Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


overdone
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4882 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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. :-x

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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 by shoops
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SC

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SC

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

 

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 by Killerschick
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Smarterchick
my spelling's attrocious!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by lesterlass
SPELLING !!
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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......:mad2:

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by shoops
Link to post
Share on other sites

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......

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:-)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4882 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...