Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[frettful38]

Although not related to this thread but thought it was good reading for all in general.

 

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2009/07/foxtons-loses-key-court-battle.html

[Doc2527]

This seems like promising news for Miss Sold PPI's?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/aug/10/fsa-issues-new-rules-on-ppi

[Sparkie1723]

Back in the loop folks.

 

Need some mathematical experts accountant what ever here... I'm a dumb auto spark

 

sparkie

 

Subject:

Amalgamated Accounts.

 

In all of the companies accounts in the Kestrel Holdings Ltd group it shows each companies annual turn over.

 

It also states that this is shown in the amalgamated accounts of Kestrel Holdings Ltd, i.e the combined added totals of all the other companies turnover..

 

Below are the separate totals of each of the other companies, and the amalgamated totals shown in Kestrel Holdings Ltd.

 

These totals are for the year of “trading” of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd.2008 to 2009

 

Company Name Company No Year Credit Limit Total Turn over

 

 

KESTREL HOLDINGS LIMITED 05055802 31-03-2009 96 £3,050,000 £110,713,529

 

- KESTREL ACQUISITIONS LIMITED 05055827 31-03-2009 94 £60,000 £0

 

-KESTREL LOANS NO.1 LIMITED 05143638 31-03-2009 84 £180,000 £25,252,327

 

KESTREL LOANS NO.2 LIMITED 05143608 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

KESTREL LOANS NO.3 LIMITED 06217844 31-03-2009 48 £59,000 £2,030,870

 

- SWIFT ADVANCES PLC 01800474 31-03-2009 93 £800,000 £83,452,713

 

- KESTREL ADVANCES LIMITED 02807869 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

SWIFT HOMELOANS LIMITED 02807874 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

SWIFT SECURITIES LIMITED 01559494 31-03-2009 0 £0 -

 

SWIFT 1ST LIMITED 05020019 31-03-2009 93 £305, £19,145,358

 

My simple mind cannot cope with the scale of it all…Below is an example of 1 years accounts of the 10 companies in the group 2008 to 2009.

Kestrel Holdings Ltd accounts are stated to be the amalgamated accounts of the 9 companies it is the parent company of.

 

Their accounts state that the total turnover of the 9 companies is £110,713,529 million it is an easy task total these accounts up from the brief details shown here ….

It is quickly seen that the total turnover should be shown as £129,881,268 million.

 

This means that the total declared turnover is false/incorrect..

There is a deficit of £19,167,739 million…This is not declared in these amalgamated accounts.

Question is where has it gone.

 

Is it just a coincidence that this £19,167,739 million in years accounts Swift Advances plc of 2007 to 2008 matches the £19.2 million claimed as paid in Commission and brokers fees, and was claimed as tax deductible???

Edited August 11, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[lesterlass]

Sparkie

 

Before you fly the coup, Just wanted to clear up the CCA point you've raised here. YesSwift Advances can't collect money but that is in relation to Swift 1st Ltd customers. They can of course collect their own. I think people should make sure they get that clarified with the OFT themselves. The possession proceedings issue is still to be clarified so I wouldn't like to say either way until such time as it is.

 

I don't want anymore jibes about missinformation and such coming your way. I can only think of making sure everyone gets this qualified for themselves. It's no hardship. If it's that important then its soemthing you make sure you do for yourself. I know alot of us on cag do that anyway.

 

Hi Sparkie, any thoughts on this....... if they have no liscence they cannot collect there own money either?

just PMd you

 

LL

[Sparkie1723]

Please disregard this in the above post ...this will be subject to a further post on this issue just to show folks what i mean.

sparkie

"These totals are for the year of “trading” of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd.2008 to 2009" Should have read Kestrel Holdings Ltd

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie, any thoughts on this....... if they have no liscence they cannot collect there own money either?

just PMd you

 

LL

 

What it means in fact ...I did not make myself clear enough ....is that as Swift Advances plc have no licence to collect debt neither do Swift Group Legal Services...........in order to collect their own debt they have to instruct outside solicitors to then instruct Counsel..........what they have been doing in the past has been unlawful and the courts attention must be

drawn to that fact.......remeber the OFT licence is accepted as evidence of Fact under the Criminal Justice Act....they just have not got debt collecting licence to collect their own debts they have to instruct a proper legal entity ...not a make believe one they have used.................Swift Group Legal Services are registerd with the SRA as an organistation who the SRA do not regulate.....fact. confirmed by the SRA ring them up yourself and have it confirmed to you...remember Swift Group Legal Services cannot instruct the outside firm Swift Advances have to do it...there is more to come than just this have no fear

 

sparkie

Edited August 11, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

LL

 

To enlarge on one of the issues above I copy here a section of a letter I wrote not TO "Swift Group Legal Services" but to each individual solictor in the "employ" of "Swift Group Lega Services".

You may find you can use tjis in your Defence

 

sparkie

 

The Guidance notes you refer to also states at 1 (b);

You are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer;

The registration of “Swift Group Legal Services” with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority states that the solicitors on the headed paper are employed by “Swift Group Legal Services”

Guidance Note 7 a) states;

You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided :the letterhead or the signature makes it clear that the stationery is being used by an in-house solicitor or in-house REL on legal professional business and that person is responsible for the contents of the letter;

The letter head does not make it clear that the stationary is being used by in house solicitors nor is there a name at the end of said letter.

Guidance note 9 states;

If you are an in-house solicitor the address of your employer's legal department is the place (or one of the places) where you practice and must therefore be notified to the SRA. Surely I do not have to remind you that this is how “Swift Group Legal Services” are registered with the Law Society as an Organisation, I do not think an internal department can be an Organisation. Who are not regulated by any regulatory body.

 

SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES - Head Office

 

Phone Number: 01277 359466

Fax Number: 01277 359706

Email Address: [email protected]

 

At this office:

 

PAYNE, MATTHEW WILLIAM Employee

PAYNE, LORETTA - Employee

PURI, RAJIV - EmployeeWALSHE, LYNDA MARIE – Employee.

I question how an "internal department" within any company can have a head office of its own.

As it is clear from the above that the 4 solicitors are employees of “Swift Group Legal Services”, who in any event if the registration was correct in every detail, the Solicitors Code of Conduct would only allow them to act for their employers, who are “Swift Group Legal Services”. I have made extensive enquiries with many customers of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc if any one has ever previously been advised of this now"alleged" internal departmant of Swift Advances plc to date only one person has, and this was only a few weeks ago.

[Sparkie1723]

LL

 

To enlarge on one of the issues above I copy here a section of a letter I wrote not TO "Swift Group Legal Services" but to each individual solictor in the "employ" of "Swift Group Lega Services".

You may find you can use this in your Defence

 

sparkie

 

The Guidance notes you refer to also states at 1 (b);

You are held out, on stationery or otherwise, as a solicitor for your employer;

The registration of “Swift Group Legal Services” with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority states that the solicitors on the headed paper are employed by “Swift Group Legal Services”

Guidance Note 7 a) states;

You may use the stationery of, or stationery including the name of, your employer for professional work, provided :the letterhead or the signature makes it clear that the stationery is being used by an in-house solicitor or in-house REL on legal professional business and that person is responsible for the contents of the letter;

The letter head does not make it clear that the stationary is being used by in house solicitors nor is there a name at the end of said letter.

Guidance note 9 states;

If you are an in-house solicitor the address of your employer's legal department is the place (or one of the places) where you practice and must therefore be notified to the SRA. Surely I do not have to remind you that this is how “Swift Group Legal Services” are registered with the Law Societyas an Organisation, I do not thinkan internal department can be an Organisation. Who are not regulated by any regulatory body.

 

SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES - Head Office

 

 

Phone Number: 01277 359466

Fax Number: 01277 359706

Email Address: [email protected]

 

At this office:

 

PAYNE, MATTHEW WILLIAM Employee

PAYNE, LORETTA - Employee

PURI, RAJIV - EmployeeWALSHE, LYNDA MARIE – Employee.

I question how an "internal department" within any company can have a head office of its own.

As it is clear from the above that the 4 solicitors are employees of “Swift Group Legal Services”, who in any event if the registration was correct in every detail, the Solicitors Code of Conduct would only allow them to act for their employers, who are “Swift Group Legal Services”. I have made extensive enquiries with many customers of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc if any one has ever previously been advised of this now"alleged" internal departmant of Swift Advances plc to date only one person has, and this was only a few weeks ago.

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie

 

After you sent me the email I had a look on the Law Society web site.

 

Also been on OFT public register expiry date 14-APR-2010 but also says liscence status: current.

 

Did you get a reply from any of them?

[Sparkie1723]

Hi LL and everyone

If you check the history of their licence you will note that two categories are “retained” which means these are the ones they had.

All other categories and personel named on the licence and application for Swift Advances & SGLS ( Swift Group Legal Services) to be added as trading styles are “pending”.

Whist a licence is be reviewed and considered the applicant can carry out the business it previously held the licence for as if it still had one under the categories it held.

That is what “current” means.

If a licence is refusal or the renewal of it, the applicant has a right to appeal against the decision, not very many succeed in this appeal from I can find out.

Therefore as you an see they did not hold a debt collecting licence and they still do noy have one…….with regard to having the trading style of Swift Advances to be added is in my opinion a clear sign that Swift Advances plc know full well that to have used that in the past was as I have alleged a criminal offence and are trying to put it right.

You will also see that Eastern Counselling Department is a historic trading style that they dropped years ago a….but have been using it to threaten people and charge fees for letters etc that is something every one wants to attack

Just my view

sparkie

[patrickq1]

Fretfull were you asking about blenheim not sure if i posted you data via pm ?

If it was nt you its ok

patrickq1

[Gallahad]

Hi PatrickQ, its Blemain finance frettful and I are both interested in.

G

[patrickq1]

ok will post the data i have ,when i can find it again lol its succesful cases here the judge ordered them to pay back all the intrest and charges

[Gallahad]

Thanks P thats always good to hear

G

[patrickq1]

Unfair relationships

An “unfair relationship” could include the terms of an agreement, the ways in which enforcement is being carried out, or anything else. The new rules are retrospective and will make lenders responsible for the transgressions of their brokers, even when these do not fall within the antecedent negotiation rules.

The method is the same as for extortionate credit, and there is no doubt that anything that is extortionate will also be an unfair relationship, but hopefully a lot more will be.

Any Court can re-open any credit agreement, whether regulated or not, where it considers that the bargain was an unfair relationship. The debtor must raise the matter and it is for the creditor to rebut it (s.171).

Successful cases are below:

A debtor has secured a five-year block on repossession in a claims management case against his lender, after using consumer credit law to challenge his secured loan agreement. Peter Bentley, of Bridgend, Cardiff, used the meaning of unfair relationships under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 to claim that his loan contract with Blemain Finance was an unfair one. Blemain also agreed to charge no further interest on the £40,000 loan and cut his repayments from £550 to £150 a month. At the High Court in Cardiff, Judge Milwyn Jarman also prevented the lender from levying any charges or legal costs "whatsoever." The judge barred Blemain for enforcing repayment via repossession for five years, but even after this period, it can only bring repossession proceedings if there are at least 12 months? arrears on the new level of payments. Bentley's lawyers, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS), successfully argued that Blemain had loaned the money to Bentley irresponsibly and that the agreement took advantage of his desperate situation. CCLS argued that shortcomings in the decision making procedure on granting the loan, such as in the under writing, affordability checks and valuation processes, led to the credit agreement being unfair. Andrew Settle, solicitor for CCLS, said: "The relationship between the parties was an unfair one within the meaning of Section 140A of the CCA 1974. CCLS is utilising a significant number of legal arguments, like those used on behalf of Mr Bentley, in thousands of cases on behalf of our clients." CCLS successfully demanded to have the loan account re written, which is believed to be the first time a loan account has been rewritten under settlement, as a result of the unfair relationships test. Bentley's case was taken on by claims management company Cartel Client Review. Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel Client Review, claimed that Blemain made the offer to Bentley in a bid to prevent a judge in a High Court setting a legal precedent against its lending practices. He added: "A legal precedent could have driven a coach and horses through all its loan accounts. The consumer credit rule book is being rewritten as a result of High Court settlements like Blemain Finance v Bentley." Bentley's financial problems started when his mother died in 2007. He began part-time work to look after his father, who was suffering from Alzheimer's, and then took out a £40,000 secured loan in February 2007 to alleviate his financial predicament. His caring responsibilities led to a drop in working hours, and therefore a fall in income, and he then fell behind on his repayments. Blemain later chased Bentley for repayments on the loan, which by the time of this case being heard in court, had increased to £47,000.

[patrickq1]

hope this helps

[Gallahad]

Thanks for that P frettful and I are aware of the bentley case and are both looking to pursue Blemain

on unfair terms as well as secret commission. I trust you are looking after yourself and your health is improving.

Kepp up the good work.

G

[lesterlass]

Hi Dougal I have just PM`d you.

 

LL

[frettful38]

Thanks for that P frettful and I are aware of the bentley case and are both looking to pursue Blemain

on unfair terms as well as secret commission. I trust you are looking after yourself and your health is improving.

Kepp up the good work.

G

 

Thanks patrick, yes me and gallahad appreciate any help or advice you can give. Blemain are just as ruthless as swift and we need as much ammo as we can to defend ourselves with.

 

As for the unfair relationship route, there are many many things that we can use and slowly but surely I am getting there.

 

If you look at the Bentley case he used the unfair relationship test and things went a lot in his favour and he just had one argument. I on the other hand have arguments that the courts would not even know where to begin as my agreement is I believe in favour of Blemain more than 100% .

 

Thanks for that.

[welshperson3]

fretfull and gallahad

i have started a thread on blemain i am in court with them on wednesday

 

sub-prime lender (blamain finance) 140A Unfair relationship -started court proceedings

 

wp3

[frettful38]

fretfull and gallahad

i have started a thread on blemain i am in court with them on wednesday

 

sub-prime lender (blamain finance) 140A Unfair relationship -started court proceedings

 

wp3

 

Good job WPS,

 

I am just going over to see your thread, and well done.

[pkelly]

Jaws Last Activity 8th August 2010

Take it easy Last Activity 9th August 2010

strange all of a sudden when caught out both off the face of the earth at once

[JOES MY LANDLORD]

I am trying to folow this thread. At the moment I have just found out that as a result of Swift Advances reporting to equifax and neglecting to mention the time order and reduction I won against them in 2009 feb my wife's perfect credit rating is now so bad we have had to put our house on the market to get out of the swift loan. The time order proved an expensive route even though I won because they charged me via Eastern plus they hired lawyers which I was forced to pay for. Something like £3500 was added plus the credit rating problem makes me feel desperate. At 69 I could do without this. I have witness statements signed by Mark White if anyone's interested

Edited August 17, 2010 by JOES MY LANDLORD
see last sentence re m white

[frettful38]

Sorry to hear about your problems JML I hope you will get the help you need mate

[lesterlass]

I am trying to folow this thread. At the moment I have just found out that as a result of Swift Advances reporting to equifax and neglecting to mention the time order and reduction I won against them in 2009 feb my wife's perfect credit rating is now so bad we have had to put our house on the market to get out of the swift loan. The time order proved an expensive route even though I won because they charged me via Eastern plus they hired lawyers which I was forced to pay for. Something like £3500 was added plus the credit rating problem makes me feel desperate. At 69 I could do without this. I have witness statements signed by Mark White if anyone's interested

 

Hi JML So sorry to hear about you problems with SWIFT..........I know it takes authorities a while to look into, but I just dont get why SWIFT are still trading.

 

Would like a copy of the statements please...........and good luck..

 

LL