Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[frettful38]

Thanks G. looks like Blemain may be on the menu after swift

[frettful38]

Just a general question, I know that swift are unregulated as so is my lender and I wanted to know can the FOS handle complaints for unregulated loans? As I have received an email from David Blocksidge who has advised me

 

 

Dear Mrs,

 

Thank you for your e-mail of 27 July regarding your agreement with Blemain Finance Ltd. As you have been advised by our Enquiries and Reporting Centre the OFT does not have the ability to assist individual consumers in their disputes. I am sorry that we are unable to assist you with this matter. As the Financial Ombudsman Service does not deal with unregulated agreements it may be useful to you to consult independent legal advice or sources of free advice such as your local Citizens Advice service.

Kind Regards

David

 

 

As I was not happy with the response I received from David Blocksidge I wrote back telling him of my concerns and this is another response, not very helpful and the link he provided does not work. What a waste of time.

 

 

Dear Mrs ,

As I explained in my previous email the Office of Fair Trading is unable to help you on this occasion, as we do not have the power to advise or assist individual consumers. Nor can we normally comment or take action on cases brought to us by individual consumers. As I have not seen your agreement, if you wish to check with FOS if they are able to consider your complaint you should contact them (see

http://www.fos.org.uk/contact/index.htmlt ).

Kind Regards

David

 

I have tried contacting the FSA, Consumer Direct Line and many other legal bodies but no advice about making complaints on un-regulated agreements, what a bummer looks like the courts it will have to be

[26072004]

The FSA have no regulatory powers over unreg loans so they cant help.

 

The regulator for unreg loans is the FOS get in touch with them if you have a complaint, i'm sure someone on this thread knows of an induvidual they have dealt with at the FOS who may be able to help.

[Guest takeiteasy]

Sparkie - You are an incredible fraud and still extraordinarily delusional. You are however consistent. You still get all of this classified information from your super special sources; then not one single claim ever comes true. Shortly thereafter, you humbly apologise and are told how wonderful you are and inspirational you are to the group and to keep on fighting the fight. You have reached an all-time low by telling someone not to worry about their mortgage because it’s unenforceable. Are you really that naïve that you can build up someone’s hope like that? How is it that a retired car mechanic (?) with lawsuits a plenty gets into the inner circles of these special commissions and hush hush groups that are about to rock not only Swifts world but the financial world in general? Now we can add Blemain to your crusade? Blemain is owned by a division of Barclays bank. Do you think Barclays would stand by and allow all of this illegal activity. As I have said on many occasions, you are so far out of your league it’s comical. What’s worse is that you are preying on some very vulnerable people who are looking for anything positive to help them with Swift. You have a serious problem with your need to be accepted and will do anything to feel worthy.

Please people check Sparkies posts from the beginning and check all of the other boards he posts on. CAG is his life. Not a single solitary claim he has made since his first post has come to fruition. Focus on Swifts requirements under TCF not any of the nonsense Sparkie is spewing. Your real opportunity to get Swift is through TCF and nothing else. Please don’t waste your time and don’t pin your hopes on a sad man who continues to create false hope through his nonsensical rants and the fantasy world he lives in.

[lesterlass]

TIE,

 

You make the banks and Mortgage companies seem whiter than white........

 

So much is happening with them at the moment........

 

Here is some reading for you

 

FSA bans and fines former Rock finance director £320,000 for misreporting mortgage arrears figures

 

FSA bans and fines former Northern Rock finance director £320,000 for misreporting mortgage arrears figures

 

mis-sold Mortgage

 

UK banks and Barclays are being accused by an investment firm based in the US of mis-selling mortgage backed securities to the tune of £1.6 million ($2.4 billion). The US branches of the British banks are being sued by a fund based in Boston, Cambridge Place Investment Partners. The lawsuit was filed Friday 16th July.

Asides from the three British banks it also has its sights on Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup.

 

Blank test case for other funds seeking to make good losses during the recession.

The lawsuit which was filed in Boston states that HSBC, RBS and Barclays sold mortgage-backed securities on the strength of “untrue statements”. Cambridge Place also puts forward that the value or worth of the loans themselves were misrepresented (by sub prime lenders) and blames the “mortgage originators”. It says that the ’sales pitch’ employed by the banks lacked the attention of proper due diligence prior to being packaged.

Cambridge Place also made it clear that the mortgage lenders often had the company of these banks on site and vast sums of credit were made available by the banks. The suit alleges that jointly the lenders and banks were complicit and party to an environment of improper lending practices.

Cambridge Place also put forward that Wall street profited from mortgage originators disregard for sound lending practices and the erosion of lending standards. Barclays was accused of mis-selling $141 million of the mortgage backed securities from 2005 to 2007. These loans had a poor record with 46% now in delinquency. The investor was assured that the banks were hands on with the underwriting process and the quality control.

The Greenwich Capital arm of RBS has been targeted and accused of $260 million worth of mis-selling, again from 2005 to 2007, 35% now in delinquency. HSBC (between 2005 and 2006) of mis-selling $64 million and with a delinquency of 40%.

If the law suit is succesful the plaintiffs will be reimbursed and the securities will be returned to the banks.

　

FSA fines Royal Bank of Scotland Group £5.6m for UK sanctions controls failings

The involvement of UK financial institutions in providing funds, economic resources or financial services to designated persons on the sanctions list undermines the integrity of the UK’s financial services sector.

FSA/PN/130/2010

03 August 2010

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined members of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBSG) £5.6m for failing to have adequate systems and controls in place to prevent breaches of UK financial sanctions.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined members of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBSG) £5.6m for failing to have adequate systems and controls in place to prevent breaches of UK financial sanctions.

UK firms are prohibited from providing financial services to persons on the HM Treasury sanctions list. The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that firms maintain appropriate policies and procedures in order to prevent funds or financial services being made available to those on the sanctions list.

During 2007, RBSG processed the largest volume of foreign payments of any UK financial institution. However, between 15 December 2007 and 31 December 2008, RBS Plc, NatWest, Ulster Bank and Coutts and Co, which are all members of RBSG, failed to adequately screen both their customers, and the payments they made and received, against the sanctions list. This resulted in an unacceptable risk that RBSG could have facilitated transactions involving sanctions targets, including terrorist financing.

The FSA considers that RBSG’s failings in relation to its screening procedures were particularly serious because of the risk they posed to the integrity of the UK financial services sector. This is the biggest fine imposed by the FSA to date in pursuit of its financial crime objective. It is also the first fine imposed by the FSA under the Regulations.

Margaret Cole, FSA director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

"The involvement of UK financial institutions in providing funds, economic resources or financial services to designated persons on the sanctions list undermines the integrity of the UK’s financial services sector. By failing to screen relevant customers and payments against the HM Treasury sanctions list, RBSG left itself open to the risk that it was facilitating terrorist financing.

"The scale of the fine shows how seriously the FSA takes this issue and should act as a warning to other firms to ensure that they have adequate screening procedures."

As RBSG agreed to settle at an early stage of the FSA investigation, it qualified for a 30% reduction in penalty. The FSA would have otherwise imposed a financial penalty of £8m.

LL

[lesterlass]

You make the banks and Mortgage companies seem whiter than white........

 

So much is happening with them at the moment........

 

Here is some reading for you

 

FSA bans and fines former Rock finance director £320,000 for misreporting mortgage arrears figures

 

FSA bans and fines former Northern Rock finance director £320,000 for misreporting mortgage arrears figures

 

"Blemain is owned by a division of Barclays bank. Do you think Barclays would stand by and allow all of this illegal activity".

 

mis-sold Mortgage

 

UK banks and Barclays are being accused by an investment firm based in the US of mis-selling mortgage backed securities to the tune of £1.6 million ($2.4 billion). The US branches of the British banks are being sued by a fund based in Boston, Cambridge Place Investment Partners. The lawsuit was filed Friday 16th July.

Asides from the three British banks it also has its sights on Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup.

 

Blank test case for other funds seeking to make good losses during the recession.

The lawsuit which was filed in Boston states that HSBC, RBS and Barclays sold mortgage-backed securities on the strength of “untrue statements”. Cambridge Place also puts forward that the value or worth of the loans themselves were misrepresented (by sub prime lenders) and blames the “mortgage originators”. It says that the ’sales pitch’ employed by the banks lacked the attention of proper due diligence prior to being packaged.

Cambridge Place also made it clear that the mortgage lenders often had the company of these banks on site and vast sums of credit were made available by the banks. The suit alleges that jointly the lenders and banks were complicit and party to an environment of improper lending practices.

Cambridge Place also put forward that Wall street profited from mortgage originators disregard for sound lending practices and the erosion of lending standards. Barclays was accused of mis-selling $141 million of the mortgage backed securities from 2005 to 2007. These loans had a poor record with 46% now in delinquency. The investor was assured that the banks were hands on with the underwriting process and the quality control.

The Greenwich Capital arm of RBS has been targeted and accused of $260 million worth of mis-selling, again from 2005 to 2007, 35% now in delinquency. HSBC (between 2005 and 2006) of mis-selling $64 million and with a delinquency of 40%.

If the law suit is succesful the plaintiffs will be reimbursed and the securities will be returned to the banks.

　

FSA fines Royal Bank of Scotland Group £5.6m for UK sanctions controls failings

The involvement of UK financial institutions in providing funds, economic resources or financial services to designated persons on the sanctions list undermines the integrity of the UK’s financial services sector.

FSA/PN/130/2010

03 August 2010

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined members of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBSG) £5.6m for failing to have adequate systems and controls in place to prevent breaches of UK financial sanctions.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined members of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBSG) £5.6m for failing to have adequate systems and controls in place to prevent breaches of UK financial sanctions.

UK firms are prohibited from providing financial services to persons on the HM Treasury sanctions list. The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (the Regulations) require that firms maintain appropriate policies and procedures in order to prevent funds or financial services being made available to those on the sanctions list.

During 2007, RBSG processed the largest volume of foreign payments of any UK financial institution. However, between 15 December 2007 and 31 December 2008, RBS Plc, NatWest, Ulster Bank and Coutts and Co, which are all members of RBSG, failed to adequately screen both their customers, and the payments they made and received, against the sanctions list. This resulted in an unacceptable risk that RBSG could have facilitated transactions involving sanctions targets, including terrorist financing.

The FSA considers that RBSG’s failings in relation to its screening procedures were particularly serious because of the risk they posed to the integrity of the UK financial services sector. This is the biggest fine imposed by the FSA to date in pursuit of its financial crime objective. It is also the first fine imposed by the FSA under the Regulations.

Margaret Cole, FSA director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

"The involvement of UK financial institutions in providing funds, economic resources or financial services to designated persons on the sanctions list undermines the integrity of the UK’s financial services sector. By failing to screen relevant customers and payments against the HM Treasury sanctions list, RBSG left itself open to the risk that it was facilitating terrorist financing.

"The scale of the fine shows how seriously the FSA takes this issue and should act as a warning to other firms to ensure that they have adequate screening procedures."

As RBSG agreed to settle at an early stage of the FSA investigation, it qualified for a 30% reduction in penalty. The FSA would have otherwise imposed a financial penalty of £8m.

 

LL

[frettful38]

Sparkie - You are an incredible fraud and still extraordinarily delusional. You are however consistent. You still get all of this classified information from your super special sources; then not one single claim ever comes true. Shortly thereafter, you humbly apologise and are told how wonderful you are and inspirational you are to the group and to keep on fighting the fight. You have reached an all-time low by telling someone not to worry about their mortgage because it’s unenforceable. Are you really that naïve that you can build up someone’s hope like that? How is it that a retired car mechanic (?) with lawsuits a plenty gets into the inner circles of these special commissions and hush hush groups that are about to rock not only Swifts world but the financial world in general? Now we can add Blemain to your crusade? Blemain is owned by a division of Barclays bank. Do you think Barclays would stand by and allow all of this illegal activity. As I have said on many occasions, you are so far out of your league it’s comical. What’s worse is that you are preying on some very vulnerable people who are looking for anything positive to help them with Swift. You have a serious problem with your need to be accepted and will do anything to feel worthy.

Please people check Sparkies posts from the beginning and check all of the other boards he posts on. CAG is his life. Not a single solitary claim he has made since his first post has come to fruition. Focus on Swifts requirements under TCF not any of the nonsense Sparkie is spewing. Your real opportunity to get Swift is through TCF and nothing else. Please don’t waste your time and don’t pin your hopes on a sad man who continues to create false hope through his nonsensical rants and the fantasy world he lives in.

 

 

TIE, I will not waste my time or energy in getting in to any squabble with you and your beliefs about sparkie, however in his defence I can and do appreciate what he has/is doing in his battle against swift.

 

Did you know that Rome was not built in a day? Or maybe you do believe that it was that is why you are finding it so hard to understand that sparkie has not achieved any good result yet and I say YET!

 

As you have so much time reading and taking such personal in to what sparkie has done and what he has not done I would like to invite you to read my thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/214005-mistake-fraud-43.html

 

It took me over 10 years and a year of going to County Court to get back just under £5k from a crook of a man. I went through all the highs and lows I ever could have in my life. Thanks to cagger legalpickle I won and not only that but it was people like him and sparkie who actually opened my eyes to what you can achieve if you believe that you are right. Legalpickle and sparkie do not claim to be supermen but to many of us that is what they are as they have helped many of us in our hour of need and given us hope [especially me] where there was no hope.

 

I have been to 3 sets of solicitors, one barrister, CAB, FSA, Consumer Direct, OFT and even Mr David Blocksidge himself and not one single bit of help or advice was given with my un regulated loan agreement, so can you blame people for fighting their battles and these loan shark companies themselves.

 

Maybe you can suggest what some one like me in my position should do, having been the victim of undisclosed commissions, hidden terms and many many other unfair terms? You seem to think that you know what your on about, and I challenge you to prove sparkie or any of us wrong.

 

I would love to put my arguments forward to you, and why I believe that my agreement is worth nothing more than Tesco value toilet paper.

 

Please refrain from posting on this thread, I mean if you are really worried that sparkie is misleading on the wrong path then please would you be so kind and show us the right path, and if you cannot I suggest you keep your opinions to your self as I am sure we are all over 18 and entitled to make our own minds up whether to believe sparkie or not.

 

There now I have said what I needed to I hope some of what I have said has got through, if not there is plenty more as I am feeling quite PMT'd and can carry on if you like.

[andrew1]

TIE, I will not waste my time or energy in getting in to any squabble with you and your beliefs about sparkie, however in his defence I can and do appreciate what he has/is doing in his battle against swift.

 

Did you know that Rome was not built in a day? Or maybe you do believe that it was that is why you are finding it so hard to understand that sparkie has not achieved any good result yet and I say YET!

 

As you have so much time reading and taking such personal in to what sparkie has done and what he has not done I would like to invite you to read my thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/214005-mistake-fraud-43.html

 

It took me over 10 years and a year of going to County Court to get back just under £5k from a crook of a man. I went through all the highs and lows I ever could have in my life. Thanks to cagger legalpickle I won and not only that but it was people like him and sparkie who actually opened my eyes to what you can achieve if you believe that you are right. Legalpickle and sparkie do not claim to be supermen but to many of us that is what they are as they have helped many of us in our hour of need and given us hope [especially me] where there was no hope.

 

I have been to 3 sets of solicitors, one barrister, CAB, FSA, Consumer Direct, OFT and even Mr David Blocksidge himself and not one single bit of help or advice was given with my un regulated loan agreement, so can you blame people for fighting their battles and these loan shark companies themselves.

 

Maybe you can suggest what some one like me in my position should do, having been the victim of undisclosed commissions, hidden terms and many many other unfair terms? You seem to think that you know what your on about, and I challenge you to prove sparkie or any of us wrong.

 

I would love to put my arguments forward to you, and why I believe that my agreement is worth nothing more than Tesco value toilet paper.

 

Please refrain from posting on this thread, I mean if you are really worried that sparkie is misleading on the wrong path then please would you be so kind and show us the right path, and if you cannot I suggest you keep your opinions to your self as I am sure we are all over 18 and entitled to make our own minds up whether to believe sparkie or not.

 

There now I have said what I needed to I hope some of what I have said has got through, if not there is plenty more as I am feeling quite PMT'd and can carry on if you like.

 

and even Mr David Blocksidge himself

 

Frettful, with respect, David Blocksidge is at the OFT and looks after regulated business. The OFT do not get into personal issues or anything which requires any kind of advice on your specific agreement - especially Unregulated ones, so you wasted your energy and his time even contacting him.

 

 

Please refrain from posting on this thread, I mean if you are really worried that sparkie is misleading on the wrong path then please would you be so kind and show us the right path, and if you cannot I suggest you keep your opinions to your self as I am sure we are all over 18 and entitled to make our own minds up whether to believe sparkie or not.

 

 

Sorry, disagree there also. This forum is about not judging others, no matter what they say, you don't have to agree with TIE but what he is doing is putting an alternative view and one which posters may like to consider and this makes the forum a better place.

 

It is my opinion that this whole forum is made up in the main by people who want to see justice done for the man in the street and there are some real fighters out here amongst them Sparkie being just one. Whether Sparkie is right or not is not the issue, what he has done has inspired others to go seek the evidence for themselves, the danger, as TIE is making clear, is that if that information is incorrect then peoples hopes and inspirations will be dashed and he's right to say that, we are not sheep and dominant parties can lead people down dark alleys, so the message is always seek the proper legal advice you need. We all know Sparkie has a heart of gold, he is wrong at times, he'd be the first to admit it aren't we all?

 

TIE adds a little truth and humour to what is for many a very traumatic experience fighting against companies that reply to anything we ask as ' irrelevancies' well the likes of Sparkie make sure that those people are made quite clear that they won't accept brush offs and go back and hold the companies to strict proof.

 

I like takeiteasy's posts and I hope he keeps them coming, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean his view is any less valuable than anyone else's. Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted Frett, but reality checks sometimes are not such a bad thing, you have proved your point about the fight and well done, how many though will keep at it like you without the inspiration of people like our Sparkie?

 

Oh, and frett, I know you'll want the last word, so be gentle on me

[frettful38]

Like I said andrew we are all over 18 and we can decide for ourselves and yes I do agree with you to a point about TIE's postings showing people that the grass on the other side may not always be that easy, and also I am all for constructive criticism IF that is all that is meant.

 

BUT I and I only speak for myself find TIE's postings a little demeaning and if he does not agree with something then there are better ways to word matters instead of be littling anyone.

 

Yes I also agree too as you have said that this forum is not about judging others, yet TIE has taken it upon himself to makes remarks about sparkie saying that he is

 

"You are an incredible fraud and still extraordinarily delusional"

 

"You have a serious problem with your need to be accepted and will do anything to feel worthy."

 

"Please don’t waste your time and don’t pin your hopes on a sad man who continues to create false hope through his nonsensical rants and the fantasy world he lives in."

 

So is that what CAG is all about, I for one find these comments above very rude and un called for, there are many ways to inform people to get better advice and the correct legal advice as you have been giving me andrew for so long , basically there is no need for this behaviour.

 

Also TIE's comments about Blemain being a division of Barclays does not make them above the law, the law is there to protect everyone and just because these companies and lenders have big pockets and can pay their way out of almost anything does not mean that we cannot try and find justice wherever we can.

 

I emailed Mr Blocksidge because I was hitting a brick wall with trying to find answers, and I would rather try and fail than not to have tried at all.

 

Hope that was gentle enough for you andrew if not let me know

[Gallahad]

I have to say I agree with Frettful in that whatever ones views to stoop to such a personal level of remarks as TIE has lowered himself to is beyond contructive criticism. I would also point out that I see no sign of TIE even attempting to assist the thread or any one in need.

G

[frettful38]

I have to say I agree with Frettful in that whatever ones views to stoop to such a personal level of remarks as TIE has lowered himself to is beyond contructive criticism. I would also point out that I see no sign of TIE even attempting to assist the thread or any one in need.

G

 

 

Thanks G, I personally would rather say nothing if I did not having anything good to say, but after reading TIE's comments I could not stay quiet, I apologise if my remarks were harsh but I still stand by what I have said and written about TIE.

[determindator]

Is that TIE for real?!

[andrew1]

Is that TIE for real?!

 

Well if he is, then all he does is make us think about the enormity of what you all have taken on, which gives credibility to one and all on here to find the resolution, it fires everyone on.

 

If he's not? Then let him play.

 

Having worked myself on other threads and companies for as long as many of you have on Swift I know what it's like when people come on to throw what appears to be an unwelcomed spanner in the works, but for every negative there is a positive to be had so perhaps that's what I see, when I see posts like his I cannot ignore them, I try and look into the person who wrote it and where they are coming from. I don't do personal criticism, it's counter productive, but we all have swipes at our targets and anyone who knows my Cabot work will readily see who our target was there.

 

As for you frett, I would have thought you'd have known better " I emailed Mr Blocksidge because I was hitting a brick wall" er? what exactly were you expecting by writing to him then - compassion?

 

And as for TIE's comments about Sparkie being a fraud etc, well I just laughed and took it in the spirit it was written, TIE doesn't go on other threads, only posts here, has researched Sparkie so well, you decide for yourselves what this person is all about. You never know, he could be the Swift CEO himself ;-)

[Guest takeiteasy]

First of all it's not my intent to offend anybody. And despite what you may think I hope every single person wronged by Swift gets compensated to the full extent plus some. I have consistently said this and I have also offered some advice on how I think you should attack Swift. The problem is that anytime an opinion is not in line with Sparkie whoever posts it (me and others) is immediately dubbed a Swift employee or someone trying to defend Swift (check the posts). I have offered my expert opinion on SPV's securitisation structures and other points (again check my posts). But they are immediately discounted by the group because they challenge Sparkie and it's impossible for any of you to believe that I don't have an alterior motive. I get PM's from wacko extremis PKelly that are in a word disturbing. I know my way around this business and I am telling you with 100% certainty that the claims made by Sparkie are entirely bogus. I do not think banks are always innocent but as I stated previously for Sparkies claims to be genuine it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions to pull off and I'm sorry but it's not possible. Have Swift breached TCF guidelines? It sounds like it. Should all of you be fully compensated absolutely. Maybe someone can explain to me why you never challenge Sparkie on all the posts that never come true? Re-read his posts - not a single claim has been proven. Why do you all follow him with so much blind faith? Why are you not asking him the questions I'm asking? Do you not think it's odd that he has made it his life's work to go after RBS and whoever the other company was? Do you not think it's odd that he is on so many CAG boards? Do you read his posts on the other boards and see that everything he claims on those boards never come to fruition either? Why aren't you asking these questions? I am trying to be constructive by being brutally blunt. I am happy to answer any question you have for me if I can help and give you a factual answer.

[Guest takeiteasy]

Andrew - because I dont post on other threads I'm not credible? Thanks for proving my point. Any anti Sparkie view draws the groups wrath and that person must be a Swift employee. It seems I have been promoted from compliance officer at Swift to the CEO.

[caro]

Whether or not Sparkie wins is almost immaterial to the discussionsTIE (no offence meant Sparkie). Much of what we do on CAG is trial and error, but we take what we can from every post, and if mistakes are made, we learn from them and try new things until we get it right.

 

If people like Sparkie weren't prepared to put their heads over the parapet, many people would be in a far worse situation than they are now.

 

More power to those who are prepared to stand up and fight.

[Sparkie1723]

No comment at the moment!!!!;)

 

sparkie:)

[andrew1]

Andrew - because I dont post on other threads I'm not credible? Thanks for proving my point. Any anti Sparkie view draws the groups wrath and that person must be a Swift employee. It seems I have been promoted from compliance officer at Swift to the CEO.

 

That's not what I said. I told people to make their own minds up on from where you are coming from and that it's healthy to have the views of all. It is my belief as will be found in my earlier posts that everyone should be treated with equal respect and I made that quiet clear. On a thread like this your comments I knew would be contraversial, I was encouraging people to embrace the broader picture. I welcome your posts to be honest.

[Guest takeiteasy]

Sorry Andrew I misunderstood. I agree with you about getting things out there and there is no questioning the dedication many of you have. I still don't understand why nobody questions what Sparkie says. Not a single word has come true - nothing. Go back and look at his posts a few months ago when he was supposedly in secret meetings in Belfast. Swift was going to lose their license the following day. He was so sure of it. It never happened. He was asked what happened. He never answered and Swift still have their license. That is just one example. And today, he told someone that their mortgage was not enforceable - they should be smiling. That is dangerous and nobody ever questions it. Why?

 

Sparkie - instead of a no comment how about defending your actions? Why haven't any of your claims since your first post materialised? Why are Swift still operational? Why do Swift still have a license? Why are they still making loans? Why does a retired auto mechanic have access to all of this secret information? How about some answers? My offer from months ago still stands about paying your mortgage?

[andrew1]

Sorry Andrew I misunderstood. I agree with you about getting things out there and there is no questioning the dedication many of you have. I still don't understand why nobody questions what Sparkie says. Not a single word has come true - nothing. Go back and look at his posts a few months ago when he was supposedly in secret meetings in Belfast. Swift was going to lose their license the following day. He was so sure of it. It never happened. He was asked what happened. He never answered and Swift still have their license. That is just one example. And today, he told someone that their mortgage was not enforceable - they should be smiling. That is dangerous and nobody ever questions it. Why?

 

Sparkie - instead of a no comment how about defending your actions? Why haven't any of your claims since your first post materialised? Why are Swift still operational? Why do Swift still have a license? Why are they still making loans? Why does a retired auto mechanic have access to all of this secret information? How about some answers? My offer from months ago still stands about paying your mortgage?

 

 

My OH is always asking me the same question TIE, why doesn't it happen like NOW?....well people would like it that way, but things don't happen that way especially when it involves bringing a company or it's management down. Just think how long the OFT take to investigate things and act, the legal process is a long one, so whilst you are rightly questioning sparkies theories and putting him to proof, this is a 'time will tell' situation and people will just have to be patient I fear.

 

What I think stands out for me at least is that you are talking about untrained people having to piece together bit-part information, source this information and then check out the authenticity. Most are not Accountants or experienced bankers and it all takes a ham fisted shape until the jig saw begins to form a picture - these people are fighting a company which floats a concrete wall around any questions asked, they are not privy to accounts or in-house information so of course it looks clumsey. They have to find out the hard way, so anything you can add which is constructive from your experience will although treated with some scepticism no doubt will be taken on board. You just won't earn any brownie points from those on board here by slating the guy who has fired up so many people whether he's a raving loony :grin: or not - time will tell.

 

People thought Tony Blair was a leader once didn't they?

[Sparkie1723]

Hullo pkelly where have you been I thought you had gone on a "Swift Group" holiday!!!!????? How mny of you were there ...."Three"??

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

The Treating Customers Fairly is for FSA regulated Mortgages ....only Swift 1st Ltd first charge mortgage customers can rely on them and attempt to use them......if Swift Advances plc customers attempted to use them would face a challenge from Grays Inn Barristers who represent Swift Advances plc in court proceedings.........if I am wrong again I apologise up front

 

sparkie

[Guest takeiteasy]

Andrew - again I agree. I however know that Sparkies claims are false because I am a banker. If that energy was focused on TCF and nothng else I belive you would all be much happier. I will help you in whatever way I can. All you or anyone has to do is ask the question (see previous posts). Right now the best I can do is refute Sparkie. Just look at Pkelly responses to see what a negative Sparkie opinion generates. There is no way a guy like that adds a single positive thing to your collective cause. In fact, he does the opposite.

[pkelly]

Andrew - because I dont post on other threads I'm not credible? Thanks for proving my point. Any anti Sparkie view draws the groups wrath and that person must be a Swift employee. It seems I have been promoted from compliance officer at Swift to the CEO.

now who would have ever suggested you were a compliance officer? and then morphed you into a ceo :grin:

2 and 2 make a lot more with swift ehhh

2 seems to be a big thing at swift reminds me of a story in the good book about the ark

I suppose Noak had at least a couple of data books 2 at least I am sure.

In order to keep account of the birds

[Gallahad]

There we go again personal attacks from the very person that feels personal attacks on him to be out of order.

G