Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • 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.
  • Our picks

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

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

Hi All,

 

Dont worry I did originally state to the OFT about LIBOR - not sure how they took that as BOE but I shall contact them to clarify.

 

Sparrkie, its interesting that you have a document stating their rates are governed soley by LIBOR - I have a letter from them stating its due to other factors too - reserves, liquidity etc - which one is right? Or is it another example of 'lets make it up as we go along'

 

If anyone wants a copy of this letter let me know.

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

:pAt the risk of repeating myself, in the OFT's reply they stated;

 

"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:"

 

 

 

It has been mentioned previously that Swift have 20,000 customers - I cant work out the formulas for APR and such like, but given my limited understanding of maths that means there are 20,000 people (more if they are joint loans) being ripped off by these loan sharks.

 

IT IS VITAL that everyone gets involved - letters, email, whatever it takes but TOGETHER lets bring these pond life DOOOOWN !!!!

 

You may just be a victim, following these threads and hoping that the hard core of people are taking the fight so why should I bother? - wrong!! it is by pressure from hundreds if not thousands which will win the war, so do it today!!

 

Anyone ever thought, Swift, Kestrel etc would a more appropriate birdy name for this outfit be Vulture finance Plc? Preying on the defenceless, scavengers, cowardly opportunists? - just a thought !!

Edited by Marky1701
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Dont worry I did originally state to the OFT about LIBOR - not sure how they took that as BOE but I shall contact them to clarify.

 

Sparrkie, its interesting that you have a document stating their rates are governed soley by LIBOR - I have a letter from them stating its due to other factors too - reserves, liquidity etc - which one is right? Or is it another example of 'lets make it up as we go along'

 

If anyone wants a copy of this letter let me know.

 

m

 

 

HI Marky everyone,

 

Its not a document as such but something a little more reliable admitted by Mark White and stated in our Court Judgement summary.

 

Taken from that summary

 

Quote "It was later stated that the cost of funds are dictated by LIBOR"

 

and later on

 

"The case for the Claimant is that its interest rates are not directly linked to the Bank of England base rate, the cost of funds being governed rather by LIBOR" .

 

These statements made under oath by Mark White.

 

Can't get any clearer than this Can we??

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone ever thought, Swift, Kestrel etc would a more appropriate birdy name for this outfit be Vulture finance Plc? Preying on the defenceless, scavengers, cowardly opportunists? - just a thought !!

 

Hi Marky et al,

 

Love the above suggestion:lol:

 

Having already complained to Margaret Cole at the FSA, the Financial Services Consumer Panel and the OFT during November/early December, I will today get an email off to David Blocksidge. I will enclose copies of my documents as per the reply received by Marky and will post up the response I get.

 

Hopefully with all that is going on here things are reaching a climax and victory for all Swift's victims is not far off;)

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

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

Hi Marky et al,

 

Love the above suggestion:lol:

 

Having already complained to Margaret Cole at the FSA, the Financial Services Consumer Panel and the OFT during November/early December, I will today get an email off to David Blocksidge. I will enclose copies of my documents as per the reply received by Marky and will post up the response I get.

 

Hopefully with all that is going on here things are reaching a climax and victory for all Swift's victims is not far off;)

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

 

Hi Landy,

 

I agree 100% - it would be great if we can all climax together - would that be one for the Giuness book???

 

Sorry just a little levity seeing as it is Friday, Woo Hoo!!

 

Have a great weekend everyone (except Sparkle - I hope your xmas tree wilts and dies and all the chocolate money in your advent calendar melts - or you get charged 17%+ on your chocolate money and end up having to refinance it!!)

 

LOL

 

m

Edited by Marky1701
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might get censored for this post ..not sure ..but here is my next letter to the OFT.

 

This of course is my own personal opinion and belief ..the Consumer Action Group have no responsibility for its content

 

To

Mr Paul Blocksidge

Consumer Credit Group

Corporate Services

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London EC4Y 8JX

 

Re Complaint against Swift Advances Plc & Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd

 

 

 

 

Before I present the damming documents that appertain to the way Swift Advances Plc are seen to operate and manipulate their finances and funding, I wish first to make the OFT aware of the circumstances surrounding our particular loan agreement with the afore said lender.

 

 

I have previously made the OFT aware of many of the issues surrounding this agreement in 2007.

 

 

I also put these issues to the Recorder in our Claim against Swift Advances in December 2008, but as usual the Courts believe that a Litigant in Person is, and I say this unreservedly, an imbecile who has no idea what he/she is talking about when in fact, there is no one who knows more about their particular case than themselves .

 

 

They have spent many months sometimes 18 months and more researching and checking their facts , when the opposing solicitor/barrister spends at the most 8 or so hrs on the issues, but has something the LIP has not Court respect and credibility, of course this is not in the remit of the OFT , but is a fact that the OFT should take into consideration as this is an unfair balance and unfair position L.I.Ps to be faced with.

 

 

Our Agreement.

We applied initially to borrow £30.000 which on the advice of the agents of Swift Advances Promise Finance Ltd ( now dissolved) increased our borrowing to include the fees and charges that would be charged for being granted this borrowing.

 

 

We therefore asked to borrow £43000 fully on the understanding that the charges and fees would be taken from the loan we applied for.

 

That is also stated what would be done on the agreement, but this fact is altered slightly by the wording of the agreement that on first reading is missed by the vast majority of borrowers until it is too late.

 

 

It was stated under oath by the witness for Swift that the interest rate on our particular agreement was shown as an APR rate to enable the borrowers (us) to understand the rate of interest we were paying and had included the one off up front payments payable at the start of the loan.

 

 

He also stated that he had checked that rate and found it to be correct, ( 9.84%) of course this person holding a Bsc in Economics ………….the Recorder believed him ...I believe…….HE LIED under oath as shown by this APR calculation based on the figures of our loan to deceive and mislead the court and to gain advantage over people.

 

 

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 was 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.

 

Swift do this on every one of their agreements.

 

 

The following is the deceptive deliberate misrepresentation of how this lender conceals exactly what they do.

 

a) They state on their agreement we will lend you the brokers fees, the loan administration fee and Title Indemnity fee ( if any)

They clearly state that they will lend these fees…it should be noted that they do not refer to them as “charges” of any description….they refer to them as being “lent” and are therefore loans, which are separate from the main loan.

 

 

They then add these fees (loans to the main loan) and then calculate the APR as below

 

Amount (£) 46955

APR (%) 9.84

Term (months) 120

 

Results

120 Monthly Payments of £616.36

 

This is exactly what our loan payments are stated to be, but our loan agreement states £43000.

 

What happens next is that they then “deduct” the fees from the total loan and add them into the Other Financial Information Box and class them as charges for credit, but do not state that they are charges for credit.

 

 

These are then added back on top of the £43000 outside the agreement, but in truth they have already been included in the interest calculations. This I submit is a misrepresentative act designed to deceive, and it does deceive all ……including the Courts.

 

 

In any event as they have been included as loans in these calculations and they are in fact separate “restricted creditor debtor supplier agreements” within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act and makes the whole agreement a “partly” regulated agreement, if I am right, which I am sure I am, all of this lenders unregulated agreements are “partly” regulated ones and should be stated as such, as the Lender themselves treat the alleged charges at inception as loans for the sole purpose of reducing the apparent stated interest rate to make it appear more attractive.

 

 

Consumers are always told by various authorities and organisations to look at the APR, by misrepresenting it misleads the borrower

 

 

I supply a copy of our agreement again, I have already done so previously, to support my calculations.

 

 

In a nutshell they treat them as loans for their purpose and advantage and call them charges for credit when challenged about them.

 

 

Swift Advances Plc----Swift 1st ----Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd ---Kestrel Loans No 2 Ltd---Kestrel Loans No 3 Ltd.

 

 

All these companies are part of the Kestrel Holdings Ltd (Group)

 

It is stated in the Five companies Annual Accounts that principle business activity of all five companies is supplying Loans and Mortgages to the domestic market secured on freehold and long term lease properties.

 

 

But my investigations have shown that only two of these companies actually do in fact and reality lend to the domestic market, they are Swift Advances Plc and Swift 1st Ltd for mortgages and insurance products and Swift Advances Plc as secondary lenders

 

 

The manner in the way these 5 companies operate is most irregular to the extent I believe of criminal behaviour and activity and steps are taken by them to ensure that is concealed from all.

 

Despite many phone calls to the registered office of the Kestrel companies ( Arcadia House any attempt to contact any one of the 109 employees that are stated in their accounts to be employed by them, customers have been told there is no one in that building that works for them. Many have never heard of these companies

 

 

Two of these companies buy loans from Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances Plc, this you will see is confirmed in their separately filed company accounts.

 

 

The Chief Executive Officer of Swift Advances Plc whois also a Director of the Kestrel group of companies referred to has categorically stated along with their legal department that Swift do not securitise their loans, but attached are documents that show that both Swift Advances and Kestrel process separate accounts for the one loan agreement.

 

 

The documents I refer to have been supplied by Swift by mistake they were never ever meant to surface to the fore.

 

It will be seen from the comparison of these two documents ( I have more of the same account) that exactly one month after this loan agreement started, it was sold to Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd (my particular loan was sold exactly 2 weeks after the agreement started)

 

 

It will be seen that Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd has all the particulars of this loan and shows payments due and payments made.

 

 

When you study the Swift account record you will see that it consists of all the penalty charges and other fees legal fees etc and it appears that interest is being charged at contract rate to ALL the fees.

 

 

I submit that this proves beyond doubt that Swift have indeed sold the Title rights to all loans to the Kestrel Companies.

 

They would need to do this to raise the large sums of extra funding from other Banks, and it is Swift that keep just the equity of the loan …it is in truth a reverse equity deal.

 

Swift release Title and keep all benefits.

 

 

Swift Advances have not changed the Land Registry details to the Kestrel Company involved either No 1 or No 3 depending on which one the loan has been sold to , they do not do so in order that they can produce it in Court for evidence of the right to claim possession when they do not have that legal right.

 

 

I submit that the suspended possessions in the past, and the outright possession of our property have been obtained by criminal fraud, lies, deception, perjury and contempt of The Courts of law.

 

 

Courts do not challenge Swift to prove they hold Title, they merely accept their word and rubber stamp the Court order for repossession as in our case, despite the evidence I produced to the contrary. Courts have three minutes on average to process repossession claim hearings, How can this be? This must be considered an act of unfair trading …….unfair trading of peoples lively hood and roof over their heads

 

 

I also attach the record of payment of our account it is this record of payments that Swift send to all customers and produce as evidence in Courts. It is not a proper statement of account

 

You will note that this is the same account as the record of payments shown as the Kestrel No1 Account record attached for your perusal and study.

 

What I believe happens is that these record of payments are "lifted" from the Kestrel System and the heading is changed to show Swift Advances as the heading, which I believe is tampering with that account record and falsifying it to make it appear as if it is a Swift Account.

 

 

Finally to my knowledge not one single Swift customer has ever received a statement of account only a record of payments, which does not show a balance of the account.

 

It can even be see from the two record of payments that Swifts accounting system and procedures are set to show accounts to be in more arrears than they are, this is deliberately set to enable penalty arrears to be charged adding more arrears to arrears etc etc, it is set to make money.

It is a further reason for customers never to be supplied with statement of accounts as it would be spotted easier

 

 

 

To sum my allegations up.

 

I submit and believe

 

* Swifts witness Mr Mark White their risk manager and shareholder in the Kestrel companies lies in statements of truth and under oath in courts of law.

 

* The directors of Swift make false deliberate misleading statements when questioned.

 

* Their Credit Agreements are flawed.

 

* The group is involved in Criminal, Fraudulent activities for gain at the expense of borrowers.

 

* They abuse their position and flout every authority, rule, law and regulation in force today, whilst maintaining a façade of integrity to all official bodies.

 

 

It is because of this we are to lose our home to criminals and NO-ONE will stop them.

 

 

The law certainly won’t, it is I situations like this that people consider taking the law into their own hands, as the law only sponsors the rich.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Has now gone of recorded delivery today

Edited by Sparkie1723
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent letter Sparkie! My email went off to Mr Blocksidge with all relevant supporting evidence this afternoon;)

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

Excellent letter sparkie, that should be on the front newspaper everywhere, then you see what publicity and action happens. This needs to be bought to the publics attention immediately.

This is very important stuff sparkie and everyone should fight this battle with sparkie, as he is doing a very very good and important job here.

 

good luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Doc I have been ripped of and had to pay a heafty price.

Lets focus on what the latest is from NI .

Also we must support Sparkie along the way.

Borrowed 49,000 repaid 87,000 back over 5yrs.

 

Hi swifteater

 

Good to have you back on the forum again:)

Do you not feel stuffed also??;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sparkie and all,

 

I agree with everyone Sparkie, your 'last post' (so to speak!) was excellent.

 

If you do not mind, I would like to copy 99% of it?

 

Best wishes as usual (and of course to everyone else - except Sparkle!)

 

Dougal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sparkie and all,

 

I agree with everyone Sparkie, your 'last post' (so to speak!) was excellent.

 

If you do not mind, I would like to copy 99% of it?

 

Best wishes as usual (and of course to everyone else - except Sparkle!)

 

Dougal

 

 

 

You may copy 999% of it if you wish Dougal:D:D:D But I hope it isn't my real "Last Post"........

Don't like bugles had enough of them in the army!!!:D

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been doing a lot of thinking about Swift & Kestrel Accounts..

Mr Webtser says that Swift transfer the Equity rights and benefits of all these loans ...................So Swift in fact do not keep any......that means all the profit from the loans go to Kestrel

How do Swift then carry on their business if all they do is borrow money and then sell all the profits to Kestrel No 1 and No3.

 

Bearing in mind it is Swift that has to pay the interest on the money they have borrowed

 

Just does not makes sound business sense...........until you then consider the money they make by their extortionate charges which they reap by repossessions..

Really think about this people ...IT IS CRIMINAL.

 

Swift live off borrowed money in a continuous circle ALL benefits and profits go to the Kestrel companies.

 

I believe that this in the class of money laundering

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

These figures are my sums worked out from all these comanies accounts

 

Simple Analysis of the accounts of all the Kestrel Holdings Ltd companies.

The amalgamated accounts of Kestrel Holdings Ltd are considered to be a complete amalgamation of:

Swifts Advances Plc

Swift 1st Ltd

Kestrel Loans No 1

Kestrel Loans No 2 Dormant ….non trading cmpany

Kestrel Loans No 3.

 

The amalgamated accounts of Kestrel Holdings should therefore correspond with the total accounts of the above Four companies added together, with special regard to Assets & Liabilities

Year March 2007 to March 2008 are as follows

 

Fixed Assets Current Assets Current Liabilities

Swift Advances £365.634.447 £121.455.062 £ 42.566.826

Swift 1st £106,699.154 £ 30.282.392 £ 122.854.770

Kestrel No 1 £229.022.734 £ 73.192.180 £ 29.614.085

Kestrel No 3 £ 42.704.777 £ 14.256.477 £ 54.865.770

 

Totals £ 744.061.112 £ 239.186.111 £249.901.279

 

However the Amalgamated accounts submitted by Kestrel Holdings tell a different story and show completely different figures

Fixed Assets Current Assets Current Liabilities

 

Kestrel Holdings £673.415.726 £240.707.728 £136.996.875

 

There are serious discrepancies in all these accounts:

As follows

Fixed Assets £ 70.645.836

Current Assets £ 1.521.617

Current Liabilities £112.904.404.

It also appears that Kestrel No 3 are claiming as assets the mortgages they allegedly bought off Swift Advances, but these were bought from a bank loan of £ 44.895.665 and cannot be considered an asset.

As we know the funding Banks obtained first charge on all loans ( ie securities these loans so Swift have “sold” them illegally and the Kestrel companies have borrowed again against the “Equity” in them.

 

 

I'm no accountant but............................ I can do sums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparkie your letter to the OFT is superb. If it's ok with you I may borrow parts of it for my letter the OFT.

 

Your analysis of the Swift and Kestrel accounts looks very interesting.....Will you be sending this off to the Economic Crime Unit in London?

 

Also, any news regarding the High Court case in Northern Ireland?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparkie your letter to the OFT is superb. If it's ok with you I may borrow parts of it for my letter the OFT.

 

Your analysis of the Swift and Kestrel accounts looks very interesting.....Will you be sending this off to the Economic Crime Unit in London?

 

Also, any news regarding the High Court case in Northern Ireland?

 

 

Hi Appollo.

By all means if there are things in my letter to the OFT help yourself.

I am preparing some more info for the OFT and trying to put together something for the E.C.U.

 

With regard to the N.I case ..the hearing turned out just to be a case management hearing..............But the other direction is going very nicely.... have been asked to keep quiet so cannot really tell you much ...I can say things are going on that Swift should not know about at the moment............it will come as a big shock to them.,;-)

 

The next batch of info to the OFT is about the amount of workers that the Kestrel companies have on their books... 109...on a dual contract ....the wages they pay them...... the N.I contributions the employess are said to pay ..the tax they are said to be paying the fact that even with all this no-one seems to work for them when attempts are made to contact an employee.

 

They do not lend money but have loan books.

 

Kestrel No 2 is a dormant non trading company yet has 2 outstanding loan /mortgages and yet nothing passes through their books no repayments of these loans ....... and they have no employees ...nothing

Question ...Who pays these loans back ..plus interest ......even if the other companies do ...it must show on their accounts as transactions ...but they do not .........more pointers to fraud and money laundering and we are talking millions.

 

I will post NO 2 accounts obtained from credit gate who simplify the accounts that are lodged with Companies house

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SJ I have sent of to FSA and had a reply back from Swift regarding there charges - they have given me some charges back in october but Novembers statement states the charges went back on in April? yet I have in writing they were looking into that was in October - am now going to compain to OFT.

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SJ I have sent of to FSA and had a reply back from Swift regarding there charges - they have given me some charges back in october but Novembers statement states the charges went back on in April? yet I have in writing they were looking into that was in October - am now going to compain to OFT.

 

LL

 

HI lesterlass,

 

You refer to "statement of account" is that exactly what it says or are you referring to the "record of payments" Swift send out?

 

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...