Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Guest takeiteasy]

I have never said these guys or anyone else for that matter are pillars of society. Those are your words not mine. The claims are just too strange and as I've said before if 10% of these were true they would have been shut down ages ago. With all of the talk of trade names and company names I have yet to see any mention of the actual owners of Swift. The complaints have gone from not passing on LIBOR changes, not putting account numbers on statements, not sending notices out on time to a £200 million embezzlement charge. It's all too much.

[Gallahad]

Still nothing constructive to offer then just negative after negative:rolleyes:

G

[Guest takeiteasy]

Classic red herring Gallahad.

[busterg]

I have never said these guys or anyone else for that matter are pillars of society. Those are your words not mine. The claims are just too strange and as I've said before if 10% of these were true they would have been shut down ages ago. With all of the talk of trade names and company names I have yet to see any mention of the actual owners of Swift. The complaints have gone from not passing on LIBOR changes, not putting account numbers on statements, not sending notices out on time to a £200 million embezzlement charge. It's all too much.

 

I'm not gonna ask you for constructive feedback and to clarify the rights from wrongs. I don't think you can.

 

I'm asking you, how do you have the time to read through this entire thread, understand it fully, then spend time not only having ago at sparkie but going to post up this evening or tomorrow what's accurate and inaccurate?

 

If I needed information about Lloyds of London to help my mum who was suffering with Alziemers in a stephen king type novel of a nursing home - then i wouldn't be interested, bothered or concerned about the bloody thread.

 

I would be making every possible effort to resolve that immediate concern.

 

You are just wasting our time and I ask myself why?

 

There is another scouse saying sparkie forgot to mention and that's-

 

"Take your face for a s**t!" Understand?!!

[paulwlton]

 

It's all too much.

 

You have lead an extremely sheltered life old boy.

 

Paul

[busterg]

And another thing - why has this got your goat?

 

You're not with swift apparently so it's of no concern or consequence to you what Sparkie does here or not. Accurate or not! Why are you so wound up?

 

No one is pulling you by the hair so what are you jumping up and down about? You make no sense.

[Smarterchick]

I have never said these guys or anyone else for that matter are pillars of society. Those are your words not mine. The claims are just too strange and as I've said before if 10% of these were true they would have been shut down ages ago. With all of the talk of trade names and company names I have yet to see any mention of the actual owners of Swift. The complaints have gone from not passing on LIBOR changes, not putting account numbers on statements, not sending notices out on time to a £200 million embezzlement charge. It's all too much.

 

And that's what they intended everyone to think.

 

The secret to their success has come from never in a million years did they think more than one person would speak to another who had a Swift loan or mortgage. Mistake No1.

 

They never dreamt that anyone would actually go through their accounts and Directors reports with a fine toothed comb and get Accountants and lawyers to pass an opinion.

 

They never dreamt anyone would take interest in Kestrel Loans No1, 2 or 3 Ltd and find out exactly what they were doing with these. Do you know, when a phone call was made to the registered office where the accounts of Kestrel Loans show some 120 staff at Arcadia House were employed there was not one soul in there who had any idea of who the hell we were talking about? Never even heard of Kestrel. Mark White would of course because he's a shareholder in the Kestrel Holding Company, but these 120 odd staff were nowhere to be seen. Their Principal business Activity as described in the Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd Directors reports states and I quote ( and remember the legality of these documents when you read this)

 

" The Principal activity of the company is the provision of finance to individuals, secured on domestic, freehold and long leashold properties. The Company acquired all mortgage loans from its fellow subsidiary companies, Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd" unquote.

 

Says it all really doesn't it? You can find that at Companies House filed accounts. Company Number 5143638. They have no OFT license, No FSA License, no ICO License and they can do all this? No they can't!

 

Of course it sounds far fetched, but my friend this is the Truth, tis Swift who are doing all the fabricating and here you are telling sparkie, who found all this that he's bonkers and we shouldn't take any notice of him.

 

If you understand this market place so well, you explain to me/us what the purpose of Kestrel Loans No1 and No3 Ltd is? (No2 is Dormant)

 

They do feck all, they employ no-one, they do not sell loans or mtgs or supply them, but they do go out and borrow money against the portfolio they have just 'bought' from Swift x2 when there's a negative pledge in the debenture with Barclays which forbids them to do so...are you now getting the picture? This is not about securitisation (yet) we can come on to that later with Kestrel Acquisitions and Guernsey/Jersey connections.

 

And having sold the portfolios to kestrel whatever they then go off and repossess people in the name of Swift Advances plc which unless it is an equitable sale or transfer is not legal because they don't hold the title to do so. Webster (their CEO) confirmed they don't securitise so he should be right if anyone is and therefore if there's no securitised loans then it's a straight 'sale' end of.

 

And as Swift Advances or Swift Group, as Sparkie rightly points out, don't have a license to trade in that trading style then you need to ask yourself WTF they are doing don't you? It's a criminal offence to do so. CRIMINAL!

 

So, who's the nutty one's now? Us? or those 3 directors that collectively with a little input from Dominic Slade of Alchemy, screw the world they control (for now )

 

 

SMC

[Gallahad]

Classic destructive crap TIE

[Sparkie1723]

TIE

Then you tell us who actually owns Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd, if you can tell us that ...it will be a start of some kind of positive info, by the way again I have just been given some information fom N. Ireland that what I say now is right up your street....I AM NOT posting what it is for " SSR (Secret Security Reasons) :D:D:D it has been added to the 2 Defendants Counsels list of questions to ask at the Hearing.....But I will let everyone know Monday evening.

 

sparkie

[Smarterchick]

TIE

Then you tell us who actually owns Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd, if you can tell us that ...it will be a start of some kind of positive info, by the way again I have just been given some information fom N. Ireland that what I say now is right up your street....I AM NOT posting what it is for " SSS (Secret Security Reasons) :D:D:D it has been added to the 2 Defendants Counsels list of questions to ask at the Hearing.....But I will let everyone know Monday evening.

 

sparkie

 

 

Oh god sparkie, not more false hope?

[Sparkie1723]

Oh god sparkie, not more false hope?

 

 

Listen S/M/C take heed when Svengali speaks:D:D:D

 

By the way does anyone live near Ballards Way Croydon I used to have an army mate there, lost contact with him like to meet up with him again

 

sparkie

Edited April 10, 2010 by Sparkie1723
spelling as usual

[Smarterchick]

Listen S/M/C take heed when Svegali speaks:D:D:D

 

By the way does anyone live near Ballards Way Croydon I used to have an army mate there, lost contact with him like to meet up with him again

 

sparkie

 

Telford anywhere near Croydon anyone?

[busterg]

Telford anywhere near Croydon anyone?

 

Does the M1 or 60 go there?

 

Just for you Sparkie:D:D;)

[caro]

I did not get permission to post on this board, I didn't know it was required and don't know how to do it.

 

Please read the rules linked below takeiteasy and if you need permission to post, please contact admin.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html#post16

 

I too am curious how you can be so sure that others have got it so wrong. What qualifies you to make such statements, and why are you so concerned about it?

 

If you believe that information is incorrect please back up your arguments.

 

What do you think that Sparkie and others have to gain by making up stories about their situations?

[Sparkie1723]

Busterg can you upload the second of my new publicity photos I have just had taken on to the thread specially for TIE????:D:D

[busterg]

Busterg can you upload the second of my new publicity photos I have just had taken on to the thread specially for TIE????:D:D

 

 

 

SPARKIE SVENGALI

[busterg]

I really like this one as well.

 

 

:D:D

[Sparkie1723]

[ATTACH]17737[/ATTACH]

 

 

SPARKIE SVENGALI

 

 

Yes ...I look just like the Cardinal of "Cloud Cuckoo Land" don't you think:lol:

 

sparkie

[Marky1701]

Hi All,

 

Well things have been entertaining recently!!

 

TIE - I am not going to slag you off - its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

As far as my situation is concerned, you might want to give this some thought when deciding if Swift are not abusing their position of power; I am maybe a little different from others here in that I have never been in trouble or arrears with Swift - in their words I am a 'good' customer.

 

Despite that, I have seen the interest rate rise 9 times since I started the loan, which is apparently linked to LIBOR, despite LIBOR rates being at an all time low.

 

I now pay over 17% on a secured loan which is more than the APR on my credit cards.

 

My loan was for 28K over 15 years - I have been paying it religiously for nearly 7 years and acording to a recent figure supplied, still owe them £3K more than I borrowed. My repayments total to date amount to going on for £30K and apparently I have nothing to show for it. The OFT state that early repayment figures should reflect the lenders' fair and reasonable costs in setting up and administering the loan - I dont think that is the case here do you?

 

I understand companies like Swift are in it to make money -but there is a huge difference between turning a profit and bending people over and shafting them - thats why I got involved.

 

I dont know or fully understand the whole Swift/Kestrel/securitisation thing - I do have my suspicions that it all may very well turn out to be legal - but you never know - but anything which might bring a little justice to these bandits has got to be a good thing.

 

One thing I do agree with TIE about is that I think this forum has reached a 'tipping' point - we need something concrete to happen next week.

 

Lets hope and pray it does.

 

m

Edited April 11, 2010 by Marky1701

[Sparkie1723]

Excellent post Marky.........the only part that you are more than likely wrong is the reference to the fact the Kestrel involvement may be legal, to move vasts amount of money consumer money without any licence issued by any of the authorities like Kestrel do must not be anything like legitimate...if these were not required then all other finacial instutions would not require them or have to obtain them...if you think of it logically.

 

Glad you are still coping mate.....talk to you soon.

 

sparkie

[pkelly]

JUst a thought

 

Why do not folks ring Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Limited on Monday and ask that as they are of the belief that their loan has been sold to “a” Kestrel company would it be possible for them to be supplied with the bank details of that company in order that they can amend their direct debit or other means of payment to the Kestrel company their loan or mortgage was sold to.

Provided that the necessary OFT licence number details is given including the Credit Reference Agency licence details for processing data and information, and the acceptance holding of clients money is given. and the ICO licence held by the Kestrel company issued by that office.

Tell them that they are aware that Swift Advances Plc can administer the account and if that is so please could they be supplied with the details of that arrangement given by the Kestrel company involved.

Otherwise payments could be with held as it is believed the wrong company is being paid at the moment.

Also ask for the full details of their OFT CCA licence to ascertain the lawfulness of all this

 

Could cause them some problems methinks;)

 

BUt ten again I could be accused of whipping you all up into a frenzy...you know I am the NEW Svengali:D:D

 

 

sparkie

fantastic Idea ` OH MASTER ` thy will be done, perhaps Mark White could even answer this, after all he has shares in this other nest. although he is so modest he does not like to tell anyone about it.

oh by the way why not ask them if John be good and Sugar Baby are still directors. the swith board seem to think so, but the seagulls dissagree lol

ME THINKS THE FAN IS ABOUT TO BURN OUT SPARKIE. CAN YOU GO DOWN AND UNCLOG IT there seems to be that muh **** hitting it now its starting to heat up

[pkelly]

Hi All,

 

Well things have been entertaining recently!!

 

TIE - I am not going to slag you off - its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

As far as my situation is concerned, you might want to give this some thought when deciding if Swift are not abusing their position of power; I am maybe a little different from others here in that I have never been in trouble or arrears with Swift - in their words I am a 'good' customer.

 

Despite that, I have seen the interest rate rise 9 times since I started the loan, which is apparently linked to LIBOR, despite LIBOR rates being at an all time low.

 

I now pay over 17% on a secured loan which is more than the APR on my credit cards.

 

My loan was for 28K over 15 years - I have been paying it religiously for nearly 7 years and acording to a recent figure supplied, still owe them £3K more than I borrowed. My repayments total to date amount to going on for £30K and apparently I have nothing to show for it. The OFT state that early repayment figures should reflect the lenders' fair and reasonable costs in setting up and administering the loan - I dont think that is the case here do you?

 

I understand companies like Swift are in it to make money -but there is a huge difference between turning a profit and bending people over and shafting them - thats why I got involved.

 

I dont know or fully understand the whole Swift/Kestrel/securitisation thing - I do have my suspicions that it all may very well turn out to be legal - but you never know - but anything which might bring a little justice to these bandits has got to be a good thing.

 

One thing I do agree with TIE about is that I think this forum has reached a 'tipping' point - we need something concrete to happen next week.

 

Lets hope and pray it does.

 

m

YOU WERE A GOOD CUSTOMER MATIE. whats the odds that you will soon get a call from another company who have been given all your details from swift, and they will try offer you a better deal.

eg MDNATIONWIDE offer to wipe your swift loan with better rates thus flushing swifts **** bin and swift still carry on as usual

Edited April 11, 2010 by pkelly

[Guest takeiteasy]

I found a very easy to understand securitisation diagram on line and have pasted it below. While I can't say for 100% certainty what the exact details are for all Swift borrowers, more than likely this is what has happened. For whatever reason you needed a loan and were unable to obtain the loan from traditional means such as your bank or building society. You contacted a mortgage broker to help you secure the funds you needed. You may have even paid the mortgage broker a fee upfront or the brokers fee was added to your loan and sent by Swift (this is one way your loan may have been for more than you asked for another way could have been for an ancillary insurance product such as payment protection, life insurance, disability, etc.). On top of this, there is a reasonable chance that Swift then paid the broker a commission for introducing you to them. This is standard practice and you can tell whether they paid one or not by looking at your KFI.

It looks like Swift are owned by a large private equity company called Alchemy. Alchemy set up a holding company called Kestrel to hold their shares in Swift (again this is very common). Swift would have had various revolving funding lines that work much like a large credit card with a fixed credit limit. So for example, they may have had a £200 million line with Nat West or Barclays or some other. Swift would make loans and once they reached their credit limit (£200 million in this example) they had to pay down what they owed so they could lend more. There are 2 ways to do this, they either sell the loans to another lender or the securitise them. If they securitise they create a new company to sell the loans to. The loans are put into various tranches and rated by either Moody's or S&P. Once they have the rating they sell the sell various blocks to investors and will make some money on the sale. They will also charge a fee to service the loans. The loans are then serviced by the existing staff at Swift. I believe in Swifts case the various securitisations they have done are Kestrel 1, 2 and 3. Each is a seperate company but all under the Swift umbrella. One issue you all may be facing if your loan has been included in one of these securitisations is that when they are set up the servicer has a limited number of loans they can alter. So their ability to just slash interest rates is very likely out of their control because when they created the company they gave warranties for certain interest rate returns to the investor. As for why one of the Kestrel company's (2 I believe) isn't around any longer, it could be that the balance of loans in the pool has reached a level (usually 10%-20%) of the original amount. Once this happens the company can be collapsed and the loans are either held on balance sheet or put into another securitisation.

Most lenders who lend on LIBOR borrow on 90 day LIBOR but lend on 30 day LIBOR. That may be why you haven't seen rate decreases but that seems unlikely as someone said there were 9 increases. It may be that if you are in arrears you are paying a higher rate than if you are current. This is called dual rates and is absolutely frowned upon. Your loan may also be subject to the rule of 78's which is also frowned upon and I assumed illegal.

as for the various swift companies most lenders have seperate companies for the type of loans they originate. So swift 1 may be for first mortgages and swift 2 for seconds. As for the staff at swift not knowing about kestrel they really wouldn't know about that because to them whether a loan is securitised or not, they are all just swift to them.

Based on everything I've seen on this board, I think your issues are more along the lines of TCF breaches and I'd focus my energy on that. Whether or not Sparkie is rights and there is big news on Tuesday from Belfast about the missing £200 million, I'm not sure how that will be a benefit to you.

This is old but good and better than my explanation What is Mortgage Securitisation anyway, and does it matter? It did to Northern Rock Negotiation, Negotiation, Negotiation

　

　

[Marky1701]

Excellent post Marky.........the only part that you are more than likely wrong is the reference to the fact the Kestrel involvement may be legal, to move vasts amount of money consumer money without any licence issued by any of the authorities like Kestrel do must not be anything like legitimate...if these were not required then all other finacial instutions would not require them or have to obtain them...if you think of it logically.

 

Glad you are still coping mate.....talk to you soon.

 

sparkie

 

I SO hope you are right Sparkie, and that your good work absolutely nails these bustards to the wall. I patiently sit on the fence until the High Court hearing - I think we all need to see something concrete and positive come from this now - too many build ups with various things and then let downs now - all this work needs to deliver a result and I cannot tell you how much I want that and I know we all feel the same way.

 

I am sure the OFT/ other regulatory bodies are aware of Swift, but at the rate they are moving I fear my loan will have been paid off by the time they act.

 

As ever, if there is ANYTHING I can do to contribute, let me know.

 

m

[Sparkie1723]

There are 150 pages on this thread....if you "gestimate" that some one new coming on to this thread on 27th March 2007 can read this whole thread, whilst looking for information about Lloyds Insurance, visiting my U-tube video, looking after/visiting his sick mother.....carrying on a normal days work, fully understanding this whole thread in 14 days, when it would take an average of 15 minutes to read and digest each page fully, ( 3 days solid reading or more) consider points for and against and post his formed opinions.......I do not think this is conceivable.........so who is MR "speed reader".....I have a bloody good idea, but that is my personal GUT feeling

sparkie