Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

As you guys know much more than I do about securitisation, short of asking my bank if my loan is securitised, is there another way [or ways] for me to find out?

Also, my bank has been taken over by another since my loan was taken out.

Should it be the original bank or the bank that has taken over that should be taking me to Court, regardless of any securitisation questions?

 

 

Hi LFI

 

Your new bank takes over all aspects and responsibities of the old bank assets and debts etc etc etc. ITs the new Bank that should be taking you to Court

 

sparkie

[lookinforinfo]

Cheers for that Sparkie.

[paulwlton]

As you guys know much more than I do about securitisation, short of asking my bank if my loan is securitised, is there another way [or ways] for me to find out?

Also, my bank has been taken over by another since my loan was taken out.

Should it be the original bank or the bank that has taken over that should be taking me to Court, regardless of any securitisation questions?

 

I think it would depend on the terms of the agreement between the lender and spv. The court of appeal ruled that the lender continued have rights to legal charge and possession notwithstanding the mortgage had been securitized.

 

PW

[lookinforinfo]

You're such a killjoy at times Paul.

 

Thanks for that though-better I find out now than in Court

[busterg]

I think it would depend on the terms of the agreement between the lender and spv. The court of appeal ruled that the lender continued have rights to legal charge and possession notwithstanding the mortgage had been securitized.

 

PW

 

Hw do you prve/know legitimacy of the agreement between lender and SPV? There's nothing to stop them creating a favourably fair looking agreement.

 

What was the case?

[paulwlton]

Hw do you prve/know legitimacy of the agreement between lender and SPV? There's nothing to stop them creating a favourably fair looking agreement.

 

What was the case?

 

 

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender

[andrew1]

Any chance of answer to my question please?

 

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo View Post

As you guys know much more than I do about securitisation, short of asking my bank if my loan is securitised, is there another way [or ways] for me to find out?

Also, my bank has been taken over by another since my loan was taken out.

Should it be the original bank or the bank that has taken over that should be taking me to Court, regardless of any securitisation questions?

 

LFI,

 

From what I understand from another thread, there are ways to tell if the securitisation and banks know about it. Firstly, your bank Direct Debit/Standing Order will show on you bank statement a reference to these payments. See what that reference is and come back here as if what Mr Sparkie says were true, then the beneficial rights will be going straight to the spv. Also, test out your home insurance and ask them who the name of who is named as the owner of the mortgage. They have to register the proper owner. Results on the other threads were varied when people asked.

 

One thing we have to keep in mind. I have read here that their Chief exec Mr Weston is it?..states that the company DO NOT securitise their portfolio. If anyone has that information in writing then that is good support in the argument.

 

From what one reads here it appears Kestrel Acquisitions are the securitisation vehicle for something. Finding out what was securitised, when and through whom the spv provided this portfolio and for how much will be the key.

 

Just keep equitable assignment in mind.

Hope that's of some help.

[Sparkie1723]

Cannot seem to get over this fact.

1 Mark White has stated that Banks (who ever they are and I imagine he means the securitising banks) will only lend about 70% of the equity...that is Andrew 1's Equity transfer...he keeps on about.

 

Swift Advances Plc accounts they sold £200 million of mortgages and loans ....if that was done as an equitable trasnfer deal only Kestrel could only have borrowed £140 million......BUT they were able to borrow the full amount Swift wanted ....HOW because the titles were transferred also ...it could not have been an equitable transfer of rights but a full transfer sale. Absolutely ..SIMPLES

Grasshoppers

Look at a problem simply and you will arrive at a simple answer....look at a problem and interject problems that do not exist and you will have a hard time finding the answer.

 

The new "Confuchious"......sparkie :D:D:D

[Sparkie1723]

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender

 

It is my understanding that this was a case of Equitable transfer sale .....not a complete sale which included sale of title.

 

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Back on the "forged/tampered with Default notices" will Swifties take another look at my posts 2675 & 2676 on page 134.

 

Just to add more evidence that these two default notices are not the same.

Take a good look at the bottom of the "true copy" ...(as it should be)...... submitted to the Court in Chester

 

All reference to the trading style and all that info that is shown at the bottom of the original has been deliberately left off/removed/deleted.

 

If you compare the Bar coding you will see that the Post Code is overlaid by the bar code on the Swift Advances original,

 

But on the first one ......the "Swift Advances Plc" doctored one there is no sign of the post code in the Bar Code.

 

Therefore there can be no doubt that the Swift Advances Plc "COPY" is not a copy ...it is a fraudulent reconstructed one......just adding more weight to my argument that Swift Advances Plc know that the originals are worthless as a document to put before the Court..... as they have been issued by way of a criminal action ....issued by a trading style that has no authority to issue them.........every one who has had a Default notice and has been subject to Court Action with a doctored copy... can apply to have the order and proceedings squashed and the legal process for possession would have to start again ...IF they dare to.

 

sparkie

[lesterlass]

Sparkie take a look at this thread - wonder if anything can be done?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/49855-gooner73-swift-advances-3.html

 

LL

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie take a look at this thread - wonder if anything can be done?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/49855-gooner73-swift-advances-3.html

 

LL

 

 

Guide this person to this "Swift" forum....they will find out a lot more here, I am sure that they could use.

 

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Jus a little trickle of info ...I do not think I'm giving away too much........but there is a Swift Advances Plc case coming up in the very near future that will affect a lot of their customers.

 

You will remember of course that it has been shown in the Directors reports of Swift Advances Plc and Swift First Ltd....it is stated and confirmed that ALL ( not some) loans and mortgaes were sold to the Kestrel Loan No 1 & No 3 Ltd Companies and.........The Kestrel Loan N0 1 & No3 Ltd company accounts confirm that they both bought ALL (not some) of these loans and mortgages.

 

Signed Directors Reports are considered a statemnt of truth in common law & in Company Law.

 

What is being challenged in this case is Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd's RIGHT to sue for possession.

 

In an attempt to convince the court in this case..........our very Dear friend Mr White with his usual manner of doing the job he is good at ........misleading the court has said in a sworn affidavit

 

" It is true the Claimant sold some of its loans & mortgages to Kestrel No 3 ....( and here is the beauty of this)...... but not the two particular loans referred to in this case"

 

So ,Mr White is going to have to prove beyond all doubt that out of ALL the loans that were sold ( and again they have stated they sold ALL in the particular year these loans relate to) they did not sell these particular two.... (and there are £200 million worth of loans.

 

I do not think even Mr White will be able to persuade the Court that they kept these two back specially from the sale ........ (one was taken out in May and the other in September or thereabouts) ...and if he doesn't.......they have got BIG problems:D:D;)

 

sparkie.......................(Just to make everyone feel a little better over Easter)

[Marky1701]

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

 

Hi Sparkie,

 

Just wondering if your meet with the 'special person' took place and if any good came out of it?

 

m

[busterg]

Thanks Sparkie - yets it does make me feel better.

 

Happy Easter to you all.

[Marky1701]

Can I take the opportunity of wishing everyone at Swift a happy Easter.

 

I hope you do not buy a Cadburys Easter egg and find out it was owned by Thorntons.

 

I hope you go to Church on Sunday like I will and pray for an interest rate reduction to be fairly passed onto your customers.

 

Actually I jest, I hope all at Swift crash and burn!!

 

m

[Sparkie1723]

Thanks Sparkie - yets it does make me feel better.

 

Happy Easter to you all.

HI busterg

 

Where's my Easter chocolate doggie bone??? knowing you its probably a chewed up Chinese Take away chicken wing bone :D:D

 

 

 

sparkie

[landy_alert]

Thanks Sparkie - yets it does make me feel better.

 

Happy Easter to you all.

 

Me too - thanks Sparkie!

 

Easter wishes to all Swift victims past and present

 

Landy x

[Sparkie1723]

Taken from the Theft Act 1968

 

Suppression, etc. of documents.

 

20.-(1) A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security, any will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in, any court of justice or any government department shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

 

(2) A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, by any deception procures the execution of a valuable security shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years; and this subsection shall apply in relation to the making, acceptance, endorsement, alteration, cancellation or destruction in whole or in part of a valuable security, and in relation to the signing or sealing of any paper or other material in order that it may be made or converted into, or used or dealt with as, a valuable security, as if that were the execution of a valuable security.

 

(3) For purposes of this section "deception" has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act, and "valuable security " means any document creating, transferring, surrendering or releasing any right to, in or over property, or authorising the payment of money or delivery of any property, or evidencing the creation, transfer, surrender or release of any such right, or the payment of money or delivery of any property, or the satisfaction of any obligation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Could be useful against Swift for not telling us what they have done with the loan accounts,mortgages and Land Registry Tiltle......they would have to prove the legal title interest not just produce the registry entry

sparkie

Edited April 2, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

False statements by company directors, etc.

 

19.-(1) Where an officer of a body corporate or unincorporated association (or person purporting to act as such), with intent to deceive members or creditors of the body corporate or association about its affairs, publishes or concurs in publishing a written statement or account which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, he shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

 

(2) For purposes of this section a person who has entered into a security for the benefit of a body corporate or association is to be treated as a creditor of it.

 

(3) Where the affairs of a body corporate or association are managed by its members, this section shall apply to any statement which a member publishes or concurs in publishing in connection with his functions of management as if he were an officer of the body corporate or association.

 

 

Now this is very nice for Mr John Webster Don't you think???.

 

MR Webster Stated in his company accounts and report that all loans and mortgages were sold ....Mr White has said in his Sworn affidavit only some of them were sold ......BINGO:D:D:D

 

Also the New Fraud Act 2006 says this The Fraud Act significantly limits the right of a defendant to claim privilege against self-incrimination (the right to refuse to disclose documents or give evidence if doing so would expose him to the risk of a criminal prosecution) where he is being charged with a fraud offence.

 

How many times has Swift Advances refused to supply the Title Indemnity Insurance AND the records of the Accounts being processed by the Kestrel Companies??? I've been refused about 10 times.

sparkie

Edited April 2, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[paulwlton]

IMO the disclosure of the master deed should be specifically requested as part of any defense to a Swift claim.

 

PW

[busterg]

what you doing with my bone? Hmm

[andrew1]

Cannot seem to get over this fact.

1 Mark White has stated that Banks (who ever they are and I imagine he means the securitising banks) will only lend about 70% of the equity...that is Andrew 1's Equity transfer...he keeps on about.

 

Swift Advances Plc accounts they sold £200 million of mortgages and loans ....if that was done as an equitable trasnfer deal only Kestrel could only have borrowed £140 million......BUT they were able to borrow the full amount Swift wanted ....HOW because the titles were transferred also ...it could not have been an equitable transfer of rights but a full transfer sale. Absolutely ..SIMPLES

Grasshoppers

Look at a problem simply and you will arrive at a simple answer....look at a problem and interject problems that do not exist and you will have a hard time finding the answer.

 

The new "Confuchious"......sparkie :D:D:D

 

Confuchious?....

 

By laying out the possibilities of what may have happened, no matter what the 'keeps on about' thought process behind the posting, it aides those ferrets amongst you in dismissing the obvious or simplicity in what we see as Swift would want us to see it.

 

Just one thing I notice for example is the constant reference in their accounts to the number of staff they have. Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd - 109 staff when I read here that inquiries made to the company address state they had never heard of Kestrel let alone share the office with 109 ghosts. Mind you minimum wage springs to mind as they had a salaries bill of around £45,000 for the year. This is however deceiving to would be traders with this company as are the figures which are supposed to reflect their trading, liabilities and net worth.

 

What concerns me more is the overall net worth if this lot went belly-up and assertions being made are true. Now that's another matter altogether.

 

I have read with interest the securitisation issue on another thread which has hammered out this issue with Preferred and Spml who have securitised and parallels cannot be dismissed given the CEO's background of Swift Advances plc. He worked for Preferred.

 

Most points raised on this thread like mine which questions what we would normally mean was 'simple' or normal business practice have been dismissed by the careful scrutiny you and your colleagues have researched and exposed, so my questions/doubts/devil advocate points are a healthy ingredient in this process one hopes. We are not privy to exactly what has gone on, but the unearthing of all this will surely either bring this company to its knees or return them (if they were ever there in the first place) to trading a much healthier and wise/cleaner/ more respectable organisation than it has been, putting many wrongs to right.

 

Good luck.

[Smarterchick]

IMO the disclosure of the master deed should be specifically requested as part of any defense to a Swift claim.

 

PW

 

 

The chance of any LIP getting that is about as certain as Mark Whites fate. You can get NOTHING out of these bunch of rogues Paul - doesn't matter what you threaten them with.

 

Sparkie, Andrew1, Busterg (woof woof) - good posts

 

Happy Easter folks, I'll be off to mass tomorrow cleansing my soul and saying a few prayers for those miserable tykes that their gods may have mercy upon them. They are going to need all the prayers they can get shortly.

[sweetjane]

Has anyone reported Swift (and all their guises) to Companies Investigation Branch: Companies Investigation Branch (CIB)

CIB is part of the regulatory arm of the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). Prior to the creation of BIS, it was part of the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI).

Although CIB is located within the Insolvency Service, an Executive Agency of BIS, it is not limited to companies that have become insolvent. In fact, most of our investigations are into companies that are actively trading.

 

 

SJ:cool: