Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[frettful38]

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 August 19, 2009 by frettful38
spelling error

[frettful38]

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?

[Smarterchick]

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... 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....

 

SC

[frettful38]

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 but that's how I am mostly these days

[carpinjoy]

Sorry to jump in, can some of you please have a look at (Disaster with M.B.Finance) in the legal section, NEED HELP NOW, thank you will leave you all alone now

[MWB]

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 December 14, 2009 by alanfromderby

[Swift Eater]

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 ?

[Smarterchick]

Need I say More ?

 

 

Not a squeak ! :D

[sweetjane]

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.

[landy_alert]

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:

[sweetjane]

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

[landy_alert]

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 August 24, 2009 by landy_alert

[carpinjoy]

Can I please jump in quick, on unregulated loans, when you recieve a default letter, does the 14 days apply like a regulated default letter. I need inspiration here. Sorry to jump in.

[Swift Eater]

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.

 

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 ?

[MWB]

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.

[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.

[Smarterchick]

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!

[Swift Eater]

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

[landy_alert]

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

[MWB]

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.

[pkelly]

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 August 26, 2009 by pkelly
none

[Smarterchick]

Hi All,

 

Swift are acting within the law - .

 

 

Erm?, actually they're not (allegedly ) . Just wait and see....

[MWB]

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!!

[Smarterchick]

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!

[pkelly]

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!!

its as good as