Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

I don't mind everyone seeing these they are public domain any how

 

The first application form is exactly how I filled the first one in

 

 

The second one is what Swift presented in Court that Promise filled in.....and this is what they based our loan on..................take a look Will just delete our phone number and e-mail address everything else will be left

 

Not working for some reason so I 'll just post what we filled in and what was wrong with the typed one filled in by Promise

 

Edited December 5, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

got it I think.this is what Swift based our loan on the only things i've removed is our adress and day and month of birth.......the telephone number was my business number not home number

 

Edited December 5, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

All Swift saw was the figure £230.000 value of our property

[Sparkie1723]

I hope sparkle reads this on monday ....because I feel that I will get my case to the Court of Appeal and will finally beat them with a good legal Counsel this time. I want Swift to know what is coming to them....because if I dont.............. they will move in agianst me dead on zero hour because I have fought them so much.

 

Even so I will still fight them after the fact.

 

Just an added note ...The Barrister I dismissed and made the complaint to the Bar Council Standards Board have informed me that it is to be heard by the Barristers Court on 27th of January 2010. the last case I heard about of a Barrister that got found grossly negligent ( which is what I claimed against him) had to get his insurance to cough up £75000)

 

Nothing wrong with dreaming is there ???:D:D:D That'll be the day:rolleyes:

Edited December 6, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

This is what I wrote to them ...maybe a top Barrister there will see what is going on with Swift also and take some action by informing another Chambers to investigate ..younever know.

 

4th December 2009

For The Urgent Attention of

Miss Ille Okee

Bar Standards Board

Your Ref PC 2009/0346

 

Dear Miss Okee

 

Having had very quick advice on my Complaint to the Bar Council about Mr XXXXX.

I have been advised to ask you to ask the Bar Council to consider these further late points and ask if you would kindly pass this letter and documents attached on to the Barrister who is dealing with the complaint

1...The reference to the fact in the judgement summary the judge specifically stated that the pleadings under Section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act were not pleaded in a manner they should have been by a competent Barrister, in fact not at all.

2...That the pleadings under the Data Protection Act were not pleaded at all in fact no reference to Section 13 of that afore aid Act the section claims are made under can be seen in the Defence /Counter claim

3... Finally it is said that one of the first and foremost things that Mr XXXXXX should have advised me to do should have been to make a Subject Data Access Request( SDAR) to the Claimant, to obtain all data and information they held and information surrounding the whole dispute.

Since these proceedings I have submitted that SDAR discovered a tremendous amount of data and information, that would have been an enormous assistance in giving much more substance strength and depth to both our Defence and Counter Claim.

I attach the following a page from that information headed History Notes ( Doc 1)

It is shown that our account was transferred to a Company called Kestrel No1.

I have since discovered that this company is actually Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd which is another company associated with Swift Advances Plc.

It is shown that The Title Indemnity Insurance stated on the CCA agreement was taken out on the 21st May 2007.

I have been refused this document as the Chief Executive of Swift Advances states in an e-mail letter tome that it was taken out on 4th April 2007 and is of no concern of ours.

I believe that this document may have been back dated and is the reason of the refusal to supply it, we paid £ 135 for and are being charged interest on this money.

I have also discovered that once an account is transferred to Kestrel No 1 both Swift and Kestrel No 1 process this account on their separate computer systems, and I believe creating a false asset for one of these companies.

I have discovered this with the assistance of another Swift Customer who’s home has been repossessed/ forced sale at below market value by Swift. (Docs 2 & 3)

 

Following this information that I have discovered after our Court hearing that was unsuccessful, that not only that was our account just transferred the whole mortgage was sold to this other company. I attach a copy the relative page of Swifts Audited yearly accounts, that states this.( Doc 4)

I also attach a copy of the relative page from the yearly audited accounts of Kestrel Loans no 1 Ltd that shows that they “Acquired all loans and mortgages” from Swift

Advances Plc and Swift 1st Ltd ( Doc 5)

I have also discovered that the land registry charge made by Swift Advances is improperly registered according to the Land Registry, Mr XXXXX had sight of this document in the Claimant Court bundle he did not notice it. (Doc 6)

I believe that if Mr XXXXXX had advised us to make this SDAR he would have obtained all this information well before the Court hearing, enough information to formulate a real firm substantial Defence and Counter claim, and possibly could have been completely successful in that Defence and Counter claim

The result of all this is that Swift have now yesterday 3rd December gained a full 28 day possession order on our property which I believe is an unlawful possession as it is unclear who owns our mortgage.

We now have 27 days to try and raise the funds to redeem our mortgage or be evicted and I submit this is all down to the fault of Mr XXXXXXX.

I have an appointment to see another solicitor with a view to making an appeal against the order, which was refused at the last hearing which was reinstated 19th November 2009and judgement given 3rd December 2009

I submit that Mr XXXXXXX has been extremely negligent and failed completely in his capacity as a Barrister to act and advise in our best interests.

Besides the above extra information he never pleaded the unfair terms in credit contracts the only statute besides section 140 that can be applied to unregulated agreements even though the Recorder allowed Swift Advances to use them when it was to their advantage and disallowed me from referring to them, as is seen from the judgement summary.

I humbly ask the Bar Council to consider these latest developments with as much haste as possible.

Yours very sincerely

Edited December 6, 2009 by freakyleaky
You missed one. :)

[Sparkie1723]

NO more woffle and crap from me tonight.........Jus would peeps thoughts and views on what I have got on Swift tthat will finally come out if I have anything to do with it.

 

sparkie

[JHGlover]

Hello you all, qestion, can a claim still be made on PPI if a claim has been paid during the 3 year term, but would it still be claimable, if the term was only for 3 years but payments are being collected for the 15 year term of the loan.

[Sparkie1723]

Hello you all, qestion, can a claim still be made on PPI if a claim has been paid during the 3 year term, but would it still be claimable, if the term was only for 3 years but payments are being collected for the 15 year term of the loan.

 

Hullo JH

 

IMO yes you can.........But in view of my two failed encounters with Swift .....get others opinion on this as well:cool:

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Have made contact also with Client Cartel ....the firm that took the Bentley v Blenhaim case on!!

 

Have also written to the FSA and the OFT

with my previous complaint referenece number

 

The OFT Person is

Mr Paul Hosier

Secured Lending Team

 

SEnt everything to him.............a Big file/dossier

sparkie

Edited December 6, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Gallahad]

Hullo JH

 

IMO yes you can.........But in view of my two failed encounters with Swift .....get others opinion on this as well:cool:

 

sparkie

 

Seems to me it was justice that failed Sparkie and you are still fighting;)

[Marky1701]

Seems to me it was justice that failed Sparkie and you are still fighting;)

 

Quite right.

 

But we ALL need to keep on fighting.

 

The best and maybe only chance of getting these slimeballs is to individually take the fight to the OFT, FSA, MP's - anyone we can think of who will help expose this company for what it is.

 

The weight of numbers is what will win in the end, Sparkie, bless his cotton socks, regardless of how knowledgeable he is, is just one man, if Swift had to deal with a few thousand ( and there must be thousands who are currently getting shafted with mickey mouse interest rates, charges etc etc) then I am convinced it will be a different ending.

 

COME ON !!!!

Edited December 6, 2009 by Marky1701

[Sparkie1723]

Thanks Marky & Gallahad and everyone ......you are absoltely right . there is nothing more powerful than people power.

 

Thanks againfor ALL YOUR support

 

Maybe down ........but not quite out for the Count YET ..must be getting close though:)

 

sparkie............

[JHGlover]

Hullo JH

 

IMO yes you can.........But in view of my two failed encounters with Swift .....get others opinion on this as well:cool:

 

sparkie

 

Currently no fight but am preparing for one, my parents have not as yet defaulted, but sure as eggs is eggs they will not be able to continue to keep up the repayments, i have advised they send for SAR which we are waiting for, once we get this information we can start to look at any details that will be required to to for unfair or unenforcable CA, it will be interesting to find out what details are sent, certainlay as the interest rate seems to be increasing whenever Swift feel the urge, so will be looking to claim back the PPI, and any other outragous fees, like broker fees, we have also asked for the original CA, be intyeresting to see if they send an original or, one thats been changed to fit with Swifts usual tactics. but we do have the original to compare with, is there any documentation i should be looking for in the SAR that swift may feel like omiting ?? also should they have recieved statements from swift about how their account stands??

Edited December 6, 2009 by JHGlover
adding

[JHGlover]

Currently no fight but am preparing for one, my parents have not as yet defaulted, but sure as eggs is eggs they will not be able to continue to keep up the repayments, i have advised they send for SAR which we are waiting for, once we get this information we can start to look at any details that will be required to to for unfair or unenforcable CA, it will be interesting to find out what details are sent, certainlay as the interest rate seems to be increasing whenever Swift feel the urge, so will be looking to claim back the PPI, and any other outragous fees, like broker fees, we have also asked for the original CA, be intyeresting to see if they send an original or, one thats been changed to fit with Swifts usual tactics. but we do have the original to compare with, is there any documentation i should be looking for in the SAR that swift may feel like omiting ?? also should they have recieved statements from swift about how their account stands??

 

why is it wyen you write something something changes, i have just been informed by my parent that he has contacted Swift to explain his loosing his job, it would seem he has missed his last payment and swift will be sending him a letter to put down his expenditure etc: is there any advice out the on how to complete this or will Swift be favourable, and rip him off aggain by lowering his payments and extending the loan and of course adding more interest ??

[welshperson3]

hi sparkie

 

just a bit of info for you regarding cartel.

 

i had them out yesterday regarding a issue i have with a sub prime lender

 

1 they charge £495 for taking it on then if they win they charge 30% of whatever they get written off

 

2 although i have progressed with this claim (SAR LETTERS ETC) they want to go back to day one and send out Thayer own SAR this is going to drag this out for longer than necessary.

[Sparkie1723]

hi sparkie

 

just a bit of info for you regarding cartel.

 

i had them out yesterday regarding a issue i have with a sub prime lender

 

1 they charge £495 for taking it on then if they win they charge 30% of whatever they get written off

 

2 although i have progressed with this claim (SAR LETTERS ETC) they want to go back to day one and send out Thayer own SAR this is going to drag this out for longer than necessary.

 

 

Thanks for that .....don't think I'll bother with them ...JUst checking all options We'll go for the legal Aid aspect .I think we qualify for that no problem ...........both of us are on pension credit.

 

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

why is it wyen you write something something changes, i have just been informed by my parent that he has contacted Swift to explain his loosing his job, it would seem he has missed his last payment and swift will be sending him a letter to put down his expenditure etc: is there any advice out the on how to complete this or will Swift be favourable, and rip him off aggain by lowering his payments and extending the loan and of course adding more interest ??

 

 

Hi JH

The most your parents can expect from Swift is the lowering of payments and extending the term of the loan .have no fear no matter how good it looks and to your parents advantage................ Swift will not allow themselves to lose any money.

 

When they are not entitled to it in the first place and I will end up finally proving it.......Even if I haven't got a house.........I'll prove it from a tent if necessary.

 

sparkie

[welshperson3]

sparky try goggling to find out which solicitors cartel used and go to them direct could be a cheaper option

[JHGlover]

hi sparkie

 

just a bit of info for you regarding cartel.

 

i had them out yesterday regarding a issue i have with a sub prime lender

 

1 they charge £495 for taking it on then if they win they charge 30% of whatever they get written off

 

2 although i have progressed with this claim (SAR LETTERS ETC) they want to go back to day one and send out Thayer own SAR this is going to drag this out for longer than necessary.

 

If anyone does find a decent solicitor who deals with this type of law, and are good, let me no........... why the up front fees

[Gallahad]

If anyone does find a decent solicitor who deals with this type of law, and are good, let me no........... why the up front fees

The upfront fee is to cover them should they end up not doing anything which from what I understand is quite often.

[welshperson3]

hi sparky

 

regarding the blemain case u mentioned earlier

the law firm that won that is (Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors) they have a web site.

 

i have no connections or knowledge of this firm, but it might be worth checking them out as one of your options.

 

wp3

[caro]

hi sparkie

 

just a bit of info for you regarding cartel.

 

i had them out yesterday regarding a issue i have with a sub prime lender

 

1 they charge £495 for taking it on then if they win they charge 30% of whatever they get written off

 

2 although i have progressed with this claim (SAR LETTERS ETC) they want to go back to day one and send out Thayer own SAR this is going to drag this out for longer than necessary.

 

What on earth is the point of a SAR if one has already been complied with?

 

Please read this:- The Office of Fair Trading: Claims regulator and OFT issue consumer alert

[caro]

Sparkie, it might be worth contacting National Debtline to see if they can offer any advice for your situation National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice

 

Shelter also have some advice that may be useful.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession

 

I understand that you are fighting on, and rightly so, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that you have to think about other practicalities too.

[Sparkie1723]

Once again I have Mark White making another deliberate known false statement under oath in my First Court Case.

 

When I challenged him that we had been misled by Swift in that they had added all the fees and charges to the loan instead of taking them away, and instead of the loan facility stating the total as .........£46.955 it stated ..........£43.000 the amount we asked to borrow..

 

He said statute barrs a lender from adding these to the the loan as there is no one box to show that as such

Well I've got another shock for Mr White when I see this solicitor on Thursday ....I've got a Swift agreement where the loan was for £35000

The fees and charges were £2480.....the Loan facility says £37480

 

Exactly as I argued ours should have done.........Mr White told the Judge they were not allowed to do that

That's why it was not shown as such on our agreement.

 

Everyone who has had these charges added get on to Swift now and tell them THEY HAVE DROPPED A BIG CLANGER ...you all want these charges back plus interest

 

This is a big unfair relationship issue........they appear to think they can please themselves what to do and when they do it

 

Our fees plus interest will wipe our arrears off plus give us extra.

 

sparkie

Edited December 6, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Am being sent another Swift unregulated agreement exactly the same as ours with the fees and charges added to the loan an loan anmoubt shown as the total at the top of the agreement

 

Mr White said this can't be done it is not allowed..........I think I have good cause to support an appeal just based on this one known deliberate false statement alone.

 

I have heard this solicitor I'm going to see is pretty a smart guy.......we shall see thursday.once appeal has been granted .the fight and fun will really begin...........I believe our case is even stronger than the Bentley case

 

sparkie

Edited December 7, 2009 by Sparkie1723