Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
    • what device are you using? copy all the questions then come here to this thread and paste them. then answer each question click on red give answers here. when done  hit submit reply bottom right.  
    • No because it's locked. You need to copy the relevant part of the questionnaire and paste it into this thread. That way you can overwrite. HB
    • Hi  I'm not able to overwrite the red writing to give answers on the questionnaire.
  • 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
      • 161 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 4935 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

Did the people who got £13k get it from Swift or the original broker? I'm helping mates with FOS complaints x 3 having had final responses from London Scottish (Easyloans) Brokers, Swift - Lender & Sterling (Insurance) co.

Please put me on the list for any SWIFT sub forums.

Cheers.

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

Is there ever any point going to the FLA - this industry self-regulating? I don't think so. Also it restricts your time (6 months from company's final response) allowed for going to FSO. Hopefully in the future fsa and FOS will no longer be "light touch" overseers. Swift certainly try and encourage everyone to go to FLA and not FOS. I wonder why?

Onwards and upwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thanks for clarifying that Sparkie. FOS were interested when I spoke to them and sent 3 forms to me - probably primarily because of PPI mis-selling. The broker was fsa/fos covered so the PPI mis-selling will go to FOS. But of course the money is still being taken by Swift for the loan for the PPI (SWIFT PPI cover) plus interest plus all the other extortionate charges. The broker is now in administration (suprise suprise) so likely to be forwarded to finance compensation body. Is it worth me copying the 3 FOS complaint forms (broker/lender & insurance company) which cover PPI, charges, unfair agreement etc etc to FSA & OFT for info - although they always say they can't intervene in individual cases - I will spell it out that it is for their information only.

 

Might be able to get legal aid because of financial hardship if go to court. There seems to be a big gap in protection for vulnerable people who need second charge loans which are not regulated. Maybe we should get John Prescott on our side?

Keep up the good work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Sparkie, We've brought up interest rates with Swift and it's all in our complaints docs which I'm going to email to OFT today. They go on about cost of their borrowing being high and not related to Bank of England rates OR Libor. They're part of Alchemy and we all know how well they're doing in these times of economic downturn. I don't understand why they can't fund for less with such "good" backing. They have not answered requests for info about their funders - their website quoted them as being "Major UK Banks". Alchemy refers to Swift loans as being funded "on balance sheet". . . does that mean they don't have to borrow?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I hope I haven't got you excited for nothing: I've attached the letter. What they say is we're "broadly based on 3-month LIBOR".. It's like think of the number you first thought of and now multiply it by several %. Then add "the cost of Swift holding its own capital" . What does that mean?

Scan10103.jpg

Scan10102.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Well done Sparkie, brilliant. I have FOS complaints being considered against Swift & Sterling Insurance on behalf of my sister. My complaint against brokers who sold the loan (Easyloans / London Scottish - in administration) has been forwarded to FSCS by the Ombudsman. Our complaint covers everything from PPI (mis-selling & refusal to cancel on request, to extortionate charges & interest, lack of statements, speed of repossession order (currently under SPO), premium phone lines, mis-selling process of brokers, confusing layout of loan agreement financial information, profiteering from vulnerable people in financial distress etc etc. I have copied the complaint to FSA and OFT - not asking for personal intervention but for info only.

The "Loan Admin Fee", broker's fee (in dispute), and PPI (in dispute) were all "deducted" from the total "loan" but this was not the amount applied for which was originally £20k totalling over £24k with PPi under Key Financial Information then separately under "Other Financial Information" on the agreement is £31k as Total charge for credit, including interest, Broker fee & Loan Admin fee. This is of course rising all the time . . . I'm away this week so can't PM you the agreement but will next week if you want. It does have the 2 things you mentioned earlier in the thread covered though re secured on property and repossession warning. Issued in 2007.

Thank you for all your hard work -you're amazing. Happy to include our details with your complaint if you need them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

In today's Guardian Richard Alderman new Serious Fraud Office Chief is quoted as saying he insisted there was no complex fraud he would shy away from, and that the SFO was already very focused – in combination with the Financial Services Authority and the Serious and Organised Crime Agency – on the lightly regulated hedge fund industry. Hopefully this will extend to companies like Swift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone received a proper statement from Swift yet detailing all charges, interest and payments in one document? They have said we'll get one on the anniversary of the start of the loan. They are now obliged to send them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (which was fully implemented on 1 October 2008) updates and amends CCA 1974: "Lenders have to provide regular statements during the lifetime of the debt - this includes a breakdown of the balance, clearly stating interest payments and any default charges."

So since October last year Swift customers should have been getting full statements of account. When I queried it they said they haven't been previously obliged (presumably referring to pre-October 2008) but they will send one on the anniversary of the loan. If you haven't had one and your "anniversary" has passed since October, demand one now quoting the Act.

When we first requested one we were sent a list of payments and the second time a redemption statement - their staff have no idea. Anyone with a running account with Swift needs to know exactly what the alleged debt is. This is why the redemption statements come as such a shock to people - we have no idea how our "loan" is being cranked up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I don't see the point of going to the FLA - they're a self regulating industry body who have the lenders' interests and not the consumers' interests at heart. To quote their website: "FLA is the voice of the specialised finance and lending industry". Go to the FOS or the FSA or the OFT but not the FLA. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

mmm the problems is none of these documents actually tell you what your debt is. There is no "outstanding balance" figure. I just know it's going to come as a terrible shock because the phenomenal interest they charge is not shown! By law (since the end of 2008) everyone should get a periodic statement - Swift say they will be sending them out on the loan anniversary but ours has passed and we ain't got one yet. Keep hassling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4935 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...