Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[frettful38]

You should tell your solicitor to "get his finger out" (and glasses) and read section 140 the Unfair Relationship, and what he is advocating is that ...... that section of the Act is a discriminatory section, the Consumer Credit Act and all its sections are for the benefit and protection of all consumers and creditors alike.... no discrimination of anyone .....he is giving you advice that he knows or should know is incorrect and could be construed as an absolute negligent reckless miss statement of the law, tell him to read the Misrepresentation Act also. Very Very poor & silly advice IMO. BUt this is only my personal view no-one elses.

 

 

sparkie

 

 

Thanks sparkie and I totally agree with you there as I believe he really does not know what he is doing OR he does know that I have a very good and solid case but for some reason or other does not want me to go as far as I should.

Its all about bloody politics isn't it, and I believe that if I did get my loan declared unenforceable then you know what repercussions that could have and we are all too familiar how the government does not want to let people know what does actually go on behind closed doors. But that will not stop us from banging on them will it.

 

I have very valid arguments and points and I know my solicitor knows this, but I get the impression that he is trying to put me off rather than support my findings. I will address these issues to him tomorrow and tell him to either take what I am informing him of seriously or I will have to find someone else who is better qualified.

[Marky1701]

Hi All,

 

Just had an interesting reply from my MP and a reply she received from the Chief Exec of the OFT regarding Swift - I will post details when I have more time.

 

But one thing I would say about lawyers who operate on a 'no win no fee' basis - not in my experience but that of a couple of friends, is that unless they think their case is absolutley nailed on, they will not engage in a fight or go to the expense of barristers.

 

Lawyers have no b*llocks, and most are only just above Swift in the money grabbing food chain.

 

m

[Smarterchick]

Hi All,

 

Just had an interesting reply from my MP and a reply she received from the Chief Exec of the OFT regarding Swift - I will post details when I have more time.

 

But one thing I would say about lawyers who operate on a 'no win no fee' basis - not in my experience but that of a couple of friends, is that unless they think their case is absolutley nailed on, they will not engage in a fight or go to the expense of barristers.

 

Lawyers have no b*llocks, and most are only just above Swift in the money grabbing food chain.

 

m

 

Whilst I'd agree to a certain extent, you have to realise that these people are a business too and in filing claims they have to lay money out to the courts. This is re-claimable yes if they win, but...many of these costs they wrack up are 80 - 100% of the claim and therefore there is a high degree of fees added to their claims. As a result the solicitors defending such claims put in requests to the court to question these costs and that sometimes takes up to a year to resolve - so there's a cash-flow problem about this, not just a can't be bothered element. - Just keep that in mind.

 

With the tens of thousands of us out here wll wanting no-win no-fee challenges, it's not surprising they will generally only go for at least 70-80% success rate jobs. If they were charging you up front fees and you were paying believe me they'd take your cases on all day long.

[sweetjane]

I have been told we have an Actuarial Accrual Account Summary in the post - I'll report back when I've had a chance to see whether it's the real McCoy.

Our MP has asked FOS to copy him on all Swift correspondence. FOS have told me OFT won't report the findings on their Second Charge Lending investigation (which may or not include Swift Advances ) for 12 months - that's not the impression I got from the OFT. . .

[Apollo18]

Hi All,

 

May I suggest that anyone applying for a copy of their Actuarial Accrual Account Summary should buy themselves a very large Magnifying Glass.....As the print on them is tiny!

 

I've found mine difficult to read even if I scan it to my PC and enlarge it. No doubt another ploy by Swift to make life difficult for us!

 

Apollo18

[Smarterchick]

Hi All,

 

May I suggest that anyone applying for a copy of their Actuarial Accrual Account Summary should buy themselves a very large Magnifying Glass.....As the print on them is tiny!

 

I've found mine difficult to read even if I scan it to my PC and enlarge it. No doubt another ploy by Swift to make life difficult for us!

 

Apollo18

 

Then just go back and ask them for a legible copy, you have to keep pressing these people until they get the message they cannot get away with this and WILL NOT get away with this. When they start complying with both common decency and the Law then we will back off - not until! I know it's a pain in the butt, but keep pressing, they'll soon get fed up with non compliance.

[sweetjane]

Yes we've received an AAAS - will be checking it throroughly later.

SJ

[Sparkie1723]

More stuff extracted from section 140 the Unfair Relationship, am posting this on other threads as well

 

sparkie

 

 

Section 140A(1)(a) provides that an unfair relationship may arise by

virtue of the terms of the credit agreement or any related agreement. In some cases unfair contract terms may be sufficient in themselves to give rise to an unfair relationship. In other cases it may be the combination of terms taken together with business practices (whether or not relating to

the operation of the terms) or other acts or omissions of the lender.

Telling you that in line with your instruction they paid the Broker when no one so far as I have discovered ever gave this express permission makes an “unfair relationship”

4.3 In considering the unfairness or otherwise of contract terms, the OFT

would have particular regard to whether the term is unfair for the

purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

(UTCCRs). These provide that a contractual term (if not individually

negotiated) is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it

causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

Making payment of the Broker Fees a condition of the agreement is an “unfair relationship” because it dies actual specify this they just take it.

The same with the Title Indemnity Insurance

For example, the borrower may be unaware that a fee would be charged

in a particular case, or the level of the fee, or how this might impact on

the debt. He may also be unaware that rates might increase in particular

circumstances, or were unlikely to reduce in line with changes in the

market. The lender may have failed to disclose relevant information, or may have done so in a false or misleading manner, misrepresenting key

elements. The information may also have been unclear or ambiguous,

and so may not have been readily comprehensible.

 

Linked transaction is defined in section 19 of the 1974 Act. It includes

where:

• the transaction is entered into in compliance with a term of the credit

agreement

• the transaction is financed, or to be financed, by the agreement

(where the latter is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement), or

• the borrower (or a relative) enters into the transaction on the

suggestion of the lender (or an associate or certain other persons13)

to induce the lender to enter into the credit agreement, or for another

purpose related to that agreement.

This is what I have argued for ages, the Brokers Fees are transactions financed by the agreement and you pay interest on these makes it a debtor- creditor - supplier - agreement and so is the Title Indemnity Insurance,

These make the Swift unregulated agreements a partly regulated multiple agreement………Despite any argument about the Heath case that was ruled on a different issue, payment fo a previpous second charge mortgage

[frettful38]

Sparkie we live and learn and I am learning more and more each day. Today I have been reading my microscopic loans terms and conditions. NASA has kindly let me borrow their telescope . In Term 11 it states:

 

"WHERE A BROKER FEE IS PAYABLE BY THE BORROWER FOR INTRODUCING THE BORROWER TO THE LENDER, THEN THE BORROWER AUTHORIZES THE LENDER TO PAY THESE FEES FROM THE TOTAL LOAN"

 

What I believe, please correct if wrong, it should read is

 

"WHERE A BROKER FEE IS PAYABLE BY THE BORROWER FOR INTRODUCING THE BORROWER TO THE LENDER THEN THE BORROWER AUTHORIZES THE LENDER TO ADD THESE FEES TO THE LOAN"

This is a very misleading term, and not easy to understand. It is very technical how they word their words in order to confuse the borrower but they know exactly what they are doing.

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie we live and learn and I am learning more and more each day. Today I have been reading my microscopic loans terms and conditions. NASA has kindly let me borrow their telescope . In Term 11 it states:

 

"WHERE A BROKER FEE IS PAYABLE BY THE BORROWER FOR INTRODUCING THE BORROWER TO THE LENDER, THEN THE BORROWER AUTHORIZES THE LENDER TO PAY THESE FEES FROM THE TOTAL LOAN"

 

What I believe, please correct if wrong, it should read is

 

"WHERE A BROKER FEE IS PAYABLE BY THE BORROWER FOR INTRODUCING THE BORROWER TO THE LENDER THEN THE BORROWER AUTHORIZES THE LENDER TO ADD THESE FEES TO THE LOAN"

 

This is a very misleading term, and not easy to understand. It is very technical how they word their words in order to confuse the borrower but they know exactly what they are doing.

 

Your Lender has made this a term & condition of your loan, which they can’t under the way the agreement is constructed , if they do then there is an unfair relationship from that very moment they pay it ( see Guidelines by OFT on no status lending) it becomes a part of the agreement which becomes another loan ..not a charge for credit.

This unilaterally alters the agreement from inception cause an imbalance ….brokers fees cannot be part of the terms and conditions of an agreement.

How can you authorise the payment of fees and commissions if you do not know what they are, that again is an unfair relationship.

. 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.

 

 

3.10 Brokers should disclose at the outset the nature and extent of the services offered to the borrower, together with any ties they may have to

lenders or other brokers. If a brokerage fee is payable this should be made clear at the outset. The amount of the fee should be confirmed in writing before entry into the credit agreement

 

3.11 The existence of any commission or other payment payable by the lender to the broker should be disclosed to the borrower at an early stage, for instance before the broker engages in specific discussions based on the prospective borrowers circumstances, so that the borrower is aware of any potential conflict of interest. The amount of the commission or override commission should be disclosed.

 

Blemain would have to prove all this is not unfair, it also makes your agreement a partly regulated agreement.

Read the UTCCC's & the Unfair Relationship Act deeply along with the OFT Guidelines on Non Status lending

 

Tell your solicitor to read these as well he might learn something;)

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft854.pdf

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft1105.pdf

Edited February 22, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[busterg]

Fretfull,

This is what I was told:

 

Unfair Relationship Provisions

As your mortgage is the first and only legal charge over the property the Unfair Relationship Provisions do not apply to your mortgage with them.

 

So you're not alone in banging your head! I feel like its an up hill battle.

 

Sparkie - you are a total diamond!

 

I need to qualify why the above is.

One minute it's a mortgage then its a secured loan? Apprantly there is a difference.

Edited February 22, 2010 by busterg

[andrew1]

A mortgage has the first charge, is not subject to the CCA as it is exempt being for the purchase of land.

 

Secured loans whether Regulated or not these days comes with the protection of the Consumer Credit Act. They are usually for debt consolidation, home improvements and other purchases which the bank requires security on, but are not for the purchase of land per sa.

 

One might be tempted to follow Professor Bennions view on top-up loans which are added to Mortgages though (when you ask your mortgage lender for further funds to purchase things and they just stick them on the mortgage account) - he has a view so check out his website on Top-Up Loans). These loans should be regulated CCA agreements.

[busterg]

really helpfull - thanks.

Edited February 23, 2010 by busterg

[andrew1]

ok, well mines a 1st charge non cca secured loan. Whats that mean? Because I can't figure it out and neither can my solicitor it seems.

 

Could this be that your house was paid for and you took out a loan for something against the house as security and the amounts are over £25k and after April 2007?

[busterg]

Could this be that your house was paid for and you took out a loan for something against the house as security and the amounts are over £25k and after April 2007?

 

No I had two loans secured on the house that I needed to consolidate and pay off and this non cca 1st charge secured loan came into effect in Dec 2006 as a result. But it does make me wonder why I needed the title indemnity cahrge/fee added? Is this the same as a legal charge. not sure.

 

I have tried to understand as much as ican and I keep going over the thread but theres so much info i am little lost. Sorry.

[andrew1]

Can you explain the 2 loans - were they with the same lender ? How or why did you need them consolidated? Sorry to be asking personal questions it just helps understand where you're at. The TIF is to protect their title should your title happen to belong to some remote church back in the 1600's and they can't get their money back - it's a remote problem, but a money spinner for them. Have you asked for a copy of the Insurance policy seeing as you paid for it and it is a prescribed term on your agreement?

[busterg]

Can you explain the 2 loans - were they with the same lender ? How or why did you need them consolidated? Sorry to be asking personal questions it just helps understand where you're at. The TIF is to protect their title should your title happen to belong to some remote church back in the 1600's and they can't get their money back - it's a remote problem, but a money spinner for them. Have you asked for a copy of the Insurance policy seeing as you paid for it and it is a prescribed term on your agreement?

 

No they were with different lenders, I was lead to believe I would be paying a lesser sum and it would ease the financial difficulties I was having.

 

I've never had a copy of it and I will ask for it now that I know I can. I only got a copy of the agreement when the possession order was commenced in 2007. They just picked up and ran with the same order in 2008 after I paid the initial amount off in arrears they claimed I owed.

 

It was on a document i was never meant to have which I came across earlier this year. but i will check this dodgy agreement they sent with the pocs and see if its in there.

 

This agreement was totally different to what I was told I was getting and agreed too. I only got a copy of the key facts and mortgage application last year. I never filled these in or got copies. It's a really complicated situation and I'm also embarrased about going into it as I think Im a complete idiot for trusting them.

 

I thnk my solicitor thinks its too hard and multi faceted (sp) to deal with.

[Sparkie1723]

busterbug,

 

A couple of questions from me was all this arranged by a broker Financial advisor...did they explain the difference between a Mortgage and a secured loan? What your rights were under each etc etc??

 

A mortgage normally doesnt specify an Indemnity Insurance so it sounds like you really do have a secured loan which is covered by Section 140 of the New Act

 

sparkie

[busterg]

busterbug,

 

A couple of questions from me was all this arranged by a broker Financial advisor...did they explain the difference between a Mortgage and a secured loan? What your rights were under each etc etc??

 

sparkie

 

Yes it was all arranged by the broker that filled in the paper work off site. I was then asked to scan in and email a copy of my siganture which was then put on the documents by the broker. infact it was put in a box the said applicant sign here. which i believe you can tell isn't my actual handwrittin signature but one that was superimposed. The broker then called around showed me a document that I was never meant to have (betweeen him and swift) and told me that's what iwas getting and then I ended up with this crap instead!

 

My rights? I don't have any!!! ask swift they re-affirm that 10x over to me. i don't know and i am trying to find out. Hope you're good sparkie.

 

It gets worse! sorry

[busterg]

Yes it was all arranged by the broker that filled in the paper work off site. I was then asked to scan in and email a copy of my siganture which was then put on the documents by the broker. infact it was put in a box the said applicant sign here. which i believe you can tell isn't my actual handwrittin signature but one that was superimposed. The broker then called around showed me a document that I was never meant to have (betweeen him and swift) and told me that's what iwas getting and then I ended up with this crap instead!

 

My rights? I don't have any!!! ask swift they re-affirm that 10x over to me. i don't know and i am trying to find out. Hope you're good sparkie.

 

It gets worse! sorry

 

forgot tosay this was one of the many docs I was gonna send you in in the hope it could help you. still can if you would like them.

No nothing explained to me about the difference. He arranged the one of the previous loans as well. The nearest ive got to any explaination is Andrew1.

Edited February 23, 2010 by busterg

[andrew1]

It's a really complicated situation and I'm also embarrased about going into it as I think Im a complete idiot for trusting them.

 

First things first. I do not EVER want to hear you saying you are embarrassed or feeling an idiot anymore. This forum is full of people who have been hoodwinked into all kinds of things and the reason it was set-up by Bankfodder and Dave in the first place was to bring people together to focus ideas and stories which you wouldn't have done had you been on your own out there. So, hold your head high as you hold the moral high ground.

 

Your situation needs opening up into its constituent parts so the jigsaw can be put together by some of us who have been there before and it looks like Sparkie is gathering some of this. I will liaise with Sparkie initially so we are not repeating ourselves, it's hard enough as it is. Be back later, but don't worry, you are in safe hands and we'll unravel this for you.

 

They've got to be good to beat CAG, Sparkie and the Cabot Fan Club .

[busterg]

Thank you for your help and support.

 

Im really nervous about posting the full extent because I understand they trawl through this site and Im trying to get things sorted out. I believe they've already done some dodgy stuff and I think they would do it again to suit them now. Ive never had to deal with such, in my opinion lying, underhand, unprofessional, back tracking, dodgy shower in my life.

 

In hindsight, I wish I'd taken up Sparkie's offer to take a look through things for me last year but I got so overwelmed and yes embarrased that I just couldn't.

[Sparkie1723]

Thank you for your help and support.

 

Im really nervous about posting the full extent because I understand they trawl through this site and Im trying to get things sorted out. I believe they've already done some dodgy stuff and I think they would do it again to suit them now. Ive never had to deal with such, in my opinion lying, underhand, unprofessional, back tracking, dodgy shower in my life.

 

In hindsight, I wish I'd taken up Sparkie's offer to take a look through things for me last year but I got so overwelmed and yes embarrased that I just couldn't.

 

Hi busterg,

 

There is no need to feel embarrassed about Swift...........The main point I see in your case is that if what you say about the signature then I believe that your agreement would be declared NULL & VOID it was set up fraudulently by the Broker ...Swift are responsible for the actions of the Broker.....they cannot produce a true signed original with your real signature on it if it was copied and pasted Swift are again in serious trouble make the OFT aware of this issue quickley.

IT is FRAUD in a big way.

 

sparkie

[busterg]

I did - as per your post re david blocksidge. He replied back saying I needed to go to the FOS or FSA which I did and ive not even had the courtsey of a reply to my enquiry. I also go intouch with them last year. again no response. As SC responded in a post best to look at legal route becasue of associated problems with FSA.

 

I truly thought that if anything was going to help me and others would be to highlight what happened to me. That's why I emailed you last week. My solictor hasn't grasped the nettle. The brief isn't all that, neither are there instructions and Im having to find the legal points myself, qualify the agreement, understand what I am mortgaged/1st cahrge becahuse the agreement doesnt make it clear to me. (uses both wording) redraft the instructsion and the brief to counsel, to incorporate this. I can email it to you but I think you would cry.

 

Also can some one tell me how on earth a key facts doc can be dated before the mortgage application date when its the mortgage app that the information is obtained from? Some funny business went on here and they've tried to make good for them ....and I got stuck with the bad and the ugly.

[Sparkie1723]

You are confusing me a little you say it is a mortgage/First Charge Loan.

 

Swift Advances only do Second Charge secured loans ...it is Swift Firstwho do First Charge mortgages........so who is yor mortgage loan what ever with.....Swift First or Swift Advances Plc???

Does your agreement say an Unregulated Consumer Credit Agreement?? or what exactly does it say.....Can you post it up use photo bucket ...remove personal details of course.

 

If you can prove that the Broker copied and pasted your signature forget about the OFT FSA etc etc go straight to the police and tell them that you want them to investigate your allegation of Fraud.....take the number of the police officer you report it to and get a crime number issued.

 

sparkie

 

sparkie