Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Smarterchick]

What are you dudes on about? whats botted?

 

 

DUDES???

 

Botted means CagBotted, which effectively is a sensorship or the editing of our posts because the site may have been threatened with legal action and possible site close down because the post contains 'risky' words such as 'fraud' 'thief' 'Liar' 'conspiracy' or any other potentially liabelous word attributed to an individual or organisation which might jeapordise the whole forum.

 

We do have to respect the site and the fact it could be sued, so we have to be careful what we post. That's why we only ever post the truth so as not to upset the balance on this level playing field between finance companies and consumers...

[alanfromderby]

You can bott away all you like Alan, it will make no difference to the final outcome. Save the reputation of the forum, but many a campaign has lead to nerves endings getting extremely raw and that's because it's getting too hot in the Brentford kitchen.

 

 

SC

 

Obviously you will gather that numerous posts have been edited or removed for legal reasons. Whilst we do not consider that the majority of the posts concerned are unlawful, we prefer to err on the side of caution.

 

I would add that some of the posts highlighted to us have not been moderated as we do not consider that there is any valid legal reason for them to be edited or removed.

 

Please could I ask that members stick to the facts, and not name specific individuals unless there is a valid and proportionate reason for doing so.

 

CAG does not like to have to remove or edit posts where a valid dispute exists, and there are consumer based issues that the company needs to be addressing. Unfortunately we are sometimes left with no choice where threads start to deviate towards personal opinion and reports from unverifiable sources.

 

Whilst it is likely that the views expressed are within the bounds of freedom of expression, as I said above, we do have to err on the side of caution.

[Sparkie1723]

Have just received some more damming information off another Swift victim............. I am not posting it they will be hit with this in Court..................I can say IT IS GOOD STUFF:D:D:D in fact I would say Brilliant stuff.

 

The person is sending this info and supporting docs through the post

 

sparkie

[alanfromderby]

To site team

 

Please do not send me any more PM's about posts just delete or edit them as you see fit it is causing me a lot of work emptying my in box and my e-mail box, and I have enough preparing all docs and evidence for Counsel on Wednesday .......because I have a lot to sift through to get the most damaging ones to Swift for Counsel to peruse

 

Would appreciate this small favour

 

Thanks

sparkie

 

 

Sorry - system is automated.

[sweetjane]

SNAP twice botted :( Apologies to alanfromderby but BOO to Swift for trying to clamp down on consumer power. Let's remember there are some very depressed and vulnerable people out there who rely on information and support found here to carry them through tough times. There must be ways we can keep communication lines open without jeopardizing the site.

[Sparkie1723]

SNAP twice botted :( Apologies to alanfromderby but BOO to Swift for trying to clamp down on consumer power. Let's remember there are some very depressed and vulnerable people out there who rely on information and support found here to carry them through tough times. There must be ways we can keep communication lines open without jeopardizing the site.

 

HI SWeetjane

 

It will have to be by PM by the looks of things we could vet each others posts this way before posting them????

 

sparkie

[frettful38]

Excellent work sparkie we all have our fingers crossed for you and wish you all the best. This will be a great xmas present not only for you but for all of swift customers who are with them.

 

It is good that the site team have looked in as CAG is too important to put in to any jeopardy, and we only want to be highlighted as doing good for the consumer and not give anyone a chance to point any fingers at it.

 

CAG has been a life line for many of us, it has for me without a doubt. Back on the subject sparkie I hope you give these xxxxxxx's a piece of their own medicine and good luck in your battles.

[Marky1701]

Hi Alan/site team,

 

Can you confirm or deny if you have removed posts as a result of your own decision or have any external third parties brought pressure to bear?

 

m

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Alan/site team,

 

Can you confirm or deny if you have removed posts as a result of your own decision or have any external third parties brought pressure to bear?

 

m

 

 

Very good question Marky ..we should know this at least .......we then know where we stand .......as I understand it .......this only happens when pressure is brought to bear, .....this is my undstanding at present I can be corrected if I am wrong. I have been wrong before many times.

 

The Swift barrister mentioned that they did not like me giving a "running commentary" of my case on CAG................maybe they didn't like that I was making too many people aware of certain unknown things before......I was being too open with my affairs........NOT like some I could mention

 

sparkie

Edited December 14, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[alanfromderby]

Hi Alan/site team,

 

Can you confirm or deny if you have removed posts as a result of your own decision or have any external third parties brought pressure to bear?

 

m

 

I did say in my post above that posts had been "highlighted to us".

 

I would also reiterate that not all the posts that were "highlighted" have been removed, as on review they would seem to fall within the bounds of freedom of expression, and/or are considered to be reasonable and proportionate comments in the light of the subject matter being discussed.

[Dougal16T]

DUDES???

 

Botted means CagBotted, which effectively is a sensorship or the editing of our posts because the site may have been threatened with legal action and possible site close down because the post contains 'risky' words such as 'fraud' 'thief' 'Liar' 'conspiracy' or any other potentially liabelous word attributed to an individual or organisation which might jeapordise the whole forum.

 

We do have to respect the site and the fact it could be sued, so we have to be careful what we post. That's why we only ever post the truth so as not to upset the balance on this level playing field between finance companies and consumers...

 

 

Good evening

 

VERY well said SC....!!

 

Best wishes to all

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

I did say in my post above that posts had been "highlighted to us".

 

I would also reiterate that not all the posts that were "highlighted" have been removed, as on review they would seem to fall within the bounds of freedom of expression, and/or are considered to be reasonable and proportionate comments in the light of the subject matter being discussed.

 

Thanks Alan,

 

Again VERY well said, and from my own point of view, those who cannot abide by the law must expect to be dealt with accordingly!

 

Best wishes

Dougal

AND if it is not too early all the best to everyone for Christmas

[Sparkie1723]

This is what is said about the Barrister who is acting for us.

 

sparkie

 

Consumer Credit Law:

He undertakes a significant amount of consumer credit work. In particular he acts for Debtors in all aspects of financial irregularity claims with the emphasis on irredeemably unenforceable agreements.

 

Housing and Anti-social behaviour;

He has particular experience of Housing Law and anti-social behaviour law. He frequently acts for local authorities and tenants in this area and has a specific interest in claims for possession, injunctive relief and homelessness applications/appeals.

[Sparkie1723]

Just getting bullet points togeter regarding all the stuff I have against Swift.

 

Just put this in chronlogical order

 

sparkie

 

We apply for £30,000 pound loan with Promise Finance Ltd who contacted us, after First Plus declined our application.

 

We fill in application form for £30.000.

 

Promise Finance tell us that Fees and charges would be taken from our loan, and that because if this we would not receive £30.000 they advise us to increase the loan to make sure we get at least what we required.

 

Partner and I had a discussion and decide to take their advice and increased the loan to ensure that we would receive at least what we expected.

 

No new application form was filled in. Only our application for £30.000 was presented in Court, because we never filled one for £43.000 in.

 

It was stated in Swifts witness statement of truth and in Court that this application had been altered by hand by a Joanne Hickey who works for Swift.

 

We were never told that the fees and charges would be added to the loan agreement.

 

We have a letter from Promise Solutions Ltd ( parent company of the now dissolved Promise Finance Ltd stating that they confirm that fees and charges to the sum of £3.955 were charged, but they cannot confirm that theses fees were deducted from the loan or added to the loan.

Swift have always stated and re-iterated that all this would have been explained by our “broker” who were a direct agent of Swift.

 

If the broker/agent did/does not know the circumstances surrounding these fees how could they have explained it to us, we believed they would be taken from the loan, not added as correspondence with Swift show, that we disputed these added fees and charges from May 2007 to date .

 

As lenders have now been decreed responsible for all the action of their brokers/agents, Swift are responsible for all these misleading misrepresentations, including misrepresentations by omission, as well as negligent/and/or innocent misrepresentations, although I doubt they can rely on the last.

[Sparkie1723]

I don't think sparkle can protest at these 2 posts!!! The one previous and this one

 

 

 

AS folks know I made a complaint about the Barrister to the Bar Standards Board (who we were directed to by the solictors we engaged)

 

I then had to dismiss him because the Defence he submitted was so weak, I believe we would have had a possession order given 12 months ago if it had been left to him.

 

The Bar Standards board have seen that I have reason for a complaint and it is due for hearing 27th Next month Jan 2010

 

Any way just sent this to be included in our complaint file.

 

If found in our favour the board can order the Barrister to pay us our money back plus a little or a lot of compensation.

 

 

Dear “Bar Standards Board”,

 

I respectfully ask that you add this letter to the file of my complaint about “the Barrister” to be considered by the Bar Standards Board on the 27th January 2010.

 

Serious developments have transpired which are the result of the consequential flow of the now to be seen negligent handing of our case from the very first instant he took our case on.

 

We have I believe that we have provided the Board with the evidence, that “the Barrister” failed to plead our Defence in a meaningful manner, and that he never took any steps to obtain information and data by way of either, not making a subject data access request on our behalf, or advised us to do so.

 

The Board is aware that mainly due to “the Barrister” not pleading our counterclaim sufficiently we lost that claim.

 

On 14th November we received a notice from the Court of possession proceedings which was heard on 3rd December 2009.

 

We submitted a joint defence witness statement 3 to 4 days before that hearing which was based on the misleading statements made by the Claimants witness under oath and in statements of truth, and on the evidence and information obtained after the first hearing which was purely a part 20 claim.

 

No possession hearing took place for reason we had paid up all the arrears that had accumulated.

 

However after having been forced to defend ourselves as an LIP, the Judge ruled that to submit a statement in defence 3 to 4 days before a hearing was unacceptable and completely disregarded it, after giving the Counsel for Swift Advances 45 minutes to submit the reasons for the possession to be ordered, he gave me 8 or so minutes and refuted all I claimed and ordered immediate possession.

 

I submit that the judge did not consider CPR 55.24 nor the guidelines given with regard to possession claims given by the government.

 

I submit that if “the barrister” had been diligent and given proper due care and attention to our case this possession order would not have been obtained, and it is all due to the complete fault of “the Barrister“.

 

I attach a copy of our Defence minus the documents but can assure the Board that they are consistent with the Defence statement and can be supplied if required to do so.

 

I believe a lot can be checked from the documents that have already been supplied.

 

 

Yours respectfully and sincerely

Edited December 14, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[mmcourt]

Sparkie, I truly believe in my heart of hearts that you and many others will beat these.......people.

No one can get away with doing this for ever and now you have the peoper help and advice you will go all the way.

Good Luck;)

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie, I truly believe in my heart of hearts that you and many others will beat these.......people.

No one can get away with doing this for ever and now you have the peoper help and advice you will go all the way.

Good Luck;)

 

THanks

With support like yours I have just got to win for EVERYONE..

 

I now have the evidence of 4 Customers accounts being processed by Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd as well as Swift ...but more interestingly these last set of accounts are diffent from each other, pointing more to the fact that they are two separate accounts, being processed by two different companies on two different computer systems, therefore being used for should we say ................" irregular accounting procedures and purposes"

These of course are presented as Asetts of both companies......which is not quite proper

 

 

sparkie

Edited December 14, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

I'm off to bed now .got another day of digging for info before I go and see the Barrister wednesday.............Im going to try and give him enough ammo to bring down a UFO...but this one has been identified as a low flying fast bird;)

 

sparkie

[Apollo18]

Hi All,

 

Sparkie I see there is an article on the BBC website this morning which may assist you with your defence!

 

If you haven't already seem it, you can find it here BBC News - Mortgage lenders 'too fast to repossess' homes

 

Best of luck Sparkie:)

 

Apollo18

[Marky1701]

Hi All,

 

Sparkie I see there is an article on the BBC website this morning which may assist you with your defence!

 

If you haven't already seem it, you can find it here BBC News - Mortgage lenders 'too fast to repossess' homes

 

Best of luck Sparkie:)

 

Apollo18

 

Interesting Apollo, and taken from your link to the article;

 

'The charities said that sub-prime lenders, who specialised in dealing with riskier borrowers, tended to be taking court action earlier than mainstream lenders.'

 

My question there would be why? just the fact you are with a sub prime lender why should you be treated any differently if you get into arrears?

 

Unless of course your particular sub prime lender has a hidden adgenda?

[Smarterchick]

I don't think the CML - or Council of Mortgage Lenders figures actually include sub-prime repossessions either,so if I'm right the numbers are far greater than that figure they quote by tens of thousands.

[Sparkie1723]

Quote from the link above

 

"But judges did not always step in to ensure the protocol was followed,"

 

Nothing is more true about this than in my case the Judge coulndn't give possession fast enough.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Interesting Apollo, and taken from your link to the article;

 

'The charities said that sub-prime lenders, who specialised in dealing with riskier borrowers, tended to be taking court action earlier than mainstream lenders.'

 

My question there would be why? just the fact you are with a sub prime lender why should you be treated any differently if you get into arrears?

 

Unless of course your particular sub prime lender has a hidden adgenda?

 

Morning Marky,

 

There is a reason why one certain sub prime lender goes for possession as fast as it can....I won't post the reason because it would be objected to by sparkle ............................they won't be able to object to it in court though.

 

Another thing I will bringing the attention of the Barrister is that one of the directors of the Kestrel Companies stated in answer to an enquiry as to why none of them hold an FSA or OFT licence..........Was ..."they do not carry out FSA or OFT regulated business"...........................BUT their principle business activity is stated to be lending money secured on domestic property and one of these companies accounts state

they have a LOAN BOOK £54 million......in order to have a loan book and lend to the domestic market they must hold one or both of these licences,....but they don't and its about time the authorities investigated this.

 

If they do not lend to the domestic market where has this loan book come from?

 

 

I wonder if sparkle will object to this being posted

 

sparkie

Edited December 15, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[andrew1]

Ever thought Kestrel might be acting as an SPV?

[Smarterchick]

Ever thought Kestrel might be acting as an SPV?

 

It can't be. You are talking about it being securitised and Webster and Payne have both confirmed in writing Swift do not securitise. They'd hardly lie now would they being CEO and the firms solicitor!

 

SC