Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[busterg]

Good morning and Happy Easter to all.

 

SJ - now isn't this a little find. Seems like we need to get in touch with them as well. Have you? lots to do come Tuesday next week me thinks.

[Sparkie1723]

 

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 April 4, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[busterg]

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?

 

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

[Sparkie1723]

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?

 

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

 

Not only was this in techni-colour it was on real top class paper ...so there:p:-D:-D:-D

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Because I have nothing more to do except find fault with This whole shower I have discovered this set of facts.

This is what Webster says in his 2009 accounts directors report

 

"During the year the Group has grown its loan book to £547.2m (2008 436.1m) mainly due to the acquisition of mortgage loans from an associated company £ 199.9 m of loans were acquired in the year ( 2008 nil ).

 

 

Now it was only in 2008 that Swift Advances & Swift 1st Ltd sold £200m loans and mortgages to the two Kestrel companies £ £129m to No1 and £71m to No3.…total £200m.

 

So the question is what was the purpose of

A)……Selling £200m worth of loans and the

B)……The next year buying £199.9m back……….to a dumbo like me it makes no sense at all.

 

They sell this amount to 2 companies and then say they buy them back from one company ….when in fact the other two companies accounts say different one says it sold £129m back (Kestrel No1) & Kestrel No 3 say they sold £ 71m back…..the more you study these accounts the more things do not add up and its time the Fraud Squad really looked into this whole lot.

It looks just as if they are playing monopoly!!

 

sparkie

[busterg]

Not only was this in techni-colour it was on real top class paper ...so there:p:-D:-D:-D

 

sparkie

 

Well you've laid the guantlet now :D:D:p

[Sparkie1723]

Well you've laid the guantlet now :D:D:p

 

 

I suppose you will doctor one up just like they do and make it look like a Dead Sea Scroll now!!!:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin:

 

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Back to the serious stuff...the only reason they would buy these loans back would be that they had sold the titles as well .....BUT we rumbled them and they realised they had to get them back....because they had not changed the Land Regisrty entries as they should have done once they had sold them...........so for 12 months these titles were incorrectly registered.

Buying them back does not alter the fact that this suggests that fraud was committed .....I emphasise that this is my personal opinion not the forums.

 

sparkie

Edited April 4, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Gallahad]

Back to the serious stuff...the only reason they would buy these loans back would be that they had sold the titles as well .....BUT we rumbled them and they realised they had to get them back....because they had not changed the Land Regisrty entries as they should have done once they had sold them...........so for 12 months these titles were incorrectly registered.

Buying them back does not alter the fact that fraud was committed .....I emphasise that this is my personal opinion not the forums.

 

sparkie

 

My Daddie told me if it looks like a duck, waddles, has a bill and webbed feet its probably a duck;)

[Sparkie1723]

My Daddie told me if it looks like a duck, waddles, has a bill and webbed feet its probably a duck;)

 

HI Gallahad,

 

Mine used to say .......if something fits like a glove the only thing it can be is a glove......my Dad and your Dad must have gone to different schools together:-D:-D:-D

 

sparkie

[Gallahad]

Yep but they both learnt how to smell a rat uh

G

[Sparkie1723]

Yep but they both learnt how to smell a rat uh

G

 

G

Rats are lovely creatures compared with this "Swift Group????" lot!!!

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Now look what I've found in our paperwork,..... it's an notification of interest rate rise from Swift First....they tell us its going up on our "mortgage"......they then say if "our loan" is either fixed or discounted etc etc

So have we got a mortgage with Swift First ( trading style of Swift First Ltd) or is it a loan with them.......or is it with The Swift Group or Swift Advances Plc ........who owns our loan /mortgage out of all these .....but then again where does Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd fit in also?

 

If they all own it then they have made themselves a hefty extra asset on their books!....of some £ 120.000 or so if they all say we owe it to them and claiming it as such on their books:)

 

 

 

 

Just noticed our agreement hasn't got an agreement number on the executed agreement, has anyone else got a number on their actual agreement???

 

sparkie

Edited April 5, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[landy_alert]

No agreement number on mine either Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

No agreement number on mine either Sparkie

 

Hi landy

Then that would be what is called a ....."mis-nomer"..... the number they give you is just a reference Number not an agreement number.........folks could help me on this research Does a consumer credit agreement have to have an agreement number on it..

 

sparkie

[busterg]

Hey sparkie - check your email. FULL TECHINICOLOUR:D

[sweetjane]

Further to my previous post about the Companies Investigation Branch - here's what the website says:

 

Criminal investigations and prosecutions | Policies | BIS

 

 

Fraudulent trading (section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 and section 993 of the Companies Act 2006);

Malpractice by company directors in relation to the keeping and preservation of company accounting records (sections 221-222 of the Companies Act 1985 and sections 387 & 389 of the Companies Act 2006).

The majority of the offences that we prosecute are punishable by a maximum penalty of 2-10 years imprisonment and/or a fine.

We will always consider making an application for ancillary orders. For example, after a conviction we will apply for confiscation and compensation wherever appropriate.

Where a person is convicted of certain offences in connection with the setting up or management of a company, the sentencing court may also disqualify that person from being a director or being involved in the management of any other company for up to 15 years (section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986).

[busterg]

Further to my previous post about the Companies Investigation Branch - here's what the website says:

 

Criminal investigations and prosecutions | Policies | BIS

 

 

Fraudulent trading (section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 and section 993 of the Companies Act 2006);

Malpractice by company directors in relation to the keeping and preservation of company accounting records (sections 221-222 of the Companies Act 1985 and sections 387 & 389 of the Companies Act 2006).

The majority of the offences that we prosecute are punishable by a maximum penalty of 2-10 years imprisonment and/or a fine.

We will always consider making an application for ancillary orders. For example, after a conviction we will apply for confiscation and compensation wherever appropriate.

Where a person is convicted of certain offences in connection with the setting up or management of a company, the sentencing court may also disqualify that person from being a director or being involved in the management of any other company for up to 15 years (section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986).

 

 

Looks like us lot are going to be busy tomorrow:-D

[Sparkie1723]

First question to get them to ask The Directors f all the Kestrel Companies which include the Two Swift companies...What was/is the purpose of setting up these Kestrel Loans Companies whose principle business activity ( according to their accounts ) is lending money secured on domestic premises ........when not of these companies have ever lent even a penny to a domestic borrower.

 

They have been set up for one purpose and one purpose alone to BORROW money and pass it on to Swift Advances Plc, and I strongly suspect a "wee" little bit of money laundering could "possibly" not necessarily but "possibly" be taking place.

 

That would be up to them to investigate that little issue.

 

 

 

sparkie

[andrew1]

Now look what I've found in our paperwork,..... it's an notification of interest rate rise from Swift First....they tell us its going up on our "mortgage"......they then say if "our loan" is either fixed or discounted etc etc

So have we got a mortgage with Swift First ( trading style of Swift First Ltd) or is it a loan with them.......or is it with The Swift Group or Swift Advances Plc ........who owns our loan /mortgage out of all these .....but then again where does Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd fit in also?

 

If they all own it then they have made themselves a hefty extra asset on their books!....of some £ 120.000 or so if they all say we owe it to them and claiming it as such on their books:)

 

 

 

 

Just noticed our agreement hasn't got an agreement number on the executed agreement, has anyone else got a number on their actual agreement???

 

sparkie

 

Sparkie, this creates an interesting concept here.

 

You have an agreement with Swift Advances plc and here you have a completely different company issuing interest rate hikes.

 

It produces evidence that the systems/staff and all else are controlled by the same people, some of whom fail in their duties to differentiate between the companies when issuing documents. Hence the Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd being printed at the top of some of the Subject Access paperwork.

 

This all comes down to pressure previously discussed where staff get confused, switched to other duties due to outside pressures such have been inflicted upon them by consumers hungry for both the truth and answers.

 

They trip themselves up time after time as witness in Cabot when we went after them. It's only a matter of time before..

 

Can anyone answer the question you ask with regards to the account number being on the agreement?

[Sparkie1723]

With reference to A1's post ,

I agree absolutely .....then again we have the CAG member who has a First Charge mortgage with Swift 1st Ltd who issued possession proceedings in their name...................and Swift Advances Plc ( our Mr White again) turned up at the possession hearing and gave evidence and obtained possession of the property in question.........................IN SWIFT ADVANCES PLC NAME.......Is that not to be construed as seriously misleading the Court????

 

Surely this breaks practically every bit of legislation there is................obtaining and acquiring property by deception........ fraud....theft...............making false claims and submissions to a Court of Law ......anyone add any more??

 

HOW much longer can this despicable man continue to get away with it all?????

 

 

sparkie

Edited April 6, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Re Doc on post 2897

 

this is what they submitted in their Court Bundle.....note that they did not need to type Swift Advances Plc on the top as with the Default notice it refers to Swift Advances Plc...................this shows how carefully and deliberately these documents are doctored.....but they still make incriminating mistakes;)

 

sparkie

 

[Smarterchick]

Hi ya palymates, hope you all had a good easter, despite all these creeps lingering..

 

You lot have been busy, well done.

 

Sparks, notice they call themselves ' Mortgage Accounts department' sounds like a Swift 1st/ Advances merger:psince when have they described themselves as that? Maybe it's because they forgot this was a loan rather than a mortgage?

 

Anyone else got this mix and match of documents by any chance?

[busterg]

My docs are all over the place with interchangeable Swifts writing to me.

[sweetjane]

Ours too