireland people in the High Court tomorrow .....funnystuff to come;):D Maybe some more false information also:D sparkie

I am not saying any more till monday night......what I have posted so far has been for an agreed reason with the two people involved on Tuesday. sparkie

Marky ....Take a look at the trading style/name on your agreement................The personal view has been given by a certain high up person with an very important authoritive body, who is involved in all consumer issues ....by using a trading style/name to set up agreemnts between Swift Advances Plc and a borrower ( ie act as a named third party intermediary) without having a licence to do so will render all such agreements set up by said trading style name unenforceable. This is just one of the issues to be presented to the High Court on Tuesday. Are these agreements in breach of the regulations of CCC licences's??....by not being named on Swift Advances Plc licence, as has bee posted and stated on previous posts..........all their trading styles and names used are not included on that licence .......to carry out licensable activity without such licence is a criminal activity. Anyone can check their licence at the OFT website public register. sparkie

Good morning Mr speed reader I have seen all these diagrams ( and others )...all I can say is Swift did not borrow the extra money for the reason you stated...they used the Kestrel companies to borrow £200m each on the same day using the same land registry titles Swift Advances Plc had sold them from two different Banks, using two different "presentors" on the SAME day....delve deeply into their 395's lodged at companies house.......even companies house were not aware of certain issues put to the ...such as this and unsigned Company accounts. I know you are fishing so here is some food for thought ( just a snippet), but This can't be rectified at this late date. I has been done I would also ask you to look at the 395 of Swift 1st Ltd 2006 ( its public knowledge if you look) where they entered a block discounting agreement with Singer Friedlander....you will see that this debenture deals only with CCA agreements and leasing of equipment....Swift 1st Ltd are barred from CCA activity...........they have no equipment to lease or sell or hire they do not have leasing or hire purchase agreements to present for this deal. The only thing they could have presented for this block discounting deal....was their First Charge Mortgage agreements but they could not have done that in reality as they had sold them to the Kestrel company's Explain that if you can........... Getting back to Swift Advances Plc they did as you rightly said pay money off their main funding loan but lent another £200m....if you can explain how they did this legally ( all without licences to do so) then I will glady admit I am absolutely and completely wrong. As they had reduced their main loan by said amount they were then able to draw down the other £200m as and when needed to lend out again Accountants cannot explain it and the whole accounts for the whole group have been examined very closely I can assure you of that. It is not just my view of this they have been backed up by qualified people. sparkie

There are 150 pages on this thread....if you "gestimate" that some one new coming on to this thread on 27th March 2007 can read this whole thread, whilst looking for information about Lloyds Insurance, visiting my U-tube video, looking after/visiting his sick mother.....carrying on a normal days work, fully understanding this whole thread in 14 days, when it would take an average of 15 minutes to read and digest each page fully, ( 3 days solid reading or more) consider points for and against and post his formed opinions.......I do not think this is conceivable.........so who is MR "speed reader".....I have a bloody good idea, but that is my personal GUT feeling sparkie

Excellent post Marky.........the only part that you are more than likely wrong is the reference to the fact the Kestrel involvement may be legal, to move vasts amount of money consumer money without any licence issued by any of the authorities like Kestrel do must not be anything like legitimate...if these were not required then all other finacial instutions would not require them or have to obtain them...if you think of it logically. Glad you are still coping mate.....talk to you soon. sparkie

Yes ...I look just like the Cardinal of "Cloud Cuckoo Land" don't you think:lol: sparkie