Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

Hello everyone, I am really glad that people are fighting these pigs. I have been watching this forum and at the beginning have made an input into it.

I have a mortgage and a secured loan both with swift (more the fool me). I was told that they were the only ones that would take us on.

I am ringing them every month about my payments going down but as they say to everyone, their funding costs have not went down.

We are on Benefits( DLA, Income Support and Carers) and every penny is used to pay this mortgage so that we dont go into arrears as they would take great pleasure in having the house.

We are a family of 6 and are surviving on 120.00 per week because of these a*******.

Some people might say its my own fault for getting into this situation but, when we took this out we were told we could change our deal at the end of the term, what we were not told was that Swift would stop doing mortgages.

I am sorry for the rant but I have just spoken to them and they make me so angry. I wish everyone who have mortgages and loans with these sharks could get together and fight them.

Im from Northern ireland, and I would even go to the Mainland to fight, everyday, if I had to.

I would love to get one over on these people...well they arent people because you need a heart to be a person....

My agreements are up the left as well but I dont have a scanner to scan them through to anyone.

If anyone would like info on them, I am not afraid to state it over the board, just to see if I can do anything with them.

Sorry again for going off on one.

Many Thanks

 

Hi mm

Contact pkelly by PM he is over in your kneck of the woods, he will help you I am absolutely certain of that, I will PM you later and ask you a few questions about your agreements but it would be much better if you could get to see pkelly he would scan them for you and give you advice first hand I work very closely with him

 

sparkie

[pkelly]

yep not a problem Sparkie, anyone in NI contact me by pm.

[mmcourt]

Thanks PK.

[pkelly]

Thanks PK.

anyone in N Ireland your welcome to contact myself by pm. one of the gang, will even meet up with you if you want, but post nothing out on the open. no one would believe the way they work or what they are do and get off with. fighting one at a time

I know for a fact they are online, its only a matter of time before they get what they deserve, and they know that themselves.

good luck all;)

[Sparkie1723]

I have just drafted this letter for my friends to Swift

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I write to you with regard to the possession proceedings taken by Swift Advances Plc against us and our part 20 counter claim that ended in February 2009.

 

In this proceedings your Counsel Mr Falkowski argued and convinced that Court that the Broker fees and other charges could not be added to the total loan amount, and that they must be shown separately. Mr Falkowski convinced the recorder of that fact this was the main reason our defence and counter claim failed.

 

How ever I have now obtained copies of several other Swift customer loan agreements wherein these charges HAVE been added to the principle loan in and on those agreements, including PPI insurance charges.

 

I am also aware that Mr Falkowski is at this moment in time prosecuting one of these said other agreements for possession of a persons property, the agreement in this action the fees and charges are added to the loan in and on the agreement and are not shown separately, therefore, [EDIT]

 

Both the Solicitors and Barristers Codes of Conduct clearly state that Solicitors and Barristers must not mislead the court and CPR's state that they must bring to the attention of the Court not only issues that strengthen their case but also issues that weaken their case

 

I will be making the OFT aware of what Swift and their legal dept and advisors are doing as well as the Prime minister Mr Gordon Brown and Justice secretary Mr Jack Straw for them all to investigate all these actions by Swift.

 

Swift cannot be allowed to continue to attempt to obtain property by these methods.

 

I will be making a complaint to the bar council about Mr Falkowski's conduct

 

Yours sincerely

Edited December 14, 2009 by alanfromderby

[42man]

Whoooaaa 6 guests....!!!

[pkelly]

hi ya PK, how you doin? I've just got back from a week in sunny Manchester, last time I was up there was in the 80's changed a bit I can tell you, so what have you guys been up to? I managed to log in a few times, but seems like the focus is getting stronger on our friends now.

 

I think we should all do what sparkie suggested and stop paying them, sqweeeeeeeze the bustards..:grin:

 

SC

Hi babe thought you were away furder afield, bennidorm I hear is the place to pick up them toyboys, lol yep if everyone stopped paying swift would not have the monet to send the gruesome twosome to all the courtcases lol

And stop calling these wee birds Bustards they are strictly speaking Swifties

[pkelly]

hi to any N Ireland victims sorry to say am off again abroad, but anyone with any agreements scan them and send them to Sparkie or myself here,

wipe your details off them just send all you have got.

in meantime someone over there will gladly meet up with you if you want,

oh and you we swifties reading this, I would rather be in any of these guys shoes that yours, what goes around comes around, and I see another outbreak of bird flu before winter. lol

these guys are fighting for their lives, you buzzards are only fighting for a wage.

"In this Revolution no plans have been written for retreat.”

[Sparkie1723]

I have posted the E-mail I drafted for my friends that was sent to Swift telling them Iit was intended to write to the OFT, Jack Straw and anyone else I could think of.

 

I have now got the letter drafted to send to the OFT and I'm posting it, we are not bothered if Swift read it or not ..........it will be on its way after folks have read it..... any comments would be welcomed if they have something they want me to add.

My friends love it

 

sparkie

 

 

Dear Sir(s),

 

I write to the OFT again with regard to Swift Advances PLC (referred to after as Swift or they).

 

I have previously made a complaint on a personal level about Swift, but I now make a complaint on behalf of many of the customers, whose names I can supply if required.

 

In order for you to get an initial understanding as to what this further complaint is about, I attach as (WBG1) a copy of an e-mail letter I have sent to the legal department of Swift.

 

In my previous complaint to the OFT, I included a copy of the loan agreement we entered into with Swift, and we (I) submitted that we had been misled into borrowing more money than we had applied for, and that the agreement we signed was not clear as to what we had actually borrowed.

 

 

A dispute with Swift ensued for 12 months and due to their intransigence and abuse of their position, in our eyes at least , we suspended our payments on that loan, immediately these arrears were two months behind, Swift issued possession proceedings against us.

 

 

In brief for reasons it is not necessary to enter into to at this time, I ended up being a Litigant in Person (LIP), and defended this action and submitted a counter claim.

 

I attach the unofficial judgement summary given on that claim ,as it is, I submit of great importance.

 

 

I have highlighted certain sections of this judgement to draw the attention of the OFT as to what is happening and what Swift are doing in these possession proceedings, and how they are systematically abusing their position and circumventing laws and guidelines, twisting them in their presentations to the County Courts.

 

In doing so are obtaining possession of borrowers property.

 

I ask that extra special attention is made of paragraph 19 on page 8 paragraph 32 on page 13 and paragraph 2 on page 23 of the judgement summary wherein both counsel for Swift and the judge contradict the arguments, in first referring and relying on various case law relating to regulated agreements, and the Consumer Credit Regulations, ending with the Recorder finally stating quite clearly that the Regulations do not apply to our unregulated agreement.

An absolute contradiction

 

I attach a copy of my loan agreement (WBG2) which is stated to be an unregulated agreement and I agree that it is what it would be it if my argument is accepted that the fees and charges shown had added to the Principle loan shown at the top R/H Key Financial information box of that agreement, and not broken up as in the other Financial information Box.

 

The actual total amount of money we were misled into borrowing........ is NOT shown on our agreement.

 

You will note that the Recorder in his judgement commented on the fact that a calculation could be made by the borrower to tell him/her what they had borrowed, this view is in complete contrast what the OFT say, in that all this extremely relevant and important information should be made absolutely perfectly clear to the borrower on the agreement.

 

 

I attach a copy of the original application (WBG3) sent to Swift by Promise Finance, ( Now in Liquidation) you will see that it is incomplete, but that is subject to my own other personal arguments and further complaint that I will be sending to

the OFT and the Justice Minister Mr Jack Straw.

 

 

You will also note that it has been manually altered at the top from £30.000 to show £43,000, I have been informed that this was altered by a Joanne Hickey of Swift, AFTER we had signed that application.

 

 

In these proceedings (our case) I refer to, the Counsel for Swift argued and stated that Swift were barred by statutes ( The Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 (amendments 2004) from adding the fees and charges to the total loan, and that these are “charges for Credit” and must be shown as charges for credit, because I was a mere LIP when I attempted to counter this argument and point out that there are no such wording as “ charges for credit” on our agreement, the Recorder waived me away as if I had not got a clue as to what I was talking about and that I was inferior in knowledge of the law as opposed to Swifts counsel’s

superior knowledge of it.

 

 

He therefore accepted his argument.

 

 

I now refer to documents ( WBG 4 & 5) These are other Swift Customer unregulated secured loan agreements you will note that they are of the same format as our agreement.

 

 

How ever I ask you to now refer to Documents (WBG 6, 7, 8, & 9).

You will see that they are also secured loan agreements with Swift and are also unregulated agreements.

 

You will note that the fees and charges have been ADDED to the Principle loan and are shown as a total Loan facility.

These are in complete contrast and contradiction of the other agreements (WBG 3, 4, & 5).

 

In other possession proceedings instigated by Swift and using the same Barrister and Witness, it is argued that as they are unregulated agreements, and that the statutes they apply to the other formatted agreements do not apply to these as they are unregulated agreements and are NOT covered by these statutes i.e. the CCA Regulations.

 

These arguments are also being accepted by other Courts and judges and possession orders are being given to Swift under these agreements and they do go ahead and enforce them with extreme speed.

 

 

The reason for this is that judges in various parts of the country have no idea of what is actually going on BUT Swift and their barrister do.

 

 

They are systematically misleading Courts and using the statutes when it is to their advantage, and the stating the statutes do not apply when that is also to their advantage.

 

Document (WBG 10) is a letter that was received from Swift stating that their agreements follow the format of regulated agreements when if these agreements are compared it is quite clear they do not.

 

 

Because of this statement a borrower is misled into how to read and understand their agreements and are totally confused with them.

 

 

I therefore ask the OFT to study all the evidence I have placed before the office, and advise which of these agreements are fully enforceable, I believe under the arguments and submissions of Swift none are, and Swift are perfectly aware they are not, but they still get them declared enforceable by using this double edged sword argument, they gain at the distressing loss of the borrower this practice must stop and where these agreements are found to be flawed the losers compensated.

 

 

In our proceedings one of the oral statements by Mr White of Swift that impressed the Recorder was he said that Swift were on the board that helped the OFT to draft these statute Regulation amendments, whether this is true I do not know, but in my opinion this made the judge decide that Swift cannot breach of the the statutes and know these regulations backwards and I did not.

 

 

I hope I have made my complaint as clear as possible and that the OFT act quickly and take action against the unfair unlawful tactics and operation of this firm to prevent them form unlawfully destroying the lives of borrowers.

 

Yours sincerly

Edited June 15, 2009 by Sparkie1723
Addition in blue ( still working on this)

[sweetjane]

Well done Sparkie, brilliant. I have FOS complaints being considered against Swift & Sterling Insurance on behalf of my sister. My complaint against brokers who sold the loan (Easyloans / London Scottish - in administration) has been forwarded to FSCS by the Ombudsman. Our complaint covers everything from PPI (mis-selling & refusal to cancel on request, to extortionate charges & interest, lack of statements, speed of repossession order (currently under SPO), premium phone lines, mis-selling process of brokers, confusing layout of loan agreement financial information, profiteering from vulnerable people in financial distress etc etc. I have copied the complaint to FSA and OFT - not asking for personal intervention but for info only.

The "Loan Admin Fee", broker's fee (in dispute), and PPI (in dispute) were all "deducted" from the total "loan" but this was not the amount applied for which was originally £20k totalling over £24k with PPi under Key Financial Information then separately under "Other Financial Information" on the agreement is £31k as Total charge for credit, including interest, Broker fee & Loan Admin fee. This is of course rising all the time . . . I'm away this week so can't PM you the agreement but will next week if you want. It does have the 2 things you mentioned earlier in the thread covered though re secured on property and repossession warning. Issued in 2007.

Thank you for all your hard work -you're amazing. Happy to include our details with your complaint if you need them.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi sweetjane,

If Swift had stood up and followed their line of being a responsible lender I would be pursuing them as I am, but because they are the most ruthless institution on the planet, I will not stop until their arrogance is paid for in full.

I sent of the two last e-mails to Mr Webster Swifts managing director that I have sent Mathew Payne in their legal Dept ...Mr Payne has not replied but Mr Webstersent me an E mail at 9.30 this morning telling me he is going to investigate and repl to me within 7 days so I'll hold back the letter to the OFT untill then....I think we have got them between a rock and a hard place.

Look forward to you contacting me re your agreement

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

This is what I sent Mr Payne last night and Mr Webster

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

[Smarterchick]

Good on ya Sparkie, go for it

[Sparkie1723]

Good on ya Sparkie, go for it

 

 

Hi smarterchick,

 

The phrase "catch 22 situation" springs to mind....or to be a "little crude"............If one is up to their kneck in a barrell of dog dirt and someone threw a bucket of cow dung at them .......Would they duck????

 

 

Can I say things like that on the forum??

 

 

sparkie

[caro]

Hi Overdone (and all you other Swifties). Forgive me if this isn't relevant, or if you know about it already, but I saw this thread and thought of you. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/204597-secret-commission-case-law.html#post2229191

[Smarterchick]

Hi Overdone (and all you other Swifties). Forgive me if this isn't relevant, or if you know about it already, but I saw this thread and thought of you. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/204597-secret-commission-case-law.html#post2229191

 

 

Caro & Angels, something in common there

[Doc2527]

?

[Smarterchick]

?

 

 

Sorry Doc, it is early I know, but I was just saying (Implying) that caro had been kind enough to point us to further legislation which assists with popping the nail in the coffin of Swift with regards to Secret Commissions. Caro being a lady, Angel seemed appropriate.

 

SC ( It takes me a while to latch on too sometimes )

[Doc2527]

HI SC

 

Many thanks for pointing that out...being male and also being early in the morining....I'm finding it hard!?

[Doc2527]

I mean I'm finding it difficult to understand!! oops sorry about that:)

[andrew1]

HI SC

 

Many thanks for pointing that out...being male and also being early in the morining....I'm finding it hard!?

 

That smarterchick has some things to answer for !

[Smarterchick]

That smarterchick has some things to answer for !

 

 

Oi! - my O/h doesn't 'wake up' till much later

[caro]

HI SC

 

Many thanks for pointing that out...being male and also being early in the morining....I'm finding it hard!?

TMI Doc.

[Doc2527]

So many one track minds:smile:

 

You know I didn't mean it to come out that way

[Sparkie1723]

More aggro for Swift. Another letter drafted for my friends

 

sparkie

 

For the Attention of Mr Richard Nettleingham

Compliance Manager.

Swift Advances

 

Dear Sir,

 

Before I send the filled in complaint form I have ready to send to the Information Commissioner Office (ICO) regarding your failure to fully comply with the very specific Subject Access Request I made to you on 18th April 2009, (a copy of which I attach for completeness), I hereby now strongly request that you fully comply with that very specific and precise request, the format of which has been approved by the ICO.

 

For avoidance of doubt I also request this information under CPR31.16, should you not supply this information an application will be made to the Courts for an order for Swift Advances to comply with this request, under sections 7 to 9 of the Data Protection Act, and CPR31.16. I wish to make you aware of the fact that failing to supply this information is also in Breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is embedded in the U.K. Human Rights Act.

 

With regard to my request for a full and complete statement of account since the inception of the loan agreement, I require that precise document NOT a mere record of payments, that is not what a statement of account is. This is now a requirement under the New Consumer Credit Act as of 31st October 2008.

Failure to supply this proper statement of account the borrower has the right to suspend payments until it is supplied.

 

I would also wish you to supply the full and complete explanation as to why Swift Advances interest rate applied to our loan agreement has not been decreased /varied as per the terms and conditions, wherein it states that the interest rate is variable.

 

Across the whole of the banking sector interest rates have gone down dramatically, it was soon after our agreement was entered into that the LIBOR rate, the rate by which we were belatedly informed our loan was governed by went up by .35%. Swift Advances immediately increased the interest rate, as this was an increase in their funding costs, now understood and accepted.

 

We accept this, for reason if interest rates go up by x % the cost of that particular funding goes up by that x %, there are no other fundamental costs involved, the cost to Swift was the x % which was passed on to us, Swift did not lose money and did not gain money.

 

However if interest rates go down the cost of the funding to Swift Advances also goes down and as per the terms of the agreement in that the interest rate is variable, the agreement allegedly to be a fair one, Swift should have passed that reduction on to us and reduced our loan interest rate by the percentage rate that Swift Advances now pay on that particular funding.

 

I totally refute the statement made by Swift to other of their borrowers that there are various other factors involved in the costs of their funding, there is not, the only costs in funding for a borrowing that is already in place is the interest rate.

 

If there are other factors involved the we are entitled to have those other factors fully and explained in full detail, that is documentary evidence of those costs, failure to disclose those documentary facts wil, most likely fall within the remit of the New Fraud Act 2006 ( failure to disclose documents).

 

We require sight of the underwriting document that would show if the monies borrowed by Swift Advances were borrowed under a variable rate of interest or if it was borrowed under a fixed rate of interest.

 

I am sure that the Court will realise that this is a very important document which we will seek enforced sight of.

 

We want to be absolutely certain of the fact that our loan monies are tied to a variable loan rate of interest, for reasons I am sure you will understand or should understand, this is information, Swift Advances are legally obliged to supply.

 

As I have said I am sure you must realise the importance of this underwriting document, a document that Swift Advances it is my understanding have refused to supply any of their customers to date.

 

If our loan monies were obtained at a fixed rate then any increase in interest applied to our loan agreement is of a serious questionable nature.

 

I await the full compliance of my SAR and the request for extra information within 10 days of receipt of this letter which is being sent by recorded delivery as well as e-mail failing that an application will be made to the Curt for its compliance and an order under CPR31.16 to be made for specific disclosure.

 

By not reducing interest rate in accordance with the terms of the agreement only varying it upwards is without doubt an unfair agreement unless the detailed satisfactory acceptable explanation supplied.

 

Yours sincerely

Edited June 17, 2009 by Sparkie1723