Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Smarterchick]

Ive tried three times now and they keep sending me the same statement through that still doesn't tally up.

 

I was told this is what it is.

 

What statement do they send you? They generally send the one which is showing Payment History across the top. This Actuarial statement is very different.

[busterg]

What statement do they send you? They generally send the one which is showing Payment History across the top. This Actuarial statement is very different.

 

then I've definately (sp?) not had this. They tell me they have but it does say Payment History, Annual Arrears Statement, and Annual Payment History.

[Smarterchick]

then I've definately (sp?) not had this. They tell me they have but it does say Payment History, Annual Arrears Statement, and Annual Payment History.

 

Then send an email to this guy, [email protected] he's the whizz who proclaims to have an Economics Degree and the one who makes these things up and churns them out. What you want is:

 

The Actuarial Account Accrual Summary sheet

 

 

They produce them for Swift Advances plc 2nd Charge loans, whether they supply them for Swift 1st Mortgages or not is another thing altogether as I don't know.

[Sparkie1723]

then I've definately (sp?) not had this. They tell me they have but it does say Payment History, Annual Arrears Statement, and Annual Payment History.

 

THese are not what are considered a STATEMENT of account......they are purely what they say they are a record of payments and debits ..........a statement of account tells you what the state of the account was/is at any given monthly period................Swift have never supplied one of these to any customer......another point for everyone to tell the OFT about

 

 

sparkie

[busterg]

Sparkie and SC - Thank you. I will email him in the morning. Ive never had this document and Ive asked for monthly updates in the past.

[frettful38]

THese are not what are considered a STATEMENT of account......they are purely what they say they are a record of payments and debits ..........a statement of account tells you what the state of the account was/is at any given monthly period................Swift have never supplied one of these to any customer......another point for everyone to tell the OFT about

 

 

sparkie

 

Now that you mention that sparkie, Blemain have never supplied me with a STATEMENT of account either. Each time I requested this and what they sent me in my subject access request was a record of my payments and debits.

My solicitor however has requested a statement of account, lets see what they send

[andrew1]

Sparkie and SC - Thank you. I will email him in the morning. Ive never had this document and Ive asked for monthly updates in the past.

 

If I am not mistaken did you not say you had a Swift 1st Mtg? ie a main mortgage, perhaps that's why you can't get one.

[welshperson3]

THese are not what are considered a STATEMENT of account......they are purely what they say they are a record of payments and debits ..........a statement of account tells you what the state of the account was/is at any given monthly period................Swift have never supplied one of these to any customer......another point for everyone to tell the OFT about

 

 

sparkie

 

 

If what your saying is true about the statements then they loose all rights under the agreement.

 

Not entitled to interest

Not entitled to any charges applied to the account

Not entitled to enforce the agreement

 

Research this point it could be quite a strong point

iIhope this helps

 

 

 

Statements to be provided in relation to fixed-sum credit agreements

After section 77 of the 1974 Act insert—

“77A Statements to be provided in relation to fixed-sum credit agreements

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit—

(a) shall, within the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which the agreement is made, give the debtor a statement under this section; and

(b) after the giving of that statement, shall give the debtor further statements under this section at intervals of not more than one year.

(2) Regulations may make provision about the form and content of statements under this section.

(3) The debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of a statement under this section.

(4) The creditor is not required to give the debtor any statement under this section once the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) that there is no sum payable under the agreement by the debtor; and

(b) that there is no sum which will or may become so payable.

(5) Subsection (6) applies if at a time before the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied the creditor fails to give the debtor—

(a) a statement under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (1)(a); or

(b) such a statement within the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which such a statement was last given to him.

(6) Where this subsection applies in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor—

(a) the creditor shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance;

(b) the debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum of interest to the extent calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance or to any part of it; and

© the debtor shall have no liability to pay any default sum which (apart from this paragraph)—

(i) would have become payable during the period of non-compliance; or

(ii) would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement which occurs during that period (whether or not the breach continues after the end of that period).

(7) In this section ‘the period of non-compliance’ means, in relation to a failure to give a statement under this section to the debtor, the period which—

(a) begins immediately after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of subsection (5); and

(b) ends at the end of the day on which the statement is given to the debtor or on which the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied, whichever is earlier.

(8) This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.”

 

 

WP3

[Sparkie1723]

Section 77A has only been amended by the 2006 Act it does not apply to agreements entered into before April 2008......it is not retrospective..... BUT having said that everyone is entitled to a PROPER and explanatory statement of account no matter what it is or when it was taken out, especially if it it a First Charge mortgage.

 

sparkie

[andrew1]

1st point is the last point:

 

( 8 This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.”

 

if it does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement would that not dispel any action of a consumer agreement?

 

If what this says to the exclusion of 8. is true then 6 (b) will be quite useful to those with Interest only loans I would imagine.

[Gallahad]

Hi WP3 I take this is an addition to the CCA if so could you indicate the date this was added to said act.

G

[welshperson3]

1st point is the last point:

 

( 8 This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.”

 

if it does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement would that not dispel any action of a consumer agreement?

 

If what this says to the exclusion of 8. is true then 6 (b) will be quite useful to those with Interest only loans I would imagine.

 

 

EXAMPLE OF A NON COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT is if i lend you money but not as a business.

 

i think a bit more research is required on the date issue, as maybe it will cover all cca loans.

 

compliance with this is not retrospective.

 

example if you have a 10 year agreement 5 years is before the start date and 5 years is after this came in then they have done nothing wrong if they didn't comply in the first 5 years (not retrospective)

 

but the remaining 5 years after this came in then they have to comply during this time. I THINK SO CHECK IT OUT.

 

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (CCA 2006), received the Royal Assent on March 30 2006. Its provisions will be brought into effect gradually over the next two years.

The first CCA 2006 provisions came into force on June 16 2006:

•a new s.77(A)(2), allows regulations to be made requiring that debtors in regulated fixed–sum agreements receive annual account statements

 

 

WP3

Edited February 20, 2010 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

The issue of never having received a statement is a very strong point,

Just imagine if one person proved that swifts ( statements) are not in fact statements at all. (but just a list of payments)

 

Then it would be open day for everyone with a swift agreement or any other lender for that matter THAT DON'T SEND OUT STATEMENTS.

 

 

research ,research ,research,and if you get board do some research on this.

 

 

Required statements for regulated agreements Introduction The Consumer Credit Act and its amendments affect all those who use credit to buy goods and or services, for example, on hire-purchase agreements or using a store credit card. The Act governs the licensing of, and other controls, on traders who supply credit, or goods and services on credit. It is therefore a valuable tool to have knowledge of how it works at your fingertips. This article explains a recent change to Consumer Credit law – the CCA 2006. Specifically, it explains the requirement for a statement of money owed and paid. Required statement Section 6 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 inserts a new section (s77A) whereby a statement must be provided if the agreement is a fixed sum credit agreement under section 77A. The statement should explain the money borrowed, money paid, interest in all cases and the outstanding amount. Particulars The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit:

• Shall (with in the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which the agreement is made), give the debtor a statement under this section; and
  
• After the giving of that statement, shall give the debtor further statements under this section at intervals of not more than one year.
  

Failure to provide the statement If the creditor fails to give the debtor an annual statement, then he is not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of his noncompliance and the debtor is not liable to pay any interest during this period. The debtor is also not liable to pay any default sum that would have become payable during the period of non-compliance or would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement occurring during that period. However a creditor will not be required to give the debtor an annual statement if there is no further sums payable under the agreement. Further provisions relating to running account credit agreements Section 7 of CCA 2006 inserts a new section (78(4A) of the 1974 Act) which requires creditors to issue further statements to debtors setting out specified information in respect of running account credit agreements. The statements must be provided at intervals of not more than 12 months. Creditors may further be required to include specified information about the consequence of failing to make repayments, or only making minimum repayments. The Dispensing Notice If there are two or more debtors, a debtor may provide a ‘dispensing notice’ to the creditor to the effect that the creditor is not obliged to provide a second statement to that debtor. However, dispensing notices will not be effective if that would mean that neither debtor will receive a statement.

 

 

wp3

[andrew1]

I which case a number of people here will have some rejoicing to do.. thank you WP3

[cupcake68]

Sorry to butt in but.......!

 

.....and I am no expert on this (just asking what seems an obvious question!).............

 

.......if I tell my lender I am not paying because they have not sent me a statement and they cannot enforce, surely all they will do is send me a statment?

 

Are these statements going to prove that much to rejoice about?

 

Sorry to interupt!!

[frettful38]

The issue of never having received a statement is a very strong point,

Just imagine if one person proved that swifts ( statements) are not in fact statements at all. (but just a list of payments)

 

Then it would be open day for everyone with a swift agreement or any other lender for that matter THAT DON'T SEND OUT STATEMENTS.

 

 

research ,research ,research,and if you get board do some research on this.

 

 

Required statements for regulated agreements Introduction The Consumer Credit Act and its amendments affect all those who use credit to buy goods and or services, for example, on hire-purchase agreements or using a store credit card. The Act governs the licensing of, and other controls, on traders who supply credit, or goods and services on credit. It is therefore a valuable tool to have knowledge of how it works at your fingertips. This article explains a recent change to Consumer Credit law – the CCA 2006. Specifically, it explains the requirement for a statement of money owed and paid. Required statement Section 6 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 inserts a new section (s77A) whereby a statement must be provided if the agreement is a fixed sum credit agreement under section 77A. The statement should explain the money borrowed, money paid, interest in all cases and the outstanding amount. Particulars The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit:

• Shall (with in the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which the agreement is made), give the debtor a statement under this section; and
  
• After the giving of that statement, shall give the debtor further statements under this section at intervals of not more than one year.
  

Failure to provide the statement If the creditor fails to give the debtor an annual statement, then he is not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of his noncompliance and the debtor is not liable to pay any interest during this period. The debtor is also not liable to pay any default sum that would have become payable during the period of non-compliance or would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement occurring during that period. However a creditor will not be required to give the debtor an annual statement if there is no further sums payable under the agreement. Further provisions relating to running account credit agreements Section 7 of CCA 2006 inserts a new section (78(4A) of the 1974 Act) which requires creditors to issue further statements to debtors setting out specified information in respect of running account credit agreements. The statements must be provided at intervals of not more than 12 months. Creditors may further be required to include specified information about the consequence of failing to make repayments, or only making minimum repayments. The Dispensing Notice If there are two or more debtors, a debtor may provide a ‘dispensing notice’ to the creditor to the effect that the creditor is not obliged to provide a second statement to that debtor. However, dispensing notices will not be effective if that would mean that neither debtor will receive a statement.

 

 

wp3

 

Does the above apply to unregulated agreements too WP3?

[coolchris]

....And all these statements and emails that you send to them AND they reply to...they WILL CHARGE YOU FOR IT, even though you sent it to THEM. They WILL attempt to charge you £12 a time for ANY communication attempt, whether initiated by yourself (your money) or not. They will only reverse these charges if you can contest and prove that they are crap.

I know....I've been down that road and its not pleasant. Once you start any communication with them, they will try any trick in the book to slap charges onto your account..plus Interest.

Just Beware.

[busterg]

Wow - thank you guys/gals. My head just gone gaga but thank you. I'm gonna try and work it all through again over the weekend.

 

I really appreciate it.

[welshperson3]

Sorry to butt in but.......!

 

.....and I am no expert on this (just asking what seems an obvious question!).............

 

.......if I tell my lender I am not paying because they have not sent me a statement and they cannot enforce, surely all they will do is send me a statment?

 

Are these statements going to prove that much to rejoice about?

 

Sorry to interupt!!

 

If you tell your lender you have not received a statement and then they send one out, then yes you will have to comply with the loan agreement.

 

A point that needs looking at is

 

You have a 20K loan over 10 years interest payable over term is 15k total 35k.

Now if the lender never sends out statements then they are only entitled to the first years interest, as the breach starts after one year.approximately 1.5k interest is all that they are entitled to total payable now payable 21.5k not the original 35K.

 

Also as all the payments that you make at the time of the breach are taken of the capital (as they are not allowed interest during breach)then any agreement will be paid in full a lot sooner than the agreement date

 

effect of this is not that you have got out of the agreement,but that you have a agreement that is interest and charge free after the first year.

 

WP3

[frettful38]

Excellent advice there WP3, does the above apply to unregulated agreements too? I have never received a statement from my lender either and my loan is over £25K

[busterg]

Excellent advice there WP3, does the above apply to unregulated agreements too? I have never received a statement from my lender either and my loan is over £25K

 

Mine too

[welshperson3]

Excellent advice there WP3, does the above apply to unregulated agreements too? I have never received a statement from my lender either and my loan is over £25K

 

 

sorry I'm not sure enough to be able to answer at this moment ,but i will see what i can find out.

 

hopefully someone else on here already has the answer and will post it up.

in the meantime i will see what i can find-out.

 

wp3

[coolchris]

Just a point of interest of mine:

 

Can anyone please tell me that when you ask for anything from Swift, call Swift, Email Swift..any communication with them whatsoever; that you have received a demand for a fee to handle that communication (plus interest)???

 

If so, then have you actually contested this? Have you seen how much this will increase your balance over time as they add interest to this?

 

Thanks.

[Sparkie1723]

Just a quick point anyone fighting SWift in Court should defend under the Unfair Relationship as per

 

 

THE BANK OF SCOTLAND has failed in its attempt to prevent a customer amending her claim for unfair bank charges, recalling the sist, and fixing a full evidential hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court this morning (Friday, 19 February 2010).

 

UK banks have been telling over one million of their customers in the UK that they now had no legal basis to reclaim unfair charges in light of last November's Supreme Court ruling. However, the Supreme Court itself had suggested that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and Govan Law Centre (GLC) had sought to amend their client's claim to incorporate a revised 'regulation 5' case under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), and significantly, an additional claim under the new section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA, as amended in April 2007).

 

Counsel for the bank, instructed by Dundas and Wilson CS LLP, had objected strongly to the pursuer's substantial amendments, arguing it would be 'improper' to allow the customer to amend her claim in this way. GLC's Mike Dailly, representing the customer, explained to the court that it was necessary to amend the claim in order to take on board legal developments, and although consumers could no longer attack charges as 'excessive in price' under the UTCCR, they could do so under the s.140A of the CCA. The ability to do so was hugely significant, as was the fact the onus of proof to show charges were not excessive was on the bank under the CCA.

 

In Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc, Sheriff Baird, a senior sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court, rejected the submissions for the defenders, and granted the pursuer's application to substantially amend her Statement of Claim and Crave, recalled the sist, and fixed a full evidential hearing (know as a 'proof' in Scotland) for 11th June 2010.

 

 

 

(1) Now that the court has accepted the new legal grounds, and appointed an evidential hearing on those grounds, the effect of this evidentially and tactically is very significant. Section 140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides as follows:

 

 

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.

 

What this means is that the Bank of Scotland now has to prove its charges are fair in relation to price (under s.140A of the CCA). If you go back to pre-July 2007, that never happened. It always for claimants to prove charges were unfair, which historically was never easy given the banks failure to disclose their true business model etc.,

 

Tactically, to place the bank under more pressure, we can enroll an application to ordain the bank 'to lead' at the evidential hearing i.e. we create a prima facie presumption that the charges are unlawful, which the bank can rebut, but the onus is on them, evidentially, to do so, and we can insist that they lead their witnesses and evidence first. We are entitled to do this, given the court has accepted the new grounds of claim.

 

Swift will have to prove that their charges and fees are not unfair and that there is no unfair relationship which we all know everything they do is unfair....remember the section 140 states ..the debtor can challenge anything done before the agreement started during and even AFTER the agreement has ended.

 

This is all being brought into my full appeal against them.

 

sparkie

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie, very valuable advice you have given. Sticking to the 140 Unfair Relationship I have been advised and have it in writing from my solicitor that

 

"the issues regarding unfair relationship are in place to protect vulnerable individuals such as elderly people or people with disabilities in our opinion. We are acting on a no win no fee basis for you and we have to believe that the arguments we are basing a claim on have a reasonable prospect of success. We do not believe that arguments concerning the unfair relationship provisions have a reasonable prospect of success."

 

I do have to beg to differ, as I believe not only would I come under the unfair relationship but also under the irresponsible lending route too, as I was given a loan when my lender knew full well that I was on income support and receiving disability allowance., but my solicitor does not seem to think so.