Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie I was trying to find some info and I did but lost the blooming link and was hoping if you or anyone else could have any knowledge on hand.

 

I am trying to find what regulations states that "your home may repossessed if you do not keep up payments"? As I said before that my unregulated agreement does not contain this warning and I know that it must.

 

Any help or advice would be cool. I am not sure if I found this in the Consumer Credit Advertisement Regulations or if the link below is the correct one?

 

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=436470&activetextdocid=922843&versionNumber=1

 

If it is the correct link does it apply to my unregulated agreement?

[patrickq1]

Mortgages and home finance - The FSA

[Peterbard]

HI

 

No the link you showed is for regulated loans only try this it is the FSA guidline

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/handbook/keyrules_mhr.pdf

[frettful38]

HI

 

No the link you showed is for regulated loans only try this it is the FSA guidline

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/handbook/keyrules_mhr.pdf

 

Hi peter,

 

Does the above link apply to unregulated loans? I know that my Lender is not regulated by the FSA so maybe not much help, any comments?

[Peterbard]

Hi peter,

 

Does the above link apply to unregulated loans? I know that my Lender is not regulated by the FSA so maybe not much help, any comments?

 

Why would you think that the loan was not regulated by the FSA?

 

Peter

[frettful38]

Why would you think that the loan was not regulated by the FSA?

 

Peter

 

 

The reason is that my lender has put in writing that they are not regulated by the FSA.

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie I see you are no longer accepting pm's but I have sent you an email to your email address,

 

Take care

[frettful38]

Why would you think that the loan was not regulated by the FSA?

 

Peter

 

 

Hi peter,

 

Blemain claim that they are not regulated by the FSA and that they are introducers for Cheshire Mortgage Company Ltd and CMCL are regulated by the FSA I believe?

 

Would that not mean that Blemain are regulated by the FSA too? So blooming complicated this is.

[Killerschick]

Why would you think that the loan was not regulated by the FSA?

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

I think Fretful's loan (correct me if I'm wrong!) is a second charge mortgage and the FSA only regulate first charge mortgages secured on residential land taken out since 31.10.2004.

 

From what I understand, Fretful's loan is also unregulated under the CCA as it was more than the limit of £25,000 which was in force when it was taken out.

 

What Blemain say about their status appears to be correct, this is their info from the FSA register (apologies for formatting):-

 

Basic details for:

 

414372 - Blemain Finance Ltd

 

Current status:Introducer A.R.Effective Date:10/11/2004Tied Agent:Undertakes Insurance Mediation:YRegistered under Money Laundering Regulations:Address:Bracken House

Charles Street

Manchester

M1 7BD

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Website:

44 0870 220 4744

44 0870 220 4745

[email protected]

http://www.blemainfinance.co.uk

Notices:

 

 

Principals for:

 

414372 - Blemain Finance Ltd

 

NameFirm reference numberEffectiveFromToCheshire Mortgage Corporation Limited 305253 10/11/2004

[Gallahad]

Would the fact that Blemain are named as charge holders on land registry be unlawful as the Cheshire Mortgage co

are the ultimate lender.

G

[Peterbard]

Hi

Yes supprisingly second mortganges of over 25k are subject to no regulation at all.

 

There was talk of legislation that will rectify the situation earliere this year but i do not know what stage the legislative process has reached, the new legislation i believe will include existing loans.

 

"Second charge mortgages

 

Overall, most respondents were supportive of the changes proposed in relation to second charge lending. A number of specific concerns were raised, which the Government has sought to address in this document and in minor changes to the proposed legislation. As a result of the consultation the Government has also decided to include existing second charge loans in the transfer of responsibilities to the FSA.

 

Subject to these changes, the Government intends to proceed with legislation to implement the proposals. This will lead to the creation of a single regulator for all residential mortgage lending, ensuring there is more consistent regulation that will make it easier for consumers to understand the protections available and simplify compliance burdens for lenders.

 

The inclusion of existing loans will allow lenders to realise these benefits sooner, and ensure that existing as well as new borrowers benefit from the consistent approach.

 

The commencement date of legislation will be suitably aligned with changes to the FSA's

regulation of first charge mortgages that may follow from its Mortgage Market Review."

 

Perhaps someone has more info on this

 

Peter

[frettful38]

Would the fact that Blemain are named as charge holders on land registry be unlawful as the Cheshire Mortgage co

are the ultimate lender.

G

 

 

That's a good question G, something more to think about and I will do some of my own research tomorrow on this and if anyone else can shed some light that will be great too,

 

 

Thanks again Gallahad

[frettful38]

I know that cagger pinky69 has quite some knowledge about mortgages and loan brokers etc, but was wandering if anyone else knew this answer.

 

My Lender is an introducer and has a charge on my property, as Gallahad wrote above should the charge not be in the the company who the introducer are for?

[sophiesnow]

Has this site moved for swift advances... surely there not off the hook!!! where has all the swift caggers gone ???

[frettful38]

Maybe this is the clam before the storm?

[lesterlass]

Lets hope so Fretful!!!!!!!!

 

I cant ad smileys???

 

LL

[sophiesnow]

Hope the storm comes soon FF.... As am so sick n tired of Swift, :-xand am not alone !!!!!!!!

[patrickq1]

http://www.lexology.com/library/results.aspx?q=loan+was++secured+on+lenders+charge&j=United+Kingdom&w=&f=

have a look at the cases on the web address i have put concerning loans and charges frett see if they are usefull

patrickq1

[frettful38]

Thanks patricq1 will have a read now and let you know what I think!!!!!!

[determindator]

I'm starting my pro active attitude towards Swift now. It's fitting it all in between work but it will be worth it in the end. I asked why the interest rate has raised from original amount (without referring I think 9.9% originally, it's on my PPI thread, to now 13.28%!!) The letter read ' The real cost of funds to Swift are not determined by the Bank of England Base Rate, but by our own cost of borrowing. Swift's cost of borrowing depends on several factors including;

 

1. How much it costs to borrow money from other Banks; and

2. The cost of holding our own capital and liquidity (both of which have a heightened importance in the current market environment).

 

They go on to say because of the credit crunch, the cost of Swift holding it's own capital has risen by at least 50%.

 

The letter is obviously longer with the LIBOR excuse, I bore with that! Lol. I cannot wait to use their sillyness in a constructive way to show those that 'can' what the people of this country are dealing with and it has to stop. I will get back into my politics I think, be determined.

[pkelly]

For all Swifties to read and digest

Information Commissioners Office (ICO)

 

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) enforces the requirements of the Data Protection Act (1998). Given that all businesses in the secured loans sector will at some time hold information about individuals they must be registered as a Data Controller with the ICO. In summary, the Data Protection Act ensures that all data kept on an individual is accurate, fairly and lawfully processed, adequate relevant and not excessive, used for limited purposes, not sent overseas and is kept securely.

Remember the Kestrel Companies No 1 & No 3 state that their business activity is lending money to the domestic market secured on freehold and leasehold properties….but they are not registered with the ICO…….they also buy all the loans and agreements,…. including all the rights and benefits of the loan agreement…….

I have supplied the ICO with the documentary evidence that loan account payments are being processed by Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd along with names address and agreement numbers.

Despite what excuse they try to use………..they have to have a license,…… they have been unlawfully processing personal information since JUNE 2005. None of the Kestrel Companies have an ICO license OFT license or FSA license.

Also write and ask Swift Group Legal Services for their OFT licence and ask SWIFT ADVANCES for theirs, and Swift Group for theirs, I'll leave you all to figure it out what it all means under Section 39(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 read it that section it includes ALL consumer credit regulated or unregulated........get writing people find things out....it will be all your advantage

[pkelly]

This has been put together by a friend of mine:wink:This is their later agreements 2007 onwards I think

 

Swift Advances plc………Unregulated Credit Agreements.

It is fact that Unregulated Credit agreements are, exactly what they say they are, they are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) or the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 nor the amended Regulations 2004 (CCA Regs) which came into effect in May 2005. Except Section 140

This has been confirmed and argued in Courts by Swift Advances plc, by the Barristers they have engaged in such proceedings, it has been confirmed by Recorders and Judges that is a matter of fact. They do not apply to unregulated agreements

Therefore a different approach must be taken by Defendants when faced with Swift Advances plc enforcing these agreements in possession hearings.

We have to look at the construction of these agreements and not even think of the consumer statutes for reason they do not apply ( except the Unfair Terms in Consumer Credit Contracts and Consumer Protection Regulations), however for the purpose of these arguments these 2 statutes are not considered, arguments are concentrated around the following;

The first point that must remain foremost in the minds of the readers is that it is only in the CCA and CCA Regs that the phrase or words “Charges for Credit” are used.

We now look at the construction of Swift Advances plc unregulated credit agreement such as the one attached and referred to in these papers.

The First Box stating; Key Financial Information.

It is seen that it says

Amount of Credit; Principle Loan; Insurance loan ( if any) and Total

The other Information in this box is;

The Amount of monthly repayments; the Number of payments to be made and other explanatory Information.

It is to be noted that there is no interest rate shown in this box.

The Second Box below this, states:

Fees payable which say;

Brokers fee; Loan Administration Fee; Title Indemnity Fee; Rate of Interest; % p.a

It is here that the information clearly shows that the regulations are not considered in the construction of these agreements and they are not applied in the construction of said agreements, for reason these fees are not stated to be “charges for credit” because it is only the CCA statutes that state what is to be contained in Regulated Agreements.

Heavy emphasis is made of this “unregulation status” of their agreements by Swift Advances plc in the court proceedings referred to above and in correspondence from Swift Advances plc and the various other trading styles that they use.

These fees are not totalled up as would be required under a regulated agreement, they are not referred to as “charges for credit” as would be required under a regulated agreement, there is no mention of a Total Charge for Credit as would be required under a regulated agreement.

The borrower therefore is without doubt made to understand they are not charges for credit.

The agreement makes the borrower to believe this for reason above.

See Section 20 of the CCA Act 1974

We therefore have the fact in front of us that they are not considered or stated to be Charges for Credit, so what are they?

The answer to this question I submit is found just below the signature boxes on the front of the agreement which states;

You should note the following;

1. We agree to lend you the total amount of credit and the broker fee, loan administration fee and title indemnity fee (if any) shown above (the “Total Loan Amount”)

Besides there still being not being any reference or statement of “Charges for Credit” and /or “Total Charges for Credit” there is nowhere on the agreement that states Total Loan Amount or what this Total Loan Amount is.

We therefore have the questions;

Does it mean the Total shown in First Box? or does it mean the totals of the Second Box of the three sets of figures in that Box?

It would be straight forward if this was the case, but it cannot be because the total shown in the First Box is minus the three sets of figures in the second Box, and the fact that the argument has been out forward that the are not stated to be “Charges for Credit” and the reasons why they are not stated to be so.

We must go to the Note 1 quoted above;

“ We agree to lend you etc etc etc”

It is here that it is stated what the three sums of Fees are, they are stated to be loans Loans, the words “We agree to lend” is a complete statement of fact that a loan is being made, not a “Charge for Credit as it would be under the CCA Regulations for reason the regulations do not apply to unregulated agreements, a fact Swift Advances plc consistently rely on in their arguments.

Bluntly in the words of a prominent Senior High Court Judge in a recent Court proceedings he said “ A dog cannot have two tails”

[pkelly]

Above post 3rd to last paragraph should read

It would be straight forward if this was the case, but it cannot be because the total shown in the First Box is minus the three sets of figures in the second Box, and the fact that the argument has been put forward that the are not stated to be “Charges for Credit” and the reasons why they are not stated to be so.

[busterg]

I questioned the trading names and was told it was irrelevant. LOL Won't stop me asking questions - just makes me more determined.

 

Good post pkelly

[42man]

They like using that word 'irrelevant'....!! I wonder what they are likely to say to the FSA ?