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

Swifts SECRET COMMISSION

 

Mark White said in Court under oath that Swift do not pay Commission, Mr Webster said in an E-mail to me that Swift do pay Commission from time to time. ....But ....not on our particular agreement

 

This is the screen shot from Promise Finance Ltd's computer bank ref our loan

Please note everyone where the box Brokers Fee is and there is an entry

and in the box Commission note that there is also an entry.

I would say not only is it "secret commission" they attempt to conceal it by swearing under oath they do not pay any;);).

 

sparkie

 

 

 

screenshot2.jpg

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Can't seem to read it sparkie, could you possibly use photobucket so that we cn blow it up?

 

HI Fret,

 

It is only a small shot ...and it goes even more blurred if I try to blow it up. BUt the facts are there.......even down to the Adv being shown as £43.000...not what Swift made us borrow £ 46.955

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Evening all,

 

I have a letter from Central Capital admitting liability....I'll post it on here over the weekend.....

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied from another thread.very interesting.

 

sparkie

 

Other possible strategies for you to consider in addition to EIE's (that he posted earlier this evening)

 

1. Caggers who are in litigation - make a CPR 31.6 or 31.12 application for disclosure of the Mortgage Sale Agreement

 

2. Make an application to the Land Registry on form AP1 for correction to the inaccurate and incomplete Land Register. Use the SPV's Companies House form 395 filing as proof of them being assigned legal title - use s.27, s.58(2) and s.123 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the form 395 from Companies House site,

 

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/generalForms/395Guidance.pdf

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/generalForms/395.pdf

 

This is form AP1 from Land Registry Site

 

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/AP1.pdf

 

I hope these are the correct forms sparkie. I have just been reading through them and they may be of great value if needed ;).

 

BTW, does this relate to secured lending lenders too or is it only with people who have mortgages. If I wanted to find out about Blemain using these forms will it be possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how my letter to the OFT and the FSA is looking so far .......can folks follow what I am trying to make clear??

 

Dear Mr Blocksidge

 

I write to you further with regard to the complaint about Swift Advances and the Kestrel Companies.

 

I would like to enlarge on what I and many other Consumer Action Group ( CAG) members are seriously concerned and utterly dismayed at, and I therefore write on their behalf also, this would make it a matter of concern of a large section of the consumer public and not an individual complaint…Swift have some 20,600 or more borrowers, or so they stated to the BBC in 2007 each with an average loan value of £25000.

 

A lot of these issues I have placed before you in my personal correspondence, I would like to place the following before you in a manner I hope will make these particular issues and concerns a little more clearer.

I copy here a section of a published article by the FSA

 

"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."

 

Swift Advances state in their accounts that they “sold all loans and mortgages to fellow/sister companies in order to obtain further funding.”

 

The Kestrel companies accounts state that they acquired loans and mortgages from Swift Advances.

 

There can be no argument against these statements of fact.

 

The argument the Swift members of the CAG ihave is that the Kestrel companies did not have the funds to purchase these loans as they have only a £1.00 share issue.

 

The question arises is where did these Kestrel companies obtain the funding to purchase these loans and mortgages?

 

It appears what happened is, that a syndicated funding application was

made along with Swift Advances to these other funding banks using the title to the properties that they had already used to borrow the initial funding to lend to borrowers from Barclays Bank Plc.

 

In order to obtain this further funding due to the fact that the Kestrel companies had no funds to purchase the loans Swift had to transfer the Title & Equity to the Kestrel companies in order for them to obtain this further funding, bearing in mind Swift received the full value of the Title and Equity packages i.e £ 200.000.000.

 

If Equity alone was used they would not/could not borrow the sums required as we are led to believe that funding will only be granted on 60% equity, so where did the other £80.000.000 come from? certainly not on the assetts of the Kestrel Companies they have none

 

The Chief Executive of Swift Advances Plc Mr John Webster on being questioned many, many times about these transactions has stated that only the equity was transferred and that Swift retained Title to all the properties.

 

 

 

This we could accept if it were true, but the question arises, the equity value appertaining to these loans do not amount to the sums borrowed by the Kestrel companies in order to purchase the loans and mortgages at full value and pay Swift the full value of them.

 

To do this the Title equity of and in the properties MUST be used, that means the transfer of Title.

Swift deny this.

 

However this leads to the biggest questions of all.

 

If equity assignment/transfer was all that was done, and this is all of what was used by the Kestrel companies to borrow these further funds,

 

1.…Why did Swift Advances Plc not borrow these extra funds themselves on this basis?

 

2.…Why involve other companies?

 

3.…Why resurrect a dormant company ( Kestrel Loans No 2 Ltd) to borrow funds in this syndicate and once borrowed return this company to dormant state with these mortgage loans outstanding on their books?

 

It appears that Swift could not do this as it would be seen by the funding banks (who were the same banks the initial borrowing was with) that the same security instruments was being used again by Swift to borrow again this would be seen as an attempt to “ double borrow”.

 

Swift therefore use their own internal companies to carry out this double borrowing for them, this in our view is extremely serious Fraud.

These companies are deliberately concealed from the public and the FSA and OFT and ICO, for the specific purpose to carry out these transactions

 

All the companies involved are involved in fraudulent double borrowing on a massive scale.

 

 

Finally if it is true that the Kestrel companies bought these loans and liabilities then Swift have no right to sue anyone on their own should any borrower default on their loans, as the Kestrel company whichever one bought the loans, owns the rights and liabilities, they therefore must be included on any Court documents as they are the ones the borrower owes the money to not Swift Advances

 

It therefore must follow that any and all present and past proceedings that are and have taken place and the possession orders have been unlawfully obtained and the Courts have been deliberately misled and deceived.

 

Yours sincerely

 

sparkie

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

IF and When I have thought of more I'll post it

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
corrections and additions to text
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only my opinion reached by what I have found out since my fight in Court with Swift

 

Should anyone receive a possession application by Swift dispute it on the fact that you do not owe Swift any money.......you owe it to a Kestrel Loans company.........Mr Webster has inasmuch said so.

 

He has said in an email to me

" The transactions referred to in our accounts refer to loans that were sold by equitable assignment which is a valid and enforecable sale that transfers all the benefits, interest and liablities"

 

"Legal title remained with the Originator no legal transfer took place"

 

What he is actually saying here is that they say they own the Title to your property BUT................ you owe the money to a Kestrel Company ....he's just said so...............and as they are suing you for money..................Then surely the Kestrel Companies name must be on the Court Documents.

 

 

Just my view.......needs a good barrister on this one...but I believe that I am 100% correct.......not that's anything to go on :D:D

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
spelling as usual
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that anyone who has a loan with Swift have just read what you have written above sparkie, because by god :eek: that is a lot of mind blowing information to digest if it is proven to be true.

I wish I had a loan with Swift instead of Blemain then together we could blow this company to kingdom come.

Blemain wrote to me a few months ago and said that they operate similar to Swift, now I would hardly see that statement as a compliment would you? especially after what is happening to Swift at present.

 

I believe that something really positive will come out of this, its just a matter of time, and sparkie you seem to be hot on the trail of Swift and by the looks of things I can see another Titanic disaster heading their way very soon.

 

Keep up the good work, I follow with even more greater interest now :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that anyone who has a loan with Swift have just read what you have written above sparkie, because by god :eek: that is a lot of mind blowing information to digest if it is proven to be true.

I wish I had a loan with Swift instead of Blemain then together we could blow this company to kingdom come.

Blemain wrote to me a few months ago and said that they operate similar to Swift, now I would hardly see that statement as a compliment would you? especially after what is happening to Swift at present.

 

I believe that something really positive will come out of this, its just a matter of time, and sparkie you seem to be hot on the trail of Swift and by the looks of things I can see another Titanic disaster heading their way very soon.

 

Keep up the good work, I follow with even more greater interest now :D

 

HI fretful,

 

If Blemaim operate the same as Swift then they are also in trouble............but I do not think that Blemaim sell to/ transfer/ securitize with " Invisible" companies.

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI fretful,

 

If Blemaim operate the same as Swift then they are also in trouble............but I do not think that Blemaim sell to/ transfer/ securitize with " Invisible" companies.

 

sparkie

 

They don't that we know of;), yet, but who knows what goes on behind closed doors in the financial world today. I mean if Swift do this then how do we know that non of the others are also operating like this. Makes one think hey, and wonder:rolleyes:.

 

I know you must be up to the eyeballs sparkie and hope you had time to read my pm yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest blackie

Swift Changes In Charges.

My Oh Advises That I Have A Letter At Home Advising That Swift Are Changing Their Charges, Anyone Else Had One.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest blackie

Doubt that very much, but have you looked at the charges, they don't seem that different to me. However there is something about them not charging in you have made an arrangement and keep to it. But this is government guide lines anyway, so perhaps we might be able to reclaim those charges. Who knows

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ask for a refund and if you don't get it go to the FOS - they WILL argue your case in getting arrears charges back while you're sticking to a repayment plan, also charges made while your account is being handled by their solicitors (some if not all).

SJ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest blackie

I think everyone on this site has asked for a refund and been told NO NO NO. Swift are a law unto themselves, even solicitors and barristers don't appear to know the law as well as Swift, who by the way can afford to pay some pretty nifty London Barristers. Me I've given up, as long as I can keep my house, and manage to pay their extortionate interest rates I'll live. Just could not face another year like the last one, nearly finished me off and my OH. Its quiet at the moment and I so need the peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Blackie

Changes are in the air, I am in the process of an FOS complaint and the Adjudicator HAS got Swift to offer a refund. Take heart from this. Pressure IS being put on them to mend their ways. If you have the energy (I know what it takes), go through the complaint procedure with Swift and if you don't get anywhere go to the FOS. I know not everyone can - depends on your loan (sorry Landy) but you will have a good chance of getting some charges refunded if you can. SJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sweetjane, whilst your on the topic on refunding charges is it possible that I can ask my lender Blemain to refund my charges too. There must be over 20 letters of arrears reminders at £35 each letter.

If my lender does not comply then could I also complain to the FOS, my loan is over £25k and unregulated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sweetjane, whilst your on the topic on refunding charges is it possible that I can ask my lender Blemain to refund my charges too. There must be over 20 letters of arrears reminders at £35 each letter.

If my lender does not comply then could I also complain to the FOS, my loan is over £25k and unregulated.

 

I'm afraid I'm not an expert on what is and isn't covered but the easiest thing to do is ring the FOS and ask them. Their phone staff are generally very helpful and knowledgeable, they will begin filling the form for you and send it to you for completion / signature and to add copies of correspondence. They do insist you go through the company's own complaints procedure first though.

sj:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I'm not an expert on what is and isn't covered but the easiest thing to do is ring the FOS and ask them. Their phone staff are generally very helpful and knowledgeable, they will begin filling the form for you and send it to you for completion / signature and to add copies of correspondence. They do insist you go through the company's own complaints procedure first though.

sj:-)

 

Thanks sweetjane, will ring them Monday 1st thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the form 395 from Companies House site,

 

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/generalForms/395Guidance.pdf

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/generalForms/395.pdf

 

This is form AP1 from Land Registry Site

 

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/AP1.pdf

 

I hope these are the correct forms sparkie. I have just been reading through them and they may be of great value if needed ;).

 

BTW, does this relate to secured lending lenders too or is it only with people who have mortgages. If I wanted to find out about Blemain using these forms will it be possible?

 

Hello, did you ever find this out?

 

BTW, does this relate to secured lending lenders too or is it only with people who have mortgages. If I wanted to find out about Blemain using these forms will it be possible?

 

The same I believe has happened to me as well. Thanks

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...