Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Apollo18]

Hi All,

 

TIE you've spent some time trying to justify the actions of companies such as Swift.

 

However, you don't appear to offer any explanation as to why our interest rates only ever go up. Mine has been increased 8 times since my loan was taken out, and has NEVER been reduced! Despite the fact that I've NEVER been in arrears and have always paid on time and in full!!!!!

 

Apollo18

[Gallahad]

Takeiteasy is the "it" the pssss

[Guest takeiteasy]

Apollo - I am not justifying Swift's actions or companies like Swift. All I am saying is that most of what Sparkie is telling you about licenses, company names loan sales, etc. is wrong. Regarding your interest rate, does your loan documentation say your rate is indexed to LIBOR? The loan docs should be very clear as to when and by what method your rate changes. If it's not then that is the stuff you should fight them on not Sparkies company structure issues. It's also possible your loan started out with a teaser rate (low) and was structured to increase over time. This is a common lender ploy to qualify customers for bigger loans based on a smaller payment. I mentioned before that TCF is your main issue with Swift and that's what you should pursue as a matter of urgency. Again, anything related to your rate should be specifically spelled out in your loan documents if it isn't then you have a concrete claim against them.

[landy_alert]

Takeiteasy - as someone else who has a Mother with Alzheimers, I can't understand how you came on the forum to look for help regarding a Lloyds of London issue involving your parents, yet spend most of your time here discussing matters of no relevance to your situation. You must have far more impostant issues of your own/your family's to deal with than get involved in our concerns..............or perhaps you managed to get your own issues resolved already?

[caro]

Takeiteasy - please explain your interest in this issue and your purpose in posting.

[busterg]

"I mentioned before that TCF is your main issue with Swift and that's what you should pursue as a matter of urgency."

 

Who are you to advise anyone? Are you not doing what you are accusing Sparkie of doing?

 

....or have you decided to become the White Night of the Forum against our black magican Sparkie Svengali?

[busterg]

Caro, I don't think TIE took to kindly to what you posted and left the forum. I wonder why???

[caro]

Caro, I don't think TIE took to kindly to what you posted and left the forum. I wonder why???

 

I have that effect on people.

[Smarterchick]

TIE, I'm a little dissappointed I missed your return, hope you had a good match, but it seems others have kept you busy here..forgive their rudeness, they are a little techy about Swift as you detect but it is understandable given what they have suffered many of them, but we are all entitled to an opinion and that's what you have to cut through, ignore those who wind you up and keep to the debate.

 

I was hoping you were going to come back to some of the questions I raised as you suggested, you have answered one or two points above, but if you do have the time your opinion (despite others thoughts) would be valued.

 

One further question, Kestrel you say are owned by Swift - I thought it was the other way around?

[overdone]

I have that effect on people.

Well I'm glad a mod has finally intervened. I have been sitting on the side not knowing how to comment but instinctively feeling something is not right here. "Trust the tale, not the teller."

[Apollo18]

TIE, I'm a little dissappointed I missed your return, hope you had a good match, but it seems others have kept you busy here..forgive their rudeness, they are a little techy about Swift as you detect but it is understandable given what they have suffered many of them, but we are all entitled to an opinion and that's what you have to cut through, ignore those who wind you up and keep to the debate.

 

I was hoping you were going to come back to some of the questions I raised as you suggested, you have answered one or two points above, but if you do have the time your opinion (despite others thoughts) would be valued.

 

One further question, Kestrel you say are owned by Swift - I thought it was the other way around?

I agree with you SMC…..TIE is adding a new dimension to our arguments and battle with Swift.

[welshperson3]

Takeiteasy - please explain your interest in this issue and your purpose in posting.

 

open debate, without censorship,comes first who is right and who is wrong will come out in the end.

 

a difference of opinion is no bad thing but keep it from getting personal

 

wp3

[Guest takeiteasy]

Land lady - the problem with my mom is not resolved but I at least now know what the issue is and unfortunately for my family Lloyds have done nothing wrong and have followed the policy. So there is nothing I can do about it.

 

Chick - I believe the holding company Alchemy set up when the did the MBO with the management at Swift is called Kestrel. So you are correct that Kestrel hold Alchemy's shares in Swift. The SPV's/sub companies set up for the various funding lines are all unique companies and it looks like they have named them Kestrel 1, 2 and 3.

 

My only reason for posting is to refute the misinformation being supplied. You are right, I am not an expert on TCF but based on what is being said on the board about Swift's practices, they are much more in line with breaches of TCF not company structures. For all of Sparkie's scenarios to be true it would require a major conspiracy across many companies and I simply don't believe that to be the case. The GMAC issues sound similar in a lot of ways to the ones on this board. They were all TCF related and there was money returned to customers due to those breaches. Since the issues are similar that is why I believe that when you all get money back for being over charged it will be a TCF issue and nothing to do with company names, trading styles, etc. And from what you are all saying it seems an open and shut case. In this regard, the FSA are doing a lot of the work for you and will probably be going through each and every loan including ones that have been satisfied already.

[Smarterchick]

Land lady - the problem with my mom is not resolved but I at least now know what the issue is and unfortunately for my family Lloyds have done nothing wrong and have followed the policy. So there is nothing I can do about it.

 

Chick - I believe the holding company Alchemy set up when the did the MBO with the management at Swift is called Kestrel. So you are correct that Kestrel hold Alchemy's shares in Swift. The SPV's/sub companies set up for the various funding lines are all unique companies and it looks like they have named them Kestrel 1, 2 and 3.

 

My only reason for posting is to refute the misinformation being supplied. You are right, I am not an expert on TCF but based on what is being said on the board about Swift's practices, they are much more in line with breaches of TCF not company structures. For all of Sparkie's scenarios to be true it would require a major conspiracy across many companies and I simply don't believe that to be the case. The GMAC issues sound similar in a lot of ways to the ones on this board. They were all TCF related and there was money returned to customers due to those breaches. Since the issues are similar that is why I believe that when you all get money back for being over charged it will be a TCF issue and nothing to do with company names, trading styles, etc. And from what you are all saying it seems an open and shut case. In this regard, the FSA are doing a lot of the work for you and will probably be going through each and every loan including ones that have been satisfied already.

 

 

Thanks TIE, that begins to explain a few things, but not being a party to it all this leaves us at a disadvantage and your insight from where ever it comes is much appreciated dispite what others say. You can understand how the speculation accrues though can't you? (Bit like Swifts inte rest rates )

 

.. Can you explain for me how properties can be shown as being 'sold' by Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd in their accounts (for example, but it could relate to any company) to what you describe as an spv in the shape of Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd.

 

Kestrel Loans no.1 Ltd show in their accounts that they have acquired ALL Loans and mortgages from these 2 companies - so how have they 'acquired' them in your opinion?

 

Whether this is the same group of companies or not I don't think in my limited knowledge makes any diference - the Ltd liability makes them independant legally. If the properties were transfered in trust then no funds would have exchanged hands so why would a consideration have been applied? - all very confusing.

 

It can't be securitisation can it as their ceo states categorically they do not do this - spv's are for securitisation are they not? Is it an equitable Assignment or a straight sale? If they don't securitise what exactly would you suggest they are doing which opposes previous posters ideas of alleged fraudulent activity or a giant cock-up ?

 

A sale is either Equitable or Legal and on what basis would the banks to whom they apply for funding under the spv (or whatever) lend? - on the equitable rights when Kestrel do not hold the title or would it be on the security of the title which should then be in the name then of Kestrel rather than Swift Advances plc?

 

Of course, all this talk of conspiracy derives from the fact that you have all the same 3 directors over the whole operation from Kestrel Holdings all the way down through to Kestrel Loans No2 Ltd - now defunct as previously correctly stated by you. What are your thoughts on that if you don't mind?

 

It all gets a little confusing and I would appreciate your learned skills and knowledge at explaining this so I might understand this a little better...thanks (how did your match go?)

 

SC

Edited April 12, 2010 by Smarterchick
afterthought..

[mmcourt]

You are not going to believe this lol. :lol:

 

Just got a phonecall from one of the lads due in court here tomorrow morning and they are still at aintree .

 

Dont know wheather its to celebrate a win or what;), but they are sitting in the pub having a beer, in the sun, not a care in the world.

 

Any lorry drivers down that way that could take them out of the pub and back home here for tomorrow morning ???:lol:

[pkelly]

and your not joking, they recond the night ferry will sort them out, what will all the drink etc they can blame the funny guts and headache on a bad crossing lol

did you see one of them actually in with the winners in the background on tv. I could not believe it myself,

they know the McCoy`s its a small world over there in NI everyone knows everyone if not directly at least through a friend,

roll on tomorrow

[Apollo18]

Apollo - I am not justifying Swift's actions or companies like Swift. All I am saying is that most of what Sparkie is telling you about licenses, company names loan sales, etc. is wrong. Regarding your interest rate, does your loan documentation say your rate is indexed to LIBOR? The loan docs should be very clear as to when and by what method your rate changes. If it's not then that is the stuff you should fight them on not Sparkies company structure issues. It's also possible your loan started out with a teaser rate (low) and was structured to increase over time. This is a common lender ploy to qualify customers for bigger loans based on a smaller payment. I mentioned before that TCF is your main issue with Swift and that's what you should pursue as a matter of urgency. Again, anything related to your rate should be specifically spelled out in your loan documents if it isn't then you have a concrete claim against them.

Hi All,

 

TIE the only reference to the interest rate on my agreement, and probably most other Swift agreements states.....

 

'If our cost of funds change, we may, by giving at least 14 days' notice in writing by first-class post, change the rate of interest that applies to this loan. The change will apply from the date shown in the notice which will tell you why our cost of funds has changed'

 

The first five reasons Swift gave for increasing the rate were all stated as 'Following the recent increase in the bank base rate'.

Then they changed tact and on three further occasions stated the reason for the increase as.....

 

'As you are aware, there has been a general increase in interest rates in the market recently and this together with the increase in our funding costs makes it necessary for us to increase the interest rate on your mortgage with us'.

 

The last increase was in December 2007. Since then it has stayed the same, despite the fact that the bank base rate, libor rate, and the rate on my 'first charge' mortgage are at an all time low, and have been for some considerable time.

 

When you complain they simply stone wall you, and say that they are happy that they have not acted unfairly.

 

So my question is simple.....Where do we go from here?

 

Apollo18

[Doc2527]

Hi Sparkie

 

I've PM'd you.

 

Doc:rolleyes:

[Guest takeiteasy]

Chick - the game was boring and a bad result for the people that took me but it was an electric atmosphere. I'll get back to you tonight on what I think is happening with your questions.

 

Apollo - What I would expect to see is your payment and Swifts ability to change your rate tied to an specific index (bank base or LIBOR) since they have not mentioned either in what you wrote it appears that they can decide whenever they choose to raise your rate. Have you or anyone else on the board ever had a rate decrease from Swift? I would imagine that since 2007 there funding costs probably did not go up as they are saying. While it looks like they expect you and their other customers to sign agreements that the rate can change at their discretion I seriously doubt they would do the same with their banking partners. I would again echo what I've said before that you should pursue breaches of TCF against them. I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure what you can do other than try to get them on TCF because it looks like they are telling you that they can raise your rates whenever they like.

 

This hit the press today and shows the FSA have some teeth when it comes to TCF. I'm sure a lot of this applies to you and the board based on the posts I've seen. This is why I said the FSA may be doing a lot of the work for you already.

 

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited fined £1.225m

 

12 April 2010

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today announced it has fined Kensington Mortgage Company Limited (Kensington) £1.225 million for poor treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears.

 

The firm has agreed to redress customers who were in arrears and charged specific unfair and/or excessive charges. It is estimated that the redress will cost the firm up to £1.066 million.

 

The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Kensington which occurred between 1 January 2007 and 31 October 2008 in relation to its mortgage arrears handling processes and in its dealings with customers in arrears.

 

These include:

 

- Failing to ensure mortgage servicing staff acting on its behalf had adequate understanding of treating mortgage arrears customers fairly;

 

- Concentrating on the repayment of mortgage arrears over a short period of time rather than agreeing an arrangement to pay the arrears based on the customer's individual circumstances;

 

- Applying three charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were:

 

- A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid;

 

- An excessive fee for cancelled direct debits which did not reflect administrative costs;

 

- An early repayment charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance.

 

The firm also failed to take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, and to ensure adequate risk management systems. Its management information focused on the performance of the firm's mortgage book and the profitability of the business, rather than on treating customers fairly.

 

Kensington qualified for a 30% discount under the FSA's settlement discount scheme. Without the discount the fine would have been £1.75 million. The FSA has also taken into account that Kensington has made significant improvements to its arrears and repossession processes since the early part of 2008.

 

Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

 

“This case should serve as a strong reminder to firms dealing with retail customers, especially customers in a vulnerable position such as those with mortgage arrears, that the FSA will take robust action where it sees that customers are not treated fairly. Retail firms which fail in their obligations to customers should expect not only a substantial fine but also that they will have to pay back customers who have been disadvantaged.”

[pkelly]

Second charge loans - a possible solution to the puzzle - Secured lending - Mortgage Introducer UK

 

some good advice from Mr John Webster folks lol

now how can this be

John Webster is chief executive officer of the Swift Group

[busterg]

Second charge loans - a possible solution to the puzzle - Secured lending - Mortgage Introducer UK

 

some good advice from Mr John Webster folks lol

now how can this be

John Webster is chief executive officer of the Swift Group

 

What a tangled webster we weave

 

It's the pot calling the kettle sooty ar**d

[Marky1701]

Chick - the game was boring and a bad result for the people that took me but it was an electric atmosphere. I'll get back to you tonight on what I think is happening with your questions.

 

Apollo - What I would expect to see is your payment and Swifts ability to change your rate tied to an specific index (bank base or LIBOR) since they have not mentioned either in what you wrote it appears that they can decide whenever they choose to raise your rate. Have you or anyone else on the board ever had a rate decrease from Swift? I would imagine that since 2007 there funding costs probably did not go up as they are saying. While it looks like they expect you and their other customers to sign agreements that the rate can change at their discretion I seriously doubt they would do the same with their banking partners. I would again echo what I've said before that you should pursue breaches of TCF against them. I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure what you can do other than try to get them on TCF because it looks like they are telling you that they can raise your rates whenever they like.

 

This hit the press today and shows the FSA have some teeth when it comes to TCF. I'm sure a lot of this applies to you and the board based on the posts I've seen. This is why I said the FSA may be doing a lot of the work for you already.

 

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited fined £1.225m

 

12 April 2010

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today announced it has fined Kensington Mortgage Company Limited (Kensington) £1.225 million for poor treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears.

 

The firm has agreed to redress customers who were in arrears and charged specific unfair and/or excessive charges. It is estimated that the redress will cost the firm up to £1.066 million.

 

The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Kensington which occurred between 1 January 2007 and 31 October 2008 in relation to its mortgage arrears handling processes and in its dealings with customers in arrears.

 

These include:

 

- Failing to ensure mortgage servicing staff acting on its behalf had adequate understanding of treating mortgage arrears customers fairly;

 

- Concentrating on the repayment of mortgage arrears over a short period of time rather than agreeing an arrangement to pay the arrears based on the customer's individual circumstances;

 

- Applying three charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were:

 

- A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid;

 

- An excessive fee for cancelled direct debits which did not reflect administrative costs;

 

- An early repayment charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance.

 

The firm also failed to take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, and to ensure adequate risk management systems. Its management information focused on the performance of the firm's mortgage book and the profitability of the business, rather than on treating customers fairly.

 

Kensington qualified for a 30% discount under the FSA's settlement discount scheme. Without the discount the fine would have been £1.75 million. The FSA has also taken into account that Kensington has made significant improvements to its arrears and repossession processes since the early part of 2008.

 

Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

 

“This case should serve as a strong reminder to firms dealing with retail customers, especially customers in a vulnerable position such as those with mortgage arrears, that the FSA will take robust action where it sees that customers are not treated fairly. Retail firms which fail in their obligations to customers should expect not only a substantial fine but also that they will have to pay back customers who have been disadvantaged.”

 

Nice one TIE -

 

Does anyone (out of curiosity I am not a customer of theirs) know how Kensingtons' charges stacked up against Swift?

 

m

[Sparkie1723]

TIE

Note the FSA does not regulate second charge lending institutions such as Swift Advances Plc. ............Swift 1st Ltd is regulated by the FSA.

 

Or is this more misleading information that I am giving out??.

 

Secondly contrary to your statement about the non importance of trading styles being on a Consumer Credit Licence, as I have made members aware that Swift Advances Plc have asked for a renewal of their licence with the OFT.

This time they have asked for the trading styles Swift Advances and S.G.L.S. ( the old Swift Group Legal Services).

 

The reason that Swift Advances are being asked to be added is because they act as an intermediary in setting up all Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances Plc loan agreements.

 

The regulations that govern this ..........states that any credit agreement that has been negotiated on behalf of a creditor whilst not being registered or on the license of the creditor/firm/organisation it is conducting business for can only be declared a legally binding agreement on the Decision and direction of the Director General.

 

Before the Director General makes that decision, the creditors history of conduct is put under close scrutiny, including the number of complaints and the seriousness of those complaints made by consumers about the particular creditor.

 

Swift will encounter dificulties in this area, as there are as we all know that many many complaints have been made about both of the "Swift Companies".

 

Today a phone call was made to Swift First Ltd about the position regarding the sale of a First Mortgage agreement to one of the Kestrel Companies, the caller wanted the details of the Kestrel companies account so that the direct debit account details could be changed to the Kestrel company.

 

The caller was put through to Mr Strickley who began the conversation quite polite but as more questions were asked he started getting more agitated as the minutes passed by ....on being asked about the loan sale, the caller was told that it was just an internal accounting procedure that had nothing to do with the caller.

 

Caller was also told that the Kestrel company Bank account number was the same bank account number as Swift Advances Plc ( that I find strange).

 

The question was asked as to why a letter about arrears and posssible court action being taken was recived from Swift Advances when the mortgage was with either Swift 1st Ltd or Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd an attempt was made to say that this was a computer error......however the caller informed Mr Strickley that he was the person that had actually signed this letter personally it was not acomputer generated letter.

 

Mr Strickley began to get more abrupt, he was asked if Swift Advances Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advaces Plc were all the same firm ...caller was told that he was not in a position to answer that question ..........the caller then asked as he had promised a written response would the caller be receiving the letter on Swift 1st Ltd headed paper, Swift Advances headed paper, Swift Advances Plc headed paper or ..........Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd headed paper. That really upset Mr Strickley.

 

With that Mr Strickley put the phone down on the caller. That is TCF in operation the Swift version again

 

Much more later when I will be joined by a close friend of the two N. Ireland people in the High Court tomorrow .....funnystuff to come;):D

Maybe some more false information also:D

sparkie

Edited April 12, 2010 by Sparkie1723
little spelling mistakes as usual

[lookinforinfo]

Apparently they charge £50 per arrears notice as you can see from this thread-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/3462-kensington-mortgages.html

 

Takeiteasy would you be good enough to confirm what is said on post 14 of that thread.

 

Also, if you read the article on Kensington and the FSA, the customers only get repaid something like £8.25 for each returned direct debit. I don't know how much the initial charge was but that seems pretty typical of the FSA. In Court, if found guilty of overcharging, the whole amount would have been repaid.

[Apollo18]

Thanks for the reply TIE.

 

I've had my secured loan with Swift since 2002.....8 interest rate increases and no decreases.

 

Initially Swifts interest rate was:

8.92% above the bank base rate

8.71% above the 3 month libor rate

8.18% above my mortgage rate (first charge lender)

 

As of now it's:

14.89% above the bank base rate

14.74% above the 3 month libor rate

12.89% above my mortgage rate (first charge lender)

 

When I pressed them to justify their rates they stated, 'be advised that Swift is not obliged to release any information deemed as sensitive and related to the operation of the company'

 

So you see.....It's all smoke and mirrors!

 

Apollo18