Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

I only put 20 trackers on the last e-mail to Mr Falkowski....18 were opened in LOndon ...Grays Inn chambers ...the last two in Germany on a mobile phone.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Swift will have to have acopy of our defence so I don't mind them having a preview this is only a very quick put to gether part defence would like views as I go along it is going to take me a few days to get it right

 

 

heres what I've done so far

 

 

We, ............................................................ hereafter referred to as the Defendants, do hereby say;

1. The Defendants take issue with legality of the right for Swift Advances Plc here after referred to as the Claimant to issue proceedings for possession of our property.

 

2. Documentary information and evidence has now come into our possession that were not in our possession at the commencement of the first application for possession made in August 2008 by the Claimant.

 

 

3. We submit that these documents were deliberately with held from us and submit as Exhibit DF 1 a copy of the Claimants CPR 31 initial standard disclosure document, in support of this submission and ask the Court to refer to the disclosure list attached to this disclosure, and to document number 56 headed History.

 

4. The Defendants submit the document referred to and submitted in the Claimants application bundle now as their Exhibit DF 2. The Defendants now wish to submit small bundle document Exhibit DF 3, which is the rest of this History supplied to them after the final Court Hearing and Judgement made in February 2009. This was supplied by the Claimant in response to the Defendants Subject Data Access Request.

 

5. The Defendants submit that this full history was deliberately with held from disclosure by the Claimant, for reason that if it had been disclosed it

would have had a profound impact on the whole proceedings.

 

6. The Defendants wish to draw the courts attention to page 2 which is the page that follows the page 1 the Claimants submitted, and is Exhibit DF 4 and draws the attention of the court to the entry made on the 18th April 2007, this states that the Defendants account was transferred to a Kestrel 1. The Defendants have since discovered that this is actually Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd a company that is a subsidiary company of Kestrel Holdings Ltd

 

7. The Defendants now submit as Exhibit DF 5 a page extracted from the Claimants audited accounts for the year 31 March 2007 to 31st March 2008 and refer to the section that is highlighted, this states quite clearly that not only was their account transferred to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd it was sold to them.

 

8. The defendants wish to submit as Exhibit DF 6 a page extracted from the audited accounts of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd for the year ending 31st March 2007 to the 31st March 2008, and refer to the section that is highlighted which confirms that Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd acquired all loans and mortgages from Swift First Ltd and Swift Advances ( The Claimant in these proceedings)

 

9. The Claimant has stated quite clearly that the purpose of this sale was to obtain further funding. The Defendants submit that all this took place without their knowledge or without being informed that this took place, and further submits that as this sale took place only two weeks after they had signed their agreement that the Claimant fully intended to sell their mortgage and account as soon as they had entered into this non cancellable agreement.

 

10. The Defendants therefore question why did the now Claimant not tell them or advise them to apply for their loan to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd as it is stated also on their yearly audited accounts that the principle activity of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd is exactly the same as Swift Advances Plc the now Claimant as stated in their audited accounts in the directors report.

 

11. The Defendants ask would they have been able to obtain a better rate of interest from Kestrel No1, if so why were they not advised as such

 

12. In any event the Defendants submit that it is clear that as the Now Claimant were paid monies by Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd, the Claimant does not have any legal right to collect money on an account they have sold nor issue proceedings for those monies i.e the repayments and have been deceiving the Defendants into believing that they owe money to Swift Advances ( The Claimant ) when in fact it is Kestrel No 1 they owe the money to as it is they who have paid their loan off to Swift Advances (i.e redeemed it).

 

13. Therefore the Defendants submit that this is an unlawful application and ask the court to strike out the Claimants application

[42man]

Dont forget these as possible help - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/230455-new-argument-unenforceability.html#post2553445

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/204563-european-court-ruling.html

 

And the FSA GMAC case to Sparks...

[Sparkie1723]

THe above is a basic defence and if there is no strike out ask that it go to a full hearng on the multi track as our defence will contained far far more and would be heard by a senior Judge there will be The Fraud Act, perjury and contempt of Court, Misrepresentations, you name we will claim it.

 

I will even have a document of one of their official agents with an agency number issued to them...that a signature has been forged its a customers signature.......it is so bad ..........its laughable and remember ....Swift are reponsible for the action of their direct agents, I will be submitting this should it be necessary for me to substantiate the claims I will be making of the way Swift operate.

 

The lads in N Ireland will supply me withas much evidence as I need .......where they got all their stiuff from ...I just do not know ...

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

What does sparkle72 think of my hurried knocked up Defence ........thats the only one who has never posted a view .........................................I WONDER WHY ????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Its going to be a much better one when its finished;)

[Sparkie1723]

Swift could change the application to Kestrel No 1 the correct Claimant. but then they would have to pay us back all the money I, ve paid them to date plus all my previous solicitors and Barristers fees etec .plus interest at contract rate..that will almost clear the initial loan.

 

Do not think they would like that too much........THey are now ging to have to provide evidence of their debentures security arrangements with the funding banks the circumsatnces surrounding the sale of our mortgage and was legal including producing the records of our account being processed by Kestrel No 1 same as Landy's to prove they have the right to issue possession proceedings against us.

 

sparkie

[Guest blackie]

Sparkie, the Abbey claim they have an interest in loans but do not own them, and therfore no fraud is committed. Can Swift use this arugment! Keep up the good work.

[Guest blackie]

Sparkie you appear to have some visitors on site.

[Swift Eater]

Sparkie mate,

From where i are sitting this is becoming very heated indeed, so much that following this is becoming complecated.

If every you require a whitness to take the stand regarding the libbor rates or funding please PM me as i would be honnored to help with Cagers getting money back that they have over paid.

I say this because the company has deliberatley kept intrest rates high so that its borrowers fall in to arrears.

One this happends , default notice, and the other charges are added.

It is clear that Swift currently obusses its position as a lender. The debt councilling company that it owns pluss the brokers that have gone out of business just after selling the loans to custermers makes a shaddy story.

When can we get any news about the proceedings of this case sparkie ?

King Regards

Swifteater

[sweetjane]

Roll on 3 December Sparkie. If there's any way I can be there and you want some banner waving, I'll try my utmost for you Sparkie, even though you're North of Watford and I think my passport is out of date :D:D. You are a champion of the cause.

[Swift Eater]

3rd December ?

What court ?

I would love to be there to offer support.

[coolchris]

Whos lesterlass? Cag since 07, no posts whatsoever. Seems to hover on this thread a lot. Hmmm. OK, Im paranoid, lol.

[landy_alert]

Roll on 3 December Sparkie. If there's any way I can be there and you want some banner waving, I'll try my utmost for you Sparkie, even though you're North of Watford and I think my passport is out of date :D:D. You are a champion of the cause.

 

Me too - don't know how I'd get there as my chauffeur Mr L will be at work, but I too would love to be able to offer my support Sparkie:D

[Sparkie1723]

Thanks everyone but I believe that this will start all over again with a short hearing............... because at the last one the actual actual possession case was not heard...so it will be a case of an adjournment for a date to be arranged for another full hearing ...at least that's what I will be asking....I'll have to check with the Court to ee how much time has been allocated for this hearing on 3rd Dec .will let everyone know in "ADVANCE":)

 

sparkie

[lesterlass]

Hi cool chris I have been watching as having problems with swift also if anyone wants to pm I will send you the proof. So much information on here.......... Dont know were to start!!!!!!!!!!!

[coolchris]

[Sparkie1723]

Nearly there with this preliminary Defence

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joint Defence Statement

 

 

We, ......."Me and my Partner", hereafter referred to as the Defendants, do jointly and severally say;

 

 

1. The Defendants take issue with legality of the right for Swift Advances Plc here after referred to as the Claimant to issue proceedings for possession of our property.

 

 

2. Documentary information and evidence has now come into our possession that were not in our possession at the commencement of the first application for possession made in August 2008 by the Claimant.

 

 

3. We submit that these documents were deliberately with held from us and submit as Exhibit DF 1 copies of two pages of the Claimants CPR 31 initial standard disclosure document, and ask the Court to refer to the disclosure list that was attached to this disclosure document, and to document number 56 headed History.

 

 

4. The Defendants submit the document referred to as number 56 as their Exhibit DF 2. The Defendants now wish to submit document Exhibit DF 3, which is page 2 extracted from the rest of this History supplied to them after the final Court Hearing and Judgement made in February 2009. This full history was supplied by the Claimant in response to the Defendants Subject Data Access Request.

 

 

5. The Defendants submit that this full history was deliberately with held from disclosure by the Claimant, for reason that if it had been disclosed it would have had a profound impact on the whole of those proceedings.

 

 

 

6, The Defendants wish to draw the courts special attention to page 2, to the entry made on the 18th April 2007, which has been highlighted this states that the Defendants account was transferred to a Kestrel 1. The Defendants have since discovered that this is actually Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd a company that is a subsidiary company of Kestrel Holdings Ltd.

 

7. The Defendants submit that further documents that would not only be of substantial benefit in their defence, but of substantial detriment to the Claimant should they be disclosed, are being with held from them, and submit that the Claimant is continually refusing to supply these documents one of them that they have actually paid for, and despite many, many requests to various departments and indivdual senior management of the Claimant for them to be supplied, are being deliberately refused sight of them, they are being deliberately concealed from them, as to supply them would prove disastrous for the Claimant, the Defendants submit that failure to supply them is an offence under the New Fraud Act 2006 section 3 (concealment of documents ) and will submit their exact specific charges against the Claimant at a full hearing.

 

 

8. The Defendants now submit as Exhibit DF 4 a page extracted from the Claimants audited accounts for the year 31 March 2007 to 31st March 2008 and refer to the section that is highlighted, this states quite clearly that not only was their account transferred to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd it was sold to them.

 

 

9. The defendants wish to submit as Exhibit DF 5 a page extracted from the audited accounts of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd for the year ending 31st March 2007 to the 31st March 2008, and refer to the section that is highlighted which confirms that Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd acquired all loans and mortgages from Swift First Ltd and Swift Advances ( The Claimant in these proceedings)

 

 

10. The Claimant has stated quite clearly that the purpose of this sale was to obtain further funding. The Defendants submit that all this took place without their knowledge or without being informed that this took place, and further submits that as this sale took place only two weeks after they had signed their agreement that the Claimant fully intended to sell their mortgage and account as soon as they had entered into this non cancellable agreement.

 

 

11 The Defendants submit why were they not informed in the antecedent negotiations by the Broker, who were one of Swifts agents despite this denial to the contrary in the previous hearings, which was accepted by the Recorder for reason he was misled by Mr Mark White the Claimants witness, this can now be proven so.

 

 

12. Had the Defendants been aware that their title deeds would be used for further gain of the Claimant they would without doubt not agreed to this and would not have signed the mortgage agreement under these undisclosed terms.

 

 

13. In any event the Defendants aver that a sale of anything is sold for a profit, and therefore Claimant has gained from this secret transaction, and they submit that if this is indeed so they are entitled to 50% of this gain/profit.

 

 

14. The Defendants therefore question why did the now Claimant not tell them or advise them to apply for their loan to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd as it is stated also on their yearly audited accounts that the principle activity of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd is exactly the same as Swift Advances Plc the now Claimant as stated in their audited accounts in the directors report, in that they provide loans and mortgages to individuals secured on domestic freehold and long term lease properties.

 

 

15. The Defendants aver that if this had been done there would have been no need for all the transactions that apparently took place, the Defendants would be quite certain as to whom their obligations to repay the purported loan agreement lay, if any, as it is, it is now certainly not clear.

 

 

16. The Defendants put the now Claimant to strict proof that this sale was either a properly recorded sale and was carried out in line with the procedures laid down in the Companies Act 2006. which the Defendants have very limited knowledge of, but are aware that there are special procedures that must be followed exactly in circumstances such as surround the sale of their mortgage.

 

 

17. The Defendants ask would they have been able to obtain a better rate of interest from Kestrel No1, if so why were they not advised as such.

 

 

18. In any event the Defendants submit that it is clear that as the now Claimant were paid monies by Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd, the Claimant does not have any legal right to collect money on an account they have sold, nor have they any legal right or reason to issue proceedings for those monies i.e the repayments, and have been deceiving the Defendants into believing that they owe money to Swift Advances ( The Claimant ) when in fact it is Kestrel Loans No 1 they owe any monies to as it is they who have paid their loan off to Swift Advances (i.e redeemed it).be it so without their knowledge.

 

 

19. Therefore the Defendants submit that this is an unlawful application and ask the court to strike out the Claimants application

 

 

20. Should the Court decide that the Claim should be heard in full the Defendants request that it should be allocated to the multi track as there are many more further extremely serious and sensitive issues of uttermost public importance that are not included in this initial defence, and request time for them to engage learned Counsel to act for them.

 

.

21. The Defendants submit that at a full hearing they will submit irrefutable evidence that the Claimants witness Mr Mark White in the previous court hearing instigated by the Claimant made further deliberate known false statement made to deliberately mislead the Court in that, He stated under oath

 

 

1.. That the Claimant does not pay commission.

The Defendants have absolute irrefutable documentary proof that it does, and that Mr White was completely and utterly aware of that fact, and that it is substantial commission, of between 3 an 8% of the loan value plus an extra £1000 per £10,000 of business placed with Swift by an agent

 

2..That the Claimant does not operate agencies as such.

The Defendants have obtained a statement of a Director of a brokerage company that swift did and do operate agencies and give these agencies a Swift Agency Number and has stated that the above are examples of the sums of money involved.

 

 

3.. Throughout the previous hearing Mr White when challenged to explain the interest rate increases applied to the Defendants loan continually insisted and declared that it was due to an increase in the cost of the Claimants funds which were governed and dictated by the LIBOR interest rate.

 

The Defendants will show that this was untrue in that the Claimants audited accounts state that the funds from which the Defendants loan was drawn on was obtained at a fixed capped rate as a “hedge” against interest rate rises, in other words borrowed at a fixed rate in the same manner that home buyers enter into a fixed capped rate mortgage for a pre determined length of time, with their lenders.

 

 

In any event the LIBOR rate has continually spiralled down wards since the Defendants entered into their agreement and is now some 4% lower now than it was when the loan was first stared, and the Claimant increased their rate of interest any time they so desired, advising and misleading borrowers that the LIBOR rate had increased, when in fact it had decreased. The Defendants will produce the full LIBOR rate history showing this fact.

 

 

The Defendants have had countless offers to supply him with copies of the advise of increase in interest on their loan that will show that the Claimant increased the interest on certain borrowers loans every month of the year and ca show that in the form of a graph. This aspect is of considerable public importance as it affects all of the Claimants borrowers.

 

 

Statement of truth

 

The Defendants confirm that the contents of this joint Defence Statement are true to the best of their knowledge and belief

Edited November 13, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[pkelly]

Hi Sparkie thats great you have them under pressure between two courts now, your mates in NI will get another wee trip over again, can they get it to suit the Chester Races,

I will gather a few mates up from down here, we can maybe get a wee bus organised, and call on way by for sparkle lol

the lads can bring in that tv crew, will it be part of your sparkie goes to holywood film

[Sparkie1723]

I have decided to hold back my complaint to the Bar Council Standards Board about Mr Kalkowski until after the hearing at the CHester County Court 3rd December when I can tell him to his face what I intend to do.

 

sparkie

 

 

Have now completed our initial Defence....... it is now up to the Swift entities who search these threads to copy this off the post and go away and peruse it .......and see if it is worth Mr White being charged with contempt of Court and Perjury, they will recive the final polished version via the Court as soon as I hand it into the Court in Chester...its only 6 miles from us.

 

sparkie

Edited November 13, 2009 by Sparkie1723
added info

[Sparkie1723]

Defence finished ....Have kept the real HEAVY stuff back until the full hearing Defence..which I believe will end up in the HIgh Court if I have to use it.

 

sparkie

[coolchris]

"Gordon, Brand and Schmitt". They might be giants.

[Sparkie1723]

JUst despatching this off to the Chambers Mr Falkowski works from.

 

sparkie

 

 

[email protected]

 

Re;Mr Damien Falkowski

Dear Sirs,

 

Please would you pass the following short comments on to Mr Falkowski.

 

I note from Mr Falkowski's legal Bill of charges, that he spent some considerable time in the "perusing and amending" Mr Whites witness statement.

 

This would show that he was actively involved in making and assisting Mr White in making the false statements in the Disclosure document, and Mr Whites actual statement of truth.

 

This places your whole chambers in an embarrasing position to say the least

 

I will most certainly be bringing this to the attention of the Court at the forthcoming re instatement of Swifts proceedings.

 

Yours sincerely

[Apollo18]

Sounds good sparkie.....I'll bet they'll be keen to distance themselves from Mr Falkoswski and Mr White.....

[Sparkie1723]

Sounds good sparkie.....I'll bet they'll be keen to distance themselves from Mr Falkoswski and Mr White.....

 

 

 

I think you might be right appollo 18...Falkowski charged £1065 for "perusing papers and amending draft witness statements" works out at aout £50 a page:rolleyes: so he knows that Mark White was lying its right in your face when you have all the papers in front of you

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Just fitted this into our Defence

 

 

The Defendants submit a copy of the document shown as Exhibit DF 6 which is a copy of a letter from the Claimant that is sent to all of their broker/agents giving all details and information about the loan, as this document gives substantial personal and financial information about the borrower, all borrowers are entitled to this document, but it is with held from every Subject Data Access Request made to the Claimant by their customers, evidence of this can be obtained and many material witnesses can be called upon to support this claim. This document was obtained from the Claimants named Broker/Agent, The Funding Loans Network Ltd

 

 

The Defendants submit that the constant deliberate with holding of this document from all borrowers is a deliberate attempt to conceal evidence of the commission paid by the Claimants, and denied being paid by Mr Mark White under oath, is an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the New Fraud Act 2006. The Defendants submit that the disclosure of the documents requested will prove their allegations.

 

 

The Defendants also claim that the with holding of all other documents are offences under the same said Act, as well as contraventions of the Data Protection Act 1998 in failing to fully comply with their Subject Data Access Request.

 

 

The Defendants also submit that the making of known deliberate misleading false statements to the Court under oath should be considered as an issue of contempt of Court by Mr White.

 

The full Defence is off to Swift legal Dept Monday Morning

 

sparkie