Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

Below is another extract from hearing of our case transcript....Can anyone explain PLEASE to me any of the following...........this is a prime example of how a LIP is treated with utter contempt by the Courts ...we are the dregs of society in the eyes of Courts.

 

sparkie

 

How the Judge could tell me and rule

 

1 That everything I said in our Defence against possession had ALL been heard before, when the Barrister for Swift had just said what I have highlighted in blue.

 

2 How was it OK for Swift Advances Plc to submit Mark Whites witness statement TWO days before the hearing and yet it is not acceptable for me to do that (high lighted in pink)

 

3 What were supposed to do ....( highlighted in red) nothing. not file a defence or pleadings they call them what were we supposed to do.

 

4 The Judge said it had all been heard before but the Barisster had himself just told him (highlighted in lilac) that we "put forward fresh grounds for Defence"

 

What the learned Recorder was hearing was the following. He was not hearing the claim for possession because at that stage the defendants had brought their arrears up-to-date so the hearing for possession or the application for possession was adjourned with permission to restore. Instead the hearing was of the counterclaim and counsel who appeared for the claimant typed a detailed note of the judgment and the learned judge then actually signed counsel's note and that note is exhibited to the witness statement of Mark White which is dated two days ago which I am hoping is on the court file.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, I have read it.

 

BUT To ME later on he says "You have raised this in a document just two days before a hearing and that is not good enough

 

MR WILLIAMS: I am grateful. Now, it is probably not — I have gone through the details of the judgment, but just so that I can assist the court it is probably necessary to go through the detail of it now and that can be summarised as follows. The learned judge went through every one of what I put as the four prongs of the defence and counterclaim and found against the defendants on every single point, both as to fact and as to the law. For that reason the counterclaim was dismissed.

 

What has happened in the meantime is the following. I will see if I can provide the court with a date for this. On 25th November, so just over a week ago, a week and a day ago, the defendants filed - the defendants who are now acting in person - a document headed "Joint defence statement." It reads as though it is a cross between a witness statement and a pleading. There was no permission to file either a witness statement or a pleading although I would have to accept that I would struggle to oppose an application to admit in evidence a witness statement bearing in mind that somebody's home is at stake, whereas I rather suspect I would find it much easier to oppose this being a late substitution of a defence. What this joint defence statement does is the following. It raises fresh grounds of defence.

 

District Judge Newman

Edited April 1, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Marky1701]

I had a very nice letter from my MP who stated that there now seems to be several MP's who are beginning to be interested in Swift. She was absolutely amazed at my interest rate and asked if I had written to enquire why the interest rates had remained so high. She mentioned a Bev Hughes who also had an interest in Swift. She assured me that she was investigating and would get back to me. It's good to know your MP's actually care. Whilst she may not be able to do anything on her own, with all of us writing to our MP's maybe something will be done, my question is WHEN.

 

 

Hi Blackie

 

I raised the issue with my MP Bev Hughes originally and had a couple of letters back - see my previous posts.

 

She escalated it to the Chief Exec of the OFTwho replied that Swift are being investigated and their results will be made public soon.

 

But you are right - everyone use any angle they can to make people aware of these bandits.

 

Good to hear word is getting around the House of Commons!!

 

m

[Marky1701]

Hi All,

 

I have just taken a look at the historical LIBOR rates.

 

In fairness the rates did steadily rise from around 1.17% in 2003 when I first took out my loan and peaked at 5.6% in 2007.

 

I fully accept that as a variable rate customer, the rate Swift charged should reflect these increases - its a chance you take with that type of deal.

 

BUT the rates have steadily declined scince that time going below 1% mid 2009 and are now at an all time low of 0.25% which is below the rate when I started the loan.

 

Swift have put my rate up 9 times - why have they not decresed it as fast as they put it up?

 

Only one answer - they are abusing their position of power and we are all being treated completely unfairly.

 

Where do I go with this?

 

m

[sweetjane]

That's good news for me Marky - the FOS told me it would take another year for the OFT investigations to be made public and they didn't specify whether or not Swift was included in their investigations into second charge loans. Although I think we're pretty sure they are They also stated it would be "unfair" for the lender if my complaint was kept open that long. Ahhh so unfair on Swift all these nasty customers complaining about their treatment of us!!! And how dare I ask for my complaint to be kept open until the OFT details were published - especially when its taken the FOS a year to get round to us in the first place. One rule for us and another for them from this "independent" organization. Ours is still an open complaint though, oh yes siree. My MP and my sister's MP are also asking questions about Swft. Pump up the pressure

[Sparkie1723]

Hi All,

 

I have just taken a look at the historical LIBOR rates.

 

In fairness the rates did steadily rise from around 1.17% in 2003 when I first took out my loan and peaked at 5.6% in 2007.

 

I fully accept that as a variable rate customer, the rate Swift charged should reflect these increases - its a chance you take with that type of deal.

 

BUT the rates have steadily declined scince that time going below 1% mid 2009 and are now at an all time low of 0.25% which is below the rate when I started the loan.

 

Swift have put my rate up 9 times - why have they not decresed it as fast as they put it up?

 

Only one answer - they are abusing their position of power and we are all being treated completely unfairly.

 

Where do I go with this?

 

m

 

HI marky,

 

The LIBOR rate began to decrease from May 2007 frm around 5.78% I think if you check it properly. it then reached a low of 0.67 in Dec 2009. ( the 0.25% you refer to is the BOE base rate Not LIBOR)

This points to the fact that Swift Advances Plc HAVE securitised and its the securitisers who dictate the rates ...thats why SWift Advances Plc NEVER put their rates down because they have no power to do so.They are controlled by the Securitiser.....nothing to do with Swifts actual rate they pay to Barclays Bank ( who Swift Advances Plc first borrowed their money from ) that was obtained at a fixed capped rate as Mr Webster stated in his directors reports .

 

sparkie

 

sparkie

[busterg]

I had a very nice letter from my MP who stated that there now seems to be several MP's who are beginning to be interested in Swift. She was absolutely amazed at my interest rate and asked if I had written to enquire why the interest rates had remained so high. She mentioned a Bev Hughes who also had an interest in Swift. She assured me that she was investigating and would get back to me. It's good to know your MP's actually care. Whilst she may not be able to do anything on her own, with all of us writing to our MP's maybe something will be done, my question is WHEN.

 

Yes I have asked them the question why. I have a written response received last year re LIBOR and stuff. Would you like a copy fro your MP etc?

[busterg]

HI marky,

 

The LIBOR rate began to decrease from May 2007 frm around 5.78% I think if you check it properly. it then reached a low of 0.67 in Dec 2009. ( the 0.25% you refer to is the BOE base rate Not LIBOR)

This points to the fact that Swift Advances Plc HAVE securitised and its the securitisers who dictate the rates ...thats why SWift Advances Plc NEVER put their rates down because they have no power to do so.They are controlled by the Securitiser.....nothing to do with Swifts actual rate they pay to Barclays Bank ( who Swift Advances Plc first borrowed their money from ) that was obtained at a fixed capped rate as Mr Webster stated in his directors reports .

 

sparkie

 

sparkie

 

Same set up and reasons for Swift 1st Ltd as well.

[Guest blackie]

You actually got a reply , !!!!. I think I got something, but it said my agreement was neither covered by Libor or Base rate. Does this mean they just make it up. But yes your letter would be most helpful. My mortgage payments to Swift have increased by £400.00 in less than a year, (without paying off arears). Wish my salary had risen like that.

[Sparkie1723]

Irrespective of any letters etc ...Mark White finally admitted under oath that ( got that in my first judgement summary).....The cost of Swift Advances Plc funding and Swift 1st Ltd funding was governed by the LIBOR rate ONLY .....nothing else!!

 

sparkie

[lookinforinfo]

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?

[Guest blackie]

So if there rates are governed by LIBOR why hasn't anybodies rate gone down? Really don't understand this.

[Gallahad]

So if there rates are governed by LIBOR why hasn't anybodies rate gone down? Really don't understand this.

Simples Blackie if they go down so does the thieves profit;)

[busterg]

You actually got a reply , !!!!. I think I got something, but it said my agreement was neither covered by Libor or Base rate. Does this mean they just make it up. But yes your letter would be most helpful. My mortgage payments to Swift have increased by £400.00 in less than a year, (without paying off arears). Wish my salary had risen like that.

 

Same with me - about £400 a month within 12 months plus arrears on top!

 

Ill email you a copy if you PM me with you email address.

 

Check to see what they sent you as well. They have to be clear about the rates otherwise whose rates are the applying to calculate the loans in the first place for APR comparisions?

 

if not BofE or Libor then whose?

 

You see Sparkie some stuff does stick with me!!

[busterg]

Between 2004 and 2007 the Bank of England has raised interest rates 9 times. In 2005 there were no increases-and just one decrease.

 

Then in Sep 2006 it went from 4.5% in a series of rises to 6.75%

in Dec 2007. Since then it has come down in several steps to 0.5%. It would appear that your interest rates do not come down. A very unfair relationship I think.

 

Interesting - so we were BofE then changed to LIBOR for their convienence as soon as BofE no longer helped their cause....and of course no comeback because not detailed on agreements.

 

Just simply assumed BofE because as normal consumers, we would not know of any other lending rate. I never heard of LIBOR until I got the letter saying thats what it was when I questioned interest rates. :mad:

[lookinforinfo]

So if there rates are governed by LIBOR why hasn't anybodies rate gone down? Really don't understand this.

 

From what I understand Blackie, these SPVs do not want to lend you money for 25 years-they want their money back much quicker.

 

So if they never bring their rates down, you may decide to change lenders [in which case they get their money back

quickly] or you are unable to pay so then they repossess your house and sell it on and so get their money back quicker. Or you can carry on paying them ever higher interest rates so that it may become uneconomic for them not to allow you to see out your full term.

[Guest blackie]

That would be really helpful, as my MP is like a bulldog and won't let this go. I have a solicitor but to be honest, it's me who is doing all the footwork and I work a 48 hour week and have a poorly husband and mum to look after, so there are times when I don't get on this website for weeks. We were managing fine to pay Swift until my oh became ill. Then Swift really went in with the knife.

[Sparkie1723]

This LIBOR crap they put out is just what it is crap.........the interest rates are CONTROLLED by the securitiser ....they are the ones who put your rate up they CAN do what they like ....they set the rate..........and it gives them more profit which the securitisating Banks remunerate the Two Swift comanpies Swif 1st Ltd and Swift Advances Plc for administrating the loan accounts...........Do you get it now???

 

 

sparkie

[Guest blackie]

The problem with wanting to change lenders is that most of us have already fallen into arrears with this company so no other mortgage company will assist. Swift are sub prime lenders so do not even have to follow the governments protocol for mortgage arrears. Although the judge at my hearing felt they should have, but had not. I have friends who are accountants, solicitors etc, none of them can really get to the bottom of how Swift get away with it, and I don't think any of us are in a position to hire a barriser of the calibre Swift can employ.

[lookinforinfo]

But can they do what they like Sparkie? If you have a variable mortgage/loan where the interest rate never comes down, even when the rates are historically low, then you have a definite claim for an unfair relationship at the very least.

[Guest blackie]

So, that's it then they really can do what they like. I was thinking the other day about GMAC having to pay back their customers. It was never really highlighted on the news or headlined in the papers. Why was that, is it because other sub prime companies were at risk?

[busterg]

That would be really helpful, as my MP is like a bulldog and won't let this go. I have a solicitor but to be honest, it's me who is doing all the footwork and I work a 48 hour week and have a poorly husband and mum to look after, so there are times when I don't get on this website for weeks. We were managing fine to pay Swift until my oh became ill. Then Swift really went in with the knife.

 

 

Yep will do - just pm with email address.

[lookinforinfo]

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?

 

 

Any chance of answer to my question please?

[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