Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[lesterlass]

Hi cool chris I have been watching as having problems with swift also if anyone wants to pm I will send you the proof. So much information on here.......... Dont know were to start!!!!!!!!!!!

[lesterlass]

Hi SJ I have sent of to FSA and had a reply back from Swift regarding there charges - they have given me some charges back in october but Novembers statement states the charges went back on in April? yet I have in writing they were looking into that was in October - am now going to compain to OFT.

 

LL

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie,

 

I complained about ALL charges and they agreed to pay back a default charge £250.00 from SEPT 2007 and warrent for eviction was cancelled and they agreed to a refund of £295.00 from JAN 08.

 

Strange thing though this was SEPT 09. list of transactions printed SEPT 09 (NO REFUNDS APPLIED).

 

I complained to them again trying to ask about interest got nowere, I got a letter back 30 NOV 09 from Tony Strickley " appologies for the delay as requested please find enclosed a copy of the transaction history" ECT ECT. (busy dealing with NI and sparkie)

 

NOW refunds have been applied from APRIL 09?

 

I looked at both "list of transactions" and if you look in the top left hand corner the have been printed from different databases 01 September 09 AFX@emperor/16 : 07 30 November TSS@emperor / 18.05

 

If you need any of these documents pm and I will send if they will help in any way sparkie

LL

[lesterlass]

Have sent emails for you

 

LL

[lesterlass]

Hi has anyone read this..... Sparkie could tjis be of any help to the NI boy's?

 

 

FSA fines Northern Ireland mortgage firm for failing to prevent fraud and bans one of its partners

 

 

 

 

FSA/PN/003/2010

7 January 2010

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined County Down mortgage intermediary Case Funding Centre (CFC) £35,000 for failures which led to at least 16 fraudulent mortgage applications being submitted to lenders.

James Ian Shanks, a former partner and mortgage adviser at CFC, has been banned for recklessly submitting false information to lenders.

During its investigation the FSA found that CFC did not have adequate systems and controls in place to counter the risk of customers and staff submitting mortgage applications based on false income and employment information. Furthermore, advisers did little more than superficial ‘sense checks’ on mortgage applicants’ income and employment details.

These failings, combined with CFC’s historically weak recruitment process, led the FSA to conclude that the firm had exposed itself to the risk of being used to facilitate financial crime.

In addition, Shanks was shown to have submitted mortgage applications from CFC’s advisers containing income information that he failed to verify against the firm’s records, despite being aware that such a check was possible.

Margaret Cole, director of the FSA’s enforcement and financial crime division, said:

"We expect all authorised firms, including lenders, to take the necessary steps to stop their businesses from being used to commit crime. We also expect high standards from individuals who are approved by the FSA to perform significant influence functions.

"Both Case Funding Centre and Shanks fell short of the standards we expect and they are being punished for their failings. We will continue to take action against any firm or individual who present a risk to our objectives of reducing financial crime and maintaining market confidence."

CFC and Shanks co-operated fully with the FSA during the investigation and agreed to settle at an early stage. Therefore a 30% discount has been applied to the proposed penalty of £50,000 for the firm.

Shanks was approved to perform 'significant influence' functions at CFC.

Notes for editors

 

1. The Final Notices for Case Funding Centre and James Ian Shanks.
   
2. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime.
   

copied of FSA web site

 

LL:)

[lesterlass]

Daily Express Monday25/01/2010 HOME OWNERS WIN MORTGAGE REFUND

Near the bottom of the article

 

The FSA is set to release a report later this week and five more mortgage lenders are in line for fines.

Cerris Tavinor, an FSA spokeswoman, said: “We completed our investigation into Gmac and published the results of that case.

“We have made the point publicly that we have referred other lenders to enforcement, so other work is carrying on.”

 

HAVE SWIFT FINALLY BEEN CAUGHT? :D

 

 

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Home owners win mortgage refund

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie how are you?

My loan/mortgage is a second charge not my main mortgage, that is with Kensingon (stuffed all round).

 

Been looking around the mortgages forum - have you seen this....

 

Petition for subprime charges

here is the link to the thread and the link to the petition.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/253119-petition-subprime-charges.html

 

Petition to: To stop subprime lenders charging fees whilst borrowers are in arrears. | Number10.gov.uk

 

LL

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie have PM'd you.

 

LL:)

[lesterlass]

Morning all,

Am I missing something - SWIFT DO NOT own the loan's/mortgages, Kestral do - so how can SWIFT ask anyone for any money? If a company sells to another company any monies is owed to the new company?? surley that is illegal to collect money that does not belong to you?

 

Or am I just being dizzy

[lesterlass]

Sparkie take a look at this thread - wonder if anything can be done?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/49855-gooner73-swift-advances-3.html

 

LL

[lesterlass]

Has anyone seen this? Seems SWIFT are protecting themselves, customers and staff?

 

CIFA S the uk's fraud prevention service

 

List of CIFAS Members - CIFAS Online

 

A few snipet's from the web site

 

Protective Registration

 

 

THE PROTECTIVE REGISTRATION SERVICE

 

Protective Registration is a service offered by CIFAS that helps to protect those whose identity is at risk due to crime or loss of data.

A CIFAS warning flag marked Protective Registration is placed against your name and personal details which indicates the individual has been recorded on the CIFAS database for their protection. CIFAS Members when undertaking a search against your name and personal details will see "CIFAS-DO NOT REJECT-VALIDATION REQUIRED".

As a result of the entry, CIFAS Members will undertake additional verification checks to ascertain that the applicant is genuine and not a fraudster trying to commit identity theft. This may mean you personally experience delays while your application is verified, but offers reassurance that your identity is protected against fraudulent applications in your name.

There are two types of Protective Registration that are available: for individuals who have been the victims of fraud or crime and for organisations who wish to protect their customers and employees from any suspected data loss.

Further information about Protective Registration can be found here .

To find out more about Protective Registration for individuals please click here.

To find out more about Protective Registration for organisations please click here.

 

For Organisations

 

 

Protective Registration For Organisations (Data Security Breaches)

If you are interested in protecting the identity of your company, please refer to the information for individuals and complete the application form, using the details of your company.

CIFAS offers a service to help organisations to protect consumers and employees from identity fraud where there has been a data security breach. For example: when a laptop bearing customer details is stolen, or payroll or other information is intercepted, a straightforward solution is available from CIFAS.

The service is known as the Bulk Protective Registration Service. It enables organisations to co-ordinate and submit to the CIFAS database the details of all those individuals who require protection as a batch. Before doing so, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, the organisation must inform its customers or employees of the data breach and that their personal data is being processed by CIFAS to complete the Protective Registration.

The service allows those who are at risk of identity theft to have a special CIFAS warning 'flag' placed on their credit reference agency file. Then when, for example, an application for credit or insurance is received by a CIFAS Member (such as a bank, building society or insurance company), the Member is alerted by the warning 'flag' to undertake additional verification checks to ascertain that the applicant is genuine, and not a fraudster trying to commit identity theft. This information is held in the strictest confidence. The information is not used for any other purpose.

 

Conditions

Certain conditions must be fulfilled before CIFAS can accept and process any data, and companies or organisations must agree in writing to the following procedures.

 

1. It is the responsibility of the company or organisation to explain the CIFAS Protective Registration Service to the individuals and set out the advantages and disadvantages of registration. The company or organisation also has to inform the individual that CIFAS is dealing with their personal data for crime prevention and/or detection purposes, and that the registration is taking place.
    
   
2. The organisation submitting the request must notify the individuals of the breach of data security and that their personal data is being processed by CIFAS as part of the Protective Registration, to meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act.This notification is known as the Fair Processing Notice (FPN).
   

Organisations interested in this Bulk Protective Registration Service should contact [email protected]

Individuals seeking CIFAS Protective Registration should read the Protective Registration for Individuals page by clicking here

 

What is Staff Fraud?

 

Staff fraud occurs when a member of staff dishonestly makes false representation, or wrongfully fails to disclose information, or abuses a position of trust for personal gain, or causes loss to others.

Fraudulent activity perpetrated by members of staff can range from compromising customer or payroll data to straightforward theft or the submission of inflated expenses. Staff fraud can be opportunistic i.e. it can be a completely unplanned attack purely for personal financial gain. However, staff fraud can also be linked to a serious and organised criminal network or terrorist financing.

“The lack of employee recruitment checks and controls in some organisations lies at the heart of the employee fraud problem. They are the first line of defence in stopping the criminals placing individuals inside your organisation.” CIFAS research, Employee Fraud: The enemy within

Click here to learn more about the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database.

To download a free copy of Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development & CIFAS guide to Tackling Staff Fraud and Dishonesty: Managing and Mitigating the Risks – Guidelines for Employers, HR and Line Managers, please click here

 

CIFAS Staff Fraud Database

 

 

 

Increasing Incidences of Staff Fraud

The majority of staff in any organisation are honest and trustworthy. However, there is an increasing threat posed by the small proportion of staff who act dishonestly and defraud their employer. This could lead to an organisation experiencing a substantial internal impact, significant financial losses and an unquantifiable damage to reputation.

 

Problem: Movement of Fraudsters

Moreover, it is well known that staff dismissed for (or who resigned before being identified as involved in) a fraudulent activity move freely from one employer to another, possibly perpetrating further frauds. Deterioration in the value of references and generally inadequate levels of vetting has exacerbated this problem.

 

Solution: CIFAS Staff Fraud Database

CIFAS is able to help the responsible employer to address this problem and minimise the risk of taking on a fraudster as an employee. This is achieved by a data sharing scheme called the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database. An employer accesses this database for the purposes of:

• Filing data about their staff fraud cases
  
• Accessing staff fraud records filed by other CIFAS Members
  

The burden of proof required to file on to the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database is that the:

• Information must be factual and accurate.
  
• The CIFAS Member must have sufficient clear evidence of wrongdoing to have reasonable grounds to press criminal charges if a suspect was traced.
  
• The CIFAS Member must be willing to make a full report to the police.
  
• The criminal offence must be identifiable.
  

Validation

The Information Commissioner's Office was consulted during the development of the database.

The CIFAS membership, Financial Services Authority, Confederation of British Industry, Trades Union Congress and the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development have all welcomed the establishment of the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database.

The Financial Service Authority published a report on Data Security in the Financial Services: Firms’ controls to prevent data loss by their employees and third party suppliers. This report, which was welcomed by the Information Commissioner, highlighted the use of the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database as good practice. To download a free copy of this report, please click here

The National Fraud Authority’s National Fraud Strategy has stated that “sharing data within a framework that safeguards people’s privacy is critical to identifying and preventing fraud” and described the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database as a success in this area. To download a copy of the National Fraud Strategy, please click here

 

LL

[lesterlass]

Great news Sparkie........ THERE ON THERE WAY DOWN!!!!!!

 

LL:D:D

[lesterlass]

Hi is this what you are looking for dougal?

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

 

The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:

1. 
   
   (1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;
   
   
   (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;
   
   
   (3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;
   
   
   (4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms;
   
   
   (5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A;
   
   
   (6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case;
   
   
   (7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained;
   
   
   (8) The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in
   Adris
   should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in
   Yunis
   should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.
   
   

   
   

For info

 

173 ~~~~ The parties in Carey have helpfully agreed the following principles. The fourth one was added by Mr Uff, with their agreement. No other party takes issue with them. The OFT has formulated the matter in a slightly different way but accepts these principles are close to its position.

1. 
   
   (1) It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature;
   
   
   (2) A document need not be a single piece of paper;
   
   
   (3) Whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form. In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document;
   
   
   (4) Additionally, a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document;
   
   
   (5) Accordingly, where the debtor's signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form.
   
   
    
   
   
    
   
   
   174 ~~As a matter of law, those principles appear to me to be correct, in the context of s61.
   
   

   
   

177

 

1. According to HSBC, p197 is a reconstituted application form. I referred to it above in the context of Issues 1 and 2. The assumed facts here are as follows:
   
   (1) Ms Carey signed a form which contained, among other things, the entries at p197 including the specific reference to being bound by "the terms and conditions attached"; that form did not itself have the Prescribed Terms stated on the front or the reverse;
   
   
   (2) The form (referred to as "a signature page" in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey's details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;
   
   
   (3) At the same time as the form was produced electronically, the relevant terms and conditions (including the Prescribed Terms and information) would have been printed off and physically attached to the form by a staple;
   
   
   (4) Ms Carey would then have been invited to read the agreement, consisting of the signature page and attached terms and would then have signed and dated the signature page. It would then have been countersigned by the bank;
   
   
   (5) The relevant terms and conditions would not have been precisely in the form of pages 198-201 simply because that is a s63 copy with the different cancellation clause. But they would have been the full terms with the Prescribed Terms included either in landscape form (as shown at ppl98-201) or portrait form.
   
   

   
   

178~~~Ms Tolaney contends that on those assumed facts, the document signed by the debtor did indeed "contain" the Prescribed Terms. I agree for the following reasons:

1. 
   
   (1) As described, it is hard to see the form and attached terms as anything other than one document. It is not suggested that there were separate page numbers on the terms attached but if there were, on these assumed facts, it would make no difference;
   
   
   (2) The signature page itself makes clear that it is incomplete as a document and needs something else because it has no terms on it at all and makes specific reference to the terms "attached"; it only makes sense if something else goes with it; equally pp 198-201 need something to go with them, not least a place for the applicant's details and signature;
   
   
   (3) The signature page refers to a credit agreement regulated by the Act and so makes clear that it is the first page of an agreement for which there must be other pages;
   
   
   (4) The signature page and terms are presented to the debtor as a package;
   
   
   (5) This would satisfy the notion that the Prescribed Terms can be identified within the "four corners of the agreement" - see
   Hurstanger v Wilson
   [2007] 1 WLR 2351
   per Tuckey LJ at para. 11.
   
   

   
   

LL

 

PS. Also found this the whole judgement

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment-carey-v-hsbc.pdf

Edited May 2, 2010 by lesterlass
Adding more info

[lesterlass]

Glad to be of help Dougal......... NO WONDER I COULD NOT FIND ANY REFERENCE :D

LL

[lesterlass]

Swift changing management again!!

 

 

Ex-GE Money Home Lending COO Andy Punch, is set to take up the same role with Swift Advances, the secured loan specialist owned by Alchemy Partners.

Punch was previously the Chief Executive of debt recovery firm, Westcot Credit Services but has been working with Swift for sometime as Westcot are also owned by Alchemy. Full story here.

 

News

 

Wescot appoints chief executive - 08/04/2010

 

Debt recovery firm Wescot Credit Services has made changes to its senior management team, appointing chief operating officer Paul Jenkins as chief executive.

 

Jenkins has been leading the management team since November last year while Andy Punch, who was chief executive up until 1 April, has been assisting secured loans specialist Swift Advances. Swift is also owned by Wescot’s parent company Alchemy Partners.

 

Punch will take up a permanent position at Swift as chief operating officer but will retain a non executive director role at Wescot.

 

Jenkins said: "Alchemy asked Andy to provide assistance to Swift as he has a lot of knowledge and expertise in the secured lending space.

 

"We were in a comfortable position for Andy to do that. The change programme within the firm was well underway and going in the right direction, and with the robust management structure here at Wescot, we were able to oversee a seamless transition. There was no loss of momentum."

 

Jenkins, who was appointed chief executive on 1 April, added: "Since the acquisition by Alchemy we have invested heavily in bringing in professional and experienced external management."

 

He explained that Wescot has invested about £3m in capital during the past 18 months in five main areas of the business.

 

These included the firm’s core telephony platform, bespoke data warehousing, developing bespoke strategies down to individual debtor level for clients and improving and extending payment mechanisms for debtors. A key priority for the company this summer will be product development.

 

GE Money Home Lending is to lose its chief operating officer Andy Punch at the end of July.

Advertising

 

In a memo leaked to Money Management, Colin Shave, chief executive of the business, said that Punch had decided to leave the company to pursue other opportunities and confirmed that the business had not yet identified a successor to Punch.

Shave added: "His personal contribution to the business and depth of knowledge in the mortgage industry has helped us to stay abreast of market changes and build a strong operations team, which is well equipped for today's challenging environment."

Punch joined the business in the iGroup division in 2003 and was promoted to the position of chief operating officer following the departure of Peter Brennan, who left to join arch rival Money Partners.

Punch’s role included responsibility for all broker facing underwriting teams and related functions, customers services, arrears management and litigation including repossession actions.

In the internal memo, Shave asked staff to join the senior management team in thanking Punch for his "outstanding" contribution to the business over the last few years.

This latest news comes just days after GE Money confirmed a staff restructuring programme in its business to consumer division.

Edited May 6, 2010 by lesterlass
SPELLING!!!!!!

[lesterlass]

Hi EM you are in the wrong forum try here you will get alot of help

 

Bailiffs and Sheriff Officers - The Consumer Forums

 

LL

[lesterlass]

Best wishes sparkie

LL

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie, hope you are well.......... Thought this may be of interest to you.

 

Mis-Sold Mortgage

 

UK banks including RBS, HSBC and Barclays are being accused by an investment firm based in the US of mis-selling mortgage backed securities to the tune of £1.6 million ($2.4 billion). The US branches of the British banks are being sued by a fund based in Boston, Cambridge Place Investment Partners. The lawsuit was filed Friday 16th July.

Asides from the three British banks it also has its sights on Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. This may well be seen as a test case for other funds seeking to make good losses during the recession.

The lawsuit which was filed in Boston states that HSBC, RBS and Barclays sold mortgage-backed securities on the strength of “untrue statements”. Cambridge Place also puts forward that the value or worth of the loans themselves were misrepresented (by sub prime lenders) and blames the “mortgage originators”. It says that the ’sales pitch’ employed by the banks lacked the attention of proper due diligence prior to being packaged.

Cambridge Place also made it clear that the mortgage lenders often had the company of these banks on site and vast sums of credit were made available by the banks. The suit alleges that jointly the lenders and banks were complicit and party to an environment of improper lending practices.

Cambridge Place also put forward that Wall street profited from mortgage originators disregard for sound lending practices and the erosion of lending standards. Barclays was accused of mis-selling $141 million of the mortgage backed securities from 2005 to 2007. These loans had a poor record with 46% now in delinquency. The investor was assured that the banks were hands on with the underwriting process and the quality control.

The Greenwich Capital arm of RBS has been targeted and accused of $260 million worth of mis-selling, again from 2005 to 2007, 35% now in delinquency. HSBC (between 2005 and 2006) of mis-selling $64 million and with a delinquency of 40%.

If the law suit is succesful the plaintiffs will be reimbursed and the securities will be returned to the banks.

 

LL:)

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie nice to have you back!!!!!!!

 

If you get a mo ( I KNOW YOU ARE BUSY BUSY) could you take a look at my thread see if we can throw more at the sharks

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/swift-advances/266867-swift-possession-order-post.html

 

LL:D

[lesterlass]

Hi Sparkie,

 

There have been alot of guests viewing yesterday and today.........

 

A little birdie`s feathers are ruffled or flapping!!!!!!

 

LL:D

[lesterlass]

Not anymore Fretful

 

 

Company Name:

ASSURED MONEY LIMITED

 

Company No: 05091727

Registered Office:

Incorporated: 02/04/2004

SOUTH LODGE NEW ROAD

LAMBOURNE END

ABRIDGE

ESSEX

RM4 1AJ

Company Type: Private Limited Company

 

Company Status: Dissolved

 

Accounts Type: TOTAL EXEMPTION FULL

 

Latest Accounts to: 30/06/2007

 

Latest Return to: 02/04/2009

 

 

Summary company details for ASSURED ADVANCES LIMITED

 

Registered no:03197412Registered office:South Lodge

New Road Lambourne End

Abridge

Essex RM4 1AJ

Incorporated:13 May 1996Status: LIVEPrevious names:01/05/2009ASSURED ADVANCES LIMITED/ASSURED ADVANCES LIMITED01/05/2009ASSURED MONEY LTD./ASSURED ADVANCES LIMITED08/11/2007BLUETULIP SOLUTIONS LTD/ASSURED MONEY LTD.24/01/2007BISHOPS HALL LIMITED/BLUETULIP SOLUTIONS LTD29/04/2005MALVERN HOMELOANS LTD/BISHOPS HALL LIMITED18/06/1996SPENDINE LIMITED/MALVERN HOMELOANS LTD

Edited July 22, 2010 by lesterlass
added more info

[lesterlass]

Go get em Sparkie!!!!!!!!!

 

LL:D

[lesterlass]

Well said Landy

 

Strange how TIE has only ever posted on one thread THIS ONE

 

Why do SWIFT fascinate him/ her ?????????

 

LL X

[lesterlass]

Interesting

 

FSA bans and fines former Northern Rock finance director £320,000 for misreporting mortgage arrears figures

 

FSA bans and fines former Northern Rock finance director £320,000 for misreporting mortgage arrears figures

 

LL

[lesterlass]

Sparkie

 

I have just PM'D you some info that may be useful?

 

LL:D