Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[mmcourt]

Hi a Sparkie, I hope you get somewhere with these a**h****.

[determindator]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Many thanks for posting your letter. It is very clear and concise. I understand since May this year Swift cannot sell the PPI anymore. I believe also they are not taking on any more new customers.

 

I'm keeping up with developments on CAG, and thank you for your time and dedication which has given hope to those suffering from Swift.

 

 

Termi

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all

I have had some difficulties with Swift.....

 

Briefly, I took out a loan with them in 2006, for £15,000 and it was secured on my home.

 

I sent the SAR to them recently and received a copy of the application form, the agreement and the welcome letter.

 

However, the amount to be paid equates to £16,500, according to their correspondence.

 

Now for the interesting bit - for various reasons, I got divorced and ended up agreeing to repay the Swift loan from my share of the sale proceeds. Swift attended the FDR proceedings during the Divorce, but left after 5 minutes when the DJ announced that there would be an Order for sale of the property made during that hearing. (This is perfectly normal). No payments have been made to Swift for some time, due to the divorce.

 

No annual statement of account has ever been received from Swift.

 

The property has been on the market for almost 2 years, and various people have wanted to buy but couldn't due to their own financial problems (couldn't sell their own place, couldn't get mortgages and so on..), Swift then decided that they wanted to act as an Intervenor in my Divorce proceedings. They made application and this was heard last Monday by the Deputy DJ at my local CC.

 

I showed the lady Counsel for Swift my copy agreement, welcome letter and application, and she said ' this is not right, Swift cannot deduct fees from a loan, give you the balance, and then add back the fees deducted. There must be a mistake.......' I did tell her that there were moves towards a class action against her clients, and some 250-300 people may be involved....she said 'I will tell my clients....I just cannot believe their (her clients') attitude.' This is from THEIR Counsel!!

 

The DJ whilst looking at my witness statement last Monday said 'I note that there is a difference between the amount which you applied for and the amount which Swift say you agreed to repay. This may affect Swift's position in these matters as they may not have an equitable interest, in view of this discrepancy.'

 

I told him that I am dealing with that situation, and that I anticipate having the agreement revisited in Court in due course.

 

His response was 'I assume under the CCA 1978?' My response was 'Yes sir, that is my intention.'

 

He refused the application by Swift (but allowed them to be joined into the Matrimonial proceedings (perfectly normal request where a loan is secured against the matrimonial home) and has stated on the Order that 'Swift might have an equitable interest in the property in this case, and the balance of their application to be adjourned to the first open date after 10th August 2009.'

 

Swift's application for costs was refused.

 

I note that it seems Swift may have used a broker called Central Capital...has anyone heard of them?

 

I am determined that Swift will not have an equitable interest, and that I will succeed in getting the agreement declared void...watch this space......

 

Please, any help you want to give, wish to give, or would like to contribute will be more than welcome.

 

OK that's it for now.....I just want to say 'Let's do to them what they've been doing to us, only we will do it with the Law on our side.'

 

Best wishes to all

 

 

Dougal

[Sparkie1723]

I have had a reply from John Webster Managing Director of Swift to my e-mail to him I sent him copies of the 2 emails I sent Swift ....got this today.This is the other e-mail.

 

sparkie

To

Mathew Payne

 

Swift Legal Dept

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Further to my last e-mail I wish to advise that I am now in possession of 4 Swift secured loan agreements wherein all charges and fees have been added to and included in the Total Loan ........and 4 Swift secured Loan agreements wherein the fees and charges separated from the Total Loan.

 

 

I am in the process of obtaining quite a few more of these contradictory agreements.

 

Mr White and Mr Falkowski told the Recorder in my recent Court case that these fees and charges cannot be added to the principle loan for reason Swift are barred from doing so by statute law.

 

Quote from Mr White oral submissions under oath, taken from my judgement summary.

 

Mr White said

 

Regulations deny a creditor the option of adding up all the information into one box" further on in the same breath "the brokers fees are stated in the Other Financial Information Box, there is no one figure which shows the total lending"

 

 

I submit this is/was a known false misleading statement made deliberately to mislead the Court, as Mr White being Risk Manger of Swift must be physically and directly involved in processing of these loan agreements, that do include these charges and fees and which are the shown as a total lending as he put it in one box, and ones that do not include these fees and charges contrary to his statement made under oath under oath.

In two of these agreements even the borrowers PPI Insurance has been added to show a Total Loan Amount in one Box

 

 

I therefore wish you to clarify why they have been added and included in some cases and not in others, I am sure the OFT will require you to clarify that, as I am making the OFT aware of exactly what Swift are doing in their Possession proceedings with and under these different agreements.

 

 

I am also sending a copy of this e-mail and my previous one to you, to your Mr John Webster, as ultimately under Corporate Law he would be responsible for all and any wrongdoings and ask him also to clarify exactly what Swift are doing.

 

 

Copy to J[email protected]

 

Your sincerely

 

 

 

Dear Mr XXXX

 

I am writing to let you know that my letter of response is in the post to you today.

Yours sincerely

John Webster

Edited June 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Dougal16T]

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

What we have here is a prima facie case EDIT by Swift Advances plc, on a very large scale.

 

It is therefore essential that all documents are collected by one source, and in view of the very serious nature of these offences, I recommend copying all documents in your possession and forwarding them to the Serious Organised Crime Agency,PO Box 8000,London,SE11 5EN. The 24/7 telephone number for SOCA is 0370 496 7622. Their website CLEARLY indicates that they will deal with matters of this nature. See :SOCA | Serious Organised Crime Agency.

 

The way forward in the Civil Courts is very limited and fraught with too many unknown parameters (DJ's who don't know exactly what he Law says, Counsel who are too clever for mere mortals like myself to follow, and so on...)

 

It has to be the Criminal Courts in order for this to be stopped, but of course once the Criminal Case is commenced then Civil Litigation may be started in earnest!

 

My sincere best wishes to you all

 

Dougal

Edited June 23, 2009 by caro
Removing potentially libellous comment which could cause problems for the site

[Sparkie1723]

Waiting for the post for Mr Websters reply to my e-mails ...................I wonder what sort of "Woffle" he will be attempting..

 

sparkie

[kitchenboy]

Have you guys seen this thread?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/205401-sub-prime-mortgages-call.html#post2238823

[Sparkie1723]

Have you guys seen this thread?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/205401-sub-prime-mortgages-call.html#post2238823

 

 

I will be drafting a nice letter to this committee tonight :cool:

 

All other "Swifties" do the same.

 

 

sparkie

[overdone]

Someone is going to have to spell it out to me. Because swift have charged title indemnity insurance twice on 2cnd and 3rd remortgaging is that the kind of thng someone needs to be told.

[determindator]

Hi Overdone,

 

I hope you get clarification on this thread shortly concerning title indemnity taken twice. It doesn't sound right to me.Good to make contact with you again in virtual land!

 

Thank you KB for the link.

 

Thank you Dougal for information.

[Sparkie1723]

Had a reply from Mr Strickley at Swift to my letter to Mr Nettleingham on post 605....here is what he has said.

 

 

sparkie

 

I refer to your email of 17 June 2009.

 

I acknowledge the comments you have raised however I believe we have adhered to the Subject Access Request you submitted in full.

 

The remaining issues you have raised have been passed to our solicitors to respond.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Tony Strickley

Compliance Officer

Swift Group

Tel: 0845 072 9010

 

 

 

and my reply to him

 

 

Dear Mr Strickley

 

Re Subject Data Access Request,

 

Having clarified the situation with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), you are obliged to supply any and all records of emails, telephone transcripts of any and all telephone conversations recorded for any purpose what so ever , that also includes ones made for training purposes, and any document by which we can be recognised, the ICO has advised me to request this data once more. This also should include any and all data that been passed to third parties ( which of course will include Olympian Finance) failing that I am advised to seek an enforced subject data access by way of a Court order. In the mean time I am to submit a formal complaint to the ICO

 

I therefore request again that you comply with my request.

 

 

Yours sincerely

[Sparkie1723]

Someone is going to have to spell it out to me. Because swift have charged title indemnity insurance twice on 2cnd and 3rd remortgaging is that the kind of thng someone needs to be told.

 

 

Hi overdone...

 

This would be another fee that you could claim back ...I'm pretty sure they can't charge you twice for this, as all you did was get another loan the indemnity insurance was already in place....all this insurance indemnifies is if there is something wrong with the title deeds and can't repossess your house and sell it on......they get their money through this insurance..........they already knew about this from your other mortgage, was there any difference in the cost of the insurances?? That might give us a clue

 

sparkie

[overdone]

Hi overdone...

 

This would be another fee that you could claim back ...I'm pretty sure they can't charge you twice for this, as all you did was get another loan the indemnity insurance was already in place....all this insurance indemnifies is if there is something wrong with the title deeds and can't repossess your house and sell it on......they get their money through this insurance..........they already knew about this from your other mortgage, was there any difference in the cost of the insurances?? That might give us a clue

 

sparkie

Both £135. On each occasion

[Smarterchick]

Both £135. On each occasion

 

I reckon they must do this on a % basis of the loan amount.

[Sparkie1723]

I reckon they must do this on a % basis of the loan amount.[/quot

 

I don't think so I have copies of agreements from 27K to 118K all title indemnity showing as £135.

 

Claim it back overdone.......are you sending a summary to that select committee ? ....I've nearly finished mine and then off it goes ...as many folks having trouble with Swift should do it straight away, another way to get them sorted.

 

sparkie

[42man]

My Title indemnity insurance is £165 !!

[determindator]

Hi 42 man,

 

That sounds like another point to raise if you are sending letter to the Treasury Committee.

 

I will aim to send a letter to the TC Sparkie. As I mentioned before you are free to use my docs for evidence at any time.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi determinator,

 

I do not think they want documents only a 3000 word summary of how they have treated you and others...I am using references to members agreements I have copies of....as many as possible should write to this committee ....and if its similar to the Banking committee...they will call Swift Directors to Parliament for a grilling at another sitting of the Committee when they have studied all the complaints.

The chairmanman John McFaul is no mug, and he is not very keen on Bankers of any description.

 

sparkie

Edited June 24, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[determindator]

Sorry Sparkie,to be more precise you can use my agreement for reference.

[Sparkie1723]

Sorry Sparkie,to be more precise you can use my agreement for reference.

 

No probs mate I was hoping you would agree to that

 

sparkie

[42man]

I have sent my situation to the TC....

[Sparkie1723]

I have sent my situation to the TC....

 

Nice work 42man, mine will be off in the next day or so.

 

sparkie

[sweetjane]

Sparkie

I've just pm'd you - hope that's ok.

sweetjane

[Sparkie1723]

I have now completed my summary to send to The Treasury Committee.

At the end of it I have directed them to the CAG Swift Threads, does anyone disagree me with me doing this?.... Not sending it untill I have a few comments on Yes or No.

I think it is a good way to give them a lot of info about the way Swift are acting.

 

sparkie

[overdone]

Well done sparkie. A big yes from me.