Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Sparkie,

I have been away for the weekend so missed your response to my post about

Alchemy. I noticed that you made no mention of Swift Finance [uK] Ltd. However in another thread Smarterchick [i think] said that Swift Finance owned Swift Advances which was not the same company as Swift Advances PLC.

 

So here is the conundrum. On the FSA register site if you type in Swift Advances on their company register you get two companies listed

1. [swift Advances plc CM13 3BE Swift Advances Plc

2. Swift Finance (UK) Ltd S12 3GL Swift Finance (Uk) Ltd

 

the register also includes previous names and Trading As names,and under Swift Finance appear these companies

Swift Advances, Swift Finance, Swift Homeloans, Swift Insurance Services, Swift Mortgages, Swift Solutions

 

interesting as Swift Homeloans is registered at the same address as Swift Advances PLc. Coincidence or have the FSA made a mistake?

 

The FSA site is here-

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do

Edited March 29, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[Smarterchick]

Hi Sparkie,

I have been away for the weekend so missed your response to my post about

Alchemy. I noticed that you made no mention of Swift Finance [uK] Ltd. However in another thread Smarterchick [i think] said that Swift Finance owned Swift Advances which was not the same company as Swift Advances PLC.

 

So here is the conundrum. On the FSA register site if you type in Swift Advances on their company register you get two companies listed

1. [swift Advances plc CM13 3BE Swift Advances Plc

2. Swift Finance (UK) Ltd S12 3GL Swift Finance (Uk) Ltd

 

the register also includes previous names and Trading As names,and under Swift Finance appear these companies

Swift Advances, Swift Finance, Swift Homeloans, Swift Insurance Services, Swift Mortgages, Swift Solutions

 

interesting as Swift Homeloans is registered at the same address as Swift Advances PLc. Coincidence or have the FSA made a mistake?

 

The FSA site is here-

FSA Register

 

Gets confusing doesn't it LFI?

 

Swift Finances (UK)Ltd (nothing to do with our Swift Advances plc on this forum, Alchemy or anyone else as far as we know yet) had as their registered 'trading style' , 'Swift Advances' as you correctly state which means that during the period most of the loans produced by Swift Advances plc under CCA regulated agreements at the very least were not executed by a licensed name. You will find Swift Advances plc dotted periodically on paperwork from them, but all their letter heads state Swift Advances not Swift Advances plc. All you see is at the footer of the page 'Swift Advances is a Trading style of Swift Advances plc' which is a mistatement of fact and the OFT have recognised that. We are just awaiting clarification as to what exactly this means to everyone.

 

Now when it comes to documents being provided for the courts such as default Noitces by Swift Advances plc they conveniently provide 'Copies' which are BLANK sheets of paper with the text spread as per the original may have looked, BUT no header or footer as provided to the account holder originally showing this unlicensed trading style, these documents only have typed across the top 'Swift Advances plc' in what looks like a Times Roman font to give the court the impression this is a copy of the original which of course it isn't. Therefore the Default notices have been tampered with. Over to you guys to tell us what the remedy for this means to the account holders....It's a splitting of hairs technicality, but potentially a lethal one for Swift Advances plc.

 

When you think about the management decisions going on in Swift Advances plc one thing is very prominant about this trading style business.

 

This is not some niaeve error...these people running Swift Advances plc are extremely experienced businessmen and women with a considerable amount of business knowledge, not some small time broker one man band. Someone has consciously made a decision to separate Swift Advances from Swift Advances plc and mention that split at the bottom of the page of their printed letterheaded company stationery and they began using the trading style for a reason.

 

Swift and experienced people like this do not do things without reason and this must not be forgotten. Knowing how important the OFT License is to this business of thiers, does anyone honestly believe NOBODY has checked out the trading styles being used by someone else? I don't think so.

 

Follow the money and you get to the truth, we are not privy to the reasons why they did this, but you can sure as hell be confident that there was a damned good reason. They just haven't thought out the consequences of being found out. So we'll do it for them.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Smarterchick

[Sparkie1723]

It should also be noted that the Swift Finances (UK) Ltd licence lapsed early in 2009. The conclusion I have arrived at ( along with others) as to why they use trading styles that are not registered is......................That Swift Advances, Eastern Counselling Swift Group Legal Sevices etc are not legal entities and in truth cannot be touched by the law.......now if action is taken against Swift Advances Plc and their licence is revoked by the OFT?????? they will cease trading and liquidate BUT .....think about this ................as all our loans have allready been sold to the Kestrel companies, these companies will come forward ( especially the Dormant company Kestrel Loans No 2 Ltd) and carry on as if nothing has happened ....Swift have no assetts .........they exist on borrowed money their creditors get nothing......... in fact there is a concensus that there is approx £200 million adrift "somewhere" in their accounts, this has not been verified as of yet but I believe it will be in the VERY near future by forensic accountants;)

 

BY the way LFI just for "Information" Swift Advances PLc And Swift 1st Ltd are 69% owned by Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd

 

 

sparkie

Edited March 29, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for both responses but I think you missed my point or if you did see it, you didn't address it.

The point I made was that Swift Home loans is a registered name of Swift Finances according to the FSA site. However Swift Home Loans registered address is the same as Swift Advances PLC .

Something cannot be right there?

[Sparkie1723]

Thanks for both responses but I think you missed my point or if you did see it, you didn't address it.

The point I made was that Swift Home loans is a registered name of Swift Finances according to the FSA site. However Swift Home Loans registered address is the same as Swift Advances PLC .

Something cannot be right there?

 

Swift Finance (GB) Ltd.....Swift Finances Ltd....Swift Finance (UK) Ltd..........Swift Financial Services Ltd ...none of these companies have any connection with Swift Home Loans Ltd or any of the Swift/Kestrel companies referred to on this thread Swift Home Loans Ltd is at present an active company with dormant accounts ...if that makes sense to folks ...it doesn't to me I must thick like I say!!!!)

 

"Swift Finances" is merely a trading style/name of Swift Home Loans Ltd if & when they resurrect it...hope this makes things a little clear LFI.

 

sparkie

Edited March 29, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Double post folks ....sorry

[Sparkie1723]

With regard to my own particular case....I have just pointed out to my legal team that the Default notice issued by Swift Advances was issued prior to the proceedings on the 25th JUne 2008 prior to the possession application because we had brached the agreement by getting in arrears....how ever we rectified tha breach by paying off the arrears and paid a further month in advance.

 

This rendered that default notice invaild as we had rectified the breach that default referred to and Swift withdrew the possession application

When Swift re-instated the possession proceedings in NOvember 2009 they did not issue another default notice........I have submitted to Counsel that this prevented Swift Advances Plc from enforcing the agreement and the security they held if I am correct then Swift Advances Plc have had it at my appeal the possession order will be squashed .....fingers crossed for us everyone please

 

 

sparkie

[Guest blackie]

Hi Sparkie, you just keep fighting, I don't know how you do it. I'm so glad that this time you appear to have good Counsel, lets just hope that the judge sees sense and realises what a bunch of liars this company are. I' have just started to unravel my own paper work, I have discovered that my loan was arranged through a company called Central Credit, I now have all their paperwork. I just hope I have the fight in me to get this all sorted, I have now until August. Keeping everything crossed for you.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie, you just keep fighting, I don't know how you do it. I'm so glad that this time you appear to have good Counsel, lets just hope that the judge sees sense and realises what a bunch of liars this company are. I' have just started to unravel my own paper work, I have discovered that my loan was arranged through a company called Central Credit, I now have all their paperwork. I just hope I have the fight in me to get this all sorted, I have now until August. Keeping everything crossed for you.

 

 

Thanks Blackie ...BUt you keep fighting....I have some information that I just CANNOT tell folks about at this moment but ....I can say you will all be taken so far aback that you will two weeks to catch yourself up that's a promise;);):):D:D:D

 

 

sparkie

[lesterlass]

Morning all,

Am I missing something - SWIFT DO NOT own the loan's/mortgages, Kestral do - so how can SWIFT ask anyone for any money? If a company sells to another company any monies is owed to the new company?? surley that is illegal to collect money that does not belong to you?

 

Or am I just being dizzy

[Sparkie1723]

Just sending this e-mail off to Mr Webster

 

sparkie

 

Dear Mr Webster,

 

I refer you to the e-mail you sent to me on 11th March 2010, I would like you to clarify one or two points that have arisen of late, I am privy to a recorded telephone conversation between one of Swift Advance Plc staff and a customer of Swift Advances Plc, who when asked if you could be spoken with, informed the caller that you were no longer with Swift Advances Plc and had not been since December, it is not illogical for me to question if this is so, how is that you replied to my email as copied below?

 

 

In another telephone converstaon another Swift Advances Plc customer had with Mr Mathew Payne he stated that you were still ( as you have claimed to be) the Chief Executive Officer of "The Swift Group"

It would, in my view be appropriate and prudent for you to make your staff also aware that you are still with Swift Advances Plc and in what exact capacity you are with them, in order that they supply callers and customers with the correct information

 

Could you therefore reconfirm that is correct and will you define which of these Groups you are actually Chief Executive of;

Is it this one?

Name & Registered Office:

SWIFT GROUP LIMITED

DUNSWELL ROAD

COTTINGHAM

EAST YORKSHIRE

HU16 4JX

Company No. 00832994

 

or is it this one?

 

The Swift Group

Global Wealth Management

150 FOURTH AVENUE NORTH

Suite 1700

NASHVILLE, TN 37219-2417

Phone: (610) 320-5455

 

Scott K. Swift, CFM(615) 747-5748Financial AdvisorKathleen S. Schwartz, CSNA(610) 320-5484Financial AdvisorStephen R. Bealer, CFP®, ChFC, CLU(610) 320-5453Financial AdvisorJohn C. Minnich, CFP®, ChFC(610) 320-5479Financial AdvisorAprile D. Seitz(610) 320-5483Client AssociateLindsay L. Dillingham, CRPC®(615) 747-5637Registered Client Associate

 

Or is it the "Swift Group" that does not legally exist?.

 

Thank you

Yours sincerely

 

W.B Grace ( SPARKIE)

Edited March 29, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

The Swift Group in Hull East Yorkshire build Caravans ....wonder if this is where Mr Webster has been since December 2009 .....building himself a get away piece of transport????

 

sparkie

[paulwlton]

BankingCrisisMemos250209.pdf

 

May be of Interest from page 199 and especially para 57.

 

Paul

[Sparkie1723]

[ATTACH]17444[/ATTACH]

 

May be of Interest from page 199 and especially para 57.

 

Paul

 

 

Excellent Paul ....the reason why SWift Companies NEVER pass interest rates on is not the reason Mark White explained under oath to the Courts in many cases is answered in this document ............they do securitise and DO NOT have the right to sue as I have been saying from the beginning, I am making my Counsel aware of this document;)

 

sparkie

[Marky1701]

[ATTACH]17444[/ATTACH]

 

May be of Interest from page 199 and especially para 57.

 

Paul

 

 

WOW!! - nice one PW.

 

Heavy reading, but Paras 60 - 69 make you wonder if our little birdie use this as a business model.

 

Never heard the term 'Reposession or Disposession' before - Looks like Swifts deliberate actions are there as an actual strategy to dispossess?

[busterg]

Excellent Paul ....the reason why SWift Companies NEVER pass interest rates on is not the reason Mark White explained under oath to the Courts in many cases is answered in this document ............they do securitise and DO NOT have the right to sue as I have been saying from the beginning, I am making my Counsel aware of this document;)

 

sparkie

 

Paul - well done - you Diamond!!!

 

 

SPARKIE - RING ME NOW!!!

[busterg]

WOW!! - nice one PW.

 

Heavy reading, but Paras 60 - 69 make you wonder if our little birdie use this as a business model.

 

Never heard the term 'Reposession or Disposession' before - Looks like Swifts deliberate actions are there as an actual strategy to dispossess?

 

Just PM'd you

[sweetjane]

Waiting for my accountant're report on the Accrual Summary but he has said: "almost Loan Shark rates, the default and litigation charges are Obscene". No suprises there.

Great post PW - just need a week to read it thoroughly!

SJ

[sweetjane]

Sorry cleaned up version:

 

Waiting for my accountant're report on the Accrual Summary but he has said: "almost Loan Shark rates, the default and litigation charges are Obscene". No suprises there.

 

Great post PW - just need a week to read it thoroughly!

SJ

[Swift Eater]

I have been following this forum, as you all know I are a victim of swifts actions that resulted in high charges and even higher interest rates been charged.

 

My health dose not allow me to get involved with this crusade, however I are with you on this and are supporting you in the back ground.

 

The postings of late have been positive and interesting reading and gets us further to getting justice.

 

Regards to you all Swift Eater.

[Sparkie1723]

I believe this is the exact reason that Swift Advances & Swift 1st Ltd NEVER reduce their interest this says it all.

 

Mr White babbles on in the witness stand about rising costs etc etc nd then finally tries to say their rates are governed by Libor, but as is stated in their accounts they pay a fixed sum to Barclays Bank the main funders and ....when they sell our loans to an SPV ...the SPV puts the rate up Swift still pay the fixed rate to Barcalys ......Swift and the SPV then split the extra profit earned from the hike in their interest rates with the SPV ...a pure money making machine that is why it is put up EVERY 2 to 3 months

 

From the Banking Crisis memo

 

6. This is because, the banks have sold the mortgage contracts to the SPVs and it is the SPVs alone, that have the contractual power to determine the borrowers interest rates. Consequently, it is the SPVs that decide whether or not to pass on the interest rate cuts.

It is the SPVs that have decided not to pass on the interest rate cuts.

 

7. This fact is evidenced by the various and respective Prospectuses that the SPVs file at the UK Listing Authority. In general, the bank that originates the loans will make a True Saleof the mortgages to the SPV which means the contractual power to set the borrower’s interest rate is vested in the SPV.

 

8. Following the bank’s True Sale of the mortgages, the bank’s contractual relationship with the borrower is extinguished. The SPV, as assignee, becomes the party that is in privity of contract with the borrower. However, neither the bank nor the SPV inform the borrower

of the SPV’s ownership of the mortgage contract. The SPV will remain concealed. The borrower is unlikely to discover the SPV’s ownership of their mortgage contract because, following the sale to the SPV, the bank and the SPV enter into a contract wherein, the bank agrees to administrate the mortgages on behalf of the SPV and in return, the SPV remunerates the bank for its administrative services. Consequently, whilst the bank has extinguished all its right and title to the consumer’s mortgage contract, the bank’s connection to the consumer’s mortgage is through its administration agreement with the SPV only.

[Apollo18]

Hi All,

 

Excellent post Sparkie!

 

I think you're probably spot on!

 

Apollo18

[Sparkie1723]

Hi All,

 

Excellent post Sparkie!

 

I think you're probably spot on!

 

Apollo18

 

 

Thanks Apollo,

 

I intend to agree that I am right ....they are cheating everyone.

 

I am also just sending this of to David Blocksidge at the OFT ....I am of the belief that every interest calculation is miscalculated on everyones agreement they have with BOTH of the SWIFT companies.

 

From

Sparkie

To Mr David Blocksidge

The Office of Fair Trading

 

Dear Mr Blocksidge,

I wish to copy you in with this e.mail I am sending the two named people at Swift Advances Plc with regard to the incorrect misleading APR stated on our agreement, calculated as shown, another fact that the courts believed Mr White when I challenged that APR, again showing how Mr White misled the Court.

 

I have many many Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd agreements where the APR is miscalculated

Yours sincerely

 

sparkie

 

Dear Mr White,

You made the statement in your witness statement of truth submitted to the Court in the proceedings Swift Advances took out against usthat you had checked the APR on our agreement and found it to be correct (9.84%) ....that was not only and incorrect statement but an incorrect recalulation...... calculate it again in the manner it is supposed to calculated legally, not the Swift Advances Plc ...."special way".

 

APR Calculator

 

Loan amount (£)

Starter / admin charge (£)

Monthly repayment amount (£)

Number of monthly repayments

Extra final charge (£)

 

Results

 

APR15.4%

 

 

You will see above that the APR is 15.4%. not the 9.84% shown on our agreement

 

 

 

Then please note below.

 

Thank you

Yours sincerely

 

sparkie

 

 

 

Regina -v- Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 3204 Apr 2000

Admn

Consumer, Crime, Financial Services A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract. Consumer Protection Act 1987 20 - Consumer Credit Act 1974 170(1)

 

 

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[lookinforinfo]

Continuing on a bit from Sparkies post 2798 [bTW the article was written by a Carmel Butler- a lawyer who has specialised knowledge of securitisation]- and SPVs are Special Purpose Vehicles-

 

17. This is where the legal ruse comes into play. It is this “registration gap” that the SPV

unlawfully exploits in order to conceal its ownership and control of the mortgages.

Under the Land Registration Act 2002 (“LRA 2002”), the transferee47 of a registered

charge is required to register at H.M. Land Registry, its ownership of the mortgage that it

purchased.48 Therefore, it is a legal requirement that the SPV register its proprietorship

of the mortgage at H.M. Land Registry. Whilst the law implicitly permits the registration

gap as a matter of pragmatism, the law also implicitly mandates that the registration

requirements are to be observed expeditiously. Nonetheless, in contumacious disregard

for its legal duty to comply with the registration requirements of the LRA 2002, the

contract of sale expressly provides that the SPV will not register the transfer at H.M. Land

Registry indeed, the contract provides that notice of the transfer is to be concealed from

the borrowers and H.M. Land Registry and a fortiori concealed from the world49.

18. The suppression and concealment of this information from H.M. Land Registry is a

criminal offence50, and in furtherance of this offence51, the SPV’s legal title to the

mortgages is also concealed from the county courts and the Government. The Banks

remain registered as the proprietor of the mortgages and accordingly all interested parties

are deceived by this concealment with one exception. The SPV does inform its investors

that the bank sold its legal title to the SPV (to whom, the right to register the legal title to

the mortgages is important). Consequently, the bank appears to be the legal owner, but it is not.

 

In the foot notes to her treatise on securitisation Mrs Butler points out.

42See Q170. Angela Knight of the BBA states in explanation that the housing market reduction is value is “affecting

the risk weighting of those assets...so the amount of capital that banks hold against that risk also increases”. In fact,

the bank have sold the assets and passed that risk to the SPV and therefore with respect, Ms Knight’s reasoning is

defective. In effect, the governments initiatives are supporting the SPVs and their investors and not (as it believes)

the banks. This begs the question, why should the tax payer be called upon to guarantee the return of investments?

Edited March 30, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[Marky1701]

Sorry cleaned up version:

 

Waiting for my accountant're report on the Accrual Summary but he has said: "almost Loan Shark rates, the default and litigation charges are Obscene". No suprises there.

 

Great post PW - just need a week to read it thoroughly!

SJ

 

Hi SJ,

 

Any chance your accountants report could be sent to Mr Blocksidge at the OFT?

 

Regards to All