Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Doc2527]

Hi folks

 

I'm most intrigued as to what Stupid35 (although I'm sure they're not!!?) has to say about Swift....very very interesting??

 

Do pass on anything you have???

 

Doc

[pkelly]

Swift Advances plc is an appointed representative of Swift 1st Limited for insurance mediation activities only

swift

 

As at 31/08/07, Swift had a customer base of 20,800 customers with an average balance of £26K and had taken possession of 108 properties during the year, equal to 0.52% of the number of accounts. a bbc mate passed this info the other day

[Sparkie1723]

It would appear that Swift actually insure the Title indemnity Insurance through themselves and sell PPI insurance through themselves ....strange not sure that would mean ....but strange...........why would they pay a premium for insurance to another insurance company when they can supply/obtain it to themselves for nothing???

 

sparkie

[Smarterchick]

Well they should, if charging the consumer, give the consumer a choice of policies rather than one they sell/buy themselves. This is similar to having to buy PPI from a bank when they sell loans.

[pkelly]

someone asked about Alcentra, and Alchemy, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, hope this helps,

please private message me again if need be

 

Alcentra was formed by Alchemy Partners who bought them out and merged two asset managers - Imperial Credit Asset Management and Barclays Capital

Alcentra Group Limited entered into an agreement with Barclays Bank PLC Alcentra, an asset management group focused on the leveraged debt markets, is majority owned by the Alchemy Investment Plan, a Guernsey based private equity investment plan advised by Alchemy Partners with the balance held by Alcentra's management team.

Alchemy Partners sold 80% of its interests in its portfolio company Alcentra Group to the Bank of New York in 2006

Swift Advances was sold to venture capitalists Alchemy Partners.

 

disclaimer; All this information like everything I post is taken from the public domain and anyone can find it, although some may possibly be outdated by now,

I hope these links might be of use to some of you.

I can help anyone who wants to find out more if they feel they can use any similar information, names etc just send me a private message.

Swift can be beat by anyone of you, just keep at it.

[pkelly]

does anyone have a record of a Richardson signing for any recorded delivery sent to Swift ???????????

[Hackfleisch]

Guten Tag

Swift Capital Partners{Private Equity Beratungsgesellschaft} is a private equity fund investment advisor an is member of the HSH Nordbank Group,

 

Pelzerstraße 9-13

20095

[Hackfleisch]

Guten Tag

 

Swift Capital Partners `{Private Equity Beratungsgesellschaft `} is a private equity fund investment advisor an is a member of the HSH Nordbank Group,

They have been responsible for establishing the private equity fund of funds business here in Deutschlands HSH Nordbank for about 10 years past. an also invest in venture funds

 

they have invested with fund managers includen Alchemy Partners

who have relationships with Swift1st as you know.

Swift have a fund of funds which is marketed to third-party institutional investors across Europe

[Hackfleisch]

Guten Tag

Swift Capital Partners `{Private Equity Beratungsgesellschaft `} is a private equity fund investment advisor an is a member of the HSH Nordbank Group,

 

Pelzerstraße 9-13

20095

[Smarterchick]

Guten Tag

 

Swift Capital Partners `{Private Equity Beratungsgesellschaft `} is a private equity fund investment advisor an is a member of the HSH Nordbank Group,

They have been responsible for establishing the private equity fund of funds business here in Deutschlands HSH Nordbank for about 10 years past. an also invest in venture funds

 

they have invested with fund managers includen Alchemy Partners

who have relationships with Swift1st as you know.

Swift have a fund of funds which is marketed to third-party institutional investors across Europe

 

 

Thanks Hackfleisch, much appreciated

 

They may have invested with fund managers Alchemy, but can you positively identify Swift Advances Plc's portfolio of mortgages and loans being securitised within any of these organisations you mention?

 

We know Swift Advances plc are a part of Alchemy, but what we want to know is how Swift, who say they don't securitise their mortgages and loans, get their funding for new loans and whether they securitise these mortgages and loans through an spv? - Any help on that would be a great help.

 

Can you be more specific at all?

[Hackfleisch]

Thanks Hackfleisch, much appreciated

 

They may have invested with fund managers Alchemy, but can you positively identify Swift Advances Plc's portfolio of mortgages and loans being securitised within any of these organisations you mention?

 

We know Swift Advances plc are a part of Alchemy, but what we want to know is how Swift, who say they don't securitise their mortgages and loans, get their funding for new loans and whether they securitise these mortgages and loans through an spv? - Any help on that would be a great help.

 

Can you be more specific at all?

 

yes if one pleases email me private thankyou

ja private E-Mail wenden Sie sich bitte

Danke

look up Jonathan Weil Bloomberg words google

:!::!::!:

Edited May 8, 2009 by Hackfleisch

[Sparkie1723]

I noticed last night that the LIBR rate had dropped to 1.4%, Swift say that their interest rate which is variable reflects the cost of their borrowing....so why haven't Swift reduced they rates now that the cost of their borrowing has gone down by I estimat some 4%. they were quick to put it up when it increased by .25% last year 3 times.

 

This could be challenged as unfair, they are making an extra 4% at least on all their agreements now.

 

sparkie

[sunray001]

Hi sparkie

 

have pm you.

 

regards

[overdone]

HI overdone,

 

You are right you should have been supplied one its called a "fair processing notice" and must be given underr the DPA and its guidelines.

 

How everthe only way a "secret commision" can be claimed is if it can be proved one has been paid .......and the only way that can be found out is from the underwriting document for your loan........this is a document Swift refuse to supply anyone........they could be forced under a CPR 31.6 application .....but again this costs money........and Swift know that most of their borrowers can't afford it, they are just pure B******s.

 

 

sparkie

 

From a conversation last night it appears you can approach the information commissioners office if your SAR was devoid of anything.

[overdone]

Hi Overdone,

 

Good to see you on the CAG meet thread. Hope you progressed with completing the N1 and an answer to subsequent and previous questions. Please up date when you can.

 

Termi

Still stuck. N1 has to be adjusted for a Swift Mortgage/secured loan and it just makes my head spin. "I'm a good man, I'm just not a very good wizard." (the wizard of oz)

Edited May 11, 2009 by overdone
add info.

[overdone]

From Page 20

Brief Details of Claim

Quote:

 

Money claim for return of charges and associated interest charges applied to the Claimants account by the Defendant

 

 

Value:

Quote:

Charges £xxx.xx

Associated overdraft interest charges £xxx.xx

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £xxx.xx

Court Fee £xx.xx

 

TOTAL £ xx.xx

 

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £xx.xx per day [(enter daily rate here - (CHARGES+OD interest)x 0.00022 = pence per day)] OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Quote:

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant [has] [had] an account 1 ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2 [and closed on or around 2 ]

 

2. During the period in which the Account [has been] [was] operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant or in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant. The Defendant also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) Insofar as they may be penalties, the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant.

b) Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court on the 24th April 2008 rejected the notion that the blocking of cheques, direct debits and so forth were services in the sense commonly understood. Furthermore the High Court held that the Defendant's charges were subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999.

Whereas, at all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the meaning of the Regulations and the Defendant was a supplier within Regulation 3(1), and

The banking contract was conducted on the Defendant’s standard terms

The terms imposing

the charges levied by the Defendant are

contrary to the requirement of good faith

. Furthermore

T

he terms imposing the charges

cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:

-

• Bank accounts have become a basic essential service
  
  
• The Defendant is
  a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standard-form contract.
  
  
• There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts.
  
  
• These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market.
  
  
• The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in
  cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service p
  roviders and is forced to acquiesce to the charges.
  
  
• The charges exceed actual costs by several thous
  and percent
  
  
• They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of negotiation
  
  
• The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its
  charging scheme at will without discussion with its
  customers
  
  
• The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract.
  
  
• The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract
  
  
• The charges reflect a markup of
  several thousands of percent on the costs of dea
  ling with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%.
  
  
• Many of the Defendants charges are levied on previous charges incurred in preceding months. Therefore the Defendants are themselves causing the impecuniousity which then triggers more charges. Therefore the Defendants have caused much of the claimant's impecuniousity and it is the Defendants who are causing the charges to be levied with a view to their own profit.
  
  
• The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "
  free-banking".
  
  
• The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges
  
  
• The Defendant's charges structure depen
  ds upon the impecuniousity and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better
  position.
  
  
• The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it.
  ·
  
  
  
  
• As established by the High Court (OFT v
  Abbey
  & 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges.
  
  

 

 

g) In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 3 ;

 

b) Interest charges which have been paid on the above charges in the sum of £ 3 ;

 

c) The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [the date you are issuing the claim] of £ [amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest]

 

d) Court costs or other costs as allowed by the court;

 

 

 

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

 

 

Signed: DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IT

 

 

Date:

.

.

Edited May 10, 2009 by overdone
adding bits as I go

[pkelly]

Well this letter was their next step.

 

SwiftAdvances

 

16 March 2009

 

Your complaint.

Former agreement number. xxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your letter I received on the 15 March in which you dispute the charges applied to your former loan agreement.

 

I refer to our previous letter of 30 February 2007 where we set out our decision on this issue and made our position clear.

 

I am aware that you are unhappy with the charges applied to your former loan account and note your willingness to take legal action against us if you are not satisfied with our response. However, I believe Swift has acted responsibly and fairly in our dealings with you and therefore do not belelieve there are currently any grounds upon which we agree to meet your request to refund the charges which were applied.

 

As previously stated, if you remain dissatisfied with my response you are entitled to refer your complaint to the Finance and Leasing Association or the finance industry standards Association. (FISA)

 

yours sincerely

 

Alan Loblack

 

A Sandard reply, expect nothing else. or tell them to much either folks. time enough in just before court, then they will settle, they cannot afford to be beat once, but its not far away, as they say in Ireland. `Our day will come`

Thats why they pick their battles. In the meantime they will try the good guy `bad guy cop` or `Muff and Jeff` routine,

[42man]

OD....if you have the underwriting sheet, I think this will help you enormously...

 

Issuing a CPR31.16 for this document will help your case as you can reclaim this too....!!!

[42man]

Civil Procedure Rules 31.16

 

Dear Sirs

 

Account number

 

I write with regards to the above account with your organisation.

 

I respectfully request that you provide me by return a certified copy of the underwriting sheet or any other separate documents relating to commissions paid to the broker by you.

 

I must stress this request is made pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules ( Pre action protocols and Part 31.16) only copies of the original documents in their unaltered form will suffice in these circumstances

 

Please confirm if you still hold copies of these documents and that you will provide me with these.

 

I do not view this as an unreasonable request given that by supplying the document which I have asked for it will allow me to assess if my case has merit and will help to resolve matters possibly without the need to involve the court and will undoubtedly save costs on both sides

 

I look forward to your reply and wouyld ask for a response by 4pm on XXXX Date ( Give 21 days to respond)

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxx

Edited May 12, 2009 by 42man

[overdone]

Civil Procedure Rules 31.16

 

Dear Sirs

 

 

I respectfully request that you provide me by return a certified copy of the underwriting sheet or any other separate documents relating to commissions paid to you by the broker.

Confused now. The broker would not pay them a commission I thought it was the other way round.

[overdone]

As an aside from me I just went through to National Debtline and clicked on the Link, "Funders". All my favourite banks and DCA's are there and wait for it, so is Swift Advances PLC. Does the pheasant usually get asked to award the prize for the best shot. Talk about conflict of interests.

[caro]

Good idea from 42man to go for the CPR request OD as you're planning on going to court.

 

May be helpful to peeps if you report Swifts failure to comply with your SAR under the Data Protection Act as well. The more people complain about them, the more attention is drawn to their behaviour.

 

The Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998, data protection policy - ICO

[overdone]

I found a file from Swift. I have kept just about everything from the look of it but I cannot get my brokers figures to add up with what Swift settled for. I must stop digging.

 

swiftregencybrokers picture by overdone1 - Photobucket

 

swiftagreement picture by overdone1 - Photobucket

 

swiftletterbreakdown picture by overdone1 - Photobucket

Edited May 12, 2009 by overdone
add comment

[overdone]

Good idea from 42man to go for the CPR request OD as you're planning on going to court.

 

May be helpful to peeps if you report Swifts failure to comply with your SAR under the Data Protection Act as well. The more people complain about them, the more attention is drawn to their behaviour.

 

The Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998, data protection policy - ICO

 

I have not done a SAR on Swift. I thought 42man had though. But is it the broker (Regency) who gets paid the hidden commission or Swift? Surely it is the broker. I am writing them a letter tonight but Regency have moved offices by the looks of it.

[42man]

Apologies I misworded the letter, it should read as you correctly spotted (thank you OD)...PAID TO THE BROKER BY YOU....