Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • retailer said they'd speak to dpd on Tuesday. I don't want to screw the retailer because they were doing me a favour by fixing it for free  I hope dpd will refund them so they don't lose out. Will keep you guys posted. 
    • Well, we live on the same road so it should be the same postcode. When I spoke to dpd and asked why were my neighbours' address not on the list and she said maybe they're not of the same postcode and I checked and they definitely were. Not to mention, delivery instructions are supposed to override actual customer's address which is why they asked for instructions I thought.
    • again a quick google search states Appeal a DVLA fine - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) i would not be appealing mind. it's only a summary charge which they rarely do court on and pass out the powerless DCA's whom are not bailiffs they have 6mts. see where they go. as you've sorn'd it will probably be nulled. dx  
    • There are a number of reasons why you may not have been issued a notice in the post within 14 days. If you were stopped by the police it may have been given verbally. In the case of speeding offences, the police may issue you with a conditional offer of a fixed penalty of 3 points and £100.00 fine by post or an offer of a speed awareness course. If the offence is considered too serious for a speed awareness course or fixed penalty you may be charged with an offence which normally occurs by way of the issue of a Single Justice Procedure Notice. If the vehicle within which the alleged offence took place was registered to another person or company there is technically no need for a notice to be issued to the driver. After the police have obtained details of the nominated the driver, they will normally send the notice to them, although there are no time limits within which they must do so (provided that the notice was received within 14 days by the registered keeper of the vehicle). In such circumstances, a person may receive a notice several months after the alleged offence too place but still be prosecuted. A Guide to a Notice of Intended Prosecution | Motoring Offence Lawyers the above copy n paste link has purely been copy n pasted here to inform you of the regs, which you could have done yourself by, as this is, a google search......... we do not ever recommend using such offered webservices! dont 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 4918 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

Your right!!

 

It is brokers fee!

 

I AM going to SAR request them and the broker.

 

I wish I was clever enough to uncover the kind of underhanded practice Sparkie has on Swift!

 

Thanks for the advice

 

Cupcake

 

Mostly what we find is in the public domain Cupcake-you just have to follow the money and your nose down dark alleys. But our Sparkie and a number of others are real special ferrets.

 

You won't get the commission amount out of swift unless you go breaking a leg or two to get it. If it gets to court you can get your solicitor to argue for it under CPR, but NOBODY should have to use CPR to get what basically has your name on it and therefore should be obtained via your sar. Make sure if you send an Sar you actually ask for the Underwriting Sheet WITH the comission on NOT blanked out (Top R/h corner) . If your brokers not gone bust like most have you may get the details from them under your sar.

 

Good luck

 

Smarterchick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SC

 

I don't think I am capable of understanding it enough to uncover what Sparkie has!

 

So I need to SAR Blemain and my Broker? And I ask for the Underwriting sheet with commission on not blanked out from both of them?

 

Sparkie did advise me to SAR them somemonths back but to be honest I was scared of rocking the boat......!!

 

Sorry to hijack your thread Sparkie.

 

Cupcake

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SC

 

I don't think I am capable of understanding it enough to uncover what Sparkie has!

 

So I need to SAR Blemain and my Broker? And I ask for the Underwriting sheet with commission on not blanked out from both of them?

 

Sparkie did advise me to SAR them somemonths back but to be honest I was scared of rocking the boat......!!

 

Sorry to hijack your thread Sparkie.

 

Cupcake

 

OOOh..., you're brave, didn't do as Sparkie says, when he says, you'll be in serious trouble :D Just do as suggested, but you may not find Blemain blanking out the top r/h corner like Swift do! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SC

 

I don't think I am capable of understanding it enough to uncover what Sparkie has!

 

So I need to SAR Blemain and my Broker? And I ask for the Underwriting sheet with commission on not blanked out from both of them?

 

Sparkie did advise me to SAR them somemonths back but to be honest I was scared of rocking the boat......!!

 

Sorry to hijack your thread Sparkie.

 

Cupcake

 

 

blemain flat out refuse to send out the under writing sheet in a SAR.

 

i have that in writing from them.

 

WP3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something for folks to savour, as Mr John Webster has confirmed in writing that he is The Chief Excutive Officer of ..."The Swift Group!!"??

He will be asked to supply the names of the rest of the Board of Directors of this "Swift Group" and he will be asked if he will produce the minutes of the bard meetings held by this Board of Directors.....he will be asked these questions in the HIgh Court;)

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something for folks to savour, as Mr John Webster has confirmed in writing that he is The Chief Excutive Officer of ..."The Swift Group!!"??

He will be asked to supply the names of the rest of the Board of Directors of this "Swift Group" and he will be asked if he will produce the minutes of the bard meetings held by this Board of Directors.....he will be asked these questions in the HIgh Court;)

 

sparkie

 

I think they'll need to be a bit of a 'bard' to talk their way out of this lot sparkie! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they'll need to be a bit of a 'bard' to talk their way out of this lot sparkie! :D

 

You have to realise its Rolf Harris's "WOBBLE BOARD"....he is a bit of a Bard:D

 

 

sparkie...............and his magic piano .....or violin ensemble not sure which

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a job for Mr White:

 

Summer Economics Intern Programme 2010

 

Salary : £23,500 per annum (pro rata)

 

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) summer economics internship programme is a 10 to 12 week placement that runs from early or mid July 2010. The scheme is an excellent opportunity to undertake paid employment while gaining invaluable experience working with government economists.

 

Be about his level given his grasp if his witness statements are anything ot go by.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is for lesterlass,

Did you know that your Mortgage with Swift First Ltd is being processed and administered by SWIFT ADVANCES..........an entity that does not legally exist .....PM me or E-mail me....had a word with my leagl team the default and copies I posted will more than likely render my whole case VOID by DECEPTION.........something else for the Swift spies to report back .........OFT have copies of them.......everyone should look at the default notices sent to them to see if they were issued with the heading of Swift Advances on the default notice ..............and check to see if the copies that were supplied to the courts have been altered to deliberately mislead the court into believing they were issued by Swift Advances Plc when they were not.

 

Just like the ones I have posted

sparkie

 

Doc I have Pm'd you

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is for lesterlass,

Did you know that your Mortgage with Swift First Ltd is being processed and administered by SWIFT ADVANCES..........an entity that does not legally exist .....PM me or E-mail me....had a word with my leagl team the default and copies I posted will more than likely render my whole case VOID by DECEPTION.........something else for the Swift spies to report back .........OFT have copies of them.......everyone should look at the default notices sent to them to see if they were issued with the heading of Swift Advances on the default notice ..............and check to see if the copies that were supplied to the courts have been altered to deliberately mislead the court into believing they were issued by Swift Advances Plc when they were not.

 

Just like the ones I have posted

sparkie

 

 

 

Doc I have Pm'd you

 

 

Great news sparkie! Its news like that that will keep the rest of going. I am still waiting for a response on mine, no luck at the moment I think I may have xxxxxx off my solicitor unintentionally of course that's why I have been waiting for a reply.

 

I am also grateful after following your advice not to go with client cartel review, have you seen the publicity they have been getting recently? :shock:

 

 

FTAdviser.com - MoJ shuts down Cartel for outstanding debts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I posted this

Copy of E-mail from the OFT about trading styles and names.....if you want to check Swift Avances Plc OFT licence out go to the OFT public register for CCA licences

 

sparkie

Ref: E/E/E/79822

Dear

In reference to your email to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), a licence will be issued in the name of a partnership, limited company or other type of organisation.

If a sole trader, the license will be issued in the sole traders’ own name.

If a licencee conducts licensable business under any other trading name(s), they must apply for the name(s) to be added to their licence.

Please note it is a criminal offence to carry out any activity that requires a consumer credit licence under a name that is not on a licence.

I hope this information proves helpful,

Yours sincerely,

Ferdus Ahmed

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below information found at:-

https://secure.creditgate.com/search/search.aspx?AP=Full%20Non-Limited&CompanyID=05055802&CompanyType=L&BS=1&BT=Full%20Data

Company Name:

KESTREL HOLDINGS LIMITED

Company No: 05055802

Registered Office: Incorporated: 25/02/2004 ARCADIA HOUSE

WARLEY HILL BUSINESS PARK

THE DRIVE GREAT WARLEY

BRENTWOOD ESSEX

CM13 3BE

 

Company Type: Private Limited Report Status: Full Data Accounts Type: Group Accounts Latest Accounts to: 31/03/2009 Latest Return to: 25/02/2010

 

 

 

 

Description

Costs

Filed Date

 

Form

 

 

25/02/10 FULL LIST

£6.95

04/03/2010

 

AR01

 

 

DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / PAUL MALCOLM BRIDGES / 04/03/2010

£6.95

04/03/2010

 

CH01

 

 

DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

17/12/2009

 

AP01

 

 

SECRETARY APPOINTED

£6.95

26/11/2009

 

AP03

 

 

APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, SECRETARY ROBERT ROSENBERG

£6.95

25/11/2009

 

TM02

 

 

GROUP OF COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/09

£6.95

21/10/2009

 

AA

 

 

DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

20/07/2009

 

288a

 

 

APPOINTMENT TERMINATED DIRECTOR TERENCE GATELEY

£6.95

20/07/2009

 

288b

 

 

RETURN MADE UP TO 25/02/09; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS

£6.95

20/03/2009

 

363a

 

 

SECRETARY APPOINTED

£6.95

28/12/2008

 

288a

 

 

APPOINTMENT TERMINATED SECRETARY SUNNY LO

£6.95

28/12/2008

 

288b

 

 

APPOINTMENT TERMINATED DIRECTOR NIGEL INGRAM

£6.95

30/10/2008

 

288b

 

 

GROUP OF COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/08

£6.95

11/09/2008

 

AA

 

 

RETURN MADE UP TO 25/02/08; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS

£6.95

29/02/2008

 

363a

 

 

GROUP OF COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/07

£6.95

11/10/2007

 

AA

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

30/05/2007

 

288a

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

29/05/2007

 

288a

 

 

NEW SECRETARY APPOINTED

£6.95

16/05/2007

 

288a

 

 

DIRECTOR RESIGNED

£6.95

16/05/2007

 

288b

 

 

SECRETARY RESIGNED

£6.95

16/05/2007

 

288b

 

 

RETURN MADE UP TO 25/02/07; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS

£6.95

08/03/2007

 

363a

 

 

GROUP OF COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/06

£6.95

16/10/2006

 

AA

 

 

DIRECTOR'S PARTICULARS CHANGED

£6.95

21/07/2006

 

288c

 

 

RETURN MADE UP TO 25/02/06; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS

£6.95

06/03/2006

 

363a

AD 17/05/05---------£ SI [email protected]=50£ IC 10000/10050

£6.95

06/03/2006

 

88(2)R

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

13/02/2006

 

288a

 

 

DIRECTOR RESIGNED

£6.95

12/08/2005

 

288b

 

 

GROUP OF COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/05

£6.95

12/08/2005

 

AA

 

 

REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 13/06/05 FROM:G OFFICE CHANGED 13/06/05ARCADIA HOUSE WARLEY HILLBUSINESS PARK THE DRIVEGREAT WARLEY, BRENTWOODESSEX CM13 3BE

£6.95

13/06/2005

 

287

 

 

REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 08/06/05 FROM:G OFFICE CHANGED 08/06/05230 HORNCHURCH ROADHORNCHURCHESSEX RM11 1QB

£6.95

08/06/2005

 

287

 

 

RETURN MADE UP TO 25/02/05; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS

£6.95

31/05/2005

 

363s

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

31/05/2005

 

288a

 

 

AD 17/05/05---------£ SI [email protected]=50£ IC 9950/10000

£6.95

31/05/2005

 

88(2)R

 

 

AD 17/08/04---------£ SI [email protected]=300£ IC 9650/9950

£6.95

31/08/2004

 

88(2)R

 

 

AD 17/06/04---------£ SI [email protected]=150£ IC 9500/9650

£6.95

24/06/2004

 

88(2)R

 

 

DIRECTOR RESIGNED

£6.95

24/06/2004

 

288b

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

24/06/2004

 

288a

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

24/05/2004

 

288a

 

 

AD 12/05/04---------£ SI [email protected]=9499£ IC 1/9500

£6.95

24/05/2004

 

88(2)R

 

 

NC INC ALREADY ADJUSTED12/05/04

£6.95

24/05/2004

 

123

 

 

S-DIV12/05/04

£6.95

24/05/2004

 

122

 

 

SECRETARY RESIGNED

£6.95

29/03/2004

 

288b

 

 

DIRECTOR RESIGNED

£6.95

29/03/2004

 

288b

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

29/03/2004

 

288a

 

 

NEW SECRETARY APPOINTED;NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

29/03/2004

 

288a

 

 

NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED

£6.95

29/03/2004

 

288a

 

 

REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 17/03/04 FROM:G OFFICE CHANGED 17/03/0410 NORWICH STREETLONDONEC4A 1BD

£6.95

17/03/2004

 

287

 

 

ACC. REF. DATE EXTENDED FROM 28/02/05 TO 31/03/05

£6.95

16/03/2004

 

225

 

 

COMPANY NAME CHANGEDSWIFT ADVANCES HOLDINGS LIMITEDCERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 03/03/04

£6.95

03/03/2004

 

CERTNM

 

 

INCORPORATION DOCUMENTSCERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATIONSTATEMENT OF DIRECTORS & REGISTERED OFFICEDECLARATION OF COMPLIANCEMEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATIONARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

£6.95

25/02/2004

 

N

History for:

 

PMB01117 - Paul Malcolm Bridges

Controlled functions - Previous

 

Controlled functions

Firm name

Start date

End date

CF21 Investment Adviser

Alchemy Partners LLP

01/07/2002

31/10/2007

CF21 Investment Adviser

Alchemy Partners

01/12/2001

16/08/2002

CF27 Investment Management

Alchemy Special Opportunities LLP

07/11/2006

31/10/2007

CF30 Customer

Alchemy Partners LLP

01/11/2007

30/06/2008

CF30 Customer

Alchemy Special Opportunities LLP

01/11/2007

30/06/2008

CF4 Partner

Alchemy Partners LLP

01/07/2002

30/06/2008

CF4 Partner

Alchemy Partners

01/12/2001

16/08/2002

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone please PM with a list of interest increase for Siwift 1st Ltd

 

ie dates , increased rate %, total monthly increase and specific differnce

 

eg 27th april 2005 0.25% £998.79 monthly rpayment amount before increase

 

Cheers it would be really helpfull and soon as i get the info I'll send it off to you. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I posted this

Copy of E-mail from the OFT about trading styles and names.....if you want to check Swift Avances Plc OFT licence out go to the OFT public register for CCA licences

 

sparkie

Ref: E/E/E/79822

Dear

In reference to your email to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), a licence will be issued in the name of a partnership, limited company or other type of organisation.

If a sole trader, the license will be issued in the sole traders’ own name.

If a licencee conducts licensable business under any other trading name(s), they must apply for the name(s) to be added to their licence.

Please note it is a criminal offence to carry out any activity that requires a consumer credit licence under a name that is not on a licence.

I hope this information proves helpful,

Yours sincerely,

Ferdus Ahmed

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

 

In relation to the above one thing to consider is what is licensable business?

I'm not trying to upset the apple cart here or undermine any of what has been investigated but if these are arguments you are going to use in court etc this might be something that needs investigation. I am no expert and if anyone has access to qualified legal advice it might be helpful to get an opinion on this.

As I understand it you are taking issue with Swift using Swift Advances (without the plc) and Swift Group on their letter heading. But does sending a letter constitute licensable business?

I appreciate that the default notice having Swift Advances on the heading might be more serious, but even then, in the parties section it says Swift Advances plc and it is not uncommon for solicitors or other third parties to issue default notices on behalf of the creditors so I am not so sure that the letter-heading lacking the 'plc' is going to carry a lot of weight.

Obviously entering into agreements is licensable business but no one seems to be saying that Swift are using anything other than their legal identity of Swift Advances plc to do this.

When it comes to correspondence I am not sure whether this is classified as a licensable activity or not. I don't know of any relevant case law etc regarding this issue but maybe someone does?

The other thing is that I would doubt it would be something that Trading Standards (they are generally the people who deal with unlicensed trading and illegal money lending) would pursue as they have their hands full with the loan sharks of this world (and by that I mean the ones who come round and break your legs if you don't pay rather than the likes of Swift and Blemain!). Also, it's not as though the lack of the 'plc' on the letter head really causes any confusion as to who is sending the letter or what account it refers to and Swift Advances plc are referenced in the letter so is there actually any breach?

I don't intend any criticism of any of the points raised but would just suggest caution in relying on them without investigation of the licensable business issue. I've tried to find a definition of licensable business in the CCA, OFT leaflets etc but haven't had any luck so I'm just throwing this out there to see if anyone has more expertise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to the above one thing to consider is what is licensable business?

I'm not trying to upset the apple cart here or undermine any of what has been investigated but if these are arguments you are going to use in court etc this might be something that needs investigation. I am no expert and if anyone has access to qualified legal advice it might be helpful to get an opinion on this.

As I understand it you are taking issue with Swift using Swift Advances (without the plc) and Swift Group on their letter heading. But does sending a letter constitute licensable business?

I appreciate that the default notice having Swift Advances on the heading might be more serious, but even then, in the parties section it says Swift Advances plc and it is not uncommon for solicitors or other third parties to issue default notices on behalf of the creditors so I am not so sure that the letter-heading lacking the 'plc' is going to carry a lot of weight.

Obviously entering into agreements is licensable business but no one seems to be saying that Swift are using anything other than their legal identity of Swift Advances plc to do this.

When it comes to correspondence I am not sure whether this is classified as a licensable activity or not. I don't know of any relevant case law etc regarding this issue but maybe someone does?

The other thing is that I would doubt it would be something that Trading Standards (they are generally the people who deal with unlicensed trading and illegal money lending) would pursue as they have their hands full with the loan sharks of this world (and by that I mean the ones who come round and break your legs if you don't pay rather than the likes of Swift and Blemain!). Also, it's not as though the lack of the 'plc' on the letter head really causes any confusion as to who is sending the letter or what account it refers to and Swift Advances plc are referenced in the letter so is there actually any breach?

I don't intend any criticism of any of the points raised but would just suggest caution in relying on them without investigation of the licensable business issue. I've tried to find a definition of licensable business in the CCA, OFT leaflets etc but haven't had any luck so I'm just throwing this out there to see if anyone has more expertise.

 

 

All valid points and something I have asked myself.

 

But, you know how it is, we've got that much going on .......

 

Does need looking into though, so i'll try and get some answers over the weekend. :)

 

Its a very important issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to the above one thing to consider is what is licensable business?

I'm not trying to upset the apple cart here or undermine any of what has been investigated but if these are arguments you are going to use in court etc this might be something that needs investigation. I am no expert and if anyone has access to qualified legal advice it might be helpful to get an opinion on this.

As I understand it you are taking issue with Swift using Swift Advances (without the plc) and Swift Group on their letter heading. But does sending a letter constitute licensable business?

I appreciate that the default notice having Swift Advances on the heading might be more serious, but even then, in the parties section it says Swift Advances plc and it is not uncommon for solicitors or other third parties to issue default notices on behalf of the creditors so I am not so sure that the letter-heading lacking the 'plc' is going to carry a lot of weight.

Obviously entering into agreements is licensable business but no one seems to be saying that Swift are using anything other than their legal identity of Swift Advances plc to do this.

When it comes to correspondence I am not sure whether this is classified as a licensable activity or not. I don't know of any relevant case law etc regarding this issue but maybe someone does?

The other thing is that I would doubt it would be something that Trading Standards (they are generally the people who deal with unlicensed trading and illegal money lending) would pursue as they have their hands full with the loan sharks of this world (and by that I mean the ones who come round and break your legs if you don't pay rather than the likes of Swift and Blemain!). Also, it's not as though the lack of the 'plc' on the letter head really causes any confusion as to who is sending the letter or what account it refers to and Swift Advances plc are referenced in the letter so is there actually any breach?

I don't intend any criticism of any of the points raised but would just suggest caution in relying on them without investigation of the licensable business issue. I've tried to find a definition of licensable business in the CCA, OFT leaflets etc but haven't had any luck so I'm just throwing this out there to see if anyone has more expertise.

 

HI Killerschick

 

It is absolutely necssary for people to play Devils advocate and I for one appreciate this very much, we may not agree with what others say but it must be taken into consideration.

 

I will only add that the setting up of Swift Advances Plc actual Credit Agreements and the issuing of Default Notices by and in the trading style/name of Swift Advances for two points would and must be considered as licencable business, but again this is only my interpretation of the facts ...........I could quite easily be wrong ...not for the first time I must add:)

 

With regard to incorrectly issued and/or formatted default notices rendering an agreeent unenforceable I am privy to the fact that only today a The County Court in Reading has thrown out a Claim by a Bank who presented a "templated" default notice in thse proceedings the Judge would not and did not accept it.

 

The point about these ...."Swift"????? default notices is that they are altered from Swift Advances to Swift Advances Plc ....VERY deliberately......not by accident

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4918 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...