Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

Two other little point snippets

 

I have on record that a customer of Swift rang them and asked about Kestrel No 1, who were processing her account as well as Swift and wanted to find out about it all, and who Kestrel No 1 was because there were two names on the documents ...one headed Swift and the other headed Kestrel no 1............the advisor spoken to at Swift put the person on hold ................and then came back and said " Oh Kestrel are the people who fund Swift Loans" ...she then called them back a few days later to speak to the same person to ask if that could be confirmd in writing ......that person was not available.......the second person she spoke to said that she " personally" had never heard of Kestrel , but could see the notes left by the previous advisor spoken to.

 

What do folks make of that???

[Sparkie1723]

Good morning sparkle

[Sparkie1723]

So why would Swift sell their loan book to Kestrel if it's not securitised?

 

The point here is I think andrew1 is that Swift did not sell their loan book according to a senior official they only tranferred the equity their rights and benefits.

 

Again where did this Loan Book come from if they never lend money to the domestic market??

 

Which in fact means/ should mean that ..........Swift kept hold of the original debt amount and all the interest payments ( profit went to Kestrel).

 

Now that would be the reason for the two accounts ...BUT Swifts account should show the Capital repayments only, i.e the original debt coming down.....without any interest charges.

 

The Kestrel account should show just the interest payments being made, ..........but that does not happen ................both accounts show capital and interest being paid and both account show and includes the charges.....therefore again they are two separate accounts........I would direct everyone to The Northumberland police website that explains accounting systems and the manner and ways that they can be manipulated by again I say " Irregular Methods" and for what purposes and also explains the exact determination of what an "account" means.

 

In one instance and evidence I have the Swift and Kestrel accounts DO NOT match ............it appears that the do what they like in these " internal accounting procedures" as it was stated to me by a senior officer of Swift.

 

I have 3 explanations all given by this officer.

1..It is purely an internal accounting procedure.

2..It was a legitimate lawful transfer of Equity and ..

3..The same officer who signed their accounts states in those accounts.........they were sold ...................to raise further funding

 

sparkie

Edited December 15, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

I see sparkle has gone for now ...properbly to complain again about my posts ..............and check back with his/her bosses.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Good morning sparkle ..

I suspect you will be viewing this thread today, I will not be posting very much till after I have seen Counsel today and............. as I have made your Mr Payne aware I have now obtained some documents to present to the High Court that will without any doubt what so ever cause Swift and Kestrel No 1 some serious problems.

 

Have a good day:rolleyes:`

 

sparkie

[cantona1509]

Fingers crossed sparkie!

[Sparkie1723]

Fingers crossed sparkie!

 

HI matey,

 

This time in the hands of this Barrister who as I have said before specialises in irredeemably unenforceable agreements ...these documents I got at 11.30 last night are DYNAMITE..and I have also finally worked out how Swift UNLAWFULLY manipulate their interest rates...........I can tell you it is very very clever and I believe and in my own personal opinion a definate misrepresentaion of those interest rates, I will post Counsels opinion on this later

sparkie

Edited December 16, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[SHELLSTER]

Hi guys, been watching with interest, thanks for all the advise you gave me....I have written to the OFT and my MP, i really wish you well sparkie and hope you get the justice that you so deserve I have gathered alot of info myself so fingers crossed if we all pull together we can do something about this mess once and for all x

[Sparkie1723]

HI everyone, Will post just a little of what was discussed at my meeting with the Barrister

First..................... Due to time frame limit he will concentrate on drafting the application for permission to appeal, and the grounds for requesting that permission.

 

Second ...He is of the opinion that our SDAR has not been fully complied even to this date.....I am to list the Documents I believe are missing.

He will get them or Swift are in trouble before its starts.

 

Third ...He will be obtaining the full transcripts of the court hearings and judgement summaries....especially the full hearing of the one on 3rd Dec

He wants to know exactly what was said in court by the Swift Barrister and exactly what Judge Newman said.

 

Fourth ...All other issues are put on the back burner until appeal has been granted.

In the mean time he wants me to gather together All documents letters, Court orders etc from the beginning to date.

 

He is aware of Swift that is all he said on this matter but implied more than he said.

 

So its to the grindstone.....The main one he is interested in is the account (ours) that is being run run by Kestrel that matches the one I presented him with today. I posted about this morning.

 

He will be requesting this from Swift/Kestrel

 

He said in the mean time if I believe in all I told him ( which I do)....he advised sending all the information to the Economics Crime Unit for their view .......and advised that this will not interfere with the civil action so thats what I'm going to do.

 

sparkie

Edited December 16, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Can folks follow what I am saying here about Swifts interest calculations?? These figures apply to our particular agreement

 

 

Loan amount (£) 43000

Starter / admin charge (£) 3955

Monthly repayment amount (£) 616.32

Number of monthly repayments 120

Extra final charge (£)

 

Results

APR 15.4% Swift say our APR is 9.84%

 

By deliberately not including the fees and charges in the calculator the APR that Mr White said is correct................... is incorrect and is misstated to make the interest rate look more attractive.

 

 

 

Next Calculation

 

Loan amount (£) 43000

Starter / admin charge (£)

Monthly repayment amount (£) 616.32

Number of monthly repayments 120

Extra final charge (£)

 

Results

APR 12.7%

 

 

If you leave the fees out of the calculation you will see the APR is still incorrect.

 

If the monthly repayments are calculated at these two APR’s they would be severely increased.

 

 

This is the one Swift use ( No charges for credit Just one total loan amount)

 

The fees and charges are treated as loans for the calculation of interest ....then they change their category to Charges for cred...........................it unlawfull

 

Amount (£) 46955

APR (%) 9.84

Term (months) 120

 

Results

120 Monthly Payments of £616.36

Total amount repaid

£73,963.20

Total interest paid

£27,008.20

 

This is what our agreement said at the start of the loan, the Barrister soon got his head round this

 

 

Summary

This calculation is the one used by Swift advances and I submit that this proves that the fees and charges are treated as loans by Swift not as charges for credit,....................... which the First calculation shows the APR as it should be if they were charges for credit and treated as such in the APR calculation

 

This means as I tried to argue in Court that our agreement is a multiple agreement within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is a partly regulated agreement.

 

It consists of 1 Loan which is an unregulated unrestricted use agreement, and 3 loans restricted use which are linked transaction falling into sections 11 and 18 of the Consumer Credit Act and should be set out as per the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 amended 2004 in force 31st May 2005.

This is the only way the Act and Regulations can be used and applied

 

The agreement itself refers to them as loans by saying ……….“we agree to lend you

 

The repayment of these 3 loans totalled together should be shown as per below

 

Amount (£) 3955

APR (%) 9.84

Term (months) 120

Results

120 Monthly Payments of

£51.92

Total amount repaid

£6,230.40

Total interest paid

£2,275.40

 

On top of all this there is no such thing as charges for credit on an unregulated agreement .this term and use of it only applies to regulated agreements.

 

 

Just think of what this will mean to Swift if I am ( the Barrister is successful in these submissions.

 

sparkie

Edited December 16, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Apollo18]

Hi All,

 

Yes Sparkie your logic appears sound to me with regard to the APR rates and charges etc.

 

Which Economic Crime Unit will you be complaining to? I mean, at what address?

 

Apollo18

[Sparkie1723]

Hi All,

 

Yes Sparkie your logic appears sound to me with regard to the APR rates and charges etc.

 

Which Economic Crime Unit will you be complaining to? I mean, at what address?

 

Apollo18

 

 

HI apollo

 

 

I was thinking of the Metropolitan London Unit.

Telephone: 020 7601 2222 PO Box 36451 London EC2M 4WN

 

Would appreciate any help and directions/advise views comments evidence that others have etc.

 

along with signatures etc to show its not fairy tale stuff.

sparkie

[Smarterchick]

I know this might be a little painful for someone who had this happen to revisit it, but if anyone has been repo'd by Swift could they let me know?

 

Thanks SC -

[Sparkie1723]

Please everyone send any bit of information that you have about Swift to the OFT and the way you have been treated....their extortionate penalty charges .........I have an example of a customer receiving 5 letters written to them about 1 months arrears and was charged £115 ( £23) per letter.

 

Things such as this no matter how trivial you may think they are.

Especially zeblet ......tell the OFT about your phone calls enquiring about Kestrel No 1.........and the answers you received ..one of them recorded and noted on their computer system ................they are most interested in things such as you have.

 

It is the combination of the collective imformation that will cause serious problems for Swift that are with out doubt fully justified...........let us see how many false misleading statements they make to the OFT........ should the OFT make equiries;);)

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

I see sparkle is still logged on .............you haven't learnt much to day sparkle have you.....believe me you will learn quite a bit from N.Ireland tomorrow..........a certain unit over there has already begun investigating one of your broker/agents ( lenders are responsible for brokers actions) ..especially when they have gone into liquidation .....the ball rolls to the lender.

[paulwlton]

Take heed to Sparkie's and complain to the OFT.

 

PW

[Sparkie1723]

Question?

Has anyone else received confirmation from Swift that they do not securitise their loans?

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

This is what Panorama said in 2007 ( taken off their website)

 

 

We looked at the details of more than 7000 repossession hearings in the UK over the last three months, and we identified which companies were involved in seeking those repossessions.

In 70% of cases the companies were either exclusively sub-prime lenders, or had sub-prime lending as a significant part of their business.

We then counted out which companies were involved with the most repossession hearings and divided that figure by the size of their loans outstanding to work out which companies were suffering from the highest number of repossessions in relation to their size.

 

Top of our list was Swift Advances which provides so called secondary charge loans, which are loans people take out in addition to their mortgages. What is interesting about this figure is that repossessions due to secondary charge companies such as Swift Advances do not appear in the six monthly repossession statistics provided by the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

[Marky1701]

Hi All, Just had a letter of reply from the OFT as follows and I have highlighted an interesting bit in bold myself;

 

Thank you for the two emails addressed to Nigel Cates and David Blocksidge on 15 December 2009. They asked me to reply to your emails. You are concerned that the variable interest rate that Swift Advances has applied to a secured loan goes up in line with the Bank of England Base Rate but never follows it down. You state that whilst the Bank of England Base Rate is currently at an all time low Swift is levying a very high rate of 17.3% on your loan. After you were recently provided with a settlement figure, you found that you have already paid more than the amount you originally borrowed but still owe more than the £28,500 you borrowed. Given that you have never defaulted on the account, you find the situation unacceptable and have asked OFT for help or advice.

 

Firms offering second charge loans must be licensed by the OFT under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Swift Advances plc holds a consumer credit licence. Following a review carried out last year of practices in the sector the OFT published guidance for the industry (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft1105.pdf). The guidance (which you quoted in connection with your settlement figure) sets out the minimum standards the OFT expects from businesses engaged in second charge lending if they are to be considered fit to hold a licence. It covers the entire lending process including selling techniques, customer care, and practices around the management of arrears.

 

The OFT also retains an ongoing monitoring role over the sector even though we are not empowered to intervene in individual disputes between consumers and businesses. We do however take action where consumers in general are prejudiced by the actions of any trader(s). In this regard and as a result of concerns about the practices of a number of particular lenders, OFT launched an investigation into their activities alongside publication of the guidance for the sector. We have already written to a number of lenders seeking further information to assess the level of consumer detriment. We are now approaching the end of our investigation and expect to take enforcement action in the next few months. Due to statutory constraints on disclosure of information relating to ongoing investigations we are unable to comment on whether or not Swift is among the companies subject to our investigation and enforcement action. Once our action is completed it will be made public.

As regulator of those companies that hold a consumer credit licence, we welcome any information borrowers provide to assist us with our regulatory and monitoring role. In this regard, it would be useful if you could supply the following additional information regarding your complaint:

 

• 
  
  • a copy of your credit agreement including the terms and conditions
    
  • a copy of the settlement figure letter from Swift
    
  • a copy of correspondence that provided the reason(s) for the high interest rates(s) charged on your account
    

Come on everyone, get writing and add to the OFT's case!!!!

Edited December 18, 2009 by Marky1701

[sweetjane]

Fantastic - well done Marky. Come on everybody - it really does make sense to send the details of your Swift problems to:

[email protected]

[Smarterchick]

Hi Marky, you realise that Swift originally said its rates went up according to the bank base rate, then it was changed to the Libor rate, then in court they say it's as a result of its lending costs and shareholder pressure, but officially it's Libor. All that when they borrow money from their bankers at fixed capped rates!

Edited December 18, 2009 by Smarterchick
Can't spelt fore toffee..LOL

[Sparkie1723]

HI Marky

E-mail the OFT back and just correct one error Swifts interest rate is NOT connected to the Bank of England rate but to the LIBOR rate.

That is something quite different.

But this is a point you can make .........Most of Swifts borrowers just do not know about LIBOR and Swift do not tell you before you sign any agreement nor do their Broker agents.

 

It is not mentioned on the agreement and it is not mentioned in their terms and conditions.

 

This is one thing a lot of other sub prime lenders do....they make it clear on their agreements that their interest is linked to the LIBOR rate

 

The other point is SWift have stated under oath in Courts that their cost of funding is governed SOLELY by the LIBOR rate of interest...and they state in their accounts that they borrow at a fixed capped rate as a protection against interest rate increases.

 

So any rate of interest that goes up ...........they are not affected by it. and also the other way round i it comes down they are not affected, so in truth and fact every Swift agreement is a FIXED rate of interest.

 

 

We can prove they put their rates up every month on someones agreement

in any event the 3 monthly LIbor rate was fixed at the end of Nov this year to stay at 0.6775% till at least Feb next year

 

sparkie

Edited December 18, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[andrew1]

You chaps might find this useful too http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft854.pdf

 

 

Andrew1

[Doc2527]

 

So any rate of interest that goes up ...........they are not affected by it. and also the other way round i it comes down they are not affected, so in truth and fact every Swift agreement is a FIXED rate of interest.

 

sparkie

 

FIXED RATE for swift!!!

[Swift Eater]

What Sparkie is saying is correct.

The best way of slamming Swift is by using the unfair relationship.

My thoughts are with you Sparkie mate, you and others have been well and truely stuffed by this organisation.

 

You chaps might find this useful too http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft854.pdf

 

 

Andrew1