Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[lesterlass]

Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc do not have their own in house solicitors capable of acting in legal proceedings and in any event they are now the so called in hose solicitors of SWIFT SECURITIES LTD.

 

THey have been added to the renewal application of the CCA licence of Swift Advances plc as trading style ...but they cannot use it until the full licence has been granted. It has also been confirmed by the OFT that they cannot be on two different companies licence.

LL

 

Hi SC

Yes it is like a debt collection letter, As above it is not legal they should not be sending them.

 

LL

[Smarterchick]

why are they not legal ?

[shoops]

I thought i would just scribble down a few of the things that i consider dodgy. As i have already outlined the house was repossessed in April this year.

 

The house was put up for sale for £275,000 which we believe was at least £20,000 below it's true value. That may be backed up by the fact it sold for £280,000. I've asked for all the dates in the SAR but we think it only took 8 weeks to sell. That's from the day it was put on the market to the day everything completed. Hardly enough time to gauge what interest there might be.

 

On the list of transactions there is a charge for the HIPs pack, that date is the same day HIPS were cancelled. I'll be interested to see a copy of the HIPs pack...if there is one.

 

There are 2 charges for "Repossessed property insurance" One is for £181 and the other for £297.....a total of almost £500 for 3 months insurance seems a bit steep.

 

We were charged £245 for "Solicitors to attend court hearing." I think this is for our appeal on the day of eviction. They didnt even attend, they just sent a fax opposing the cancellation of the eviction.

 

We had one occasion when a councillor came to see us. She was from Excel Councelling and a charge has been made for £110 in line with their standard charges. However, there is also a £360 charge for "Eastern Councelling" who we have never heard of.

 

When we appealed it was VERY last minute and my brother went and stayed at my house while i went to court. The bailiffs etc arrived to evict us at 11am but we were still in with the judge. My brother asked them to wait and they agreed. We lost the appeal and at 11.20am i told my brother to let them in. I have been told we were charged for that 20 minute delay. I'll be interested to find out how much.

 

They employed a company called Aventria to "Manage" the sale of the house. They charged £6,900 in total. I spoke to the estate agents who Aventria used to sell the house and they told me they couldn't tell me the exact figure but they would have charged 1% + VAT. Thats about £3,300 so what did Aventria do to earn the balance of £3,600. I phoned them and asked them. They wouldn't go into detail but said they would have maintained the property like mowing lawns. I know they didnt mow the lawns at all and when pushed she admitted they hadnt. I asked what else they might have done and she refused to say.

 

I have a written settlement figure of £263,000 which stood up until May 18th. It was issued on April 20th, 6 days before the eviction. The figure we had to pay in the end was £281,000. I may be missing something here but that says to me that the eviction, sale of house, and 2 months of monthly repayments (4k) cost us £18,000. Seems a bit steep.

 

Then there is the statements where a new line details £23 debit for example, but seems to add £170 to the debt. (I suspect this can be explained away, not even Swift would be that obvious)

 

And there are more irregularities as well.

 

Shoops

Edited November 2, 2010 by shoops

[shoops]

So it's like a debt collection letter really?

 

That sounds about right Smarterchick.

[lesterlass]

Hi SC

They are registered with the SRA as an organisation and employees of Swift Group legal Services, they can only represent themselves They are not registered as a Law firm.

 

LL.

[shoops]

Hi SC

Yes it is like a debt collection letter, As above it is not legal they should not be sending them.

 

LL

 

Hi LL

 

The letter was issued AFTER the court ordered the eviction so could it be called a debt collection letter after the order has been made or simply a confirmation from Swift that we will be evicted on the date ordered by the court.

 

Shoops

[Killerschick]

Hi SC

Yes it is like a debt collection letter, As above it is not legal they should not be sending them.

 

LL

 

Hi Lesterlass

 

I'm not intentionally playing devil's advocate here although it may be seen that way, but can you explain on what basis is this not legal?

 

If you are contending that Swift Group Legal Services was not a trading name on the licence of Swift Advances plc at the time Shoops was getting letters from them and therefore not legal as in breach of the Consumer Credit Act, it might be a bit of stretch to argue the relevance of that to a case involving a mortgage regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act with Swift 1st Limited.

 

I would also point out that while on the basis of your interpretation of the law you think Swift (whether Advances plc or 1st Limited) have done something that is not legal, there has not (as far as I am aware) been a successful criminal prosecution so the issue has not been tested in a court of law and is unproven.

 

As I say, I'm not deliberately trying to be contradictory, I'm just trying to draw attention to issues which I think could weaken your arguments before they are raised with Swift or in court and make sure you are prepared.

 

KC

Edited November 2, 2010 by Killerschick
Spelling

[Smarterchick]

It's all the contradictions and testing that gets to the truth my friend..

 

Actually Killerschick (another chick eh? LOL) Would you then apply the same criteria to a Regulated CCA Loan under Swift Advances plc then?

[Killerschick]

It's all the contradictions and testing that gets to the truth my friend..

 

Actually Killerschick (another chick eh? LOL) Would you then apply the same criteria to a Regulated CCA Loan under Swift Advances plc then?

 

Hi Smarterchick,

 

I would say it's more arguable on CCA regulated loans with Swift Advances plc but there is still a problem with not being able to point to a criminal prosecution case to say definitively that what they have done is not legal. Without the issue having been tested in a court of law you don't know whether Swift Advances might have had a valid defence of some description and without a proven case it's open to interpretation.

 

There's also the practical aspects of it, a judge in a civil case might consider what actual effect receiving correspondence headed Swift Group Legal Services has actually had on the recipient and whether they have really been prejudiced in any way. As the letter head included at the bottom a statement to say Swift Group Legal Services were linked to Swift Advances and Swift 1st and the appearance of the letters is the same as those from the Swift companies it might look like a bit of a technicality, not the kind of argument that judges are known for warming to.

[Smarterchick]

Well we'll have to wait and see won't we? I know if I was driving my car without a licence whether it had run out or just never applied for and the boys in blue caught me after I'd just run over someone then chances are I know where I'd end up...same with any license - why should any company be different, that's what makes me laugh about the OFT and their regime of not issuing licenses at the date the current one runs out...how can they just leave it open indefinately? Makes a mockery of the whole licensing regime. You either have a license or you don't. I'm sure those nice people working behind the scenes will get this sorted, after all - collecting debt without a license is a criminal offence is it not? Criminals go to the scrubs..!

Edited November 2, 2010 by Smarterchick
my spelling's attrocious!!

[Apollo18]

Well said SC.....I agree entirely

 

Apollo18

[lesterlass]

Hi Lesterlass

 

I'm not intentionally playing devil's advocate here although it may be seen that way, but can you explain on what basis is this not legal?

 

If you are contending that Swift Group Legal Services was not a trading name on the licence of Swift Advances plc at the time Shoops was getting letters from them and therefore not legal as in breach of the Consumer Credit Act, it might be a bit of stretch to argue the relevance of that to a case involving a mortgage regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act with Swift 1st Limited.

 

I would also point out that while on the basis of your interpretation of the law you think Swift (whether Advances plc or 1st Limited) have done something that is not legal, there has not (as far as I am aware) been a successful criminal prosecution so the issue has not been tested in a court of law and is unproven.

 

As I say, I'm not deliberately trying to be contradictory, I'm just trying to draw attention to issues which I think could weaken your arguments before they are raised with Swift or in court and make sure you are prepared.

 

KC

 

Hi KC I think SC answered the questions

 

It's all the contradictions and testing that gets to the truth my friend..

 

Actually Killerschick (another chick eh? LOL) Would you then apply the same criteria to a Regulated CCA Loan under Swift Advances plc then?

Well we'll have to wait and see won't we? I know if I was driving my car without a licence whether it had run out or just never applied for and the boys in blue caught me after I'd just run over someone then chances are I know where I'd end up...same with any license - why should any company be different, that's what makes me laugh about the OFT and their regime of not issuing licenses at the date the current one runs out...how can they just leave it open indefinately? Makes a mockery of the whole licensing regime. You either have a license or you don't. I'm sure those nice people working behind the scenes will get this sorted, after all - collecting debt without a license is a criminal offence is it not? Criminals go to the scrubs..!

 

Could not agree with you more SC.

 

If there were no need for them to be licensed they would not be trying to get them now. And if you challenge them they do not write back.

 

LL

Edited November 2, 2010 by lesterlass
SPELLING !!

[Dougal16T]

Evening all,

Sounds like a job for the Financial Crime Unit of the Police here Swift are based! My suggestion is that everyone who has had problems writes directly to that Financial Crime unit now.

 

The only way to effectively deal with this company is to do it en masse, so to speak. Come on people let's get writing, the earlier we do the quicker the result....?

 

Some of you will think this is too radical - I've sent my letter already......

 

Watch my posts for a ruling about another major bank (one of the high street players) in my case, which may overturn quite a few decisions. I regret that I am unable to provide details (even by PM) but all will be clear in the weeks to come.

 

In the meantime, mind how you go.

 

Best wishes to all, as always

 

Dougal

[lesterlass]

Hi Dougal

 

Totally agree with you...BUT everyone does not seem to get involved....I wish they would, more numbers more power..flogging a dead horse

 

PS hope you are well

 

LL

[Dougal16T]

Morning LL,

 

Yes I am well, and thanks for that..hopE you are too and that Dad is improving.

 

Now then turning to the issues of the day, WE NEED EVERYONE WHO HAS HAD A PROBLEM WITH SWIFT TO JOIN TOGETHER - IS A PETITION THE WAY FORWARD????

 

THEY WILL SLIP OUT OF THE NET IF WE DO NOT ACT NOW......

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[lesterlass]

Morning Dougal

 

Thanks dads not to bad at the moment.....Count me in on a petition, they have to be stopped!!!!

 

LL

[shoops]

Hi All

 

Just a quickie. Can a lender pay a broker for arranging a mortgage? I paid my broker Central Credit £2000 which was added to the debt, but i've just noticed a line in the agreement saying..."Swift 1st Ltd will pay £6,455.70 to Central Credit in cash and benefits if you take out this mortgage"

Edited November 3, 2010 by shoops

[Smarterchick]

Ouch! that's a lot of money, however, if you were not told about the payment it would have been deemed secret commission, but if it's in the agreement document were you aware of this before you struck the deal and would you have gone elsewhere if you'd have known.

 

As this is an FSA regulated mortgage I would suggest you had a quiet word with them.

 

As for Eastern Counselling charges I might suggest that you also have a word with Swift 1st and ask them under what authority they had to charge you these monies.

 

Eastern Counselling is a 'department' within Swift Advances Plc and is not licenced so cannot charge, this could, in my belief almost be consrued as potential fraud to be charging this along with those charges for the attendance of a solicitor in court when they didn't show up.

 

Shoop, you have some 'interesting' characteristics about your repossession that really needs a professional eye over it and I mean a 'serious' eye over it backed up by some of the revealing things being found on here in relation to the licencing issues attached to the solicitors which have been touched upon here (and even a lot of those can't be publicised, but I'd love to scream your way!) . You really need to 'keep it simple' because this is not technical wizzardry here, it is just basic, follow the steps, dates and actions all the way along the line from Swift and their set-up. Everything is in the public domain, they've just cocked up and are doing everything they can to cover their tracks left right and centre, but we have it all, it's just joining up the dots in a legal way that will provide you with the answers you need and once you understand the full picture it's a matter of finding out the remedies and executing them - it's not that difficult once you have the bit between your teeth and the paitience of a saint because Swift employees are so complacent and have been so for so so long that they actually believe their own lies (alleged lies!). That's where they are tripping up time and time again, covering their tracks and their lies - but they never believed for one second that 2 or more account holders would ever talk to one another and compare notes, court notes, file notes or dig as deep as some have into every aspect of their business lives.

 

It's a clumsey process when you are having to guess a lot of things and you don't have legal or business experience like they have, but that has just given rise for clear clarification in laymans words which has actually provided the ammunition and they provided some of it themselves by boasting about what they do.

 

Dig Shoop, get yourself a file and begin the process of working your way back through the whole process and keep everything you can, read everything you can and do what you have begun on here, follow it through and you might surprise yourself.

 

You already have a couple of things to question. The broker fee, Eastern Counselling, Swift Group Legal Services as a trading style of Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances plc...familiarise yourself with the OFT Public register CCA Search and read the details, the FSA too, DO NOT get the FSA and OFT Confused, OFT Deal with Consumer Credit Act Regulated Loans (under 25k second charge loans) - FSA deal with Mortgages, but there is a cross casting on some things with the OFT.

 

Follow them up and keep coming back here and the penny will drop, when it does I'll buy you a drink! tick tock swift, tick tock......

[Gallahad]

Yes they can especially when they declare it like that

G

[shoops]

There's a lot of food for thought there SC. Thanks very much for the advice and support, it really is appreciated. I've sent a follow up SAR letter because the detail, or lack of it, in their first try was a joke. I'll post on here if and when i get somewhere.

 

Shoops

[shoops]

Thanks Gallahad.

[lesterlass]

Hi everyone

 

Here is some information for you

 

 

Eastern Counselling are not a department with Swift Advances plc ......that was a trading style that they stopped using ( removed from their license in 2002 or thereabouts) it is a historic trading name, that they carried on using to charge £250 for each lillegal letter that was sent out under that name and that is out right fraud by deception.

 

LL:-)

[shoops]

Wow, that's useful info LL, thanks.

[frettful38]

Hi shoops, sorry can't offer any advice but can wish you well and good luck, and give my support.

 

Great advice from SM.

[lesterlass]

No problem Shoops like SJ said gather your information and get good legal advice

 

LL