Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

Following you guys is like following a mouse around Alton Towers....

 

So what you are saying is that the Nominal rate should not be shown on the agreements - so which one do you think should?

 

and pkelly, pipe down....cold shower for you and off to bed...we got work to do!

 

THat is up to the lender concerned what I am saying is that Mark white (under oath) Nettleingham Webster all say that Swifts unregulated agreements follow the format of a regulated one ( for transparencies sake) and Mrk White said SWift show their interest rate as an APR when they do not ...they show the nominal rate.

 

Any wiser??

[dazpen]

Sparkie i have mailed you the Mark White Info.

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie i have mailed you the Mark White Info.

 

 

Got it mate thanks ...unfortunately there is not much in this one its brief and just explains their view ...no adverse comments.

 

I'll get something ready for you asap.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

did you see ths lads games room when you were over in Ireland Sparkie

 

I heard they are having trouble with the dartboard

 

they have went through 16 new inflatable ones in the last week

 

 

No but they gave me soup in a basket for supper one night!

[sunray001]

Hi Sparkie,

 

My mrs (sunray major) says she will cook you a proper meal.

 

regards

[pkelly]

Sparkie your a moaner sure it was pea soup and there was some pees left I am sure

[dazpen]

Sparkie, when you beat swift i cook anything you wish. What about pigeon and swift pie!

[pkelly]

ANYONE IN N IRELAND WHO have any swiftmaires email mysellf or Sparkie we will pass on to the lads, they might be able to help

[pkelly]

Originally Posted by Smarterchick

A call to all Swift Account holders for information:

 

Can you please tell us which bank account you pay your Swift payments into?

 

To protect the site we ONLY want the last 4 digits of the sort code and the last 4 digits of the account number

 

Which Bank: Barclays Bank plc

 

sort code: xx 7289

 

Account : xxxxx5818

 

Please find out from your direct debit payments or your bank statements and post them here....tick tock....:grin:

 

Thanks

[Sparkie1723]

Dazpen

 

Have a look at the terrms and conditions of your agreement and tell me if the words about transferring their rights say exactly THIS

 

“We may transfer our rights under this agreement to another firm or organisation”

 

sparkie

[dazpen]

yes it does say that

[Sparkie1723]

Q: Why won't sharks attack lawyers?

A: Professional courtesy.

[Sparkie1723]

yes it does say that

 

Then they have sold ALL of their rights...... they have not stated they can keep hold of the Title............It must state that they may transfer /sell "some or part or all of our rights to another firm or company or third person.........They have sold the right to sue as well........... and therefore have no legal right to sue you, because we know they have sold your loan!!!

 

sparkie

[dazpen]

How can i prove this though?

[Sparkie1723]

How can i prove this though?

 

I'll send you the proof from their own companies accounts!

 

sparkie

[dazpen]

Have you read the advice letter from my breif on this subject selling rights?

[Sparkie1723]

I'll send you the proof from their own companies accounts!

 

sparkie

 

 

In any event THIS IS SWIFTS MORTGAGE agreement

 

Barclays took all rights to everything immediately you drew your loan money ......In other words Swift themselves are mortgaged up to the HILT

 

Mortgage Type security agreement

Person(s) Entitled BARCLAYS BANK PLC AS FACILITY AGENT AND SECURITY

TRUSTEE FOR ITSELF AND EACH OF THE ORIGINAL.

 

Amount secured All monies due or to be become due from each chargor to any transaction party

under the terms of the aforementioned instrument or evidencing the charge by

way of first fixed charge all its rights, title interest, and benefit, present and

future in the mortgage loan assets including in relation to the English loans and

and Northern Irish loans without limitation the right to demand, sue and

recover, receive principle monies payable under the English loans and

Northern Irish loans, the benefit of all the collateral security of fixed and

floating charges over the undertaking and all property and assets present and

future including goodwill book debts uncalled capital , buildings fixtures and

fittings plant and machinery.

[Sparkie1723]

NOw its goodnight from him.....see you all tomorrow

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Have you read the advice letter from my breif on this subject selling rights?

Just caught your last post Dazpen

 

Yes I have read it and in my view he is wrong...........he has not got the evidence we have......if you notice the term says "transfer".....they have NOT transferred them ...They have sold them ....there is a BIG BIG diference in law language.....every T has to be cossed and every i dotted.

 

 

It is goodnight now:)

 

sparkie

[dazpen]

Sparkie, don,t forget that proof mate.

[pkelly]

well folks has anyone had any luck talking to a Kestrel worker?

 

would be interesting to hear what they tell you when you ring up????

 

I heard Sparkle and the gang are short staffed due to being tied up on this site and the requests and emails lately,

so perhaps they should try and RENT A HAND

it might just be what the DOCTOR ordered

More tonight Sparkle and guest ??

[pkelly]

ahhh not again every time I appear my guests leave da room. I was just wanting to ask them if they knew somewhere I could rent or hire something or someone to help clean up a small river, its full of s,,,, and filling up Swiftly. I dont want to be sexist but I am looking

A man da 2do da job and put a little sparkle into things

 

:confused:

lol

[Sparkie1723]

well folks has anyone had any luck talking to a Kestrel worker?

 

would be interesting to hear what they tell you when you ring up????

 

I heard Sparkle and the gang are short staffed due to being tied up on this site and the requests and emails lately,

so perhaps they should try and RENT A HAND

it might just be what the DOCTOR ordered

More tonight Sparkle and guest ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

RENT A HAND LTD...now that conjures up another story ....that's the Company that Amanda Brooks Director of Swift Advances signs their accounts as "Amanda Catterall" company secretary isn't it Pkelly?......... and still is Amanda Catterall on those companies accounts ..BUT Amanda Brooks on Swifts.Directors Board

 

She hasn't notified Comanies House that she changed her name 3 years or so ago

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Kestrel Loans No 1 and Kestrel Loans No3

in their same yearly accounts BOTH say that they bought ALL loans and mortgages from Swift First and Swift Advances Plc

 

Question ( and I've asked this of Swift)

How can two separate Companies claim to have bought ALL loans from the other two companies.

These accounts are signed by their auditors and Mr John Webster.

 

Answer so that both of the Kestrel companie can go and borrow money from two separate banks on the same day.........Just you try and do that!!!

 

 

But one set of accounts of Swift are not signed by their auditors and they lodged at companies house. These are not legal documents.

 

Will post those documents to prove this this afternoon.

 

There you go sparkle

 

Off to hand my revamped Defence into the Court Office at Chester now

 

sparkie

Edited November 27, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Defence handed in ..........all dusted.......the real fight starts Thursday 3rd Dec.

 

 

Here you are sparkle Our full defence, the Court will be sending you a sealed copy so here it is in advance without the damming docs in evidence

 

IN THE CHESTER COUNTY COURT

Claim Number 8PB55992

 

 

Between SWIFT ADVANCES Plc Claimant

-and-

1st Defendant

 

-and

 

2nd Defendant

 

 

Joint Defence Statement

 

 

We, hereafter referred to as the Defendants, do hereby 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 or during the first application for possession made in August 2008 by the Claimant, the hearing of which took place on the 18th December 2008. These documents show that Mr Mark White submitted and made false misleading statements to the Court under oath, which had a severe impact on the proceedings to the detriment of the Defendants, and that judgement be declared unjust and a miscarriage of justice took place.

 

 

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 if these further documents had been disclosed they would not only be of substantial benefit in their defence in those proceedings, but of substantial detriment to the Claimant case, had they been be disclosed, 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 individual senior management of the Claimant, for them to be supplied, are being refused sight of them, they are being deliberately concealed from them, as to supply them would prove to be a very severe disadvantage for the Claimant. .

 

 

 

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 Plc ( 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 have been 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 and order that any future possession proceedings, if any, taken be in the legally designated entity, who has the right to do so.

 

 

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.

 

 

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 Exhibit DF 6 and 6a, 6a is an extract from the Claimants company accounts that states that 19.2 million pounds were paid in commission and brokers fees and aver that as it is the borrowers that pay the brokers fees, the vast majority of this large sum of commission is paid to the Clamant agents

The Defendants have discovered that an extra £1000 per £10,000 of business placed with Swift by an agent, is also paid this has been confirmed by the Director of the brokerage company the Funding Network Loans Ltd Mr Peter Lewis

 

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

 

 

22. The Defendants have obtained a statement from the Director named above that Swift did and do operate agencies and, that his company was one them, he confirmed also that Swift Advances Plc have a lot of these agents/agencies and give these agencies a Swift Agency Number, which is well documented, He has stated that the Claimant will have records of these Agency numbers. He has also stated that the above are examples of the sums of money involved.

 

 

23. The Defendants submit that by Mr White stating that Swift do neither of these things knowing they do is a deliberate attempt to conceal , deceive and keep the fact “Secret” and that these substantial commissions are one of the main reasons for the high interest rates the Claimant applies, and it is the borrower that is burdened with the paying of these secret commissions, within the interest rate and extortionate charges the Claimant adds to the borrowers account, the customer/borrower is not aware of them, and when they are discovered, the Claimant attempts to conceal them by denying they are paid and, far more seriously their witness denying it under oath.

 

 

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.

 

 

24. 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. This is also stated in their company audited accounts

 

 

24. 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 started, 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.

 

 

25. 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 Clamant increased the interest on certain borrowers loans every month of the year and can show that in the form of a graph. This aspect is of considerable public importance as it affects all of the Claimants borrowers.

 

 

26. Claimant to produce and disclose the following documents

 

 

1..Precise documentary confirmation from Barclays Bank Plc giving consent to the Defendant to “sell” their loan and security instrument that Barclays hold /held as shown in Exhibit DF 7 which is a copy of the Defendants mortgage agreement with Barclays Bank Plc.

 

 

2..Precise documentary evidence that Barclays also agreed that both the Defendant and Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd use this same Security Instrument to borrow further funds, from another funder, both using the same Security Instrument on the same day. The Defendants believe that there have been certain questionable financial dealings occurring, and that their property Title Deeds are being used for this purpose, and put the Claimant to strict proof that there is not.

 

 

3..That the Claimant disclose and produce to the Defendants, the documents that have been refused to be disclosed;

 

a)..The records of their account that is being processed by Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd in the same format as the document Exhibit DF 8 which is a copy of the record of payments of another of Swifts customers whose mortgage was sold to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd in the same manner the Defendants has been sold, for reason it is quite clear that this account is being processed and recorded by both companies, and the Defendants believe that this may be a case of false accounting by the Claimant.

The Defendants submit attached to this document this customers signed authority to produce this document.

 

b)..A copy of the Title Indemnity Insurance Policy document which the Defendants have been charged for and being charged interest on referred to in Exhibit DF 3.

 

 

c)..A copy of the Data Processors Licence for Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd issued by the Information Commissioners Office to enable this company to lawfully process personal and financial data about any of its customers.

 

 

d)..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 called upon to support this claim. This document was obtained from the Claimants named Broker/Agent.

 

 

27. 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.

 

 

28. 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.

 

 

29. The Defendants wish the court to be made aware further deliberate known misleading statements made by Mr White, when question by the First Defendant Mr Grace, as to why the words Apr was not shown or stated on the loan agreement Mr White referred to a letter written by Mr Richard Nettleingham to the Claimants submitted as Exhibit DF 9, and reconfirmed what was explained in that letter in that Swifts agreement follow the format of a regulated agreement.

 

 

30. Mr White then went onto explain to the Court and said; (Quote taken from the previous hearing judgement summary)

“ That it was not the practice for a credit agreement to show or attempt to show a series of different interest rates which could be said to be applicable” and went on to say that it would have been misleading to show or attempt to show such in the instant case”.

 

31 . The Defendants refer to Exhibits DF 10, 11, and 12 which are DF 10, a copy of the Defendants agreement, which is an unregulated agreement, DF 11 is a copy of another Swift customer’s agreement which is a regulated one, these on first appearance are as Mr White stated but with one important difference, the interest rate is stated as an APR but there is also another interest rate shown, further more DF 12 shows a series of 4 different interest rates shown.

 

32. The Defendants would ask Mr White to provide an explanation as to why he made the statement he did to the court, knowing full well that the Claimant does have agreements in force that carry the interests rates, he so adamantly stated it would be confusing and misleading to do so. The Defendants have copies of them.

The Defendants submit that Mr White deliberately misled them, and the Court

 

 

33.. 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, and refer the Court to the case KJM Superbikes v Hinton [2008] EWHC 1280 which deals with the effect false statements can have on a proceedings

 

34. In further support of their claim for unlawful issue of proceedings the Defendants wish to submit as Exhibit DF 13 which is a copy of the terms and conditions of their loan agreement, and draw the Courts attention to term H, which specifically states what the Claimant can do.

“We may transfer our rights under this agreement to another firm or organisation”

The Defendants respectfully ask the Court to consider what this term really means and states and more specifically what it does not say.

It does not say “ we may transfer part or the whole of our rights under this agreement”.

 

35. In support of this submission the Defendants submit Exhibit DF 14 which is a copy of another lenders agreements terms and conditions, submitted by the Claimant as an attachment to the Claimants second witness statement at the previous hearing, and asks the Court to refer to the highlighted section dealing with transfer of rights, which makes it clear to the borrower what the lender can be done, it states

“We may transfer some or all of our rights under this agreement to another person”

The Defendants submit that this is how the term Swift Advances should have been worded, if they wished to retain the right to issue proceedings, as it does not it means they transferred all of their rights without informing the Defendants

 

36. The Claimant cannot claim as it asserts to claim, that it retains/retained the right to sue, the Defendants submit this term barrs them from doing so, for reason they have transferred/sold all of their rights to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd, and that it is this company that should have issued the proceedings taken out against them and not the now Claimant

 

37. The Claimants companies accounts state that the loans and mortgages were sold to raise further funding for them the Company’s accounts of the Company that bought them show they acquired them as Exhibits 4 and 5 show

 

38. The Defendants wish to refer back to Exhibit DF 7 which shows that Barclays held all title and equity rights including the right to sue, any sale assignment transfer must be done with the express written permission of Barclays Bank Plc and the Defendants put the Claimant to strict proof that they have/had this written authority from Barclays, and permission to borrow even more money in any fashion pretence or manner.

 

 

39. Due to all the unexplained issues surrounding all these transactions the Defendants suspect that their property may be an instrument along with many other customers mortgage loans being used in double borrowing, by different companies in the Kestrel group of companies, and respectfully ask the Court to order the return of their property to them by the Claimant, by ordering the cancellation of the Land Registry charge, as they do not wish for their property being used in such questionable transactions.

 

 

 

40. In any event the Defendants ask the Court to order a stay to await the outcome and ruling of two cases that have been joined together be heard in the High Court in N. Ireland, for reason this case is based on and contains a vast majority of the issues contained in the Defendants statements in this Defence. The number of the case in the Chancery division of the Northern Ireland High Court is 2009 - 074224

 

 

 

41. The Defendants have the copies of some of the many, many e-mails sent to the Claimant, wherein documents, explanations, information have been requested of the Claimant, which have been completely ignored, should the Court wish to see them.

 

 

42. The Defendants also wish to ask for more time to prepare a counter claim against the Claimants for their pursuit of monies that are not owed to them, and submit a Part 20 counterclaim under Section 140 of the New Consumer Credit Act and the New Fraud Act 2006, the constant concealment and refusal to supply documents, on which they will seek senior Counsels opinion as both the Defendants are on Pension Credit and require time to obtain legal assistance in their costs.

 

 

 

 

Statement of truth

 

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

 

 

Signed 1st Defendant

 

Date November 2009

 

Signed 2nd Defendant

 

Date November 2009