Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 4915 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

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thanks sparkie, but as i stated there is no account number, also is there a letter for requesting the a copy of the original credit agreement and if so is there a fee[/quote

 

Your parents must have an account Number and the total fee is £10 as stated. The requestfor the agreement is in the SAR

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am checking with my parents if they have recieved any otherecorrespondence from Swift with relation to an account number, however as i have stated there is no account number on the credit agreement, , and sorry didnt read the letter fully, to notice the CA info

Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted the FOS today and was advised they couldnt investigate my issue due to the fact that the loan was prior to April 2007, they said i would need to contact OFT, which i subsequently found out dont deal with individual cases, they then directed me to consumer direct, who were helpful to a point and advised they would get trading standards to contact me, i also approached some of the online solicitors who stated they wouldnt take the case due to the loan being unregulated, being prior to April 2007 & also because it was a secured loan, so this company that act like loan sharks seem to be able to get away with taking away a house from pensioners with no recourse, comments please

 

Hi JHGlover:)

 

The FOS would have been referring to not being able to investigate the enforceabilty/charges issue, but would still be able to investigate the mis-selling of the PPI on your parents' mortgage/loan. My agreement also pre-dates April 2007 and I like yourself I was informed that they would not be able to take on my complaint regarding charges on the account.

 

They are however, investigating the mis-sold PPI and I cannot see any reason why they couldn't investigate your parents' also.

 

Despite the fact that as you are aware, the OFT cannot investigate individual complaints, it is still worth firing one off to them as Marky recommended and also send one to the FSA as suggested by 42man. The more complaints that are received about Swift the more likely that action will be taken against them by these regulatory bodies.

 

I have recently received a response to my complaint about Swift (and the broker who sold us our mortgage) from the FSA who said that my concerns have been passed to the departments responsible for the supervision of both companies and that they will take the action that they believe to be appropriate. So it is definitely worth doing - it gives great satisfaction to know that you may be instrumental in the downfall of these low-lifes!

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

Edited by landy_alert
typo!

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 have the Agreement number, but have been informed that the payments have been £545.00 for the first 36 months however on the CA its states he should have been paying £515.95 for the first 36 months , i have been informed it has been reduced to £512.00 for the next 144 months but on the CA it states it should be 485.72, i have asked parent to check his bamk statements to see what he has been paying for the last 3 years, surely there is some discrepency here

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Agreement number, but have been informed that the payments have been £545.00 for the first 36 months however on the CA its states he should have been paying £515.95 for the first 36 months , i have been informed it has been reduced to £512.00 for the next 144 months but on the CA it states it should be 485.72, i have asked parent to check his bamk statements to see what he has been paying for the last 3 years, surely there is some discrepency here

 

 

You may well find variancies due to the increase in interest rates. Swift raise the rates in line with whatever fancies they have at the time, Libor, Bank of England base rate, shareholder pressure, but they never come down despite the fall in rates, so the rates on your /their agreement will not be what they are paying now I doubt very much. You need the letters sent by Swift informing of these rate increases since the start of the loan.

Edited by Smarterchick
my spelling's getting as good as Sparkies
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi folks been on night shift today only home :D

missed the craic

 

Proof of life

 

SURELY THIS IS NOT OUR mr B`````` It cant be but then again

and I dont mean Mr Bean :cool:

 

 

 

Indeed, barrister Robert Rosenberg, group legal counsel for sub-prime lender the Swift Group, and a former policy adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry on lending and consumer credit, makes the sanguine comment about fraud: "It happens. It is one of those things we have to deal with." It certainly must be dealt with, so that those innocent of fraud do not end up paying the bill.

 

 

HO! HO! HO! HO!........... HA! HA! HA! HA!

 

And I'm Not Father Xmas

 

Notice the Initials RR............."Run Rabbit"

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have thought, given his fondness for we poor rogue debtors, our Mr Jonny Webster would have at least popped by and said cheerio wouldn't you? I mean, think of all the entertainment we've provided, the guidance we have given him, 'seeing the light' showing him that even people with no brains who he suckered into his loans can actually see through those brick walls of Arcadia House and not being intimidated by what we saw?

 

I think it's poor sport of him not to pop by, we'll miss him won't we folks? and I'm so dissappointed not to have been asked to pop a few quid into his leaving pressi kitty.

 

Tara Jonny...

 

not so smarter CHICK..:D or am I? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another quote from Mr Rosenburgh THIS is what he said about another lender!!!!

 

Robert Rosenberg, an expert on loans for people with poor credit ratings, told the court that he believed the lenders did not make sufficient inquiries about the Meadows' financial situation. He said: "It is my view that on balance they did not make sufficient inquiries. There are a number of factors they should have taken into account."

 

SWift did not check if we could pay our loan back ...did not consider we were 70 when we applied for the Loan AFTER First plus had turned us down because of our age.

 

 

And Mr Rosenburgh was at Swift at the time of our loan....what a bloody hypocrite

By the way he's a Barrister for Shoosmiths

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

HULLO AM BACK

must ave been the full moon my pc was down

so now how many dicky birds are sitting on the wall lol

bet the other two did or do not know half the story

well that will soon change lol :eek:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

HULLO AM BACK

must ave been the full moon my pc was down

so now how many dicky birds are sitting on the wall lol

bet the other two did or do not know half the story

well that will soon change lol :eek:

 

 

Hallo Mrs Kelly, I think were on size 2 font tonight......:D Glad you're back Mrs!

 

It's getting like humpty dumpty in Brentwood..

 

Oh, and it's goodnight from Her...

Link to post
Share on other sites

INSIDE MONEY: PROGRAMME 1: “WOULD YOU CREDIT IT?”

Presenter: Lesley Curwen

Listener: Tim Lett

Producer: Jennifer Clarke

 

Lett Are you saying that borrowers aren’t getting the benefit of protection that the law could already provide?

 

Mr Rosenburgh from Swift

 

Rosenberg That’s correct. The court ought to consider the overall indebtedness of the borrower and grant an appropriate order and the borrower ought to be made aware of the fact that additional interest is going to continue to accrue under their agreements. The court has a number of powers open to it and it just isn’t using those powers at the moment.

 

Curwen How come the judges don’t know anything about this extra lot of interest, shouldn’t they, isn’t it an obvious thing to know?

 

Rosenberg I think that they ought to be aware of this but part of the problem is that these cases are dealt with in a conveyor belt fashion and the judges just don’t have the time to give consideration to each and every case that comes before them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was this bloke I spoke to about 2 hours ago who said he was getting an early night tonight....he must have gone off to sleep! :D Maybe he's been practicing the monkey dance for his court appearance? :p

 

Oh and Sparkle, I do hope it wasn't anything we said that sent Robert and Jonny off with their P45's was it? :p We are taking bets as to which of the other two goes next, fancy a punt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another quote from Mr Rosenburgh THIS is what he said about another lender!!!!

 

Robert Rosenberg, an expert on loans for people with poor credit ratings, told the court that he believed the lenders did not make sufficient inquiries about the Meadows' financial situation. He said: "It is my view that on balance they did not make sufficient inquiries. There are a number of factors they should have taken into account."

 

SWift did not check if we could pay our loan back ...did not consider we were 70 when we applied for the Loan AFTER First plus had turned us down because of our age.

 

 

And Mr Rosenburgh was at Swift at the time of our loan....what a bloody hypocrite

 

 

By the way he's a Barrister for Shoosmiths

 

Good morning everyone....

 

Well we have been busy......The Meadows case is a particularly interesting one, [and well worth a read!] - (I am such an anorak!!) - as the company was ruled against in Court and there were numerous 'irregularities' and 'unusual practices' involved on the part of the lender!!!

 

Turning to Webster now departed from Swift - it is VERY important to note that liability for Criminal Acts can follow anyone wherever they go.

If you leave a company, or home, or country - the liability still follows you - it's a bit like your shadow, it never goes away completely and will often reveal your location when you least want it to!!

 

Let us now consider the terms of the Fraud Act 2006........need I say more??

 

Finally please remember this : the Police are duty bound (under the regulations governing the Police Service in the United Kingdom) to investiagte all complaints that a crime has been commtted. [This has been a public service announcement].

 

As always

 

Best wishes to all

 

 

Dougal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo Mrs Kelly, I think were on size 2 font tonight......:D Glad you're back Mrs!

 

It's getting like humpty dumpty in Brentwood..

 

Oh, and it's goodnight from Her...

 

Yep just flew into town, was on one of them pay things at airport, wanted to catch up with you lot, ditched the blackberry, not the sort of thing a trolly dolly is expected to be seen using, lol

what you got now Sparkie can you see me as well as trace me, think you ment size 12 lol used to be a size 10 when started this auld crack.

a couple of mile high flights grounded me for a while, but as they say once a flyer always a flyer lol :D

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Four little dickie birds sittting on a wall

well not really on a wall but glad to see they are trying to keep up to date,been impossible so far ehhh

believe meit will get worse, why on earth do you think all this has been posted?

Because its only the tip of the iceberg I know very little but when legal eagles are on this everyday its a good sign

Big Bother is watching you ;)

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a wee call from lads they say they are having a break again, the bell has sounded for a break, but they will be working between the rounds still

and again they will release a lot more bit by bit into the public domain, when the bell for the next round goes, so dont feel left out if they tell me no more for the minute

they know exactly what is going on and who is now fighting with who, and cah step up a gear when it suits them. believe me you have seen nothing yet :D

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

"Robert Rosenberg, an expert on loans for people with poor credit ratings"

 

Translation...................... as Counsel advisor and a Director of Swift ..He is an expert at getting people kicked out of their homes for profit ......not just to get their costs back.

 

He also said

"he believed the lenders did not make sufficient inquiries about the Meadows' financial situation. He said: "It is my view that on balance they did not make sufficient inquiries. There are a number of factors they should have taken into account.

 

If Swift had carried out the checks he refers to.....the vast majority of Swifts customers would never have been granted their loans.

 

That would not be in Swifts port folio stategy ....they have to lend money to enable them to charge their extortionate interest and charges calculated with the aim that once a customer got in the arrears trap ..they would NEVER get out it.

 

In our case they did not make one single check.....if they had just totalled up our commitments on the credit file they had copied TWICE they would have seen that eventally we could never keep up our payments...........especially at our age ...we were both 70 when we applied.

 

A late discovery also is that I have come across a CD from the now dissolved brokers and has the record of how many times they called us to RUSH the loan through .I did not really remember all this pressure selling untill I played this CD jus now.......as they were Swifts agents.....Swift are responsible for this pressure selling.

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
added info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make things simple I have used just my Loan as an example t o prove Swift DO NOT OWN my loan and Title. .Can everyone follow what I say?

 

Loan £47.000 interest over 10 years @ 9.84 % £ 29.000 This is the Equity they refer to

Swift borrow this £47.000 at a certain rate of interest say 5% £13.000

Swift say they then sell only the Equity to a Kestrel Company in order to obtain further funding.

As banks will only lend up to 66% of equity holdings, the Kestrel Company No1 can only borrow £19.000

 

Question………… How did Kestrel manage to borrow enough money to pay Swift the £47000 value of my loan.?

Answer………….They must have had Title transferred also.

 

No Bank would lend £47000 against £19000 Equity

 

 

sparkie

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4915 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...