Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

Sorry takeiteasy... but thank you first............. you say that it is in the agreement that they would be in breach of it if they disclosed it………..how do we know that this specific term is in the agreement if we do not have sight of it…….more to the point how can you speak for Swift Advances plc, and this/these agreements and their content?

 

Have you seen that agreement to be able to say that term is in that/those two particular agreement(s)…you know quite well that there are many types of agreements ….even a comma or full stop can change the meaning of a term in any agreement…….and most importantly IS there a mortgage sale agreement and mortgage administration agreement in existence relating to the loans that were sold/transferred/assigned by the Swift Companies to the Kestrel Companies involved in such transactions….we do not know ……you do not know……..you are making assumptions based on what you think in exactly the same way as I have been doing and am doing……… without producing these agreements I have claimed Swift Advances plc are doing something wrong and as you said yourself……..they should be required and to prove I am wrong they should disclose it of their own free will………not conceall it ......that is my point……until I am actually proved wrong ….I will continue to say what I do say and claim……….there is something secret going on…..within these companies.

And finally as I have said the proper authorities ARE at last taking me seriously, they can see on the evidence I have produced there is validity for an investigation to be entered into……whether or not I am and have been right or wrong is now up to those authorities.

I have produced the documentary evidence to them that the same amount of money was borrowed on the same day from two different banks using two different presentors.

That is the main reason I question this to be more than likely double borrowing……….what is the reason to do this ….why not borrow the amounts from the one funder.

If I am wrong then I am wrong..........and I am entitled to a belief until I am actually proved wrong for all to see.

 

sparkie

Edited August 4, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[frettful38]

Very well put to the point sparkie and a very reasonable and logic thing to ask to in my opinion. If swift have nothing to hide then they should have no problem or reason to supply the documentation that sparkie is requesting.

 

This matter could have been easily sorted out right from the beginning if swift co-operated but like many I know it seems they would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, the only thing that I see happening as I did with my case is that the longer this case drags on the more worms are going to come out of the woodwork or is that more skeletons are going to come out of the closet , for swift that is of course.

[Guest takeiteasy]

I didn't say I had any knowledge whatsoever about the agreements. I only said why I think they wont show them to you. I did not say it would be a breach, I said it may be a breach. Usually mortgage credit agreements have a clause that specifically allows the lender to sell or transfer the debt to another company. Do the Swift agreements state this? Have you searched the public records to see if Swift have securitised in the past?

 

As for your question about the unsigned accounts at Companies House I don't know the answer to that. Is it common practice for Companies House to accept unsigned accounts? Do you think by not signing the accounts it removes responsibility?

 

Is it not common for every company director to have directors insurance that amongst other things, cover them for things such as this?

[determindator]

Regardless TIE, Swift charge in excess of 12% interest and load it the worst way possible, so you're trapped with an extortionate redemption repayment.They add PPI which lasts for only five years and you pay for the full term of the loan (BTW The FOS look down on this practice, so that says something.) Take extortionate charges, one I saw was £100 to send a statement. They were reminded building societies and banks do it for free. They smoke screen by saying they are there to help those who have found other lenders unhelpful and put you into a false sense of security. They catch you in the fisherman's net. The brokers for them tell you it's easy to repay when you feel it's time to find a main stream lender, not explaining you will pay highly for it. This is one of the main reasons which brought the banking system down, lending money in a way that people find hard to pay back, because of greedy interest rates.They weren't bothered, they had the homes to get their hands on.

 

How can you justify this type of lending? That's my case as a Layman.

[determindator]

My loan started off around 9%, i'm just about to find out what it is now, my guess in excess of 12%. I did ask a while back why the interest rate did not reduce in line with the Bank of England as the building societies do . I was told the lending rate between banks was higher than that directly borrowed from the BOE or directly from a Bank.The thing is they Bank with Barclays so what is their relationship with them and borrowing?

[Guest takeiteasy]

I am not defending what they do I'm simply saying the structure they utilise is not illegal. The rates, fees, insurance, etc. they charge are indeed obscene. Unfortunately that is their business model. This is why I believe your efforts and those of my CAGER advisory Sparkie should be 100% focused on that element rather than unsigned accounts, Kestrel companies, securitisation, accounting systems, etc. Those things are meaningless in your fight and I belive makes the argument more "mob driven" than factual incidents of over charging and unethical behaviour by Swift.

The fines levied against GMAC and others have been for the very things you are complaining about, unfair charges not corporate structures. Some things Sparkie says I think take the focus off what the key issues are. No disrespect to Sparkie, but he has the time to do this, he's said so. Certian statements that have no truth excite the group but even if they were true wouldn't help your cause. For example, he states the FSA wants to ban securitisation. That statement is not true and there have been multiple securitisations recently, furthermore the market and the consumer needs securitisation if anyone ever wants a mortgage. And what if they did securitise? So what? What does that change? Obviously I havent seen your agreement with Swift but I'm certain the fees they are charging you and the rates they are charging you is in the agreement that you signed. If it's not then that is where you should focus your efforts along the same lines I mentioned before.

[caro]

Even if the rates are in the agreements, does that make them fair?

 

Is it fair that someone takes out a mortgage at 9% which then increases to 12%, while BoE base rate has remained stable at 0.5%, with little or no chance of changing mortgage provider, and if they do with extortionate charges levied?

 

Is it fair that interest is charged on a product years after it has outlived it's shelf life, like PPI?

[Sparkie1723]

The problem with your argument TIE and using the TCF argument is of no use what so ever against Swift Advances plc…they are not FSA regulated……Swift 1st Ltd do not even know what treating a customer fairly means.

As far as getting charges and fees back Swift may offer 10% of the amount they should return………and because 95% of Swift Advances plc agreements are unregulated ….they can and do anything they want under those agreements.

IF any borrower had it explained EXACTLY what they could do after the agreement was signed, I am sure that at least 75% of the people who were enticed into their trap would not have signed those agreements.

Once Swift Advances plc have the title to a property that is when they commence to do the things I allege.

I give you my example as an example and it is done with all other customers title charge.

The debenture and negative pledge that Swift Advances plc have with Barclays Bank says that Barclays are their own trustee for funds lent to Swift Advances plc and that their assets down to last paper clip in their office belong to Barclays Bank and that includes the title to the properties loans etc etc etc that Swift Advances plc have put as security to borrow the funds to lend out to customers.

This pledge states that Swift Advances plc cannot do anything with the titles loans etc with out the express written permission of Barclay.

That is why I ask to see the mortgage sale agreement that must be there for Swift to borrow MORE money and use the same title deed and equity that they have already borrowed ( Swift Advances plc DO NOT SECURITISE) ……never have done.

That is what makes the difference in my view.

Only two weeks after we had signed our agreement it was sold……that sale was planned even before we had signed it in my opinion we were never told or even warned it would be……if you do not agree that this information that they knew in “advance”, they would be paid the money that we had just borrowed by another company….. ie redeemed by that company is not deception?

Can you not see why I claim double borrowing on our property??

Can you not see that by doing this they then lent the money again that they had just been paid by the selling of our loan and title on which they then charge their exorbitant fees and charges.

What they do is use customers title and equity twice to their advantage…..again if a borrower knew this they would not borrow money from them.

I say this is where the fraudulent deceptive use of another person assets is in play.

Remember their company accounts show that this is exactly what they do……..the two Kestrel Companies that they use did not and have not got one single asset on which to have borrowed the funds to pay Swift Advances the FULL amount of the loans they paid Swift Advances plc for them……………….they had to use the titles of the properties that had already been used to secure the original funds from Barclays, and use, them again without any borrower knowing except 3 and I am one of them which I was allowed to find out by one simple mistake…..Swift Advances plc forgot to remove the record of the sale of my loan account and title from the history of this transaction from the SAR information they supplied under my request………..on every other history they DELIBERATELY and precisely remove this entry so as to conceal these transactions of every borrowers loan

That is what I claim, and because the Kestrel company has to have the Title deed it should have been changed to Kestrel as soon as that sale and purchase of it was made.

Another reason to see the two documents I referred to in my last few posts, that is where the record of these transactions will/should be.

I do not believe they have them……for reason Mr Webster first said that these transactions were merely internal accounting transactions, as the vast majority of the 5 Companies involved are the same directors of which only two have any sign of being fully legitimate is the reason I claim such mal practices…..it is all preplanned.

He then changed that statement and said they had been assigned again with any borrowers knowledge

I could as you say rant and rave on …but that is what know I am 95% right in

sparkie

[determindator]

Hi to Caro and thanks for your post. In reply to TIE, I didn't sign up knowingly that a company would act unethically and immorally and have no cap on the amount of interest they could charge and other unfair charges. It doesn't say in the agreement 'we will charge you as much as we like when we want too.' You are effectively saying we are all gullable, stupid or both and deserve what we get. That's how swift think. Now where's the Judge who's gonna sort this.

[Sparkie1723]

Sorry in post 3617 ...the below should read

"He then changed that statement and said they had been assigned again withOUT any borrowers knowledge"

sparkie

[frettful38]

sparkie sent you a pm, please reply when you get a chance, thanks

 

frett

[sweetjane]

The OFT are laying out their cards:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/OFT1262.pdf

 

Looks like they're on a mission. Sit tight, it's gonna be a bumpy ride for credit providers - I hope!!!

[determindator]

Hi SJ. I've tried the link which didn't connect and typed out full address and reply was page may have been removed.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi SJ. I've tried the link which didn't connect and typed out full address and reply was page may have been removed.

 

Hiya determinator

Its still available just checked again

 

sparkie

[determindator]

Woo Hoo Sparkie your magic worked and report read.

 

Great link SJ with a nice address to write to and email! Maybe you have an idea for this Sparkie. I think the powers that be are getting the message.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi pkelly just sent you a PM ....you wacko:D

[patrickq1]

just WINDOW DRESSING I ASSUME i cannot beleive they will do anything in fact just trying to justify a wage rise

[Sparkie1723]

Woo Hoo Sparkie your magic worked and report read.

 

Great link SJ with a nice address to write to and email! Maybe you have an idea for this Sparkie. I think the powers that be are getting the message.

 

I have got ideas.....but TIE will say they are more of my delusion rants:lol:

 

sparkie

[patrickq1]

not delusional rants sparkie keep to the format TWILIGHT ZONE RANTS hehe

patrickq1

[Sparkie1723]

not delusional rants sparkie keep to the format TWILIGHT ZONE RANTS hehe

patrickq1

 

Hiya patrick ......I forgot about the format sorry about that!!

 

Here is latest on Swift Advances plc licence application for renewal.

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details :: Licence History :: Event Details

 

 

Event Details

 

Licence Details:

 

 

Licence/Application Number Licence Status Applicant/Holder Name 0391618 Current Swift Advances plc Event Details:

 

 

Event Number Event Type Date of Receipt Closed Date Status 27 Renewal 09-Apr-2010 Open Licence Event Details:

 

RoleNameActionLICENSEESwift Advances plcPendingOfficerAmanda BrooksPendingOfficerAndrew PunchPendingOfficerBernard Robert BarwickPendingOfficerJohn WebsterPendingOfficerKestrel Holdings LimitedPending

Address TypeAddressActionCorrespondenceArcadia House, Warley Hill Business Park, The Drive, Brentwood, Essex, CM13 3BEPendingPrincipal Place Of BusinessArcadia House, Warley Hill Business Park, The Drive, Brentwood, Essex, CM13 3BEPendingRegistered OfficeArcadia House, Warley Hill Business Park, The Drive, Brentwood, Essex, CM13 3BEPending

Trading Names:

 

NameActionSGLSPendingSwift AdvancesPending

Categories:

 

CategoryActionConsumer creditRetainedConsumer hireRemovedCredit brokerageRetainedCredit reference agencyRemovedDebt adjusting/counsellingRemovedDebt administrationPendingDebt collectingRemoved

 

 

 

sparkie

[Guest takeiteasy]

PKelly - Don't you have some Thai boys to look after? Judging by your creepy picture and your inability to compose a riddleless sentence, the answer screams yes, yes, yes!

 

Sparkie - a serious question (honestly) - At the end of all of this what do you hope to achieve for yourself and the rest of the CAGERS? Is it getting money back from Swift, shutting them down or both? If all of your claims are proven to be true what happens?

[Sparkie1723]

PKelly - Don't you have some Thai boys to look after? Judging by your creepy picture and your inability to compose a riddleless sentence, the answer screams yes, yes, yes!

 

Sparkie - a serious question (honestly) - At the end of all of this what do you hope to achieve for yourself and the rest of the CAGERS? Is it getting money back from Swift, shutting them down or both? If all of your claims are proven to be true what happens?

 

Very Simple to answer that TIE BOTH ......if possible not likely...but shutting them down is my prime aim! Full stop!

sparkie

[pkelly]

hi tie i havent gone away you know

[pkelly]

If all of your claims are proven to be true what happens? tell us tie what will happen in your opinion being in the money business how long would someone go down for

[caro]

Keep it civil please. Personal insults add nothing to the debate.