Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In my experience (not with car payments) but with many other things, my partner has been ill and signed off in the past and we have been unable to meet various commitments.  Naturally if you ring the call centre they are going to fob you off and tell you you must pay, that's why that never ever works. I would obtain a note from her GP listing all her health issues plus medications plus side effects, then write to the finance company with a copy of it, explaining the situation, as you have here, asking for a payment holiday. Perhaps mention that the car is very much needed for hospital appointments etc. It's likely the finance company would rather you pay till term end than, chase you for money they will never see, and sell the car at auction for a loss,  You can search some of my threads going back years, advising people to do this for Council Tax, Tax Credits, HMRC, Even a solicitors company and it always works, because contrary to popular belief people are reasonable.
    • Sorry, I haven't ever seen one of these agreements. Read it all and look out for anything that says when she can withdraw and when she is committed to go ahead. If it isn't clear she may need to call the housing provider and simply say what you posted here, she doesn't want to go ahead and how does she withdraw her swap application?
    • Thank you! Your head is like a power bank of knowledge.  Her health issues are short term, due to a relationship breakdown she took it pretty hard and has been signed off work on medication for 3 months. She only started her job in February 24 so does not qualify for any occupational sick benefits, which is where the ssp only comes in. (You will see me posting a few things over the coming days, whilst I try and sort some things for her)  I sat with her last night relaying all this back and she does want to work out a plan, she was ready to propose £100 for the next 3 months and then an additional £70 per month onto of her contractual to "catch up" but Money247 rejecting the payment holiday and demanding £200 thew her, which is why I came on here.   
    • I've looked at your case specifically more.   Term 8bii reads " when, in accordance with instructions from the Customer or the Consignee, the Consignment is left in a safe place" Their terms choose to not define safe, so they are put to proof that the location is safe. If your property opens onto a street its a simple thing of putting a google earth image and pointing out that its not a safe place
    • New rules and higher rates resulted in a jump in the number of savers opening accounts at the start of this year's Isa season.View the full article
  • 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 4917 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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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 by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:D

 

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

[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

Link to post
Share on other sites

[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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!:D

 

 

SPARKIE - RING ME NOW!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Excellent post Sparkie! :D

 

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 by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparkie, sorry to go on about this but you are still missing the point.

I know you say that Swift Finance [uk] ltd is a completely different company BUT why then does the FSA Register show Swift Home Loans as one of the companies controlled by Swift Finance [uK] Ltd?

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4917 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...