Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm sure I've said before that it's fine and dandy bringing in rules that favour you or your party, but you have to consider how it would play out if your opponents get in and want to use the same rules...
    • Its Gaelic celebration and bonfires today - Beltane Quite fortuitous for tomorrow lets hope
    • look on the bright side - it would allow Biden to do what he likes ...
    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


overdone
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4914 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I would like to begin by saying what an excellent thread this is. I was up to the crack of dawn reading it with such interest. I have been searching for some answers for such a long time and created multiple threads in which I asked multiple questions.

 

It was just by chance that I found this thread and in here I have learned a great deal of knowledge and many answers to my questions. I also have a loan and have found many many things don't add up. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for this or maybe these late nights are not too good for my eyes, or maybe I am reading upside down, who knows. If its OK for everyone I would like to join in this discussion and debate thread and would like to receive help with the questions I have.

 

Excellent work from everyone. I should tip everyones scales on here but would be here all night:D

 

thanks to all and keep up the good work

Edited by frettful38
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I know this has probabaly been asked many times before but could someone please explain the difference between regulated and un-regulated please. I wrote to my lender ealier this year regarding a few complaints and they wrote back saying;

 

"As you took out an unregulated secured loan it does not come under the rules and regulations of either the (FSA) or the CCA Act 1974. As it was not regulated by the FSA, or CCA, this falls outside the jurisdiction of Finanacial Ombudsman Servive (FOS); therefore, they will be unable to act on your behalf.

 

Blimey with a reply like that they are basically saying your stuffed and there ain't nothing you can do about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this has probabaly been asked many times before but could someone please explain the difference between regulated and un-regulated please. I wrote to my lender ealier this year regarding a few complaints and they wrote back saying;

 

"As you took out an unregulated secured loan it does not come under the rules and regulations of either the (FSA) or the CCA Act 1974. As it was not regulated by the FSA, or CCA, this falls outside the jurisdiction of Finanacial Ombudsman Servive (FOS); therefore, they will be unable to act on your behalf.

 

Blimey with a reply like that they are basically saying your stuffed and there ain't nothing you can do about it?

 

Firstly, an Unregulated Loan means you have a loan which exceeds £25,000 and therefore is not protected by the consumer credit Act which others would of a lesser amount. But...:D Cag being Cag it doesn't exactly stop there.

 

There are loans which exceed this amount, but due to the various 'parts' and categories of the loan amounts ( I'll come back to them) then the loan could be deemed a Multiple Agreement or Partly regulated Agreement. For example a loan of £64000 that I know about had 3 categories of credit as described by the CCA all and each at less than £25,000 and should have been documented as such separately.

 

To explain Loan - £60k

Loan company made the debtor pay the arrears of her 1st charge mtg of £22k out of the loan and they paid it direct to the bank.

 

Loan company also made borrower repay £15k of an existing loan to another finance company so they could get 2nd charge security and they paid off the balance out of the loan monies before the loan was paid out to the borrower.

 

Loan company then sent the balance, less the brokers fee and admin charges to the borrower as a cash cheque which left just over £20k.

 

Brokers fees and admin charges for credit and there you can see each and every item under £25k. Now the guy who drafted the CCA actually built in a section to prevent companies from escaping their responsibilities by tipping the loans over the £25k limit to make sure we had no rights to the CCA protections because as an Unregulated agreement the can do pretty much as they like and shaft you as an end result. The first 4 pages of this will give you an idea http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html

 

Also loans which are tied to your mortgage from your mortgage provider - 'top-up loans' which again, if under £25k should have been provided as CCA regulated loans rather than mortgage advances...and so it goes on.

 

Point us to your thread if you have one and put the details of the loan up and we'll take a look.

 

Good luck and don't let the feckers get to you....:D

 

SC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks smarterchick for your response, alot to digest and I am slowly getting there. My thread is all over the place so please bear with me, because I do not understand a lot of things and have been asking many questions in hope of getting some proper answers. Heres the link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/179435-loan-information-figures-not-4.html

 

sorry if it sounds :confused: but that's how I am mostly these days :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Firstly thank you all for the interesting thread regarding [EDIT] Swift Advances. I am currently trying to digest the information on here. I have started a thread called Swift Advances yesterday about my situation and it would be brilliant if any of you peeps on here could take a look and let me have your thoughts.

Edited by alanfromderby
Link to post
Share on other sites

The FLA regulates SWIFT. In the fair lending code that FLA sets out there is an option to request how a lender works out its finances.

I have explained to FLA how intrest rates with this lender only goes up and never down. Example when libbor rates were at 5% we paid 10% and now rates are at 0.75% we pay 15%. Swift has explained how there cost of lending has risen but I do not believe them, hense requesting FLA to look in to this as things do not appear to be right in my book.

FLA :: Consumer finance :: Consumer Codes of Practice

If any one would want to contact them about your expieances all corespandaces must be directed to Complaince Manager who you will find expteamly help full.

Need I say More ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point of going to the FLA - they're a self regulating industry body who have the lenders' interests and not the consumers' interests at heart. To quote their website: "FLA is the voice of the specialised finance and lending industry". Go to the FOS or the FSA or the OFT but not the FLA. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is will the FOS be able to investigate an unregulated agreement?

 

Ours was taken out in 2006 and settled in 2007.

 

I have a feeling the FOS won't be able to help with this:confused:

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Smarterchick has explained previously, there are may reasons why what you think is an unregulated agreement is in fact regulated.

 

Hi sweetjane:)

 

Thank you - I'd better go back and have another read of SC's comments. I've got the memory span of a goldfish at the moment I'm afraid!

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

Edited by landy_alert

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point of going to the FLA - they're a self regulating industry body who have the lenders' interests and not the consumers' interests at heart. To quote their website: "FLA is the voice of the specialised finance and lending industry". Go to the FOS or the FSA or the OFT but not the FLA. :rolleyes:

 

FLA, FSA, FOS they are all self regulating.

 

If one was to look into my message, What I are saying is to bring into question how this lender calculates its loan intrest ?

 

Just paid £39,500 over 5yrs to swift and now will have to pay £48,500 in redemption fees and interest on a £49,000 loan. What I are saying is it is in the lendars best intrest to keep rates high and not to pss on any decreases they have in lending as it is profit.

 

However Swift has written to myself that there lending is based on libbor rates and something dose not add as libbor rates have decreased over 6% since we had taken out our loan and out intrest rate has increased by 5%

 

What I require is true lending costs from day one to current. Should this proove to be legit regaurding margn mark ups then that is fair enough.

 

Is there anyone else going to follow me on this one ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

SE,

The fact is, Swift can justify their margins however they want to, and there is nothing any of us can do about it apart from warn others not to get involved with this terrible company.

They expalained their rates were dependant on LIBOR; now that no longer fits, they are quoting 'costs of funds' in that the government wants companies like this to have a low risk/high capital situation.

Face it dudes, we are stuffed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest blackie

I agree with you we are stuffed. I have watched this space with interest and have never seen anyone win anything against swift not even unfair charges, Yes swift can do exactly what they want and no one is ever going to stop them,. However now with UTube etc it is easier to warn people about this company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you we are stuffed. I have watched this space with interest and have never seen anyone win anything against swift not even unfair charges, Yes swift can do exactly what they want and no one is ever going to stop them,. However now with UTube etc it is easier to warn people about this company.

 

 

Never say never! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed we all could be stuffed.

How about starting up a business selling loans similar to swift then ?

Bet we would get pulled up within the first month !

So why are they so spiecial ?

Will continue to get to the bottum of this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone:)

 

I understand what blackie is saying though - if there have been any successes, it seems that Swift gets the person concerned to sign a confidentiality clause, so they cannot come back to help anyone else going through the same problems:eek:

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Please dont misunderstand me - I take my hat off to you peeps who have tried to challenge Swift for the immoral business it is, but with respect, all the forums go round and round, discussing regualted v unregulated, fair v unfair etc etc but nothing of any substance is the result.

Swift are acting within the law - without any common decency and with complete disregard for the hardship and difficulties they cause, they rip people off but it is within the law - if it was'nt, then someone would have had them by now??

As far as anyone in my situation is concerned, hang fire until May 2010 - the Rule of 78 is being removed by Swift to calcualte early settlement calculations, not because they are having a change of heart, but because they are being made to - no choice.

Once again, my only hope is that because of the posts on this forum, Swift are denied many new customers, get into difficulties and go down the pan which they so richly deserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they do not always win, but when they think they will lose they simply offer to settle out of court if they know they have a fight on their hands, then the story never gets out preventing others fighting

its the system we are fighting as much as swift

OUR DAY WILL COME SOONER THAN THEY THINK:cool:

DONT GIVE UP FOLKS

do something Swift will be next?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVUNDhtpMJY

remember you are fighting for your life they are fighting for money

Edited by pkelly
none

pick up a penquin two systems for the price of one:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so what law are they (alledgedly) breaking? If we could get this out in open forum then lets join hands and go for them!!

 

I regret you are going to have to be patient, if you personally don't have any reason to believe there has been a law broken in your own personal case then it's not much point in holding hands on someone elses that is. Yes, we all have to join together to expose what has gone on, but when we begin talking on an open public forum we have to be a little more careful as to what we accuse a company of. This would bring CAG into the possibility of being sued and we can't have that.

 

Just keep posting up your experiences and let the momentum of those who are experiencing unlawful practices join up the pieces.

 

Keep watching, reading and posting what happens to you and the picture will build...slowly slowly catchee monkey! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4914 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...