Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

I am going to make Mr Blocksidge aware of this point that is in the 1997 Guidelines issued by the OFT on Non Status Second Charge lending, again as another major point to show him how Swift ignore any of the OFT guidelines.

 

The OFTguidelines state this as I previopusly posted.

 

* The name and address of the lender, together with details of any parent company, must be prominently shown on all documents.

 

Note it says MUST be .....not should be!!

 

This is Misrepresentation by Ommission ( Misrepresentation Act 1967)

 

I'm going to submit to Mr Blocksidge, that Swift deliberately ignore this particlar guideline to ensure that borrowers and the authorites are not made aware that they have a parent company , in order that they can carry out all their account manipulations in secret .

I believe that Swift are actually Bankrupt as they operate on assetts that are far outweighed by their liabilities by some £200.000.000. this is my personal opinion

 

If it was stated on their documents, customers would have another way of obtaining information about Swifts activities, which again in my own personal view are Fraudulent.........Swift are owned by Kestrel Holdings Ltd but no-one knew that till of late...including the OFT and FSA.

 

 

Swifts licence should be revoked completely and their Directors brought to account.

 

sparkie

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

E-mail letter off to the OFT regarding the above.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Expansion on The Unfair Relationship Section 140 of the New Consumer Credit Act 2006.

Used properly this can hit Swift for Six .....Plus

 

 

Wide scope

This is an extremely wide provision – any agreement providing credit of any amount is captured. Regulated mortgage contracts are excluded under section 19(5), however, this only covers FSA regulated mortgage contracts. Those entered into before 31 October 2004 will come under the new test.

 

The entire relationship is subject to the unfairness rules; i.e. all dealings before, during and after the contract is made. There is no limit as to time, either. Expired agreements may be subject to a claim. Section 19(4) expressly provides that ‘a determination may be made in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended’

 

Actions under the unfairness provision may be brought by consumers individually and by the OFT exercising its powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This enables the OFT to take enforcement action against lenders where unfair relationships affect consumers generally. Examples given in the House of Lords include where a lender uses standard terms or operates in a common manner in respect of borrowers generally so as to make each relationship unfair. OFT guidance will provide further information on how these powers will be used.

 

The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (24 October 2005) offered some views on where lenders should look for guidance:

 

‘We consider there to be suitable guidance available to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in the case-law interpreting the same term in other, closely analagous statutory contexts, in particular the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The House of Lords in a recent decision (The Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52) gave extensive consideration to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in those Regulations in the specific context of a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.’

 

Under the 1999 Regulations (regulation 4 and schedule 2) a term is unfair if it;

 

• causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations

• to the detriment of the consumer and

• is contrary to good faith.

 

Examples include;

 

• forcing a consumer in breach to pay disproportionately high compensation

• irrevocably binding a consumer on terms with which he had no opportunity to become familiar before the conclusion of the contract

• allowing the seller/supplier to alter unilaterally, without valid reason, any characteristics of the product or service provided.

 

The House of Lords expanded upon these principles in the First National case, suggesting that fairness required;

 

• no significant imbalance between the parties. This may arise where the supplier is granted a beneficial option or discretion or power, or a disadvantageous burden, risk or duty is imposed upon the consumer

• fair and open dealings

• full, clear and legible terms with no concealed pitfalls or traps

• appropriate prominence for terms which might disadvantage the consumer

• not taking advantage, deliberately or unconsciously, of the consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, weak bargaining position or any other relevant factor.

 

These illustrations are a good starting point, but policy makers comments suggest that the interpretation of unfairness may go much further. Taken to its most extreme, the new regime may impose a requirement on lenders to undertake and verify fact finds about potential borrowers. Not only about their financial circumstances, but about their personal circumstances, their health, and medical history.

 

 

The Financial Services Ombudsman

One of the most significant changes for lenders is that all customers of consumer credit licence holder will have access, free of charge, to an Alternative Dispute Mechanism in the form of the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS). FOS will have jurisdiction over any act or omission by a consumer credit licensee in the course of a licensed business.

 

To date, only customers of FSA-regulated lenders have been able to go to FOS, and there have been relatively few consumer credit cases. However, this may change when consumers are able to take claims of unfair relationships to FOS under the new regime. While only a court may make an order under the new section 140B (the powers of the court in relation to unfair relationships) FOS has significant powers of redress. Particularly as it is not bound by legal precedent, as confirmed in the recent case of IFG Financial Services Limited v Financial Ombudsman Services Ltd [2005]. Here, the High Court held that the relevant law was only one of a number of factors which FOS is required to consider in reaching a decision and that FOS may legitimately ‘depart from the result mandated by the law if he considered that another result provided the result that was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.’

 

Furthermore, FOS’s decision is final. There is no right of appeal for the regulated entity, only the option of judicial review to challenge the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself.

 

Although FOS is a more informal body than the courts, in practice it wields enormous power. Financial services providers who refuse to comply with decisions against them face court enforcement action and face disciplinary proceedings by their regulator.

 

 

The Court may set aside credit agreements where there has been unfairness prior to the Act becoming law, but only if the unfairness manifests after the Act becomes law; and with effect from the date on which the Act becomes law. The financial exposure of lenders is limited by only permitting the Court to give relief in respect of unfairness or excessive costs that occurs after the Act becomes law.

 

Nevertheless, lenders who have advanced medium-long term loans should be reviewing all those which are likely to extend beyond the transitional period to double check they do not include terms which are likely to fall foul of the widened unfairness test.

 

The partial retrospectivity has triggered another debate, concerning its impact on the securitization market.

Many personal loans, mortgages and credit cards, entered into before lenders became aware of the new requirements, have been securitised under arrangements, which could not have contemplated that they would become subject to the new unfair relationship provisions.

 

In the House of Lords, it was argued that the UK securitisation market (which has has brought in some £235 million of new funds to UK lending markets) relies on the underlying loans having stable and consistent terms and conditions and a pre-determined risk profile. Case law which defines unfairness too broadly risks triggering a buy-back scramble under securitised deals. This could destabalise the credit market, increasing capital costs for lenders which would be passed on to borrowers as higher charges.

 

This has cut no ice with the Government. It has reponded that it would be unreasonable to exclude long term agreements – of up to 20 years plus – simply because they were concluded prior to the commencement date. On the securitisation issue it was opined that no funding arrangements should be based, even in part, on the inability of consumers effectively to seek redress for behaviour by lenders that cause them harm.

[Sparkie1723]

Summary to the above

 

Lenders cannot afford to be complacent about the new regime. It is likely that more borrowers will be encouraged to try their hand at alleging unfairness, because it can be used as a sword as well as a shield; a borrower will not have to wait until they are facing enforcement proceedings to raise the issue. They don’t even have to be in arrears. Depending on the approach taken by FOS and the courts in the early days, lender could face a wave of speculative claims. As endowment providers have already discovered, in the absence of contemporaneous records to evidence exchanges with customers, it is more difficult to dispute the customer’s version of events. All dealings, including meetings, telephone calls and emails, need to be documented to enable the creditor to evidence what was said/done if a customer alleges unfairness.

In addition, it is possible that lenders will need to be able demonstrate that they took steps to ascertain that the borrower had the means to repay the loan, not only in terms of income but all outgoings, including other credit commitments, or risk having contracts overturned. Depending on how paternalistic the courts and FOS are prepared to be, we may be just a short time away from compulsory detailed factfinds and suitability certification for every loan."

[sweetjane]

Hi all,

I've got an appointment to see my MP on Saturday and I'm going with my sister to see her MP on the following Saturday.

SJ

[Sparkie1723]

Hi all,

I've got an appointment to see my MP on Saturday and I'm going with my sister to see her MP on the following Saturday.

SJ

 

 

Good for you sweetjane!!

 

sparkie

[coolchris]

Hi all,

I've got an appointment to see my MP on Saturday and I'm going with my sister to see her MP on the following Saturday.

SJ

 

Nice one. Be interesting to find out their take on these scumbags.

[Smarterchick]

IMPORTANT Re Swift Statements

 

EVERYONE should ask Swift for a copy of their Actuarial Accrual Account Summary print-out. This print-out is a complete list of transactions and charges and an accrual of the loan balance - effectively, it's what you'd get on most statements of account to give you a true balance, but Swift only provide a 'Record of Payments' when asked for a statement.

 

What I noticed on the one I was sent by another cagger is that they are adding any legal costs to your capital balance allocated at the time they occurred and charging interest at the contractual rate. Now I would encourage all of you to read the small print of the terms of the agreement. How many actually do that?, especially at the time of taking the loan -well not many, but one clause states that

 

"You will be sent a notice of any costs and charges (How many of you got that?) you have to pay" (under various clauses in the terms). "We will provide you with at least 28 days notice of any change in the level of such costs before they take effect. We will add our costs, expenses and charges as soon as we have to pay them or decide to charge them. You should pay them at that date. If you do not we will charge interest on them under clause (whatever your contract says)"

 

but effectively it's the capital interest - the contractual rate.

 

So what they are doing on this sheet is showing you the costs charges and disbursements, which on the one I'm looking at does not show any of the £23's they are charging some, but are they on the legal costs solicitors fees I can see? Who knows, but asking for an itmised bill on those costs wouldn't go a miss. Now if you haven't been 'advised' of those costs you have had dumped onto your account without your knowledge how could you pay them on that date as so described above in this clause? They should also not be adding interest at contractual rates either as a result of not informing you of the charges.

 

The other thing I noticed is the interest rate quoted on the agreement and what is on this Actuarial Accrual Summary which is deceiving and reprehensible....On the agreement they are stating that the loan is an equivavlent to a mortgage rate of 13.44% but......the real charge is the AER, not the APR and the AER is 14.30% so their records record your charge at 14.3 and rising (never down) but on the agreement it is 13.44% conning people into believing they have a lower interest rate because hands up all those who know the difference between the APR , the equivalent Mortgage rate and the AER ? - Precisely ! Correction - the rate they use is Simple Interest daily rate at completion which is actually 0.3682192% ie:13.44% so quite what the AER rate is I'm not so sure...The column under Simple Interest on this sheet is all zeros so I assumed that was not the rate being used...just going off with a calculator to check the actual figures now..sorry folks.

 

These hidden smoke screens need exposing, so apply for your Actuarial Accrual Account Summary and get them to explain EXACTLY how they are calculated whilst you are about it. Then tell our friend Mr Blocksidge at the OFT of your findings [email protected] read the small print and see for yourselves.

 

You should also ask them to provide one from both Swift Advances system and Kestrel Loans No1 or No3 Ltd system because until they admit to who owns these loans after their accounts say they have 'sold' all their accounts to Kestrel then we don't know do we?

 

Smarterchick

Edited January 19, 2010 by Smarterchick

[coolchris]

I instigated a FOS action against them and I believe the FOS charge £450/500 for this to the company being complained about. Now that you brought up the actual statement thing, I was wondering if they would put this charge onto OUR account instead of them actually paying as they should. I am not saying they have as I dont have the statement you refer to, but I would not put it past these vipers.

And....if you ask for this statement...they will most probably charge you for the priveledge and then put that charge on your total balance and charge interest on that. Round and round the money pot goes.

[Smarterchick]

I instigated a FOS action against them and I believe the FOS charge £450/500 for this to the company being complained about. Now that you brought up the actual statement thing, I was wondering if they would put this charge onto OUR account instead of them actually paying as they should. I am not saying they have as I dont have the statement you refer to, but I would not put it past these vipers.

And....if you ask for this statement...they will most probably charge you for the priveledge and then put that charge on your total balance and charge interest on that. Round and round the money pot goes.

 

 

You have to flush these beggars out...these days they MUST NOT MISLEAD....so these actuarial statements should be just a 'statement' like you'd get from a bank or any other business. If all people on here keep asking, keep pressing, keep tripping them up then they'll HAVE to come clean - they can't stay in denial forever. They can lie in one court or one letter and get away with it, but because they've never had so many people speaking to one another like this we are comparing their answers and witness statements and they can no longer get away with this and these tricksters (alleged ) are being slowly exposed for what they are. We did it with the DCA's and look how their industry has changed - they are realing at the consumer backlash, now it's happening to these 2nd Charge sub-prime gangsters (allegedly:grin: ) and they will go the same way. Ask for it, analyse it and keep asking.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all

 

What a brilliant piece of work by SC - I thought I was good at 'getting to the fine print' - but I am in awe of some who who must surely be described as the Master!

 

Needless to say this makes a claim against Swift under Section 140 of the CCA 2006 almost 'a breeze'!!

 

It ALSO makes perfect evidence for a criminal case under my old friend the Fraud Act 2006!!!!

 

Thanks again SC and also to SJ for such brilliant work, which will help us poor impoverished Caggers"

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

Edited January 19, 2010 by Dougal16T
Engaged hand before using brain, result : Computer 1 Dougal 0 !!!

[coolchris]

You have to flush these beggars out...these days they MUST NOT MISLEAD....so these actuarial statements should be just a 'statement' like you'd get from a bank or any other business. If all people on here keep asking, keep pressing, keep tripping them up then they'll HAVE to come clean - they can't stay in denial forever. They can lie in one court or one letter and get away with it, but because they've never had so many people speaking to one another like this we are comparing their answers and witness statements and they can no longer get away with this and these tricksters (alleged ) are being slowly exposed for what they are. We did it with the DCA's and look how their industry has changed - they are realing at the consumer backlash, now it's happening to these 2nd Charge sub-prime gangsters (allegedly:grin: ) and they will go the same way. Ask for it, analyse it and keep asking.

 

Can you tell me, or anyone else, who has this statement AND IF they have taken FOS action, that the charges from the FOS to Swift were, or were not, added to this statement of accounts please?

Great work BTW SC. Got my brain working again.

[Smarterchick]

Good morning all

 

What a brilliant piece of work by SC - I thought I was good at 'getting to the fine print' - but I am in awe of some who who must surely be described as the Master!

 

 

Mistress

 

....you are too kind Dougal

[Smarterchick]

Can you tell me, or anyone else, who has this statement AND IF they have taken FOS action, that the charges from the FOS to Swift were, or were not, added to this statement of accounts please?

Great work BTW SC. Got my brain working again.

 

 

Looking at the way they add their comments to the edge of the page, I'd be surprised if you'd find it specifically stated as an FOS charge although it's possible I guess, but it's more likely, if you're in litigation at any point that they'd include this in their legal costs.

 

I would go on to say particularly that if anyone has been repossessed by Swift that this document would be a damning indicment of what they have done and could now be challenged under these Unfair Terms or whatever these new Regulations and Acts are which allow one to go back on old transactions. I am sure they must rake in millions of £'s on this kind of charging regime looking at the way they have done it on the one I was sent.

 

I'd apply for it and then take it from there. tThe FOS are too slow to stop these people if you are at a critical stage in the process and lets face it, if you have one of their loans and you are not in financial difficulties the liklihood is that you'll carry on paying the installments and rarely, if ever, look at these agreements and t & c's as you won't need to. If you have struggled though and had lots of correspondence with them you can almost guarantee they'll be lumping these charges on day and night.

[Sparkie1723]

This is what I asked Mathew Payne & Mark White to supply 16th Dec 2009

 

1...Actuarial Accrual Account Summaries (2 off )

 

a). One retrieved from Swift System &

 

b). One retrieved from Kestrel No 1 System

 

c). A copy of the record of the account transfer to Kestrel No 1 on 18th April 2007.

 

d). The record of all transactions applied to this account record.

 

 

Mathew Payne replied in Dec that Mr White would supply me these docs early in the New Year.......haven't received them so sent Mathew Payne a gee up e-mail no answer....Wonder why???

 

In any event I don't think I'll get the Kestrel one;)

 

sparkie

Edited January 19, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Smarterchick]

Just added a correction to the Interest calculation in my post above about statements. What they are using is the Daily Simple Interest rate of 0.03682192% which is actually 13.4400008% which is the one on the agreement. The column for Simple Interest is full of zero's so it threw me.

 

Swift might laugh whilst we are scrambling through this watching our misconceptions and errors, but if you're watching Swift just remember there are so many eyes on you just now we are uncovering things bit by bit and beginning to understand what you do. It would be easier if ole Sparkle could just come on and argue the points with us and put us right, but that's too much to ask I guess?

[Sparkie1723]

Just added a correction to the Interest calculation in my post above about statements. What they are using is the Daily Simple Interest rate of 0.03682192% which is actually 13.4400008% which is the one on the agreement. The column for Simple Interest is full of zero's so it threw me.

 

Swift might laugh whilst we are scrambling through this watching our misconceptions and errors, but if you're watching Swift just remember there are so many eyes on you just now we are uncovering things bit by bit and beginning to understand what you do. It would be easier if ole Sparkle could just come on and argue the points with us and put us right, but that's too much to ask I guess?

 

 

 

It has to be simple interest daily but compounded monthly

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

EG

 

Simple Interest Example

 

£1000 @10% simple interest

Month 1 £100

Total £1100

Month 2 £100

Total £1200

Month 3 £100

Total £1300

And so on

 

 

Simple Interest Compounded

£1000 @10% compound interest

Month 1 £100

Total £1100

Month 2 £110

Total £1210

Month 3 £121

Total £1321

and so on

[landy_alert]

Hi Sparkie:)

 

Sorry to be a pain, but do you have a direct link to where you located this info please?

 

I've been having a search around the internet and cannot find it.

 

Many thanks,

 

Landy x

 

Expansion on The Unfair Relationship Section 140 of the New Consumer Credit Act 2006.

Used properly this can hit Swift for Six .....Plus

 

 

Wide scope

This is an extremely wide provision – any agreement providing credit of any amount is captured. Regulated mortgage contracts are excluded under section 19(5), however, this only covers FSA regulated mortgage contracts. Those entered into before 31 October 2004 will come under the new test.

 

The entire relationship is subject to the unfairness rules; i.e. all dealings before, during and after the contract is made. There is no limit as to time, either. Expired agreements may be subject to a claim. Section 19(4) expressly provides that ‘a determination may be made in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended’

 

Actions under the unfairness provision may be brought by consumers individually and by the OFT exercising its powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This enables the OFT to take enforcement action against lenders where unfair relationships affect consumers generally. Examples given in the House of Lords include where a lender uses standard terms or operates in a common manner in respect of borrowers generally so as to make each relationship unfair. OFT guidance will provide further information on how these powers will be used.

 

The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (24 October 2005) offered some views on where lenders should look for guidance:

 

‘We consider there to be suitable guidance available to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in the case-law interpreting the same term in other, closely analagous statutory contexts, in particular the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The House of Lords in a recent decision (The Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52) gave extensive consideration to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in those Regulations in the specific context of a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.’

 

Under the 1999 Regulations (regulation 4 and schedule 2) a term is unfair if it;

 

• causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations

• to the detriment of the consumer and

• is contrary to good faith.

 

Examples include;

 

• forcing a consumer in breach to pay disproportionately high compensation

• irrevocably binding a consumer on terms with which he had no opportunity to become familiar before the conclusion of the contract

• allowing the seller/supplier to alter unilaterally, without valid reason, any characteristics of the product or service provided.

 

The House of Lords expanded upon these principles in the First National case, suggesting that fairness required;

 

• no significant imbalance between the parties. This may arise where the supplier is granted a beneficial option or discretion or power, or a disadvantageous burden, risk or duty is imposed upon the consumer

• fair and open dealings

• full, clear and legible terms with no concealed pitfalls or traps

• appropriate prominence for terms which might disadvantage the consumer

• not taking advantage, deliberately or unconsciously, of the consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, weak bargaining position or any other relevant factor.

 

These illustrations are a good starting point, but policy makers comments suggest that the interpretation of unfairness may go much further. Taken to its most extreme, the new regime may impose a requirement on lenders to undertake and verify fact finds about potential borrowers. Not only about their financial circumstances, but about their personal circumstances, their health, and medical history.

 

 

The Financial Services Ombudsman

One of the most significant changes for lenders is that all customers of consumer credit licence holder will have access, free of charge, to an Alternative Dispute Mechanism in the form of the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS). FOS will have jurisdiction over any act or omission by a consumer credit licensee in the course of a licensed business.

 

To date, only customers of FSA-regulated lenders have been able to go to FOS, and there have been relatively few consumer credit cases. However, this may change when consumers are able to take claims of unfair relationships to FOS under the new regime. While only a court may make an order under the new section 140B (the powers of the court in relation to unfair relationships) FOS has significant powers of redress. Particularly as it is not bound by legal precedent, as confirmed in the recent case of IFG Financial Services Limited v Financial Ombudsman Services Ltd [2005]. Here, the High Court held that the relevant law was only one of a number of factors which FOS is required to consider in reaching a decision and that FOS may legitimately ‘depart from the result mandated by the law if he considered that another result provided the result that was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.’

 

Furthermore, FOS’s decision is final. There is no right of appeal for the regulated entity, only the option of judicial review to challenge the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself.

 

Although FOS is a more informal body than the courts, in practice it wields enormous power. Financial services providers who refuse to comply with decisions against them face court enforcement action and face disciplinary proceedings by their regulator.

 

 

The Court may set aside credit agreements where there has been unfairness prior to the Act becoming law, but only if the unfairness manifests after the Act becomes law; and with effect from the date on which the Act becomes law. The financial exposure of lenders is limited by only permitting the Court to give relief in respect of unfairness or excessive costs that occurs after the Act becomes law.

 

Nevertheless, lenders who have advanced medium-long term loans should be reviewing all those which are likely to extend beyond the transitional period to double check they do not include terms which are likely to fall foul of the widened unfairness test.

 

The partial retrospectivity has triggered another debate, concerning its impact on the securitization market.

Many personal loans, mortgages and credit cards, entered into before lenders became aware of the new requirements, have been securitised under arrangements, which could not have contemplated that they would become subject to the new unfair relationship provisions.

 

In the House of Lords, it was argued that the UK securitisation market (which has has brought in some £235 million of new funds to UK lending markets) relies on the underlying loans having stable and consistent terms and conditions and a pre-determined risk profile. Case law which defines unfairness too broadly risks triggering a buy-back scramble under securitised deals. This could destabalise the credit market, increasing capital costs for lenders which would be passed on to borrowers as higher charges.

 

This has cut no ice with the Government. It has reponded that it would be unreasonable to exclude long term agreements – of up to 20 years plus – simply because they were concluded prior to the commencement date. On the securitisation issue it was opined that no funding arrangements should be based, even in part, on the inability of consumers effectively to seek redress for behaviour by lenders that cause them harm.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi landy can't remember where I got it from but it was sometime BEFORE it became actual law.

Send me an e-mail and I'll send you the whole paper ..................in other words I,ve lost your e-mail address .AGAIN.............I can't help it if I'm in the twighlight zone:)

 

sparkie

[landy_alert]

Hi landy can't remember where I got it from but it was sometime BEFORE it became actual law.

Send me an e-mail and I'll send you the whole paper ..................in other words I,ve lost your e-mail address .AGAIN.............I can't help it if I'm in the twighlight zone:)

 

sparkie

 

Hi Sparkie:)

 

That's ok - will send you a PM...........

 

Many thanks as always,

 

Landy x

[sweetjane]

My MP has written saying:

 

Thank you for your email concerning second charge lenders. . . . I was very concerned about the points you raised in your email regarding Swift Advances. I have written to Mr John Fingleton, CEO of the OFT, and Hector Sants, CEO of the FSA enclosing a copy of your email and asking for thier comments on the points raised. I will write to you again when I have received a reply. In the interim, should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me." Well, I'm seeing him and another MP this week.

[frettful38]

My MP has written saying:

 

Thank you for your email concerning second charge lenders. . . . I was very concerned about the points you raised in your email regarding Swift Advances. I have written to Mr John Fingleton, CEO of the OFT, and Hector Sants, CEO of the FSA enclosing a copy of your email and asking for thier comments on the points raised. I will write to you again when I have received a reply. In the interim, should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me." Well, I'm seeing him and another MP this week.

 

Excellent news sweetjane, please keep us posted:D.

[coolchris]

Yet again Swift have tried to do the dirty on our account with them. After phoning about them being total arseholes in handling a simple switch of Bank account Direct Debit, they still find ways to add charges to the account by sending letters out that are TOTALLY FALSE AND PROVE THAT THEY ARE FALSE.

Example..Fee for payment returned unpaid (total lie) £33.00 - BULL**** AND LIES.

Arrears letter charge £23 (again because they failed to instigate the new DD). BULL**** AND LIES.

 

Upon phoning them yet again, they reversed these trumped up charges.

 

My point: they will try ANYTHING to slap LYING charges on the account and will stay that way unless you prove otherwise.

 

This account is my mums, she is pensioner and would not have contested these fkin scumbags charges if I had not stepped in and told them to shove it.

 

Point is: check everything, contest everything this **** send you.

 

Question: even though these false charges are now reimbursed (they better be not on the statement) could I still report them for Negligence, false claiming of charges with prior intent to commit fraud? Its quite obvious that they do this thing on a regular basis, the computer spits any old crap out and the zombies at Swift sign it. See EVERYTIME I PHONE THEM, A LETTER ARRIVE 2 DAYS LATER WITH SOME FALSE CHARGES.

Edited January 25, 2010 by coolchris

[Smarterchick]

Even more reason why EVERYONE should obtain this Actuarial Accrual Account Summary Sheet. That's what they call it on the heading.