Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm not sure on the best option here, I'm happy to go with Tomlin, however I can afford to pay this one in full if needed and wonder whether I should be trying to get a reduced amount, perhaps in the court hallway before going in? that would require submitting a WS of some sort. What I 'like' (strong word) about TO in this instance, is that it allows me to keep my savings to hand for further accounts needing attention in the near future and I would hope gives me some control over the pcm amount.. I've read a number of TO threads now (fell to sleep at the keyboard last night ) but have a few questions please: - Do I specify the payment arrangement in a TO or the claimant? I'm thinking 20% lump upfront plus 96 months of circa 60 squid. - Who decides repayment amounts if CCJ is granted? if the judge, then do I submit I&E at any point? Given the amount of total debt across all my claims, I need to ensure anything I commit to is future proofed. I wouldn't want all my disposable income sent to this one debt, only to have another one in a month or two.
    • I'm sure I've said before that it's fine and dandy bringing in rules that favour you or your party, but you have to consider how it would play out if your opponents get in and want to use the same rules...
    • Its Gaelic celebration and bonfires today - Beltane Quite fortuitous for tomorrow lets hope
    • look on the bright side - it would allow Biden to do what he likes ...
    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
  • 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 4914 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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:D

 

 

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

PW

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

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: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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

JOHNWEBCEOOFSWIFTGROUPETC.jpg

 

THis is one for the books ...here is Mr Webster confirming that he is the Chief Executive of Swift Advances Plc ....Swift Advances ...and the "Swift Group"...and to top it all " Swift "all in the headings etc and letter...he really believes he is the BIG GUY.. so he must take all the blame;)

 

Note what he says in the last 3 lines of para 3....White's false statements were only found out after the hearing he refers to.

 

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you've got a double colour letter fr swift advances and I get an all black one. They sayong im not special enough?:p

 

Yes it was accepted in it's entirety BEFORE other transcripts came to light proving the court was mis-lead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4914 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...