Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[landy_alert]

Hi Sparkie:)

 

Nice to see you about on the forum - hope you are feeling better and are trying to take things as easily as possible............

 

Many thanks to you for your continued selfless support of the rest of us

 

Take care,

 

Landy x

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie:)

 

Nice to see you about on the forum - hope you are feeling better and are trying to take things as easily as possible............

 

Many thanks to you for your continued selfless support of the rest of us

 

Take care,

 

Landy x

 

Thanks Landy, But I'm fine just got to go back and have more pictures taken etc but I'm fit and well..

I have a favour and question to ask evryone, well 2 really.

 

Has anyone had a letter from Swift Group Legal Services over the past 2 weeks or so....... if they have could they send me a copy of it by e-mail please ....remove all personal info of course, anyone wants my email address just pm me.

 

Second if anyone has any letter from Eastern Counselling also, will they send me copy of it in the same manner.

 

Your help will be much appreciated.

 

sparkie

[atom02]

I am not a legally trained person but it is my interpretation that should either Swift Advances plc or Swift 1st Ltd issue proceedings against anyone from now on.........due to the fact that their accounts state quite clearly that they sold all loans to the Kestrel companies £266 million worth in 2006 to 2007 and ...£200 million worth in 2007 to 2008, plus the fact that Mr Webster who signed these accounts and then confirmed they were sold by equitable transfer means that you can use the estoppel to prevent him changing his statement...should you use it in your defence in that ....the N244 court claim MUST include the Kestrel Company that the loan was sold to as a joint claimant..................this I can assure you they will NOT do because none of these companies hold a CCA licence an FSA licence nor an ICO licence....... to become joint claimant in a claim they would be committing a criminal offence.............common law of tort states no-one should gain from committing a criminal offence and no-one should lose

 

sparkie

 

Just my view

 

Got it...thanks for taking the time to make this clarification. I will research it further but I think it will prove useful for me in a case in which the Claimants have got themselves in twist about documents in their POC that they can't/refuse to produce and are just about to backtrack on this part of their claim.

 

Re your previous post (#3429), haven't received anything at all in the last few weeks. As a matter of fact, Swift have been deathly silent but if anything falls through the letter box, will oblige.

 

Thanks for your help here.

 

Atom

[zeblet]

Thanks Landy, But I'm fine just got to go back and have more pictures taken etc but I'm fit and well..

I have a favour and question to ask evryone, well 2 really.

 

Has anyone had a letter from Swift Group Legal Services over the past 2 weeks or so....... if they have could they send me a copy of it by e-mail please ....remove all personal info of course, anyone wants my email address just pm me.

 

Second if anyone has any letter from Eastern Counselling also, will they send me copy of it in the same manner.

 

Your help will be much appreciated.

 

sparkie

 

Will do as soon a I can. Please remind me if it does not get to you within the next week. Sorry i have not been much use so far but problems are just exasebrated by these people. Am sill under treatment. You are a star.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Zeblet,

The documents you have previously supplied me have been and are of exellent use thanks, try not to worry too much, I believe that folks will notice that things will get even quieter with the people we are in dispute with over the next couple of weeks;)

 

Have heart and hope peeps...not despair!!

sparkie

[Doc2527]

Hi Sparkie

 

great to see you back on the forum, hope you're taking things easy and looking after yourself, 'er indoors as well:)

 

I have a letter from Eastern Counsellling but it's over a year old?? any use to you?? or are you looking for someting more recent?

 

Take good care

 

Doc

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie,

 

I was thinking today and maybe you have covered this point already, but thought I would ask all the same.

 

We know that fees & charges have been added to the loan you applied including title insurance. I understand you have covered a lot of this ground in past thread and posts, but was hoping to put a question forward to my lender.............and that is, as I paid a solicitors fee [solicitor arranged by lender] which was added to my loan......am I entitled to have a copy or receipt of the sum paid to the solicitor.

 

I believe that as I paid for this fee then I should be allowed to see what firm of solicitors acted in this transaction. It is my legal right yes? I want to know who these solicitors were that my lender arranged and how they calculated this fee and what this fee was for. After all I am paying interest on this fee for 300 months.

 

Did you ask swift for anything similar and if so did you get anywhere? or is this not the right time to as, sorry but so many things going on in my mind at the moment and could not wait.

 

I look forward to your response.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi sparkie,

 

I was thinking today and maybe you have covered this point already, but thought I would ask all the same.

 

We know that fees & charges have been added to the loan you applied including title insurance. I understand you have covered a lot of this ground in past thread and posts, but was hoping to put a question forward to my lender.............and that is, as I paid a solicitors fee [solicitor arranged by lender] which was added to my loan......am I entitled to have a copy or receipt of the sum paid to the solicitor.

 

I believe that as I paid for this fee then I should be allowed to see what firm of solicitors acted in this transaction. It is my legal right yes? I want to know who these solicitors were that my lender arranged and how they calculated this fee and what this fee was for. After all I am paying interest on this fee for 300 months.

 

Did you ask swift for anything similar and if so did you get anywhere? or is this not the right time to as, sorry but so many things going on in my mind at the moment and could not wait.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Hi fretfull

In my opinion you are entitled to have sight of that document.....but they will argue legal privilege ...which you could counter with you paid for it then you are entitled to it ...Quote the New Fraud Act 2006 concealment of documents.

 

I did ask Swift Advances plc for this but they do not talk to me very often....they just ignore my questions.......and I just do not know why....they are only simple ones!:)

 

Just my opinion

 

regards

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie

 

great to see you back on the forum, hope you're taking things easy and looking after yourself, 'er indoors as well:)

 

I have a letter from Eastern Counsellling but it's over a year old?? any use to you?? or are you looking for someting more recent?

 

Take good care

 

Doc

 

 

HI Doc

 

Thanks for the good wishes its no problem really....re the Eastern Counselling letter doesn't matter how old it is ....just as important.

The fires of hell are burning fiercer for "Them"

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Asd you know I made a complaint to the ICO about Swift Advances plc & Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd over 9 months ago...... now have a case worker on the complaint and had a real good first response....he has jpoined the two complaints together, and has really got his head round it..........I have now sent him a further batch of docs as evidence to support the complaint....... stuff I collected since I made my complaints ....he sees 5 or six possible breaches and two possible offences....he already is completey aware that the Kestrel Companies do not have a licence to process data....... he checked the ICO register, the most up to date one held by the ICO ......and is he questioning the fact that as they buy our loan agreements "it is not unreasonable" as he put it, to say that they will more than likely be processing our personal and financial data without a licence........ Criminal Offence?????:D

 

sparkie

 

ps Forgot to add " He will be writing to these companies in regard to this" as he put it

Edited July 17, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[frettful38]

Hi fretfull

In my opinion you are entitled to have sight of that document.....but they will argue legal privilege ...which you could counter with you paid for it then you are entitled to it ...Quote the New Fraud Act 2006 concealment of documents.

 

I did ask Swift Advances plc for this but they do not talk to me very often....they just ignore my questions.......and I just do not know why....they are only simple ones!:)

 

Just my opinion

 

regards

sparkie

 

Thanks sparkie, don't know if CAG is playing up or is just my pc, anyways I think I will wait for a response from my lender to my recent letter then I will request this information.

 

I would like to know which firm of solicitors acted in the transaction of my loan and if they really are solicitors and regulated. After all my lender arranged these solicitors and all is above board and they have nothing to hide then there should be no problem in sending me a copy or receipt for something that I am being made to pay, and the bonus my lender gains is that they have charged this fee to my loan and receive interest on top of this for 25 years.

 

Regardless of what the courts deem as legal and enforceable, there is no way in hell that charging interest on a fee, which should have been made clear at point of sale whether it could be paid upfront. That way reducing the repayments and interest of my loan as a whole.

 

But I guess that is where these lenders make their profits, putting hidden terms in to agreements and by the time the borrower gets to find this info it is either too late or they are in so much ****E,

 

sparkie what was your opinion on the walker judgment? did you get a chance to read it. I understand that you must be up to your eyeballs in the Armageddon against swift, but you have an army of caggers behind you.

 

Better go and sharpen my spear, maybe needing it soon

[frettful38]

I don't know but is this the part from the fraud act 2006 that I should quote, but amend accordingly?

 

 

Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

18. Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

 

"7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

 

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it."

19. For example, the failure of a solicitor to share vital information with a client within the context of their work relationship, in order to perpetrate a fraud upon that client, would be covered by this section. Similarly, an offence could be committed under this section if a person intentionally failed to disclose information relating to his heart condition when making an application for life insurance.

[Sparkie1723]

I wanna tell you a story

 

This is a story about Swifts and Kestrels, the Swifts & Kestrels decided to go into business together, because the Kestrels were the big guys they said to the Swifts, because you are quick and can twist and turn real good, you know all the dodges, we will let you do all the business deals and we’ll protect you from other predators such as game keepers and bird catchers, because we are a protected species …no one can touch us.

 

So they set up “the business” this business was borrowing money from banks at a cheap rate of interest and then lending this money which wasn’t theirs in the first place out to people who were in a bit of financial trouble, at a high rate of interest but before they lent this money they had to make sure of two things only.

 

First, that the people they lent the money had to signed their lifes work, and right to live away, in that the home they had bought over years of hard work and struggle had to be given to the Swifts as the security, the Swifts hadn’t got their own because their homes were built of mud, and no bank would have lent them the money, so they had to have someone elses bricks and mortar, to give the Bank they were borrowing the money from.

 

Second, The most important thing they had to make sure of was, that the people they lent the money to would soon find out they could not pay them back. This was a must.

 

What happened then was that behind everyones back ( the game keepers and bird catchers) the Kestrels borrowed the same amount of money and gave it to the Swifts so they had the extra money to spend to force the people who could no longer afford to pay the money they had borrowed back out of their homes

 

These people all lost their homes which the Swifts sold for a quick profit and passed it all on to the Kestrels who were dead happy about all this.

 

Then one days some of the Swifts customers latched onto this deal that the Swifts & Kestrels had hatched up, and told the gamekeepers and bird catchers what was going on, the game keepers are starting to do their job and “culling" these pests that they have become, and were getting out of control, the story goes that soon the Kestrels are going to get mad at the Swifts for causing them so much trouble.

 

The Kestrels are realising that they are not as protected as they thought they were and the game keepers are coming to catch them all……….so the Kestrels will turn on the Swifts and kill them all off ….have you noticed that there are not as many Swifts around these days?? There may be none left soon.

 

I used to like all birds but these are two I’m not keen on any more, so people who are thinking of befriending one of these “birds” …Think again.

 

sparkie

 

 

I wanna tell you a story (cont).

 

While all this trouble and strife was going on between the Swifts and the Kestrels the Kestrels who had been helped in the past by some people called “ Rent a Hand” told the Big Old Eagle who had just been sailing around the skies looking for bigger game as well.

 

This Big Old Eagle had been conjured up by a band of renegade “Alchemists” who had special powers of elusion and could make money disappear without trace, they have told the Big Old Eagle to sort the Swifts and Kestrels out otherwise all this money that they have made disappear might have to be given back and that would hurt their greedy pockets a lot.

 

So now there is meetings going on behind the scenes, because the Alchemists can’t let themselves to be shown how greedy they are, they have been making money disappear for too long, and want to keep on doing this clever trick, that will even baffles Derren Brown and the magic circle, he doesn’t know how to do this.

 

But the magic circle are slowly finding out what they are doing, it has taken them a long time, but they will let us all know soon all about it.

 

sparkie

Edited July 18, 2010 by Sparkie1723
Another chapter

[frettful38]

magnificently put sparkie , this could be the beginning of a real good serial or movie ,

 

You are undoubtedly the hero of this and swifts worst nightmare

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie, hope you are well.......... Thought this may be of interest to you.

 

Mis-Sold Mortgage

 

UK banks including RBS, HSBC and Barclays are being accused by an investment firm based in the US of mis-selling mortgage backed securities to the tune of £1.6 million ($2.4 billion). The US branches of the British banks are being sued by a fund based in Boston, Cambridge Place Investment Partners. The lawsuit was filed Friday 16th July.

Asides from the three British banks it also has its sights on Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. This may well be seen as a test case for other funds seeking to make good losses during the recession.

The lawsuit which was filed in Boston states that HSBC, RBS and Barclays sold mortgage-backed securities on the strength of “untrue statements”. Cambridge Place also puts forward that the value or worth of the loans themselves were misrepresented (by sub prime lenders) and blames the “mortgage originators”. It says that the ’sales pitch’ employed by the banks lacked the attention of proper due diligence prior to being packaged.

Cambridge Place also made it clear that the mortgage lenders often had the company of these banks on site and vast sums of credit were made available by the banks. The suit alleges that jointly the lenders and banks were complicit and party to an environment of improper lending practices.

Cambridge Place also put forward that Wall street profited from mortgage originators disregard for sound lending practices and the erosion of lending standards. Barclays was accused of mis-selling $141 million of the mortgage backed securities from 2005 to 2007. These loans had a poor record with 46% now in delinquency. The investor was assured that the banks were hands on with the underwriting process and the quality control.

The Greenwich Capital arm of RBS has been targeted and accused of $260 million worth of mis-selling, again from 2005 to 2007, 35% now in delinquency. HSBC (between 2005 and 2006) of mis-selling $64 million and with a delinquency of 40%.

If the law suit is succesful the plaintiffs will be reimbursed and the securities will be returned to the banks.

 

LL:)

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie, hope you are well.......... Thought this may be of interest to you.

 

Mis-Sold Mortgage

 

UK banks including RBS, HSBC and Barclays are being accused by an investment firm based in the US of mis-selling mortgage backed securities to the tune of £1.6 million ($2.4 billion). The US branches of the British banks are being sued by a fund based in Boston, Cambridge Place Investment Partners. The lawsuit was filed Friday 16th July.

Asides from the three British banks it also has its sights on Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. This may well be seen as a test case for other funds seeking to make good losses during the recession.

The lawsuit which was filed in Boston states that HSBC, RBS and Barclays sold mortgage-backed securities on the strength of “untrue statements”. Cambridge Place also puts forward that the value or worth of the loans themselves were misrepresented (by sub prime lenders) and blames the “mortgage originators”. It says that the ’sales pitch’ employed by the banks lacked the attention of proper due diligence prior to being packaged.

Cambridge Place also made it clear that the mortgage lenders often had the company of these banks on site and vast sums of credit were made available by the banks. The suit alleges that jointly the lenders and banks were complicit and party to an environment of improper lending practices.

Cambridge Place also put forward that Wall street profited from mortgage originators disregard for sound lending practices and the erosion of lending standards. Barclays was accused of mis-selling $141 million of the mortgage backed securities from 2005 to 2007. These loans had a poor record with 46% now in delinquency. The investor was assured that the banks were hands on with the underwriting process and the quality control.

The Greenwich Capital arm of RBS has been targeted and accused of $260 million worth of mis-selling, again from 2005 to 2007, 35% now in delinquency. HSBC (between 2005 and 2006) of mis-selling $64 million and with a delinquency of 40%.

If the law suit is succesful the plaintiffs will be reimbursed and the securities will be returned to the banks.

 

LL:)

 

That is interesting I just might send them a little note about Swift Advances plc and the deals they have with Barclays!! You never know what comes of something like that??

 

sparkie

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie nice to have you back!!!!!!!

 

If you get a mo ( I KNOW YOU ARE BUSY BUSY) could you take a look at my thread see if we can throw more at the sharks

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/swift-advances/266867-swift-possession-order-post.html

 

LL:D

[jacqui_o]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Nice to see you back and fighting the good fight......

 

dont know if any of the info on my thread about reclaiming the ppi is of any good, there are some very strange charges there.......

 

have jsut had an explanation of them. some legal charges in Aug 2008 that are identical to the ones we first paid back in 2003/2004 when the loan was taken out.........

[sweetjane]

Hey sparkie, thanks for the bedtime story. Happy ending soon I hope. I always like it when the baddies come to a really nasty end.

[frettful38]

Important County Court decision could impact on lenders and brokers

 

Tuesday 20th July 2010

 

A recent case described as 'important' by legal professionals could create problems for mortgage lenders and brokers in dealing with PPI complaints.

In a recent County Court case in Manchester, borrowers pursued a claim against the subprime lender Nemo Personal Finance, under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act.

Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act empowers the Court to make such orders as it determines appropriate where there is an unfair relationship between creditor and debtor.

In this case, the borrowers sought redress entirely from the lender, as the mortgage broker involved, Loan Options, has gone into administration.

One of the borrowers claimed that the mortgage broker “forced” an uncompetitive PPI policy upon her, and made her feel that the taking of PPI was a condition of receiving the loan.

The borrowers also sought declaration that the lender had procured a breach by the broker of its fiduciary duty by paying undisclosed commission.

Although the case was decided at County Court level and therefore is not binding on other courts, it has been said that there is “little doubt” that it will be produced by debtors, PPI claimants and claims management companies in support of claims.

In this particular case the PPI premium was £15,468.75, the premium being funded from a loan repayable over a 20 year term.

The total cost of the PPI with interest was £32,436, with the loan providing life cover for both of the debtors and sickness and unemployment benefit for the first named debtor. The cover was limited for a period of 5 years only and provided cover for 12 monthly payments, equating to £8,000 in any one claim. A 50% refund of the premium was available at the end of the policy if no claim was made under it.

In respect of the loan advance, the brokers received a commission of £9,982.50 and a brokers’ fee of £2,000. Half of the PPI premium was received as commission by lender and broker.

The Judge decided on the facts that the policy was unfair to the claimants.

His Honour Judge Platts took account of the fact that the commission received increased significantly by inclusion of the premium for PPI and that although payment of commission was known to borrowers, the precise amount was not.

He said: “If the debtor knew the amounts involved she would have had a clear picture from which to make an informed decision as to whether or not what was being offered to her was in her best interests.”

It was also acknowledged that whilst the lender could not be held liable for anything said or done by the broker, the Judge still found that the claimants were led to understand that the PPI had to be taken as a condition of the loan (though the documents stated otherwise) taking the view that the debtor was an “unsophisticated” borrower.

“It seems to me if the consumer is paying £15,000 for a policy of insurance he is entitled to know in the interest of fairness that less than one half is actually going to pay for the policy and more than half is going to be paid in commission to the broker and the lender who is effectively selling the product to the consumer,” the Judge continued.

The Court found that the amount involved gave incentive to the broker to sell the product and that although the primary duty of disclosure is on the broker this does not remove the necessity from the lender to ensure that the broker has discharged his duty.

The exact redress due to the borrower is yet to be quantified.

Jonathan Newman, legal expert and partner at the solicitor firm Brightstone Law, said that the case was significant as it was one of the first known cases on unfair credit relationships where PPI mis-sale has been used as the basis for the claim.

He said: “This outcome could affect a lot of brokers, and lenders also need to worry as under the relatively new Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Agreement the Courts have wide powers to give awards, compensate borrowers and redraw credit agreements.Section 140A applies to Consumer Credit Act loans and unregulated loans.

“What we can learn from this case is that the Courts are looking for complete transparency in the payment of commissions where borrowers are designated as “unsophisticated”. Here there was a “huge lacuna” of evidence. Better record keeping including recording of phone conversations, can be the difference between success and failiure in defending these claims..”

He added: “In this case the borrowers succeeded on the facts as the terms of the policy were deemed particularly unfair and expensive, In future cases where the terms are different, the disclosure clearer, and the broker available to provide better evidence as to what events took place at the point of sale the outcome may just be different.”

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie,

 

There have been alot of guests viewing yesterday and today.........

 

A little birdie`s feathers are ruffled or flapping!!!!!!

 

LL:D

[caro]

Interesting stuff fretful.

 

Do you have a transcript or link to further information on the case?

[frettful38]

Interesting stuff fretful.

 

Do you have a transcript or link to further information on the case?

 

 

I'm afraid not caro but believe that pt2537 has a copy of the judgment.

[Sparkie1723]

I have been trying to find out the name of Swift Advances plc new Compliance Officer, it used to be Mr Nettleingham but he left as we all know in February this year....... then it appeared that Mr Strickey took over this post ...but we know he left very quickley( not a pun that) since then I have been trying to find out who the new Compliance Officer is....they have to have one because they mediate for Swift 1st Ltd for insurance purposes.

 

I have e-mailed the Compliance team namely Mr Loblack in person ....but he couldn't/ wouldn't tell me ...because no -one likes me any more at Arcadia House....

So can someone find out for me please and post the name if they find out.

It would be helpful because I want to write to that person personally

 

Thanks

 

sparkie

[jacqui_o]

Hi Sparkie

 

dont know if this is of any use to you but the compliance officer on mine dated march 19th is Tony Strickley Compliance officer........ tel 0845 072 9010 email [email protected]

 

hope this helps