Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

@ sparkie. I have used the following site to calculate my mums apr:

 

Financial Annual Percentage Rate Calculator

 

I know its American, but presumably it makes no difference about the currency?

 

I put in:

 

Loan amount = £5,000

Extra costs = £5,342.80 (based on the "other financial information boxes" on the agreement)

Interest rate = 13.59%

No. of months = 120

 

The APR came out as: 36.93%

 

Question: Have I inputted the correct figures based on the agreement you had a look at, and if so and the calculator is right on this site, I can then write to them and tell them that I think the agreement is unenforceable due to incorrect statements and figures?

Is there a template knocking around for this?

 

Soz for the questions, but I need to get these *EDIT* by the *EDIT*. My mum is 70 years old and I dont want the hassle for her. She only got the loan to put in disability equipment.

Thanks.

 

Not quite right mate you have used the wrong inputs the EXTRA costs are not the interest....they are standard costs....the extra costs are the charges.

 

If your mum is disabled I would have thought that she would /would have been entitled to help with that equipment .I'd go to the CAB and check on that ...still not too late she may get a lot of help on ths one .

 

sparkie

Edited November 13, 2009 by 42man

[Sparkie1723]

All,

 

 

One question: even if Sparkie/the NI boys get the result they want, and we do end up posting sponge cakes with files in them to Mr.White & Co care of Her Majesty's pleasure, will this impact existing customers still lumbered with punitive interest rates and settlement figures?

 

 

Apologies for repeating myself, but the answer to this question is really important to me and Isuspect many others; can anyone comment please?

 

You should realise that a case of such high profile will draw the attention of the media and all the appropriate bodies who will investigate Swift and all their associate compnaies as in the case of Gmac...who have got to pay borrowers back 7.7 million in over charges plus interest until they do. Even ones who have paid off their loans

 

sparkie

[Guest blackie]

Being disabled in this country means very little, in theory its all there for everyone, but when my father was taken ill, we were waiting so long for disabled items we went out and brought them ourselves, wheelchair, comfy chair, electric bed, hoist, then as he got a little better we purchased an electric scooter, oh yeh we got the carers allowance of £35.00 per week. Nursing costs were £350.00 per week. So yeah I got a secured loan with these sharks to cover some of the costs.

[42man]

So Sparkle72 what is the situation with your loan you said you took out ?

[Sparkie1723]

 

 

 

You should realise that a case of such high profile will draw the attention of the media and all the appropriate bodies who will investigate Swift and all their associate companies as in the case of Gmac...who have got to pay borrowers back 7.7 million in over charges plus interest until they do. Even ones who have paid off their loans.

 

For instance it is considered that a fee of £100 being charge for a Counselling appointment that NEVER took place was unlawful and in any event excessive.....Swift charge £250 for a letter from their "alleged" Counselling Dept..........I say no more, all this is being brought to the Courts attention over there in N.Ireland......but in comparison to what else is being brought out this is a MINOR thing....believe me.

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

So Sparkle72 what is the situation with your loan you said you took out ?

 

Can't see where this person ever said he/she took out a loan 42man......some just cruise the threads extracting information that may be to their advantage .......................some are just plain nosey and some................haven't got the guts to say who they are!!

 

 

sparkie

[Guest blackie]

Sparkie,

 

I have just received my statement with charges for this year, would you believe nearly £4,000.00. Should I post a copy of this to you. I can not believe their charges. Which by the way they sated was actually arrears at my recent court hearing. But I thought I had read somewhere that the lenders can not include charges as arrears wehn presenting in court.

[Doc2527]

Sparkle72 is just shy:roll: don't you think?

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie,

 

I have just received my statement with charges for this year, would you believe nearly £4,000.00. Should I post a copy of this to you. I can not believe their charges. Which by the way they sated was actually arrears at my recent court hearing. But I thought I had read somewhere that the lenders can not include charges as arrears wehn presenting in court.

 

 

Dead right blackie, charges are not arrears .............arrears are the payments you have failed to pay on time....charges are penalties for not paying on time.

 

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Just received notice of Swifts notice to restore application to repossess our house, I can now summon Mark White to attend these proceedings to explain his statements under oath at the previous hearing, and will present all the evidence I have in my possession...I will now submit my CPR31.16 application with great speed for the concealed documents, I have requested, to be disclosed BEFORE this hearing I have also given notice to Damien Falkowski ( Swifts Barrister) that he will also be asked questions about his knowledge of Mr Whites statements under oath...if necessary request the court for me to be allowed to question Mr Falkowski under oath.

That will be good media attraction, LIP questioning a Barrister under oath...will be letting the local newspapers know in advance that I will be doing that.

 

I have the money to pay the arrears off, but want them back in Court to make my allegations known to the Court.

 

sparkie

Edited November 13, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Guest blackie]

Sparkie, I'm close by if you need a friend at the hearing just pm me. Lets hope we can get as much media presence as possible. I actually know the guy who is charge of 'Good Morning TV', who also know Martin Lewis very well. Would you like me to get in touch with geoff, to see if he can assist in anyway.

[coolchris]

Not quite right mate you have used the wrong inputs the EXTRA costs are not the interest....they are standard costs....the extra costs are the charges.

 

If your mum is disabled I would have thought that she would /would have been entitled to help with that equipment .I'd go to the CAB and check on that ...still not too late she may get a lot of help on ths one .

 

sparkie

 

 

OK, thanks. Adjusted with charges at £775 and they come in at 17.42% on this site (!?). It does come up with the correct monthly payments (albeit in Dollars). The agreement states 18.1% apr.

Edited November 13, 2009 by coolchris

[Marky1701]

How about organising a few ( or more than a rew hopefully) of us Swifties to be outside the court, banners with some choice headlines at the ready? I would be up for that if anyone else would? Would that attract some media attention?

 

Thats of course if you would not object Sparkie?

[Marky1701]

Hi All,

 

Well insofar as media attention is concerned, how about getting together a group - the larger the better - of Swift victims to be outside the court, banners in hand with some suitable headlines, to publicly display their feelings about this company?

 

I would be up for that - assuming of course you would not object Sparkie?

[Sparkie1723]

Just sending this to Damien Falkowski's barristers chambers, the barrister who represented Swift at our hearing

 

sparkie

 

Dear Sirs

 

Would you kindly pass this e-mail letter on to Mr Falkowski, who has not even acknowledged my letter to him regarding Swift Advances Plc, one of his/your clients.

 

I/we have received notice that Swift have re-instated their possession claim for our property, I therefore put Mr Falkowski on notice that I will be summoning him to the witness stand to answer the questions I put to him in my letter, including his knowledge of the deliberate non disclosure of the rest of the history notes of our account etc, plus the documentary evidence that Swift do have agents and, that they allocate agency numbers to their agent brokers, and that they do pay substantial commission ...I will call Mr White a liar in the actual court.and there is an extremely strong possibility that Mr Falkowski has knowledge of all this....... if he does not/did not ...then it was his professional duty to ensure that the witness he used was telling the truth and had seen all the evidence to prove he was in fact telling the truth.

 

I trust that Mr Falkowski will give his views and respond quickly as the Hearing is allocated for Dec 3rd 2009 at 10.30 am.

[Guest blackie]

I doubt if there is anyone who would not be prepared to stand outside the court with their story of Swift. Lets just hope that these people really get what they deserve and the courts see things exactly how they are. Anyone know if you can refuse or chose your judge. Just asking.....obviously some are more sympathetic and have a better understanding of the law than others, and sometimes its good to know who you are dealing with....

[Guest blackie]

See

Damian Falkowski

 

Date of call: 1994 Gray's Inn

 

After his first career as a professional violinist, playing with orchestras including the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields and the London Symphony Orchestra, Damian Falkowski was called to the Bar in 1994.

Primarily, he practices in the fields of commercial law and property.

Currently he is instructed in a US $500 million international fraud tracing claim obtaining freezing injunctions and Norwich Pharmacal orders. He regularly advises on matters with an international dimension and a significant proportion of his instructions are from abroad. His commercial practice includes disputes relating to civil fraud, tracing, joint ventures, charges and guarantees.

He undertakes litigation and advisory work in all aspects of the law of real property, including commercial and residential landlord and tenant, enfranchisement, easements, restrictive covenants. He frequently advises on these issues as they arise in the context of planning law and as they affect local authorities. He was recently instructed in litigation in the Chancery Division (settled) where the question of whether a local authority, as landlord, could refuse consent to a sub-letting where the proposed sub-letting would harm the economic viability of the city centre.

Damian Falkowski has appeared in a number of important mortgage and consumer credit cases since the leading case of Falco Finance Ltd v Gough, (1999) 17 Tr. L. R., [1999] CCLR 16, the first reported case on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1994 (now 1999). He recently appeared for approximately 200 borrowers in “group managed” litigation against one major lender and has advised on Consumer Credit issues instructed by large interest groups. He also acts for institutional lenders and merchant banks.

He is the co-author of a book on remedies for anti-social behaviour which is scheduled to be published by Jordans in March 2006.

 

AFFILIATIONS

Commercial Bar Association

Property Bar Association

British Polish Legal Association: Committee Member

Bar Musical Society: Committee Member

DIRECTORY ENTRIES

Chambers & Partners, 2009:

Recommended junior in Consumer Law: "Streetwise and very commercial".

Legal 500, 2009:

Recommended junior in Banking & Finance

CLERKS EMAIL

Mark Regan and Stephen Broom

 

n this about our friend:

[sunray001]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Snap. A date to remember.

 

regards

[Sparkie1723]

Swift have had to restore the proceedings because if they had not within 12 months it would struck out...our hearing was 18th December 2008 ....they have left it to the last minute ...in my view to buy more time......but all they are buying is "TIME" for Mark White.

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Snap. A date to remember.

 

regards

 

 

Yes sunray you are in the HIgh Court aren't you? Swift are applying for so many possessions...... that it will be good to give the media the real story at last..........We have worked it out that in N.Ireland alone they are applying for 1000 possessions a week.

 

GOt to get to work on my new defence and skeleton argument now...it will be a beauty!! as the actual possession hearing was dropped because I paid up the arrears before the hearing I'm not this time.

I have questions I want answers to in front of the Judge.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

One of my big ones is with regard to the initial CPR Disclosure Document that Mark White signed..............He submitted ONE page only of our HIstory notes.........and in signing this with a statement of truth stated there was no more...................BUT then in my SAR Swift supplied all the rest...........Known deliberate false statment....he knew absolutely that there was more of these history notes and he had them, but failed to disclose them.

sparkie

 

The serious effect of a signatory not holding such an honest belief was dealt with in the recent case of KJM Superbikes v Hinton [2008] EWHC 1280 (judgment handed down on 20 November 2008).

 

Note given by a leading law firm

 

"This case therefore serves as a timely reminder to signatories to statements of truth and those advising them to ensure that the facts stated in the document concerned are true. A failure to do so can expose the signatory to criminal proceedings for contempt of court and if convicted, the sentence can include imprisonment, a fine and/or a seizure of assets. Not only that, but the credibility of the signatory as a witness will be destroyed and the Court is unlikely to accept as true other parts of his or her evidence. Witness statements and statements of case should therefore be read thoroughly before signature and amendments made to ensure that the document is factually correct.

[Sparkie1723]

THe e-mail letter to Mr Falkowski has been opened 11 times in the last 5 minutes.Sorry its now 12 times...........err............. 13 times

 

 

15 times.........16 times

 

sparkie

Edited November 13, 2009 by Sparkie1723
addition

[Sparkie1723]

e-mail to Damien Falkowski has now been opened 18 times

[andrew1]

e-mail to Damien Falkowski has now been opened 18 times

 

He must have more friends than you thought Sparkie?

[Sparkie1723]

This was my first letter to Mr Falkowski for all to see now

 

 

10th Nov 2009

To

Mr Damien Falkowski

Grays Inn Chambers

 

Dear Mr Falkowski

Do you recall acting for Swift Advances Plc v myself and my partner Mrs M. George, for possession of our property in the Chester County Court on December 18th 2008?

 

I have it from good sources that you have acted for Swift Advances on many occasions, and Mr Mark White of Swift Advances has been their Witness in these many proceedings.

 

I have now collected and correlated substantial evidence, wherein it is quite clear that Mr White has been consistently making known deliberate, false, misleading statements including and especially in the proceedings taken against us.

 

As it appears that Mr White and yourself travel “in tandem” to these various possession proceedings, you will have got to know him quite well. I therefore suggest that you are completely aware that Mr White is/was in fact not telling the truth in his written and oral evidence that he has given at these hearings.

 

I have already made Swift Advances and Mr White aware of all my allegations.

I submit to you that as you were given all the documents, and were personally actively involved in the preparation and presentation of them, you would have should have seen some of these false statements in those documents.

 

Would you say you missed them? If you did, I would say that was more than a little negligent of you, would you not?

Or; would you say that you saw them and decided to ignore them? Believing no one would spot them in any event?

I will give you some examples.

 

 

1...The CPR Disclosure document signed by Mr White as a statement of truth.

I draw your attention to the section that refers to documents objected to be disclosed

 

No 1.….Its agents.

 

Mr White stated and confirmed in this disclosure document that they do have agents, you would have read that disclosure document would you not? This would mean that you knew also that they had direct agents acting for and on behalf of Swift who are your clients

 

Do you recall I questioned Mr White under oath about agents and commission?

 

Do you remember what Mr Whites answer was?

 

He said “ Swift do not have agents nor do they operate agencies as such” he went on to say “Swift do not pay commission as such only a documentary fee of £100”

That was in my eyes a deliberate lie.

 

I believe quite sincerely Mr Falkowsi, that you know full well that Swift do have agents and agencies, and you are aware that they do in fact pay commission and

that it is substantial commission of between 3 & 8% of their loan value,

 

A fact you may not be aware of, and I give you the benefit of doubt here but are you aware they also pay further substantial extra commission that I consider to be a secret “bung” of £1000 per £10,000 borrowed.

 

The fact that Mr White denied under oath that Swift do not have agents nor pay commission plus the fact that he admits in the disclosure document they do , shows this man lied under oath and by denying all this makes all this commission secret.

This counters any claimm of negating secrecy as per Wilson & another v Hurstanger Ltd.

 

Mr White also said under oath when I questioned him about the rate of interest several ambiguous statement also made to deliberately confuse the Court and Recorder, these were as follows

 

Mr White stated “that the interest rate shown as 9.84% is the nominal annual rate of interest, and as the monthly rate was 0.82 made an actual rate of interest of 10.3%”

 

Mr White then went on to say

 

“However the Claimant has provided an APR rate to assist the borrowers to understand the interest applicable on this loan”.

Where is this APR he says is shown on our agreement? It cannot be the 9.84 as he has stated that this is the nominal rate.

 

But this the only interest rate shown.

 

He goes on to say “The APR is an expression of the effective rate of interest and takes into account one time fees payable at the beginning of the agreement”,

 

Again where is this APR shown on this agreement?

 

Swifts web site clearly states …No up Front Fees.

 

Yet here we have Mr White saying “the one times fees payable at the beginning of the agreement “.

These must be the up front fees their website says they do not ask for.

 

 

Further more if these fees Mr White refers to had been taken into account in the calculation as an APR, it would have bee shown as 15.4% as shown by this calculation

 

Loan amount (£) 43.000.00

Starter / admin charge (£) 3,955.00

Monthly repayment amount (£) 616.32

Number of monthly repayments 120

Extra final charge (£) NIL APR 15.4%

These fees have been deliberately omitted in order to produce a misleading rate of interest and falls foul of the Misrepresentation Act by way of omission, and made to make the interest rate more attractive. (an inducement to accept the offer)

 

We would never accepted an interest rate such as this had It been shown as such on the agreement, and would never have signed the agreement.

 

Mr White stated in his witness “I have considered the APR and find it to be correct”

The above shows quite clearly it is not, and he should do his sums again, but then no not really he knew they were wrong in any event.

 

I make you aware of some of this and merely add that as I was only given the Court bundle 3 days before the hearing, I was not able to present my defence to the Court as proficiently as I could have done if I had had the time to study it and find the gaping holes in Swifts case I have now .

 

I would have succeeded in that claim and defence.

 

Mr White committed perjury in that hearing and has in others where you have also acted for Swift. ( I have the proof) I believe that if you were not aware of it, it was your professional duty to me the court and just as important, to yourself, that, You should have ensured that what he told you and the Court was in fact the truth.

 

Under these circumstances I would suggest that it might be prudent of you to be extremely careful and conscious of these facts before acting for Swift in the future, where Mr White is their witness.

 

Swift Advances have advised us that they may re-instate their possession claim against us, should they do so, I will probably request that you yourself be summoned to the witness stand for you to answer some of the questions I put to you now.

 

Mr White of course will most certainly be summoned and I will ask for hin to be treated as a “hostile witness” to answer his questions.

 

Finally before I make a complain to the Bar Council about your involvement and conduct, I await your views comments and response.

Yours sincerely