Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[lookinforinfo]

If none of you has had a reduction in your variable accounts in the last couple of years, would that not be grounds for operating an unfair relationship.

 

Also, as they are supposed to provide a copy of the original agreement when they alter your interest rates [and kindly confirmed by Justice Waksman in Carey]

S234.[4] If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms

then surely the only interest rate that applies is the original one.

Unless of course they have supplied the agreement copy.

Edited March 24, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[cupcake68]

Sorry to butt in!

 

If none of you has had a reduction in your variable accounts in the last couple of years, would that not be grounds for operating an unfair relationship.

 

Also, as they are supposed to provide a copy of the original agreement when they alter your interest rates [and kindly confirmed by Justice Waksman in Carey]

S234.[4] If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms [/red]

 

then surely the only interest rate that applies is the original one.

Unless of course they have supplied the agreement copy.

 

Does this not apply for every mortgage or charge on your property?

 

If so every mortgage rate change I have evr had from any mortgage provider does not count?!!!

 

How would we ever bring this to account?

 

Cupcake

[Tophat]

CAB have most of my paper work relating to my loan, if I can get the info back on Monday will Post it.

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry to butt in!

Does this not apply for every mortgage or charge on your property?

 

If so every mortgage rate change I have evr had from any mortgage provider does not count?!!!

How would we ever bring this to account?Cupcake

 

Well it certainly applies to agreements regulated by the CCA and it should also cover those loans/mortgages that are part regulated by the Act too.

 

Not so sure about totally unregulated agreements.

[busterg]

How can they justify different rates for different loans with rises at different times? Don't lenders usually announce AN interest rate increase or decrease for ALL their borrowers, at like the same time

 

I believe reputable ones do - but as I am with Swift Swerve (sorry freudian) 1st Ltd I couldn't tell you.

[busterg]

You were lucky sweetjane ...we had 3 interest rate hikes in 2007 .. June .August ..October..post exact amount later

 

sparkie

 

well they clearly like me more because I had 5! It must be because Im special

[Smarterchick]

well they clearly like me more because I had 5! It must be because Im special

 

well I'm sure you've been called special for a number of reasons

[busterg]

well I'm sure you've been called special for a number of reasons

 

Well I think it's because when I add up 2+2 I get 4. what can I say, I have a beautifull mind. I think Swift must be in awe of my calculations

 

I actually got them to admit once that I was in actual fact £789.89 in credit and then they hung up on me half way through and couldn't locate who I spoke to when I rang back 2 mins later.

 

They also said they weren't discriminating against me. I said I knew they weren't and that they treated ALL their customers this way.

[Sparkie1723]

Busterg am I right in saying that you have a Swft 1st/First Ltd mortgage but your court papers say you were sued by Swift Advances Plc...if so the wrong company sued you and that is cancellable if you make an application to the Court.

 

sparkie

 

 

sparkie

[busterg]

Busterg am I right in saying that you have a Swft 1st/First Ltd mortgage but your court papers say you were sued by Swift Advances Plc...if so the wrong company sued you and that is cancellable if you make an application to the Court.

 

sparkie

 

 

sparkie

 

Swift 1st/First took out the possession summons but Swift Advances were granted the possession order. My remortage was with Swift 1st Ltd.

[Sparkie1723]

Swift 1st/First took out the possession summons but Swift Advances were granted the possession order. My remortage was with Swift 1st Ltd.

 

There are two arguments here then

 

1.Swift 1st Ltd must have sold your morgae to Swift Advances Plc which they can't because they are not FSA registered ...so that leaves ..

 

2..The possession order has been granted to the wrong company and must be absolutely unlawful and the Court has made a serious error in law and judgement and can be appealed against with absolute certainty. In my "obnoxious" opinion as usual:D:D:D

 

sparkie

[busterg]

There are two arguments here then

 

1.Swift 1st Ltd must have sold your morgae to Swift Advances Plc which they can't because they are not FSA registered ...so that leaves ..

 

2..The possession order has been granted to the wrong company and must be absolutely unlawful and the Court has made a serious error in law and judgement and can be appealed against with absolute certainty. In my "obnoxious" opinion as usual:D:D:D

 

sparkie

 

Thanks Sparkie - just mailed you.

[Sparkie1723]

Thanks Sparkie - just mailed you.

 

 

HI busterg.

 

Got your docs .do you mind if I send them on to the "Special Person" we have coming on Tuesday......he will absolutely LOVE this. It will be to your benefit I am certain of that.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

The Swift Group of companies specialise in the non-conforming secured lending market. Our loans range from £7,000 up to £50,000 and all our loans have been specially designed by us for people whose circumstances mean that traditional high street lenders can't help.

 

Here they say they only lend up to £50.000.........How many have loans over this amount???

 

Who we are

We are part of the Alchemy Group and are funded by many of the leading banks in the UK.

The Alchemy Group are not registerd with the Office of Fair Trading

Who checks up on us?

Our aim is simple & to provide you with the highest standards in our industry with unsurpassed levels of customer service. All of our products are totally transparent - We are regulated by The Financial Services Authority (look us up in the FSA register under reference 304896)

 

They say the Swift Group are regulated by the FSA ....not true

Thereis no entry on the FSA register of "The Swift Group" A false misrepresentation of fact.......this number is allocated to Swift 1st Limited for FSA regulated mortgages

and we are licenced by The Office of Fair Trading.

The Swift Group design all their loans....but they have not got a licence to carry out consumer credit business

 

The Swift Group are not licenced by the Office of Fair Trading, another false misrepresentatio of fact.......only Swift Advances Plc hold that licence..........no other name is on it.

 

In addition we are also members of the following trade associations and subscribe to their codes of practice - the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and the Finance and Leasing Association (go to Information for Consumers - Finance & Leasing Association to download the Code relevant to your agreement).

 

sparkie

Edited March 20, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[busterg]

HI busterg.

 

Got your docs .do you mind if I send them on to the "Special Person" we have coming on Tuesday......he will absolutely LOVE this. It will be to your benefit I am certain of that.

 

sparkie

 

Nope - no problem at all. If it can help then Im all for it. I didn't have this to hand until I picked up after I spoke with a Special Person.

 

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.

[Sparkie1723]

Have folks noted that your agreement states "Quote"

" Any brokers fee is not a condition of the loan etc etc"

BUT

In their Welcome letter that comes with your cheque it states "Quote"

 

"In line with your instructions and the terms of loan agreement,we have made the following deductions etc etc etc"

 

Point 1...When did any of us give these specific instructions? ( I don't think so) Have they ever produced these instructions. ( I don't think so either)

 

Point 2...How can they say the a) "the brokers fees are not part of the loan"....and then say "as per terms of the loan agreement" ....If they are not part of the loan ...then they can't be part of the terms of the agreement.

 

Totally misleading and a deliberate contradictory misrepresentaion of facts

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

http://www.warepartners.com.au/index.php?action=view&view=51351

[Sparkie1723]

 

 

Look who Kestrel Holdings Ltd really are

 

Augusta Closing of $5 Million Private Placement

 

April 18, 2009 Filed Under: Copper Mining, Lithium Mining, Mining Investment, Mining Stocks, Molybdenum Mining

Augusta Resource Corporation announces the closing of a non-brokered private placement of 3.35 million units at a price of $1.50 per unit for gross proceeds of $5,025,000. The transaction is fully subscribed by Kestrel Holdings Ltd., a private company 100% held by Vancouver mining entrepreneur Ross Beaty. Each unit comprises one common share and one non-transferable share purchase warrant entitling... [/url]

Tag: peninsula corp vancouver sam, peninsula 2010, peninsula vancouver magid, ross beaty augusta, privateplacement mining

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Just sent this letter to the OFT.it is quite explanatory ..I would ask folks to check out their Court bundles subitted by Swift Advances Plc.

 

sparkie

 

 

 

23 March 2010

 

To Mr David Blocksidge

Office of FDair Trding

 

Dear Mr Blocksidge,

 

I apologise for further correspondence with regard to the ongoing issues and complaints about Swift Advances Plc.

 

I would like to make you aware of the following, Swift Advances Plc and Swift 1st Ltd are owned by Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd who are in turn owned by the Holding company of the whole Group……. Kestrel Holdings Ltd.

 

Point One.

If you try to locate any information about Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd by way of a normal search of the internet, the search will come up blank, as if they do not exist.

 

Point Two

If you search for Kestrel Holdings Ltd the search comes up with this search result.

Augusta Closing of $5 Million Private Placement

 

April 18, 2009 Filed Under: Copper Mining, Lithium Mining, Mining Investment, Mining Stocks, Molybdenum Mining

 

Augusta Resource Corporation announces the closing of a non-brokered private placement of 3.35 million units at a price of $1.50 per unit for gross proceeds of $5,025,000. The transaction is fully subscribed by Kestrel Holdings Ltd., a private company 100% held by Vancouver mining entrepreneur Ross Beaty. Each unit comprises one common share and one non-transferable share purchase warrant entitling...

 

I just wish to draw your attention to this as the operations of this English group of companies called Kestrel Holdings Ltd is more than a little murky, could this be the reason that the OFT, FSA & the ICO have never heard of these companies, in international law, who would be responsible for the actions of the other?

 

Point Three

This is the point of most serious concern to me and ALL other Swift Advances Plc customers. In court bundles ( ours included) I have evidence that documents submitted as copies of original documents have been altered, i.e….. have been changed and altered manually to convince the Courts they have been issued by Swift Advances Plc, I attach one specific important one, our default notice, this was submitted by Swift Advances Plc in their Court documents in the possession proceedings taken out against us, you will note that the Swift Advances Plc name has been “TYPED” manually at the top. They have all been tampered with

 

If this had been a true copy of that notice it would have been on Swift Advances Plc headed paper, but as far as I can discover no one has received any letters headed Swift Advances Plc, ( I may be wrong on this ) this default notice was received from Swift Advances, but you will note that all this information has been deliberately removed, the address The Swift Group etc etc has also been deliberately removed.

 

Tampering with documents submitted to a court is I believe a criminal offence

 

It must be seen that Swift Advances Plc do not involve themselves in the operations and running of accounts sending letters and such, all this is done under the trading style of Swift Advances, but they are not on Swift Advances plc CCA licence

Yours sincerely

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

 

This shows how they have removed all the headings by hand deliberately in an attempt to show it was issued by Swift Advances Plc... they have removed all refernce to Swift Advances & The Swift Logo.........and then Typed in Swift Advances Plc and submitted it as a copy of the original. I have the original I am off to the police with this as soon as I can.......and making my leagl team aware of all this

 

Caught out again

 

 

sparkie

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

This is the original

sparkie

 

 

[Gallahad]

Sparkie you never cease to amaze me;)

[Sparkie1723]

The reason why they have to alter the default notice from Swift Advances to Swift Advance Plc is because of clause 6

"We will recover possession of the land and recover the security"

 

Because it was issued by Swift Advances they could not recover the possession because Swift Advances ( who issued the default) do not exist so could not issue proceedings under this default only Swift Advances Plc could do that.

 

You will note that it says we must pay Swift Advances Plc not Swift Advances for reason once again Swift Advances do not exist .......and have no Bank account for any monies to be paid into....... I only wish I had paid Swift Advances and see who's Bank account that would have been processed through,...... if it had been Swift Advances Plc's account now that would have been a beauty.

 

As that "Merecat" says in the advert ......."SIMPLES"!!!:D

 

 

sparkie

 

sparkie

Edited March 24, 2010 by Sparkie1723
added notes & spelling

[busterg]

The reason why they have to alter the default notice from Swift Advances to Swift Advance Plc is because of clause 6

"We will recover possession of the land and recover the security"

 

Because it was issued by Swift Advances they could not recover the possession because Swift Advances ( who issued the default) do not exist so could not issue proceedings under this default only Swift Advances Plc could do that.

 

You will note that it says we must pay Swift Advances Plc not Swift Advances for reason once again Swift Advances do not exist .......and have no Bank account for any monies to be paid into....... I only wish I had paid Swift Advances and see who's Bank account that would have been processed through,...... if it had been Swift Advaces Plc's account now that would have been a beauty.

 

As that "Merecat" says in the advert ......."SIMPLES"!!!:D

 

 

sparkie

 

sparkie

 

I never got that type of default notice. I got a we'll get sols to write you if you don't reply in 10 days.....which I again i didn't get but received a copy of from the docs I obtained from court a couple of weeks ago. I thought I was special as well. Damm!

 

However, whilst in the process of playing with my dinasaur (sp) bone :grin: I think I can help with thess payments to Swift advances lark. I've been paying both Swifts - 1st Ltd and advances plc.

 

Call me! when you get a minute - busy with my bone! :-D You can have my statements no problem.

[Sparkie1723]

Allready had a reply to my e-mail to David Blocksidge at the OFT it was from Edward Allie had replies from him before, so I sent him a little follow u e-mail.....move over with that bone busterg:D:D

 

To

Mr Edward Allie

The Office of Fair Trading

 

Dear Mr Allie,

 

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail to Mr Blocksidge, I di attempt to send it to you but delivery failed for some reason that is why I sent it to Mr Blocksidge, how ever I forgot to attach a copy of the original default notice, I attach that to this e-mail.

 

I would like to point out the reason I believe that the original is tampered with and altered is the statement in clause 6 of that default notice, which includes this

"we will recover possession of the land and enforce the security"

 

Swift Advances cannot recover possession and/or enforce the security as they do not exist, so in order to convince a court they alter the default notice and present it as if Swift Advances Plc had issued it which, is far from the truth.

 

I end with the fact that not one Swift Advaces Plc customer to my knowledge and I am in contact with a lot of them have ever recieved a letter from Swift Advances Plc.

 

It appears that they are the ones that hold the licence issued by your office but do not carry out any of the CC activities the licence is issued for .....this is all carried out by their trading styles and named entities who are not on their licence, who as I have stated many times before do not legally exist.

 

I hope that the OFT will take great note of this, and treat it with the seriosness in my humble opinion it deserves

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

sparkie

 

Come on you guys send more stuff to the OFT .you must have something!!!! I've been sending them stuff since August 2007

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sparkie1723