Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[andrew1]

Unregulated Agreements - Pre 2006 - thanks SParkie (below) do not get the protection of the Act unless they can be proved to be multiple agreements by the nature of the individual amounts within the agreement. £25k was the barrier, but you could have a £40k loan and prove it irredeemably unenforceable and get the interest back if more than 2 categories of credit are identified within the loan. Ie: Restricted use credit - amounts paid out by Swift for previous secured loans they insist are cleared, unrestricted use credit -cash balance, exempt - previous arrears to mtg as it's for the payment of land, it's all in the CCA..and you can claim the interest back on irredeemably unenforceable loans under s.106(d)CCA - however you need a damned good lawyer to do any claiming for you because it is a legal minefield and dependent often upon Judges who know sweet FA about the CCA. Costs are horrendous if you get it wrong. You could also lose your house as a result so be very careful challenging this.

 

 

Sarah

Edited October 6, 2008 by andrew1

[andrew1]

It might also suggest that Swift realise that they have one hell of a lot of unenforceable agreements out there amongst their 20,000 customers which they will never be able to collect if the momentum building up on these sites continues apace, and there are one hell of a lot of agreements like that believe me. Check them, you won't know until you check, they look authentic enough...BUT

 

Danger comes when you move lenders and consolidate your loans because once the loan has closed, their money is safe, paid off by GE or whoever else lends you the money to pay them off - SO CHECK YOUR AGREEMENTS very closely and thoroughly with a consumer credit solicitor or on here by someone who knows like Sparkie & Co.

 

Me thinks brown spots beginning to show down under

 

 

Sarah

[andrew1]

Firstly overdone, you have stated in your letter that the charges are ' illegal ' - not so, as emmaf01 states, they are 'unlawful' subtle difference, but a difference non the less. Secondly, the OFT do not set the laws of this country, their guidelines are just that ' guidelines ' which one expects businesses to adhere to I admit. Thirdly, the OFT also do not intervene with charges it is the Financial Ombudsman in Canary Wharf (FOS), Lastly, Swift are not noted for responding to anything except in court when one poster had 6 of them turn up to convince the judge their charges were reasonable, another had an extremely expensive Consumer Credit Barrister turn up to defend Swift, so they answer little or nothing, take you to court and throw everything they've got at defending, so be careful. They won't roll over like the banks or some DCA's, you have to get them with critical FACT and that comes in the detail of their agreement documents, which as I have said before one needs to look at very closely and get checked by someone who knows what they are doing. Most are wrong as you have stated, but get it right, don't stab at it like using words such as 'illegal' they'll pounce on one tiny slip up.

 

Sarah

[andrew1]

You can just take them to court- a loan account case would not be stayed in the same way as a bank account claim, I think.

 

What case or laws would you use as your basis for Claim emmaf01 ?

 

 

Overdone, my apologies for sounding a bit hard, when I read it I thought "oooh! that was tough" Didn't mean to be. If you have an agreement though get it checked none the less because an awful lot of their agreements are or could be deemed unenforceable, but just the charges? You could do worse than a hardship case or FOS although the FOS backlog is growing I believe. Possibly 6 month wait.

 

Sarah

[andrew1]

I would have thought if they were charging £23 for each phone call or letter that would be disproportionate to the costs incurred by these actions. I would be heading towards a standard UTCCR 1999 action, but then I look at every charge now and query it.

 

But I see the charges as an action after any issues about the validity the agreement are sorted, if you see what I mean.

 

Trouble is emmaf01, Swift brought six people into court to justify their charges and got away with it, showing the judge they were a smaller company and had higher unit costs and so on, I'll try and find the thread it was shown on, they really laid it on thick by all accounts and that's what you are up against with companies like Swift who are as sharp as razors when it comes to defending despite the apparent rip off we feel they are getting away with, the fact that these are clearly automatic penalties you may well have a fight on your hands which may prove expensive to go through, not that I wish to try to put people off from claiming ( I'd be chucked off the site if I did )

 

 

Sarah

[andrew1]

You'll have to try and be a bit more precise than that for a judge though Sparkie, but I agree with you.

[andrew1]

Hi Andrew,

I'm not in direct conflict with Swift myself...I only put that forward for others to consider building their argument on for claiming charges back, by the way have you scanned your agreement???

 

sparkie

 

I'm not either Sparkie, just doing what you are in questioning all this, I'll get the other persons agreement sent over once their scanner is fixed.

 

Thanks.

 

Sarah

[andrew1]

Sparkie, that's good news, OFT will not take up individual complaints and deal with them, so for the benefit of the masses, what are they to complain about and how does that help their personal causes? I know several people have different kinds of issues with Swift, charges for one being too high, Unenforceable agreements (If people only knew what to look for) and various other things, but complaining to the OFT benefit everyone do you think?

[andrew1]

You just beat me to that 42 Man... over £25k if the individual parts are under £25k then the multiple agreement scenario kicks in.

 

Are you saying Josie that if the agreement is a multiple agreement then it is now for the judge to decide the enforceability of it rather than just the fact that it is?

 

That might mean a LIP would have considerable difficulty if up against a barrister then if the LIP is reliant just on the merits of the Act's sections?

[andrew1]

HI mate

 

What I have pointed out to them is that the terms and conditions do not allow Swift to unilaterally alter the agreement and by attempting to remove the fees etc from the agreement they will void it the brokers fees etc are part of the agreement.:D

They are trying to alter it outside the terms and conditions, a complete and utter breach of it.

 

sparkie

 

IS it likely the judge will accept that as an argument and do something about it?

[andrew1]

Yes, I thought if anyone with any contract, breaches part of it then the whole agreement becomes void.

 

..but isn't it a breach to stop paying the monthly payments? that doesn't render the contract or agreement void does it? - what is the difference here?

[andrew1]

So at what point is the contract terminated ?

[andrew1]

Between 15,000 and 25,000 live clients. Mark White told me it was 15,000 about 2 -3 years ago. Take all the repossessions since and the live clients they've killed off through sheer fear and fright (allegedly), brings that down to about 1500 !! and he said they were a small company, my heart bleeds that they can't get more clients...

[andrew1]

I acted for a guy as a McKenzie friend once in Liverpool high court where he (I) had issued a 21 day winding up petition on a plc for a debt they owed ( that was fun ) He ran a company that I was acting as a consultant for and he knew nothing of these procedures what so ever. I wrote to the court asking to be a McKenzie friend and the Judge agreed. When we got there the plc had a barrister, my guy was totally lost and kept looking to me for every answer fired at him. I asked the judge if it would not be easier if I did the talking to save the court time and he asked the barrister if that was okay with him. He agreed. So it can be done.

[andrew1]

Hi everyone

Bad news and more bad news I was given the worst shock of my life, Every bit of the case lost I'll post the resons given but you will not believe it I can tell you..................they are devastated.......the judge even refused permission to appeal..................I have never seen such a change in a judges attitude I feel like I am to blame for it all..........although an application for permission to appeacan be made going to have to give a lot of thought to that....all I can say you can imagine feelings at the moment .....going to have a long chat..........to see where to go from here........absolutely sickening I'll post a lot more tomorrow....I'm off for a pint .

The judge would 't even accept that although some £15,000 has been paid off, and all payments up to date in Oct last year their credit file showed that ONLY £850 had been paid off the loan and the balance owing was incorrectly stated, judge said insufficient evidence to that fact had been provided ...... claim out of the window. Sickening what else do you have to prove????

 

sparkie

 

 

Geez Sparkie, that's a really blinding result. I am so sorry, what the hell happened after all your hard work?

 

Let you sleep on it, but I am so sorry for you. Swift will be enjoying this I bet..

 

Sarah

[andrew1]

HI SC

 

Many thanks for pointing that out...being male and also being early in the morining....I'm finding it hard!?

 

That smarterchick has some things to answer for !

[andrew1]

Good evening,

I agree it is time the working man fought back and reclaimed what is rightfully his that has been unlawfully taken from him!!

 

Great idea, web conferencing - must get out my Kodak Brownie.....

 

All the best to everyone as always

 

Dougal

 

Blimey Dougal - kodak Brownie - that brings back memories!

[andrew1]

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.

 

you have to put a gap at the end of 200 6 so you don't get smilies!

[andrew1]

Is anyone being contacted by a company called Nationwide (not the b/socy) to repay the Swift loan?

 

I think pkelly has, but he's on holiday for a short break.

[andrew1]

You guys sound like you're going through the same as we did in the Cabot Fan Club

 

Trace staff through Facebook, and call them up, then post what they said on the internet on a blog (Google Cabot Fan Club )...Cabot sent an email to all 300 odd staff demanding everyone who had a post on YouTube or Facebook with any reference to Cabot remove them. We found people slagging off supervisors and saying what silly billys their managers were and the cra ppy jobs they had...amazing what they said - this all sounds familiar - trouble was people got fired, lost promotion, were demoted and an internal tide of bickering began...

 

Need any advice on how this can work contact any of us in the Fan Club - we'll be delighted to help..Oh, why don't one of you suggest to this Webster fellow that he give his opposite number in Cabot a call to see what he thinks of the Cabot Fan Club and the damage we did?

 

Ken Maynard Ch.Exec

Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited,

1 Kings Hill Avenue,

Kings Hill,

West Malling,

Kent

ME19 4UA

 

+44(0)1732 524600 - he'll tell you and might learn something of what he's in for against you lot

 

Good luck

 

S

Edited October 1, 2009 by andrew1

[andrew1]

Hullo andrew1,

Haven't seen you around for a while:p

 

Just browsing Sparkie, how you keeping? I've had a lot going on and you lot seem to be coping quite nicely without me....I'll be back soon don't worry, got bigger fish to fry than Swift just now. From what I've been reading over the past few days sounds like they are creaking at the seams a bit. Someone told me over on another thread they'd met someone who worked in Swift who was glad to get the hell out of it with all this consumer attention, not a pleasant environment apparently.

 

We did the same with Cabot with the Fan Club - Cabot lost over £18 million as a result of this pressure in one year alone after we began..looks like you lot will have the same effect and take a few scalps along with it...keep it up it's like a dripping tap my friend - drives them bonkers after a while and you will win because all we wanted to achieve with Cabot was to get them to abide by the law, they couldn't believe that but - appears that's all you guys are doing and they won't be able to handle it because they are not used to people - their customers- talking to one another - that's what uncovers their lies and heads roll, the tides turned now the consumers after them like a pack of hounds on a fox...all I can say is lets hope they can see sense because their families are the ones who suffer when they go home stressed...I'll watch with interest...well done, companies like Cabot, Swift, Blemain, GE -they are all the same full of lies which sadly they believe themselves as they tell them so often, but they'll never beat the law, it will always beat them, Just keep your arguments simple, stick to the facts and the available laws, they might beat a few in court now and con the odd judge for a while, but the momentum is increasing, they know it - you know it, they'll fall have no fear of that. What they, (and Cabot staff didn't) realise is that people, employees are personally liable too if they carry out lies and certain instructions on behalf of their employers. This is as well as their companies and the Directors. The laws are so stringent now and the staff are not trained by their management to know these things....they could face prosecution, if their families knew this, they'd have them out of there. We've had people charged so keep any documents you have as evidence all you guys, you never know when they may come in handy.

 

This is just a short hallo since you spotted me browsing sparkie, when you want my input just holla!

 

 

catch u later....

 

A1

Edited October 31, 2009 by andrew1

[andrew1]

Well, what an interesting day I've had

[andrew1]

sorry dont know you,

 

Don't worry, you soon will.

 

Don't quite understand your soup etc puns, but I'm sure others more familiar do.

 

I had a meeting today which is being extended tomorrow - I'll post up a progress report shortly, but it might help you guys overall.

 

I just used some of the Cabot Fan Club magic I learned in the past, if you are not familiar with the Fan Club, wer'e just some lethal bunch of rogue debtors who just cost Cabot getting on £18 million because they didn't take any notice when we asked them to abide by the laws of this country - they thought they knew better...Swift seem to have the same idea - probably from the same stables....we'll see.

 

A1

[andrew1]

Hullo andrew1

 

I see you are back again don't Cabot want to talk to you anymore?

 

sparkie

 

They can't afford the phone calls Sparkie, we gave them £18 million worth of losses in a year

 

A1

[andrew1]

Is the court case still on for tomorrow,and whose is the mobile number?

 

You been a cagger since March and only one post - this one -and here you are asking sensitive questions....hhmmmm???? You'll have to enlighten us a bit more first