Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Hmm, thanks but I dont think I would be happy [:D] if they did; as you can see from my posts, I think its fkin outrageous and should be stamped on immediately. They should be made an example of in the courts and be shown to be a warning to anyone else that attempts downright deception and prior intent to commit fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Dear Coolchris:

As you will see if you look at my posts I consider that an offence is committed under the Fraud Act 2006, and if you have a look at Sections 2, 3 and 4 they all are clear and in my (humble) view as an ex-pc and former prosecutor. the offence to be charged has to be what is called 'complete', or in today's parlance 'has ticked all of the boxes'. In examining the actions as described I consider that they have not only 'ticked all the boxes', but have provided evidence by their actions of a complete disregard for the Criminal Law.

 

This could be due to two things:

 

a) Either ignorance or no knowledge of the Criminal Law and their culpability under the Fraud Act 2006

 

or

 

b) Complete arrogance

 

Have a look at the sentences that those committing offences under this Act can receive - and remember that officers of the company are individually liable (see S.12 Fraud Act 2006).

 

It really is about time that the Serious Crime Unit were contacted by someone who has suffered at the hands of anyone committing these offences.

 

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meeting with 1st MP went well. He's taken all info and promised to look into. Have another meeting this week. Billy Bragg is appearing at Speakers Corner on Sunday talking about Bankers' bonuses:

Time:Sunday, 31 January 2010 13:00

Location:Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London

NoBonus4RBS | Facebook

 

As many caggers should go along as poss. SJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Coolchris:

As you will see if you look at my posts I consider that an offence is committed under the Fraud Act 2006, and if you have a look at Sections 2, 3 and 4 they all are clear and in my (humble) view as an ex-pc and former prosecutor. the offence to be charged has to be what is called 'complete', or in today's parlance 'has ticked all of the boxes'. In examining the actions as described I consider that they have not only 'ticked all the boxes', but have provided evidence by their actions of a complete disregard for the Criminal Law.

 

This could be due to two things:

 

a) Either ignorance or no knowledge of the Criminal Law and their culpability under the Fraud Act 2006

 

or

 

b) Complete arrogance

 

Have a look at the sentences that those committing offences under this Act can receive - and remember that officers of the company are individually liable (see S.12 Fraud Act 2006).

 

It really is about time that the Serious Crime Unit were contacted by someone who has suffered at the hands of anyone committing these offences.

 

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

 

Hi Dougal.

 

I think that they are fully aware of the Law, so I would go with (b) Complete arrogance.

I would like to know, as you seem clued into this, is: even though they have reluctantly refunded all their trumped up charges, could I still send a complaint into the OFT? The OFT because I think that their business practice is definitely not FAIR on consumers and more evidence to OFT the better. As far as instigating an investigation through the FOS, then I think It wont be looked at in much detail and they will probably come back..."oh well they refunded so there aint anything we can do". So submitting evidence to OFT in the first place seems the best route.

See, I reckon to snare these vipers, we need to concentrate on the Fraud angle of attack. I can prove that they send out letters for fictional charges. Is this a training/software problem or is it premeditated fraud? I obviously believe its the latter, however they can argue the former, but that can also be proven as a falsehood if investigated thoroughly (database management etc). They could argue that they can charge you as its part of the agreement...well NO..because I can Prove that a payment was NOT returned unpayed, therefore the 2 options mentioned previously stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Coolchris and everyone,

 

Personally I think a complaint to the OFT is a waste of time. What is needed is a formal complaint to the Police, for them to pass to their Financial Crime Unit.

 

All forces now have access to this type of investigation.

 

My only comment is this: On making the first approach to the Police ask to speak to an officer from CID. If not, leave your details with another officer - NOT a civilian Counter Clerk (beware counter clerks now wear uniform very similar to regular officers!!) - and once you have spoken to a regular officer MAKE SURE you get their name and warrant number. This is to complete the trail in case for some reason it goes 'cold'.

 

Now then, Police officers MUST investigate reports of crime - if they do not they commit an offence themselves, and are subject to discipline which can lead to dismissal from the Force!

 

Once you have the Financial Crime unit on board, then the house of cards created by these sub-prime lenders will collapse VERY quickly.

 

As always

 

 

Dougal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Express Monday25/01/2010 HOME OWNERS WIN MORTGAGE REFUND

Near the bottom of the article

 

The FSA is set to release a report later this week and five more mortgage lenders are in line for fines.

Cerris Tavinor, an FSA spokeswoman, said: “We completed our investigation into Gmac and published the results of that case.

“We have made the point publicly that we have referred other lenders to enforcement, so other work is carrying on.”

 

HAVE SWIFT FINALLY BEEN CAUGHT? :D:D

 

 

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Home owners win mortgage refund

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have seen this before but I've just had a quick skim of the FSA Mortgage Market Review (118 pages!). Yesterday's charges announcement seems to be the beginning of their resulting actions.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/discussion/dp09_03.pdf You can send your comments on it to the FSA by 31 January.

Particularly interesting about sub prime, private equity funding, charges, arrears, securitisation, fraud etc:

"Some specialist lenders entered the market by targeting customers with adverse credit histories and making lending decisions based to a great extent on the underlying collateral." i.e. never expecting consumers to be able to repay them.

"By making it explicit in the rules that firms must, at a minimum, be prepared to deploy a particular range of hardship tools, we shall make it much more difficult for them to conclude securitisation deals that are at odds with their duty to treat customers fairly"

and

"There has been growing concern at the number of regulated mortgage books being sold by mortgage firms seeking to limit their losses or raise funds. These sales are typically at a discount and have attracted hedge funds and private equity firms." Hello Alchemy Partners!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from sweetjanes post

 

"There has been growing concern at the number of regulated mortgage books being sold by mortgage firms seeking to limit their losses or raise funds. These sales are typically at a discount and have attracted hedge funds and private equity firms." ....Hello Alchemy Partners!

 

 

Have now started to complile a commentary to submit to the FSA on what Swift and the Kestrel Companies do with their buying, selling, transfer of accounts and loans and double accounting sytems and double borrowing.

 

Main issue ...How can a Ltd company with only a pound share borrow massive sums of money to buy loans off Swift and why ....why do Swift attempt to convince us that they sell these loans without the TItle charge ......and how Kestrel can borrow without the Titles of property for security for this borrowing...... then say they have a loan book ..........when they do not lend money....I will post up exactly what I send ...even for the benefit of Swift......so that they can dig themselves in deeper by making more false misleading statements in attempts to justify their irregular financial dealings ...............I will be making the FSA aware also of the unsigned and undated "audited" accounts lodged at companies house and ask them to refer to them all within the Kestrel Group.

 

If Swift retain the title why do they not borrow the money themselves......because that would show double borrowing right away by doing it the way they do the double borrowing is concealed.

 

They further conceal it by returning Kestrel NO 2 to a dormant non trading company status with outstanding mortgages within their accounts which are then "hidden"

 

I do not think the FSA will like this one little bit

 

 

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I am new to this forum.

 

My brother died last year leaving a property on which he had a mortgage, and a secured loan with swift advances orginally for £7000, took out 3 years ago.

 

I have just recieved a letter from the court that an order for posseision had been granted for the property because my brother did not attend to defend it, Swift Advances failed to tell them that he had died, and I did not get any notification of the court hearing. they are now demanding £25,597.58.

 

My parents are still living in the property and have been for 47 years also there is a mortgage on the property and if the house was sold there would only be £15,000 left.

 

Can anyone help where can I go for help

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I am new to this forum.

 

My brother died last year leaving a property on which he had a mortgage, and a secured loan with swift advances orginally for £7000, took out 3 years ago.

 

I have just recieved a letter from the court that an order for posseision had been granted for the property because my brother did not attend to defend it, Swift Advances failed to tell them that he had died, and I did not get any notification of the court hearing. they are now demanding £25,597.58.

 

My parents are still living in the property and have been for 47 years also there is a mortgage on the property and if the house was sold there would only be £15,000 left.

 

Can anyone help where can I go for help

 

Cheers

serious problem. You need to start your own thread but hang on a bit because someone will come along with some help.

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I am new to this forum.

 

My brother died last year leaving a property on which he had a mortgage, and a secured loan with swift advances orginally for £7000, took out 3 years ago.

 

I have just recieved a letter from the court that an order for posseision had been granted for the property because my brother did not attend to defend it, Swift Advances failed to tell them that he had died, and I did not get any notification of the court hearing. they are now demanding £25,597.58.

 

My parents are still living in the property and have been for 47 years also there is a mortgage on the property and if the house was sold there would only be £15,000 left.

 

Can anyone help where can I go for help

 

Cheers

 

I think firstly you need to do is get a stay put on this with the court. You need time to sort this out. Ring the court office and ask them what you need to complete. The forms are all on the HMCS website just ask them what you need to send given the circumstances. Then get Swift to provide you with a complete breakdown of their statement of charges, their claim for repossession all their supporting documentation and especially and DO NOT FORGET THIS, a copy of the Actuarial Accrual Account Summary - this is extremely important. You also need a full copy of the agreement they are claiming against so you can understand what it is you are up against.

 

Once you have made contact with Swift and asked for this, explain the circumstances and then come back here with your response when there will be a number of us here to help you. It would be useful to have your own thread if you can but don't be rushing off if you are not sure, just stay on this one for the time-being, I'm sure the original poster won't mind as it is a minefield of information. We'll guide you through this and set you up with a thread thereafter. You have made the first step, that's the important thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest blackie

bethsophie you are in good hands here. These people are truly amazing, they will point you in the right direction and give you all the support you need. I've been away from this site for a while, as I have been unwell. But Swift have driven me to the edge, I borrowed 13,000 four years ago and recently they advised that the debt was now £28,768.00. Got a little legal advice now, and this site is amazing. Hang on in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I am new to this forum.

 

My brother died last year leaving a property on which he had a mortgage, and a secured loan with swift advances orginally for £7000, took out 3 years ago.

 

I have just recieved a letter from the court that an order for posseision had been granted for the property because my brother did not attend to defend it, Swift Advances failed to tell them that he had died, and I did not get any notification of the court hearing. they are now demanding £25,597.58.

 

My parents are still living in the property and have been for 47 years also there is a mortgage on the property and if the house was sold there would only be £15,000 left.

 

Can anyone help where can I go for help

 

Cheers

 

HI bethsophie,

 

As overdone says start your own thread....in the mean time I have taken the liberty to send a copy of your post direct to Mr David Blocksidge at the OFT ....I hope you do not mind I copy below exactly what I have sent him

Re Swift Advances PLc

 

Dear Mr Blocksidge,

 

I copy below a post that has been made on the Consumer Action Group forum, this is a prime example to show how ruthless this lender is, and as I have said before their Consumer Credit Licence should be revoked immediately, it is appalling and disgusting that this Lender should still be allowed to continue to act in a manner such as this example .

 

I would like to point out that this is not an isolated case, there are many many more.

 

Yours sincerely

 

sparkie

 

"QUOTE"

Hi

I am new to this forum.

 

My brother died last year leaving a property on which he had a mortgage, and a secured loan with swift advances orginally for £7000, took out 3 years ago.

 

I have just received a letter from the court that an order for posseision had been granted for the property because my brother did not attend to defend it, Swift Advances failed to tell them that he had died, and I did not get any notification of the court hearing. they are now demanding £25,597.58.

 

My parents are still living in the property and have been for 47 years also there is a mortgage on the property and if the house was sold there would only be £15,000 left.

 

Can anyone help where can I go for help

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest blackie

Hi Sparkie

Can you bring me up to date, I have been on my own quest with Swift, they failed to attend hearing in December, judge not surpirsed, anyway looks like I have some breathing space to put house on market and get out and away from Swift.

 

How is everything going your end. How are you holding up. What news with your barrister.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI bethsophie,

 

As overdone says start your own thread....in the mean time I have taken the liberty to send a copy of your post direct to Mr David Blocksidge at the OFT ....I hope you do not mind I copy below exactly what I have sent him

Re Swift Advances PLc

 

Dear Mr Blocksidge,

 

I copy below a post that has been made on the Consumer Action Group forum, this is a prime example to show how ruthless this lender is, and as I have said before their Consumer Credit Licence should be revoked immediately, it is appalling and disgusting that this Lender should still be allowed to continue to act in a manner such as this example .

 

I would like to point out that this is not an isolated case, there are many many more.

 

Yours sincerely

 

sparkie

 

"QUOTE"

Hi

I am new to this forum.

 

My brother died last year leaving a property on which he had a mortgage, and a secured loan with swift advances orginally for £7000, took out 3 years ago.

 

I have just received a letter from the court that an order for posseision had been granted for the property because my brother did not attend to defend it, Swift Advances failed to tell them that he had died, and I did not get any notification of the court hearing. they are now demanding £25,597.58.

 

My parents are still living in the property and have been for 47 years also there is a mortgage on the property and if the house was sold there would only be £15,000 left.

 

Can anyone help where can I go for help

 

Cheers

 

Well done Sparkie and everyone

 

A brilliant move..!

 

We would all be lost without your inspiration........I certainly would not have got as far with this as I have.

 

As always best wishes

 

Dougal

 

PS: Criminal case looms on the horizon for our friends........at last they will be named and shamed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest blackie

Dougal, lets hope it comes soon. This past year has been one of the worst of my whole life, Swift keep coming, it's been relentless. I never dreamed when I took out a loan I would end up in so much bother. Central Credit have much to answer, surely they knew how ruthless this company was. I am not religiious but please god if there is any justice in this world, Swift will get their just deserts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from Dougal

 

PS: Criminal case looms on the horizon for our friends........at last they will be named and shamed!

 

I can assure all that there is a far bigger shock coming to Swift Advances than they could ever dream of very soon.......as I said I will say no more..........but it is a FACT.....even without the OFT and the FSA .......... all the money they have extorted from customers will not be enough to protect them.;)

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from Dougal

 

PS: Criminal case looms on the horizon for our friends........at last they will be named and shamed!

 

I can assure all that there is a far bigger shock coming to Swift Advances than they could ever dream of very soon.......as I said I will say no more..........but it is a FACT.....even without the OFT and the FSA .......... all the money they have extorted from customers will not be enough to protect them.;)

 

sparkie

 

Oh sparkie its wonderful to hear such words and have something to look forward to. I hope all your hard work and efforts pay off, rest assured you have a lot of people behind you. I wish you the best and hopefully Blemain will be next on the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just had reply from the OFT acknowledging the e-mail I sent them posted above.

It does suggest that they are working on Swifts complians case still

 

sparkie

 

I have been advised that they are not allowed to suggest anything of the sort.

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...