Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

I want to make people realise how important the issue over the correct name being legally used, so I give a perfect example

Black Horse Ltd entered a default on my credit file and kept it there for nearly 3 years .............after fighting them for so long they finally admitted that they had entered it by "error" and they were wrong .....I received a letter from them apologising and saying that I should not be adversely affected by what they had done for me to present to possible creditors in any applications I made.

 

This was too late I had been prevented/or penalised by this unlawful entry for 3 years.

 

THey offerd £250 in compensation for the 3 years unlawful default on my credit file....The entry was for a non existent "Loan.

It was entered on my files as Black Horse Ltd ( Loan)

 

I issued proceedings against them but I made a small error on the Claim form and POC.

I put is as BLack Horse ( Loan) Ltd...... BLack HOrse submitted that there was no such legal entity and had my claim threw out ....with the Court saying if I wanted to continue the claim, it must be submitted against the Correct Legal entity Black Horse Ltd ...and that is what I have done....

I only put this in to show how important the legal entity stuff is.

 

The Swift Group at Arcadia House does not exist....therefore you cannot sue them as the Swift Group.....You would be suing the one in Yorkshire.

 

 

Cant be done

 

 

sparkie

 

I put Black Horse Loans Ltd

Edited April 7, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Killerschick]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to comment on the legitimacy or otherwise of the use of the phrase "The Swift Group" just saying that Swift Group Legal Services are registered (under that name) with the Law Society as a firm of solicitors and as such would not normally need an individual consumer credit licence.

 

I won't pretend I know anything about solicitors having to be licenced by the FSA.

[westlandbabe]

Hi everyone, I'm just new to the site so bear with me......I've been reading your posts about Swift with great interest. I too am having problems with them, they have been charging me extortionate monthly payments, £880 for a loan I borrowed of £70,000 in 2007. I have had 3 children in the past 2 years (twins first, then another daughter a year later) and am now out of work, as is my husband, a self-employed building contractor. I've fallen behind with payments and have asked them several times to see if they could do something, i.e. one of their own suggestions such as lowering the payments over a greater term etc but they won't help and are threatening repossession instead.

 

I noticed the threads about Swift operating as Swift Advances etc. All correspondance I have received from them over the years has been on the Swift Advances, Arcadia House paper. What does this mean for me?

 

Any advice is greatly appreciated. I notice they're obviously being investigated, but what does all this mean for me in the meantime as I;m really struggling to make any payments to them, never mind the standard monthly one!

Thanks

[busterg]

Hi everyone, I'm just new to the site so bear with me......I've been reading your posts about Swift with great interest. I too am having problems with them, they have been charging me extortionate monthly payments, £880 for a loan I borrowed of £70,000 in 2007. I have had 3 children in the past 2 years (twins first, then another daughter a year later) and am now out of work, as is my husband, a self-employed building contractor. I've fallen behind with payments and have asked them several times to see if they could do something, i.e. one of their own suggestions such as lowering the payments over a greater term etc but they won't help and are threatening repossession instead.

 

I noticed the threads about Swift operating as Swift Advances etc. All correspondance I have received from them over the years has been on the Swift Advances, Arcadia House paper. What does this mean for me?

 

Any advice is greatly appreciated. I notice they're obviously being investigated, but what does all this mean for me in the meantime as I;m really struggling to make any payments to them, never mind the standard monthly one!

Thanks

 

Hi

 

As I understand it, they are now running the mortgage rescue schemes. Not sure which one. So, I suggest maybe you contact the CAB advising them that you have made attempts to resolve your repayment issues but are being met with difficulties. Get legal advice and see abut a solictior. I also think you should perhaps contact the OFT and raise a complaint with them.

 

There are pre-action protocols they must follow. Bring that to their attention and also to the attention of the compliance officer. Have a good read through this thread again and it will give you a better idea of what you need to be looking at and doing. Until then it's quite difficult t give you any further suggestions to help.

 

You'll know what I mean when yu go through the thread again and again and again

 

Hope that helps.

[sweetjane]

Hi westlandbabe

Good advice from busterg - go to CAB asap they will help you prioritize debts and deal with Swift on your behalf if necessary, especially if you are suffering financial hardship. Swift are legally obliged to follow the Pre Action Protocol. Put everything in writing to them so you have a paper trail and copy David Blocksidge at the OFT: [email protected]. If you get to court, a judge will not be happy to see them having deliberately avoided the protocol although these b*******s do everything they possibly can to avoid the rules as you will discover when reading this thread. You need to act quickly because Swift don't hang around when it comes to repossession attempts. We're all here to help, so keep us informed.

bw sj

[Sparkie1723]

I have been given the go ahead to post this...so here goes "I'll make you happy" ...so the saying goes.

 

sparkie

 

I am now able to post important information that I have known for a considerable time, that I am sure that all “Swift”??? customers will find very interesting and satisfying to say the least.

 

The High Court hearing all forum thread readers have been advised about takes place on Tuesday 13th April 2010.

 

 

This is the case that will prove to all that Mr White has been misleading the Courts in possession claims up and down the country, and that he has made many deliberate false misrepresentative statements to Courts on oath, and has in fact perjured himself,.

 

 

In his sworn affidavits submitted to the High Court in this case, which is actually two cases that have been joined together at the Order of the Court, Mr White has made a statement to this effect.

“ It is true that the Plaintiff ( Swift Advances Plc) sold some loans to Kestrel Loans No 3 Ltd, but not the two relating to this claim”.

 

 

This is a very bold assertive statement of fact. Mr Whites sworn statement of this going to be severely examined and questions by the Counsel for the two Defendants in this case.

 

 

I don‘t have to repeat all of what the accounts of Swift Advances Plc and the Kestrel company involved again say fully, but it is sufficient to say that it is stated in their accounts that all loans were sold by Swift Advances Plc and all loans were acquired by the two Kestrel companies.

 

Mr White’s statement will be challenged as to why he can and why he has contradicted the statements made by his superiors. If Mr White’s statement is true then the directors reports and accounts are false.

 

 

I foresee problems in this issue of Mr White and his "statements of truth.????

 

 

Mr White in previous Court cases has stated again under oath that Swift Advances do not pay commission as such only a small documentary fee to brokers.

The Defendants have irrefutable evidence that substantial commission was paid to their brokers amounting on one of their loans amounted to almost £3000

 

 

The two Defendants in this case were present at our Court hearing in December 2008 and were witness to Mr Whites statement under oath about commission and what is or not paid which again the Recorder accepted, Mr White misled the Recorder by making that statement, Mr White said that only a nominal sum was paid towards the Brokers documentation costs,the reference to that is in the Defendants court bundle and again Mr Whites statement on this issue will also be seriously challenged.

 

 

To back this up being submitted is the Statement in the accounts of Swift Advances Plc is the fact that they actually paid £ 19.2 m in commission and brokers fees, it will be asked if this claim ( tax deductible ) include the brokers fees that all borrowers had paid, and were Swift Advances Plc claiming that they paid these brokers fees.

 

 

The Court will be asked if all document relating to the “NON sale/transfer” of accounts to the Kestrel company stated in this claim, have been supplied as requested, and an explanation as to how that out of £71m worth of loan sales only the two loans in question and appertaining to this claim were not sold, a very hard task to prove I would imagine.

 

 

The High Court will not merely accept what Mr White says like the County Courts do, he or Swift Advances Plc are going to have to prove it.

 

There are many many more other questions Swift Advances Plc will be required to answer, none more important than this one and that is the manner in which Swift Advances Plc deliberate and knowingly miscalculate the APR on all their Consumer Credit Agreements, to support this will be shown several of Swift Advances Plc Agreements that prove this, .....ours is one of them.

 

 

The APR Shown on our agreement is 9.84%, it should have been shown as 15.4% and this will be submitted to the Court. On the two Defendants loan agreements the APR has also been miscalculated.

 

 

It will be submitted that as Mr White is Swift Advances Plc’s Risk Manager and holds a degree in Economics he should have noticed that they were incorrect unless he also knew they were not and he failed to make the required corrections as was his duty to do so

 

 

The Enterprise Act of 2000 says this in Paragraph

4.17

“The interest rate or APR under a credit agreement, or other charges within the total charge for credit, would normally be core terms and must be expressed clearly” if they are not or miscalculated, this applies.

 

 

4 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

 

 

Swift will find it hard to overcome this on 13th April 2010;)

 

 

Fraudulent misrepresentation was defined by Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek (1889) as a false statement that is "made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false.". See:

 

Negligent Misrep

 

This is a false statement made by a person who had no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. (This would be Mr White)

See

 

Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337.

 

Misrepresentation is a false statement made during the negotiations of a contract which induces the representee to enter into a contract.

 

The result of a finding of misrepresentation is that the contract is voidable.

 

Types of Fraudulent misrepresentation

 

S2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967Negligent Misrepresentation

 

For negligent misrepresentation the burden of proof rests on the representee to show that they had reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. This can be a heavy burden to discharge

 

Howard Marine and Dredging Co. Ltd v A. Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd. [1977] EWCA Civ 3 (13 December 1977)

 

Misrepresenting the APR falls into this category!!!!

 

Added footnote:

Also in this case are all the allegations about the trading styles and names and LOGO used by Swift Advances Plc Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances etc etc etc.In factt everything that has been posted about them is being brought out into the open AT LAST

 

Lots of questions to be answered;-)

Edited April 8, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[westlandbabe]

Thanks for the replies guys. Unfortunately the Mortgage Rescue Schemes don't apply to me as the mortgage is on a second buy-to-let property that I own. I am starting to make my payments to Swift from March but only the standard monthly payment, I cannot foresee how I could possibly pay what they want me to pay off the arrears. The threads are extremely interesting, I'm still getting through them and am still getting through all correspondance I've received from Swift as so much of what is said on here pertains to me, such as all correspondance being from Swift Advances,who, if I'm right in my thinking, do not 'exist' in a way. Also, the information such as the changes in my interest rates in invaluable, I never noticed before but it has changed so many times and I have NEVER been informed of the changes! Interesting stuff, I always knew they were acting underhandedly. Will keep you all posted on how I get on and will keep abreast of what's going on here also

[busterg]

Thanks for the replies guys. Unfortunately the Mortgage Rescue Schemes don't apply to me as the mortgage is on a second buy-to-let property that I own. I am starting to make my payments to Swift from March but only the standard monthly payment, I cannot foresee how I could possibly pay what they want me to pay off the arrears. The threads are extremely interesting, I'm still getting through them and am still getting through all correspondance I've received from Swift as so much of what is said on here pertains to me, such as all correspondance being from Swift Advances,who, if I'm right in my thinking, do not 'exist' in a way. Also, the information such as the changes in my interest rates in invaluable, I never noticed before but it has changed so many times and I have NEVER been informed of the changes! Interesting stuff, I always knew they were acting underhandedly. Will keep you all posted on how I get on and will keep abreast of what's going on here also

 

I know it's abit of a task going through the thread but it really will help you understand things a lot clearer.

 

The protocols that Swift must to follow are on this thread. All the best

BG

[Killerschick]

Thanks for the replies guys. Unfortunately the Mortgage Rescue Schemes don't apply to me as the mortgage is on a second buy-to-let property that I own. I am starting to make my payments to Swift from March but only the standard monthly payment, I cannot foresee how I could possibly pay what they want me to pay off the arrears. The threads are extremely interesting, I'm still getting through them and am still getting through all correspondance I've received from Swift as so much of what is said on here pertains to me, such as all correspondance being from Swift Advances,who, if I'm right in my thinking, do not 'exist' in a way. Also, the information such as the changes in my interest rates in invaluable, I never noticed before but it has changed so many times and I have NEVER been informed of the changes! Interesting stuff, I always knew they were acting underhandedly. Will keep you all posted on how I get on and will keep abreast of what's going on here also

 

As the property is buy to let the Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims based on Mortgage or Home Purchase Plan Arrears in Respect of Residential Property will not apply and unfortunately you don't have any of the protection that a consumer might have, although as your loan was for £70,000 in 2007 it would not be regulated under either the Consumer Credit Act or the Financial Services and Markets Act anyway.

 

A buy to let mortgage (at present) is considered a commercial transaction where the party buying the property would presumably assess whether the potential rental income would be sufficient to cover loans secured against the property. If you're not getting enough in rent to cover the mortgages perhaps your best option might be to sell up if you have enough equity?

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie, just sent you a pm

[busterg]

As the property is buy to let the Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims based on Mortgage or Home Purchase Plan Arrears in Respect of Residential Property will not apply and unfortunately you don't have any of the protection that a consumer might have, although as your loan was for £70,000 in 2007 it would not be regulated under either the Consumer Credit Act or the Financial Services and Markets Act anyway.

 

A buy to let mortgage (at present) is considered a commercial transaction where the party buying the property would presumably assess whether the potential rental income would be sufficient to cover loans secured against the property. If you're not getting enough in rent to cover the mortgages perhaps your best option might be to sell up if you have enough equity?

 

Killerschick,

 

Shouldn't the MCOB rules apply anyway? surely there has to be some safeguard for owners of buy to let mortgages?

[Killerschick]

Hi Buster,

 

MCOB does not apply to buy to lets, at present they are completely unregulated as they have been considered to be a commercial proposition. This links to the money made clear part of the FSA website:-

 

Mortgages made clear : FSA Money made clear ? products explained

 

It is something that is under review due to the number of non-business people who got involved in the market during the boom. There are proposals for this sector to become regulated by the FSA but at the moment there are no safeguards for purchasers of buy to let mortgages, no recourse to FOS, no point in raising issues with OFT or FSA etc.

 

It might seem unfair but the reason buy to let became attractive was that people thought they could make money out of it.

[Guest takeiteasy]

Sparkie - you have an incredible amount of bad luck with financial companies (and a few lawyers). RBS, Black Horse, Swift.

 

You mentioned earlier that this forum is not about debt avoidance and I'm sure that is sometimes the case. But by a landslide the majority of posts deal with extreme ways to get out of the debt. Whether it's the various trading names of Swift, who they sold your loan to or any number of other

issues raised by the group that don’t change the fact that money was borrowed. As these issues have been raised in court and rejected they probably aren't valid issues at all. If it's as bad as you suggest, Swift would have been shut down years ago. Would the British tabloid press not be interested in the stories on this board? Many people on this board portray themselves as experts in areas that they clearly have no actual knowledge of. Whether it is talk of securitisation, LIBOR changes, financial accounts or company trading styles. Many of your posts are factually incorrect and I am certain dangerous to the group. You build up a lot of false hope and whip the group into a frenzy. If 10% of your posts were indeed true Swift would be out of business and you would all be free of your debts to them. Out of sheer curiosity I have been reading your posts and believe you to be a svengali who sucks people in with your beyond belief personal stories, your claims to have all levels of secret information that you can't share with the group (" I can't say anymore but just wait until next week" as an example), changing stories (you started out on this forum stating you were here to help a friend then you also get wronged by Swift?) and worst of all the false hope you give people. It is all too convenient.

 

 

 

I want to make people realise how important the issue over the correct name being legally used, so I give a perfect example

Black Horse Ltd entered a default on my credit fileand kept it there for nearly 3 years .............after fighting them for so long they finally admitted that they had entered it by "error" and they were wrong .....I received a letter from them apologising and saying that I should not be adversely affected by what they had done for me to present to possible creditors in any applications I made.

 

This was too late I had been prevented/or penalised by this unlawful entry for 3 years.

 

THey offerd £250 in compensation for the 3 years unlawful default on my credit file....The entry was for a non existent "Loan.

It was entered on my files as Black Horse Ltd ( Loan)

 

I issued proceedings against them but I made a small error on the Claim form and POC.

I put is as BLack Horse ( Loan) Ltd...... BLack HOrse submitted that there was no such legal entity and had my claim threw out ....with the Court saying if I wanted to continue the claim, it must be submitted against the Correct Legal entity Black Horse Ltd ...and that is what I have done....

I only put this in to show how important the legal entity stuff is.

 

The Swift Group at Arcadia House does not exist....therefore you cannot sue them as the Swift Group.....You would be suing the one in Yorkshire.

 

 

Cant be done

 

 

sparkie

 

I put Black Horse Loans Ltd

[lookinforinfo]

I accept that and agree there are legitimate reasons when people to find themselves in very tough spots and have to take an option that is not ideal. My issue is when some on this blog and trying to get out of a debt because of a technicality such as a letter/notice being sent later than it should or some similar issue. I'm obviously new here and stumbled on it by accident while looking for another company. I was intrigued by what I saw. I apologise if I've offended anyone but I also am in a bad situation and the debts I have I signed up for and while I like nothing more than not having them, I knew what I was doing and I have to take care of them as best as I can and it's not easy. For those of you who have been truly wronged by this company, I'm very sorry and I hope things work out for you.

 

 

Takeiteasy, I have looked at your posts since arriving on this site and every one of them has been posted on this thread.

You did say on the above post that you came here to find another company and that you too were in a bad situation.

And yet not once have you started up a thread of your own to get advice. Nor have you posted on other threads asking for help or explaining your situation.

 

All you have done is criticize posters on this thread and now you have taken a serious [and unmerited] swipe at Sparkie.

 

The most likely conclusion that can be drawn is that you are an employee of Swift either working on your own volition or at the behest of Swift.

 

You are supposed to ask permission from the Owners of the Forum if you work for a financial institution-did you do so?

[Gallahad]

Not to mention that in comparing Black Horses practices to those of Swift (and Blemain, capstone SPML etc) shows a distinct lack of grasp of the reality.

G

[Doc2527]

Take it easy

 

Perhaps that is what you should do??

 

I know what you're at........ :D...!!!!???

 

Maybe you could share some of your vast knowledge and experience in these matters with us all......after all you seem to view everyone on this forum as errant debtors,.....who should pay up and shut up....after all why should we be allowed to have access to the law that is meant to protect both the lender and the customer. :roll:

 

Perhaps we should go back to the dickension days.....throw us all in the debtor jail....without any recourse.....better still let's tear up the statute book!!:grin::)8)

[frettful38]

I don't think anyone will take takeiteasy seriously. Obviously from his/her posts they have not got a life and anything better to do than post things they have no knowledge about.

Sparkie has put a lot of effort and hard work in to this thread, and I for one admire the work he is doing.

 

So if you do not agree I suggest you go and join another forum where maybe some of your sad thoughts about others can be looked at seriously.

[westlandbabe]

Hi killerschick,

Thanks for that. I would dearly love to sell up as this is a massive noose around my neck at the moment, but with my Swift mortgage of £70,000 and the original mortgage of £70,000 (Swift being a second-charge mortgage), I owe something like £135,000 (not sure of an actual repayment amount from Swift as they tried to initially say I owed them £80,000!!!!) and unfortunately, due to the property market being the way we all know it is, I wouldn't get anymore than £125,000 for it!

Thanks for the advice tho guys!

[Sparkie1723]

Hullo Mr Takeiteasy .or should I say "Mr Swiftlyeasy"......normally I would not be drawn by your comments.

IF Swift had lent me the amount of Money I applied for ...NO problem...but

1..Swift misled me AND many others into borrowing more money than I and they asked for...........that was not very nice to say the least.

They also pay/paid secret commissions which again is paid back through their interest rate ....they also then deny paying commission.

I do not like people who do not tell the truth..........espececially people you are forced to put your trust in in a lot of cases

 

2...I did not owe the RBS any money...they stole Nearly £ 3000 from my accounts. and stole my credit file, The FOS are investigatng that issue now.........I WON my Case against RBS but did not have the legal expertise to win my claim for damages.

 

3...The issue with Black Horse Ltd is again not about debt it is about a loan default they placed on my credit file and would not remove it and finally issuing me with a letter of apololgy to the that I was not at all responsible for the debt because it did not exist.....it was their fault entirely.......Iwill post this actual letter of apology on this thread JUST FOR YOU PERSONALY LATER for doing this and damging my credit status for 3 years offered me £ 250 compensation ..so "Mr Swift" make sure of your facts before you speak in other words "engage the brain before the mouth" even though it may be just a single cell one.

 

 

I say this again WAIT till NEXT WEEK

 

sparkie

Edited April 9, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Gallahad]

Don't waste your breath Sparkie

G

[busterg]

That's an incredible amount of anger. My problems relate to my mother who has alzheimers and how me my brother and sisters are trying to pay for her to be in a facility that isn't something from a Steven King novel and the financial hardship is causing all of us. I stumbled across your group because I was searching for groups on Lloyds of London not paying policies. A Canadian company sold my parents a long term care policy that was underwritten by Lloyds and they rejected the claim. Nothing more sinister than that. I was reading some of the posts and that's it. Sorry to upset you all and best of luck resolving your disputes with this company.

 

How does THIS Thread/Group group relate to Lloyds of London? Sure it's you that hasn't got Alzheimers?

 

We all knew at some point you would be back just as it was getting juicy. A nice little distraction from events happening next Tuesday was it?

 

I'm not going to go into chapter and verse about my personal experiences with Swift. Read the case file no doubt on your desk and know that no amount of delete delete delete is going to stand up.

 

Are you looking forward to next week? I am! I've got the popcorn ready for this masterpiece. Wonder if it will be a box office hit? I'm led to believe it will be .......but can't mention anything yet........but rest assured it will happen!

 

Goodbye Swifty - Send us a Visiting Order, we would love to come and visit you. Some Trojan Horse you are.

[busterg]

Hi Buster,

 

MCOB does not apply to buy to lets, at present they are completely unregulated as they have been considered to be a commercial proposition. This links to the money made clear part of the FSA website:-

 

Mortgages made clear : FSA Money made clear ? products explained

 

It is something that is under review due to the number of non-business people who got involved in the market during the boom. There are proposals for this sector to become regulated by the FSA but at the moment there are no safeguards for purchasers of buy to let mortgages, no recourse to FOS, no point in raising issues with OFT or FSA etc.

 

It might seem unfair but the reason buy to let became attractive was that people thought they could make money out of it.

 

Yeah understand what you mean about people thinking they could make money from it .........but......

 

.....there are a couple of people I know that moved and were advised it had to be a buy to let mortage for renting their house out. They couldn't sell at the time but had already committed to buying another.

[andrew1]

Oh dear, here we go again. But I think Takeiteasy is right. All the people on this forum, including Mr Sparkie are all up their own backsides trying to dodge debt and should be responsible borrowers and live up to what they sign up to, pay it all back and live happily ever after. That's what you are implying of course (and no, you are not winding me up as well).

 

I agree, people should be responsible, honest, not break the law or try and dodge their legal obligations -it's common decency after all, I support you 100% - you're a fine fellow/woman if those values glide through your bones. We'd all subscribe to that.

 

Of course, when organisations with a fiduciary duty, legal obligations for which they are granted license to operate, and a duty of care, who are transparent and who are respected members of the professional business community to who we hold in high esteem as purveyors of all things good turn out to be liars, crooks who do anything they can to weasle their way into repossessing honest (in the main) citizens homes without a care in the world in the name of profit then one can hardly be surprised if someone eventually catches on to their evil ways, investigates and then tries to ask honest and decent questions which are always met with a deadly silence or evasive brick wall. - Enter Mr Sparkie et al.

 

Have you ever tried asking honest and decent questions about something only to be stifled by an ignorant response?

 

Actually, we don't usually feed trolls, but you are obviously someone with a considerable knowledge and as has been suggested, you may even have an insight into the subject matter company. If that is the case and you have any kind of decency within you, come and join us in uncovering the web of deceit that is going on rather than mocking the considerable efforts going on on this thread to uncover the truth.

 

That's all this is about. If Swift told the truth when asked most of the litigation which goes on and all the speculative avenues of advice we try to establish would never have happened in the first place.

 

Look in the mirror whoever you are and ask yourself if any one of the posters on this thread was a member of your family about to be thrown out of their home due to deceit - what would you do?

 

Jump ship - come and join us and be constructive and use some of those obvious talents you have..

[landy_alert]

Takeiteasy - I personally don't owe Swift a penny, but if I can do anything in my power to prevent this 'company' putting another victim through what they put my family through a while back, then I will do it!

 

Like Andrew1 said, I also believe people should be responsible for their actions and repay what they owe, but if they (through no fault of their own in most cases) become unable to do this, they should be met with compassion not repossession from companies such as Swift

[Sparkie1723]

Quote from Andrew1

 

"Oh dear, here we go again. But I think Takeiteasy is right. All the people on this forum, including Mr Sparkie are all up their own backsides ..........."

 

Not sure if I like that!:p:D:D:D