Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[busterg]

I know that everyone has been wondering where I had gone to…....but I have been around and have been doing some DEEP digging for info…have no fear about that.

Keeping a lot back for reasons I hope you’ll all understand as it appertains to my on going appeal process.

 

But I came on to post this…….. the important info about what has happened of late which I mentioned before that “certain”people doubted.

 

Swift Advances Plc have had a Full Discovery/Disclosure order made against them

 

SO What!!!!! a lot will say….is that all the big news is??

 

Let me explain what this means for EVERYONE…...This does not happen very often ..in fact it is very rare.

 

You are all aware of the documents that Swift Advances Plc with hold from every one……..well they are going to be forced to supply EVERY single thing asked for……..even who they buy their paper clips off and how much they pay for them (if necessary) ......this will then be public domain …all of you will be able to demand all these same documents for yourselves….. Title Indemnity Policy,….. Underwriting Sheet,…… records of the sale of your loan how it was done….. who it was sold to…..( they confirm it was ) what was sold, how much did they get for it…….. how much commission and EXTRA commission was paid to your broker….explain who actually pays this commission.....THE BORROWER DOES its allowed for in your interest rate you pay........remember there is evidence of even more than standard commission being paid …the actual true costs of their charges …you name it Swift Advances Plc are going to have to supply it …sit back and think what all this means to each and everyone of you.

 

Remember what happened to Gmac just on their charges issue…£2.2 million fine and ordered to …pay back 7.5 million to borrowers.

 

sparkie

 

OMG thats not good for them. LOL That just opens it wide open for all of us.

 

I mean EVERYTHING! lol worth the wait mate. It really has been. Cheers.

 

Thanks Sparkie for all your efforts and giving the thread the heads up.

[Marky1701]

I know that everyone has been wondering where I had gone to…....but I have been around and have been doing some DEEP digging for info…have no fear about that.

Keeping a lot back for reasons I hope you’ll all understand as it appertains to my on going appeal process.

 

But I came on to post this…….. the important info about what has happened of late which I mentioned before that “certain”people doubted.

 

Swift Advances Plc have had a Full Discovery/Disclosure order made against them

 

SO What!!!!! a lot will say….is that all the big news is??

 

Let me explain what this means for EVERYONE…...This does not happen very often ..in fact it is very rare.

 

You are all aware of the documents that Swift Advances Plc with hold from every one……..well they are going to be forced to supply EVERY single thing asked for……..even who they buy their paper clips off and how much they pay for them (if necessary) ......this will then be public domain …all of you will be able to demand all these same documents for yourselves….. Title Indemnity Policy,….. Underwriting Sheet,…… records of the sale of your loan how it was done….. who it was sold to…..( they confirm it was ) what was sold, how much did they get for it…….. how much commission and EXTRA commission was paid to your broker….explain who actually pays this commission.....THE BORROWER DOES its allowed for in your interest rate you pay........remember there is evidence of even more than standard commission being paid …the actual true costs of their charges …you name it Swift Advances Plc are going to have to supply it …sit back and think what all this means to each and everyone of you.

 

Remember what happened to Gmac just on their charges issue…£2.2 million fine and ordered to …pay back 7.5 million to borrowers.

 

sparkie

 

Great news and good to see you back Sparkie.

 

m

[Sparkie1723]

No probs busterg.

 

sparkie

[landy_alert]

Gosh that sounds very interesting and most promising Sparkie - thanks for letting us know

[lesterlass]

Great news Sparkie........ THERE ON THERE WAY DOWN!!!!!!

 

LL:D:D

[westlandbabe]

Wow! That's fantastic news Sparkie! Well Done:D

[Marky1701]

I know that everyone has been wondering where I had gone to…....but I have been around and have been doing some DEEP digging for info…have no fear about that.

Keeping a lot back for reasons I hope you’ll all understand as it appertains to my on going appeal process.

 

But I came on to post this…….. the important info about what has happened of late which I mentioned before that “certain”people doubted.

 

Swift Advances Plc have had a Full Discovery/Disclosure order made against them

 

SO What!!!!! a lot will say….is that all the big news is??

 

Let me explain what this means for EVERYONE…...This does not happen very often ..in fact it is very rare.

 

You are all aware of the documents that Swift Advances Plc with hold from every one……..well they are going to be forced to supply EVERY single thing asked for……..even who they buy their paper clips off and how much they pay for them (if necessary) ......this will then be public domain …all of you will be able to demand all these same documents for yourselves….. Title Indemnity Policy,….. Underwriting Sheet,…… records of the sale of your loan how it was done….. who it was sold to…..( they confirm it was ) what was sold, how much did they get for it…….. how much commission and EXTRA commission was paid to your broker….explain who actually pays this commission.....THE BORROWER DOES its allowed for in your interest rate you pay........remember there is evidence of even more than standard commission being paid …the actual true costs of their charges …you name it Swift Advances Plc are going to have to supply it …sit back and think what all this means to each and everyone of you.

 

Remember what happened to Gmac just on their charges issue…£2.2 million fine and ordered to …pay back 7.5 million to borrowers.

 

sparkie

 

Sparkie,

 

Just so I understand this - does this mean we can all write to Swift and ask for these details or do we each individually need to get a court order? or do we just quote the order you have recently gotten in generic form?

 

Also, I think it would be good if we worked as a group to design a template letter that can be fired off to Swift by all of us on here asking for all this information?

 

Thoughts?

 

m

[Sparkie1723]

Once we know what they have been forced to supply, then you can make a list...if they still refuse to supply then make a CPR 31.16 request for the specific information ...they won't like that at all.

sparkie

 

Second

 

One little thing you should all check if you are disputing and claiming that “Swift’s” Advances Plc & 1st Ltd penalty charges are extortionate and unfair.

Request the annual accrual statement of your account and check if they are applying compound interest to the penalty and default charges.

 

It is fact ( we have proof of it) that they are using dual accounting systems to process all these charges the penalty charges and interest are being processed on the “Swift” computer accounting systems, and your actual monthly payment is being processed on the Kestrel computer accounting systems.

Ask for both accounts.

 

If you suspect they are charging compound interest it would be worth paying a £100 or so to an accountant to check it all out for you.

If it is confirmed they are, you can challenge your account under section 140 of the CCA Unfair Relationship, as only simple interest can be applied to default charges, and by applying compound interest they are abusing their position and deceiving you into making you believe that they can charge compound interest, if you have quite a few of these default charges, and they have charged compound interest it would have unlawfully boosted your indebtedness.

Your whole account will be in a mess…..check it out folks

sparkie

[frettful38]

sparkie you just get better and better by the day, good work your an inspiration to all

[westlandbabe]

Interesting Sparkie, my guy from financial rights spoke with me last night on that very subject about interest! He noticed something in the terms and conditions about it being applied to charges etc and said it's a whole big mess. They're looking at it more closely for me this week before writing off to Swift so will also keep everyone posted on what his team find out!

 

Mark, loving your idea. Once we get all the facts as Sparkie mentioned I defnitely think it's worth working together on a template:cool:

[Suetonius]

Hcheck your original agreement for the areas previously mentioned on this thread to see if you might have an unenforceable agreement, such as APR not being correctly stated etc. Charging interest on charges for the life of the loan seems ridiculous!!

 

Interesting Sparkie, my guy from financial rights spoke with me last night on that very subject about interest! He noticed something in the terms and conditions about it being applied to charges etc

 

Sorry if you said already WLbabe but was your agreement regulated ?

[westlandbabe]

Sorry if you said already WLbabe but was your agreement regulated ?

 

Unregulated Suetonius.

[Suetonius]

Unregulated Suetonius.

 

Very interesting observations he made then.. very interesting

[busterg]

Thought I was the only one playing out late. lol

[Marky1701]

Thought I was the only one playing out late. lol

 

These bustards are enough to keep anyone awake at night!!

 

Just got some settlement figures in - I want to see how the figures change between now and the end of May, which is when Swift are being forced to abolish the Rule of 78 to calculate settlements.

 

Its quite shocking - Original loan £28K taken out in October 2003 for 15 years - no extras, vaiable rate. Interest rate rises nine times, no reductions.

 

Remember I am what they call a 'good' customer - no arrears, no nothing.

 

So after repaying £31,256 over 6.5 years out of 15 you might think I might have actually reduced what I owe? - wrong !!! - this is Swift we are dealing with here!!

 

My settlement figure is £30,476 so I still owe £2,476 more than I borrowed.

 

If thats not an obscene abuse of power and completely unfair, I am not sure what is. All this paperwork is on its way to the OFT to see if they agree.

 

Lets see what happens after May - anyone else in the same position take note.

 

m

[Doc2527]

Hi Marky

 

How much did they charge you for your settlement figure request?

 

Has anyone heard anything about what has happened with swifts licence running out?

 

Did the OFT renew it or is it still under review? Is the decision in the public domain yet?

[Marky1701]

Hi Doc

 

They do not charge for a settlement request as it is a regulated agreement.

 

Hey I have found something they dont charge for!! - is that a first??

 

m

[Apollo18]

Hi Doc

 

They do not charge for a settlement request as it is a regulated agreement.

 

Hey I have found something they dont charge for!! - is that a first??

 

m

Hi Marky,

 

Did you say your loan agreement is regulated? I thought secured loans over £25K taken out before the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into force were all unregulated!

 

Apollo18

[Marky1701]

Hi Marky,

 

Did you say your loan agreement is regulated? I thought secured loans over £25K taken out before the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into force were all unregulated!

 

Apollo18

 

Hi Apollo,

 

Yes you are right - my original loan was for £18K, and I borrowed a further £9K in October 2003.

 

The new loan agreement came through as modified agreement still regulated by the CCA 74.

 

m

[Sparkie1723]

Just a point for everyone regarding Marky's loan if you take a loan out that is a regulated loan........ then add further borrowings to it irrespective of the amount of the second loan even if it was another £100.000..... it remains a regulated agreement .......this is governed by section 82 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974...just in case there are others who have had a second loan added and their lender has changed it to an unregulated one ....No Can Do it remains regulated;)

 

sparkie

[Dougal16T]

I know that everyone has been wondering where I had gone to…....but I have been around and have been doing some DEEP digging for info…have no fear about that.

Keeping a lot back for reasons I hope you’ll all understand as it appertains to my on going appeal process.

 

But I came on to post this…….. the important info about what has happened of late which I mentioned before that “certain”people doubted.

 

Swift Advances Plc have had a Full Discovery/Disclosure order made against them

 

SO What!!!!! a lot will say….is that all the big news is??

 

Let me explain what this means for EVERYONE…...This does not happen very often ..in fact it is very rare.

 

You are all aware of the documents that Swift Advances Plc with hold from every one……..well they are going to be forced to supply EVERY single thing asked for……..even who they buy their paper clips off and how much they pay for them (if necessary) ......this will then be public domain …all of you will be able to demand all these same documents for yourselves….. Title Indemnity Policy,….. Underwriting Sheet,…… records of the sale of your loan how it was done….. who it was sold to…..( they confirm it was ) what was sold, how much did they get for it…….. how much commission and EXTRA commission was paid to your broker….explain who actually pays this commission.....THE BORROWER DOES its allowed for in your interest rate you pay........remember there is evidence of even more than standard commission being paid …the actual true costs of their charges …you name it Swift Advances Plc are going to have to supply it …sit back and think what all this means to each and everyone of you.

 

Remember what happened to Gmac just on their charges issue…£2.2 million fine and ordered to …pay back 7.5 million to borrowers.

 

sparkie

 

 

Good evening Sparkie, and everyone,

 

Just three things:

 

1. Very well done.....

 

2. Is this a 'blanket' Full Discovery/Disclosure Order covering all litigation against Swift...current or proposed?

 

3. I still cannot find the reference that Judge Waksman made to conmmission in Carey - v - HSBC Bank in 2009 - can you please help as I do need this urgently?

 

As always very best wishes

 

Dougal

Edited May 2, 2010 by Dougal16T
Missed out a question......

[lesterlass]

Hi is this what you are looking for dougal?

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

 

The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:

1. 
   
   (1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;
   
   
   (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;
   
   
   (3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;
   
   
   (4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms;
   
   
   (5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A;
   
   
   (6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case;
   
   
   (7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained;
   
   
   (8) The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in
   Adris
   should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in
   Yunis
   should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.
   
   

   
   

For info

 

173 ~~~~ The parties in Carey have helpfully agreed the following principles. The fourth one was added by Mr Uff, with their agreement. No other party takes issue with them. The OFT has formulated the matter in a slightly different way but accepts these principles are close to its position.

1. 
   
   (1) It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature;
   
   
   (2) A document need not be a single piece of paper;
   
   
   (3) Whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form. In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document;
   
   
   (4) Additionally, a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document;
   
   
   (5) Accordingly, where the debtor's signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form.
   
   
    
   
   
    
   
   
   174 ~~As a matter of law, those principles appear to me to be correct, in the context of s61.
   
   

   
   

177

 

1. According to HSBC, p197 is a reconstituted application form. I referred to it above in the context of Issues 1 and 2. The assumed facts here are as follows:
   
   (1) Ms Carey signed a form which contained, among other things, the entries at p197 including the specific reference to being bound by "the terms and conditions attached"; that form did not itself have the Prescribed Terms stated on the front or the reverse;
   
   
   (2) The form (referred to as "a signature page" in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey's details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;
   
   
   (3) At the same time as the form was produced electronically, the relevant terms and conditions (including the Prescribed Terms and information) would have been printed off and physically attached to the form by a staple;
   
   
   (4) Ms Carey would then have been invited to read the agreement, consisting of the signature page and attached terms and would then have signed and dated the signature page. It would then have been countersigned by the bank;
   
   
   (5) The relevant terms and conditions would not have been precisely in the form of pages 198-201 simply because that is a s63 copy with the different cancellation clause. But they would have been the full terms with the Prescribed Terms included either in landscape form (as shown at ppl98-201) or portrait form.
   
   

   
   

178~~~Ms Tolaney contends that on those assumed facts, the document signed by the debtor did indeed "contain" the Prescribed Terms. I agree for the following reasons:

1. 
   
   (1) As described, it is hard to see the form and attached terms as anything other than one document. It is not suggested that there were separate page numbers on the terms attached but if there were, on these assumed facts, it would make no difference;
   
   
   (2) The signature page itself makes clear that it is incomplete as a document and needs something else because it has no terms on it at all and makes specific reference to the terms "attached"; it only makes sense if something else goes with it; equally pp 198-201 need something to go with them, not least a place for the applicant's details and signature;
   
   
   (3) The signature page refers to a credit agreement regulated by the Act and so makes clear that it is the first page of an agreement for which there must be other pages;
   
   
   (4) The signature page and terms are presented to the debtor as a package;
   
   
   (5) This would satisfy the notion that the Prescribed Terms can be identified within the "four corners of the agreement" - see
   Hurstanger v Wilson
   [2007] 1 WLR 2351
   per Tuckey LJ at para. 11.
   
   

   
   

LL

 

PS. Also found this the whole judgement

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment-carey-v-hsbc.pdf

Edited May 2, 2010 by lesterlass
Adding more info

[frettful38]

I found the information below from a site that I was reading and found it very useful and helpful so thought I would copy it for all, if for nothing else then general knowledge:

 

In any litigation you need to know a few key things, principally the applicable law and therefore what you have to prove to win/what the other side can prove to stop you winning. In legal academic circles this is described as your case theory: a brief statement of what your case is and why you should win.

 

Put it another way. You need to know and be able to show:

(a) what the parties' legal obligations are to each other (be it contract, tort, matrimonial, criminal law etc) [the law]

(b) what actually happened [the facts]

© how (b) relates to (a)

(d) if © is a breach of obligation, what that means in terms of the consequences: what remedy do you ask the Court to order?

 

Develop your case theory using the above steps. Test everything against that: does it help your case or is it a problem?

 

Once you have a clear idea of these things, you can look at every document, statement, whatever critically and put them into one of 3 categories (with reasons):

 

1. good (for your case)

2. bad

3. irrelevant

 

Not every litigation lawyer thinks with this clarity. Believe me, it helps! With this approach I can form my view of the opponent's lawyer.

 

Oh yes, one more thing. It's all very well to be clear why you should win, but keep asking yourself why you will lose. In every case there are reasons why you may lose. If you can identify those areas of weakness you can adjust your strategy to address them.

 

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all,

 

At last a clear and very well defined 'lay persons' guide to approaching litigation, which although brief (no pun intended!) does encompass a first class 'overview' of matters both prior to and during litigation.

 

Very well done.

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[frettful38]

Thanks Dougal16T, glad your impressed:D