Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • New figures from the Insolvency Service show that early termination rates of IVAs have dropped 11% in the past year, while total IVAs have risen by almost 20,000 in the past two years. View the full article
    • Amigo Loans has posted an £87m loss for the nine months to December 31 2020, a 289% drop on the same period in 2019 View the full article
    • I've had a brief look over the thread and I see that there principle point is that he didn't take out insurance. Your answer to this is very simple – that it is absurd that you are required to pay to protect them against their own negligence or criminality of their employees or the people who are acting for them – in this case, Hermes.Your point here is that any requirement that a customer is required to pay extra to protect against the breach of contract is unfair within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. Please have a read of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. In In particular, after you have read the sections within the act itself, get a schedule two and you will see examples of unfair terms. These are nonexhaustive which means that they are simply examples and lots of others can be added. An important point is that it forms a significant imbalance between your interests and their interests. They are using a standard form contract which is nonnegotiable. There is no competition because all the courier industry are doing this so there is no opportunity for you to go elsewhere and get a different type of deal. You will need to point out to the defendant – through the mediator – that included in the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act is a provision that gives the court the power – in fact a duty – on its own initiative to examine the fairness or otherwise of any term. Point out to the defendant that if they want to go to court then you are happy about it. That you will then raise the question of unfairness to the judge and also you will invite the judge to look at the entirety of the contract and to pronounce on the fairness or otherwise of the contractual terms. Tell the defendant that you expect that the judge will decide unequivocally that a term of the contract which requires the customer to pay extra to protect themselves against the service providers breach of contract is grossly unfair – and in fact it is ridiculous. Basically they are saying "pay us to deliver your goods – and pay us extra if you don't want us to lose them."   Explain to the defendant that you are fully aware that this is a culture within the courier industry which has developed over 30 or 40 years or more but it's not acceptable and that when you get a judgement in your favour which confirms that the term is unfair, (as will surely happen) that you will then make sure that copies of the judgement find their way all over the Internet including social media that is concerned specifically with complaints against the courier industry and then the game will be up for the loss of them. One the mediator to tell the defendant that once you get this judgement, not only will people be claiming for ongoing lost items, but they will also be claiming retrospectively for legitimate claims which have been rejected on the basis of this unfair term. Make it clear to the mediator – that they should tell the defendant that you're not dealing with very much money here – and you are prepared to risk it all in order to go to court and to demonstrate this principle. If the mediator says that you should compromise then you should tell the mediator that if the defendant pays up in full – including costs and interest – that they will then be spared the problem of going to court and getting a judgement against them which will result in the loss of millions of pounds in the future. Tell the mediator that this is the benefit to the defendant and you are not prepared to hand them any further benefit if it means sacrificing a single penny of your claim. Tell the defendant to take it or leave it – you are happy either way.   It is very important that the defendant understands that you don't care either way whether you settle now mediation or goes to court. The defendant as a huge amount to lose if it goes to court. You have very little to lose  
    • Firstly I am disabled and have brain fog so can forget anything.  Today I went online to check when the MOT is due as just had to renew my car insurance and know it comes quickly after that. I was shocked to see my car was flagged as NOT TAXED.  I have had disability tax for years so dont even have to pay. After ringing DVLA I eventually found out papers had been sent to my old house which I left 3 years ago. With the stress of moving etc I never changed the car address but did change the address on my licence as that is correct.   Now I am worried I may have picked up a speeding ticket sometime in the 3 years and also maybe recently on a day trip to London (2 miles too fast coming out a tunnel). The old house is 150 miles away so cant pop in and no idea who lives there now. Thats how I got caught out with tax as they sent the paperwork there to renew. The lady renewed the tax easily on the computer for me which I was so grateful for and backdated it to 1 Feb. Can anyone tell me how I can find out if there are any tickets out there in my name that I know anything about please? I have had a really awful week with so many problems and this is now really making me feel sick so dont want to worry for months to catch up with me.   Thanks  
    • Presumably you have received your own NIP/s172 request after the lease company identified you as the person the car is leased to?   First thing to say is that, regardless of any questions over the date of the first NIP, you must still reply to your own NIP/s172 within the time limit given otherwise you are committing an entirely separate and more serious offence than any speeding infringement.  If you were the driver you should nominate yourself.   You need to be careful arguing that the first NIP was not sent out in time.  Note that it is only the first NIP that is subject to the 14 day limit, and that NIP needs to go to the Registered Keeper.  There is no time limit on subsequent NIPs.   So are you 100% certain that your lease company is the registered keeper and do you know that for a fact?  Please note that the registered keeper of lease vehicles is often not the lease company, but a finance company.   If the police are saying that the first NIP was sent to the RK within the time limit, you can be 99.99999% certain that they will have evidence proving that fact.  Assuming it was sent out first-class, there is a legal presumption that it was delivered two working days after posting, unless the addressee can prove it was never received.  So if the police are saying the first NIP was sent out within 12 days, the RK would have to prove it was never received within 14 days to provide a defence.  As you might imagine, that is very difficult to prove otherwise everybody would claim it.  Unfortunately, "reminder" NIPs are usually not marked as such and may be indistinguishable from the original.   So you need to confirm (preferably by sight of a copy of the actual V5C document as staff of lease companies do not always know) who the Registered Keeper is, and when they recived the first NIP.  If it was received after 14 days can they prove that fact (eg by a date received stamp and an appropriate system for dealing with mail received) and can they prove that they didn't receive an earlier NIP?   Hope that makes sense!  If it doesn't another poster called Man in the Middle will clarify what I 've not explained well or got wrong.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3755 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

TIE you've spent some time trying to justify the actions of companies such as Swift.

 

However, you don't appear to offer any explanation as to why our interest rates only ever go up. Mine has been increased 8 times since my loan was taken out, and has NEVER been reduced! Despite the fact that I've NEVER been in arrears and have always paid on time and in full!!!!!

 

Apollo18

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

Guest takeiteasy

Apollo - I am not justifying Swift's actions or companies like Swift. All I am saying is that most of what Sparkie is telling you about licenses, company names loan sales, etc. is wrong. Regarding your interest rate, does your loan documentation say your rate is indexed to LIBOR? The loan docs should be very clear as to when and by what method your rate changes. If it's not then that is the stuff you should fight them on not Sparkies company structure issues. It's also possible your loan started out with a teaser rate (low) and was structured to increase over time. This is a common lender ploy to qualify customers for bigger loans based on a smaller payment. I mentioned before that TCF is your main issue with Swift and that's what you should pursue as a matter of urgency. Again, anything related to your rate should be specifically spelled out in your loan documents if it isn't then you have a concrete claim against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Takeiteasy - as someone else who has a Mother with Alzheimers, I can't understand how you came on the forum to look for help regarding a Lloyds of London issue involving your parents, yet spend most of your time here discussing matters of no relevance to your situation. You must have far more impostant issues of your own/your family's to deal with than get involved in our concerns..............or perhaps you managed to get your own issues resolved already?

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Takeiteasy - please explain your interest in this issue and your purpose in posting.

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I mentioned before that TCF is your main issue with Swift and that's what you should pursue as a matter of urgency."

 

Who are you to advise anyone? Are you not doing what you are accusing Sparkie of doing?

 

....or have you decided to become the White Night of the Forum against our black magican Sparkie Svengali?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Caro, I don't think TIE took to kindly to what you posted and left the forum. I wonder why??? :D

 

I have that effect on people.:rolleyes:

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TIE, I'm a little dissappointed I missed your return, hope you had a good match, but it seems others have kept you busy here..forgive their rudeness, they are a little techy about Swift as you detect but it is understandable given what they have suffered many of them, but we are all entitled to an opinion and that's what you have to cut through, ignore those who wind you up and keep to the debate.

 

I was hoping you were going to come back to some of the questions I raised as you suggested, you have answered one or two points above, but if you do have the time your opinion (despite others thoughts) would be valued.

 

One further question, Kestrel you say are owned by Swift - I thought it was the other way around?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have that effect on people.:rolleyes:

Well I'm glad a mod has finally intervened. I have been sitting on the side not knowing how to comment but instinctively feeling something is not right here. "Trust the tale, not the teller."

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TIE, I'm a little dissappointed I missed your return, hope you had a good match, but it seems others have kept you busy here..forgive their rudeness, they are a little techy about Swift as you detect but it is understandable given what they have suffered many of them, but we are all entitled to an opinion and that's what you have to cut through, ignore those who wind you up and keep to the debate.

 

I was hoping you were going to come back to some of the questions I raised as you suggested, you have answered one or two points above, but if you do have the time your opinion (despite others thoughts) would be valued.

 

One further question, Kestrel you say are owned by Swift - I thought it was the other way around?

I agree with you SMC…..TIE is adding a new dimension to our arguments and battle with Swift.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Takeiteasy - please explain your interest in this issue and your purpose in posting.

 

open debate, without censorship,comes first who is right and who is wrong will come out in the end.

 

a difference of opinion is no bad thing but keep it from getting personal

 

wp3

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest takeiteasy

Land lady - the problem with my mom is not resolved but I at least now know what the issue is and unfortunately for my family Lloyds have done nothing wrong and have followed the policy. So there is nothing I can do about it.

 

Chick - I believe the holding company Alchemy set up when the did the MBO with the management at Swift is called Kestrel. So you are correct that Kestrel hold Alchemy's shares in Swift. The SPV's/sub companies set up for the various funding lines are all unique companies and it looks like they have named them Kestrel 1, 2 and 3.

 

My only reason for posting is to refute the misinformation being supplied. You are right, I am not an expert on TCF but based on what is being said on the board about Swift's practices, they are much more in line with breaches of TCF not company structures. For all of Sparkie's scenarios to be true it would require a major conspiracy across many companies and I simply don't believe that to be the case. The GMAC issues sound similar in a lot of ways to the ones on this board. They were all TCF related and there was money returned to customers due to those breaches. Since the issues are similar that is why I believe that when you all get money back for being over charged it will be a TCF issue and nothing to do with company names, trading styles, etc. And from what you are all saying it seems an open and shut case. In this regard, the FSA are doing a lot of the work for you and will probably be going through each and every loan including ones that have been satisfied already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Land lady - the problem with my mom is not resolved but I at least now know what the issue is and unfortunately for my family Lloyds have done nothing wrong and have followed the policy. So there is nothing I can do about it.

 

Chick - I believe the holding company Alchemy set up when the did the MBO with the management at Swift is called Kestrel. So you are correct that Kestrel hold Alchemy's shares in Swift. The SPV's/sub companies set up for the various funding lines are all unique companies and it looks like they have named them Kestrel 1, 2 and 3.

 

My only reason for posting is to refute the misinformation being supplied. You are right, I am not an expert on TCF but based on what is being said on the board about Swift's practices, they are much more in line with breaches of TCF not company structures. For all of Sparkie's scenarios to be true it would require a major conspiracy across many companies and I simply don't believe that to be the case. The GMAC issues sound similar in a lot of ways to the ones on this board. They were all TCF related and there was money returned to customers due to those breaches. Since the issues are similar that is why I believe that when you all get money back for being over charged it will be a TCF issue and nothing to do with company names, trading styles, etc. And from what you are all saying it seems an open and shut case. In this regard, the FSA are doing a lot of the work for you and will probably be going through each and every loan including ones that have been satisfied already.

 

 

Thanks TIE, that begins to explain a few things, but not being a party to it all this leaves us at a disadvantage and your insight from where ever it comes is much appreciated dispite what others say. You can understand how the speculation accrues though can't you? (Bit like Swifts inte rest rates :rolleyes: )

 

.. Can you explain for me how properties can be shown as being 'sold' by Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd in their accounts (for example, but it could relate to any company) to what you describe as an spv in the shape of Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd.

 

Kestrel Loans no.1 Ltd show in their accounts that they have acquired ALL Loans and mortgages from these 2 companies - so how have they 'acquired' them in your opinion?

 

Whether this is the same group of companies or not I don't think in my limited knowledge makes any diference - the Ltd liability makes them independant legally. If the properties were transfered in trust then no funds would have exchanged hands so why would a consideration have been applied? - all very confusing.

 

It can't be securitisation can it as their ceo states categorically they do not do this - spv's are for securitisation are they not? Is it an equitable Assignment or a straight sale? If they don't securitise what exactly would you suggest they are doing which opposes previous posters ideas of alleged fraudulent activity or a giant cock-up ?

 

A sale is either Equitable or Legal and on what basis would the banks to whom they apply for funding under the spv (or whatever) lend? - on the equitable rights when Kestrel do not hold the title or would it be on the security of the title which should then be in the name then of Kestrel rather than Swift Advances plc?

 

Of course, all this talk of conspiracy derives from the fact that you have all the same 3 directors over the whole operation from Kestrel Holdings all the way down through to Kestrel Loans No2 Ltd - now defunct as previously correctly stated by you. What are your thoughts on that if you don't mind?

 

It all gets a little confusing and I would appreciate your learned skills and knowledge at explaining this so I might understand this a little better...thanks (how did your match go?)

 

SC

Edited by Smarterchick
afterthought..
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not going to believe this lol. :lol::lol::lol:

 

Just got a phonecall from one of the lads due in court here tomorrow morning and they are still at aintree :shock:.

 

Dont know wheather its to celebrate a win or what;);), but they are sitting in the pub having a beer, in the sun, not a care in the world.

 

Any lorry drivers down that way that could take them out of the pub and back home here for tomorrow morning ???:lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

and your not joking, they recond the night ferry will sort them out, what will all the drink etc they can blame the funny guts and headache on a bad crossing lol

did you see one of them actually in with the winners in the background on tv. I could not believe it myself,

they know the McCoy`s its a small world over there in NI everyone knows everyone if not directly at least through a friend,:-o

roll on tomorrow :D

pick up a penquin two systems for the price of one:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apollo - I am not justifying Swift's actions or companies like Swift. All I am saying is that most of what Sparkie is telling you about licenses, company names loan sales, etc. is wrong. Regarding your interest rate, does your loan documentation say your rate is indexed to LIBOR? The loan docs should be very clear as to when and by what method your rate changes. If it's not then that is the stuff you should fight them on not Sparkies company structure issues. It's also possible your loan started out with a teaser rate (low) and was structured to increase over time. This is a common lender ploy to qualify customers for bigger loans based on a smaller payment. I mentioned before that TCF is your main issue with Swift and that's what you should pursue as a matter of urgency. Again, anything related to your rate should be specifically spelled out in your loan documents if it isn't then you have a concrete claim against them.

Hi All,

 

TIE the only reference to the interest rate on my agreement, and probably most other Swift agreements states.....

 

'If our cost of funds change, we may, by giving at least 14 days' notice in writing by first-class post, change the rate of interest that applies to this loan. The change will apply from the date shown in the notice which will tell you why our cost of funds has changed'

 

The first five reasons Swift gave for increasing the rate were all stated as 'Following the recent increase in the bank base rate'.

Then they changed tact and on three further occasions stated the reason for the increase as.....

 

'As you are aware, there has been a general increase in interest rates in the market recently and this together with the increase in our funding costs makes it necessary for us to increase the interest rate on your mortgage with us'.

 

The last increase was in December 2007. Since then it has stayed the same, despite the fact that the bank base rate, libor rate, and the rate on my 'first charge' mortgage are at an all time low, and have been for some considerable time.

 

When you complain they simply stone wall you, and say that they are happy that they have not acted unfairly.

 

So my question is simple.....Where do we go from here?

 

Apollo18

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest takeiteasy

Chick - the game was boring and a bad result for the people that took me but it was an electric atmosphere. I'll get back to you tonight on what I think is happening with your questions.

 

Apollo - What I would expect to see is your payment and Swifts ability to change your rate tied to an specific index (bank base or LIBOR) since they have not mentioned either in what you wrote it appears that they can decide whenever they choose to raise your rate. Have you or anyone else on the board ever had a rate decrease from Swift? I would imagine that since 2007 there funding costs probably did not go up as they are saying. While it looks like they expect you and their other customers to sign agreements that the rate can change at their discretion I seriously doubt they would do the same with their banking partners. I would again echo what I've said before that you should pursue breaches of TCF against them. I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure what you can do other than try to get them on TCF because it looks like they are telling you that they can raise your rates whenever they like.

 

This hit the press today and shows the FSA have some teeth when it comes to TCF. I'm sure a lot of this applies to you and the board based on the posts I've seen. This is why I said the FSA may be doing a lot of the work for you already.

 

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited fined £1.225m

 

12 April 2010

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today announced it has fined Kensington Mortgage Company Limited (Kensington) £1.225 million for poor treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears.

 

The firm has agreed to redress customers who were in arrears and charged specific unfair and/or excessive charges. It is estimated that the redress will cost the firm up to £1.066 million.

 

The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Kensington which occurred between 1 January 2007 and 31 October 2008 in relation to its mortgage arrears handling processes and in its dealings with customers in arrears.

 

These include:

 

- Failing to ensure mortgage servicing staff acting on its behalf had adequate understanding of treating mortgage arrears customers fairly;

 

- Concentrating on the repayment of mortgage arrears over a short period of time rather than agreeing an arrangement to pay the arrears based on the customer's individual circumstances;

 

- Applying three charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were:

 

- A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid;

 

- An excessive fee for cancelled direct debits which did not reflect administrative costs;

 

- An early repayment charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance.

 

The firm also failed to take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, and to ensure adequate risk management systems. Its management information focused on the performance of the firm's mortgage book and the profitability of the business, rather than on treating customers fairly.

 

Kensington qualified for a 30% discount under the FSA's settlement discount scheme. Without the discount the fine would have been £1.75 million. The FSA has also taken into account that Kensington has made significant improvements to its arrears and repossession processes since the early part of 2008.

 

Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

 

“This case should serve as a strong reminder to firms dealing with retail customers, especially customers in a vulnerable position such as those with mortgage arrears, that the FSA will take robust action where it sees that customers are not treated fairly. Retail firms which fail in their obligations to customers should expect not only a substantial fine but also that they will have to pay back customers who have been disadvantaged.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
Second charge loans - a possible solution to the puzzle - Secured lending - Mortgage Introducer UK

 

some good advice from Mr John Webster folks lol

now how can this be

John Webster is chief executive officer of the Swift Group ;)

 

What a tangled webster we weave :p

 

It's the pot calling the kettle sooty ar**d

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chick - the game was boring and a bad result for the people that took me but it was an electric atmosphere. I'll get back to you tonight on what I think is happening with your questions.

 

Apollo - What I would expect to see is your payment and Swifts ability to change your rate tied to an specific index (bank base or LIBOR) since they have not mentioned either in what you wrote it appears that they can decide whenever they choose to raise your rate. Have you or anyone else on the board ever had a rate decrease from Swift? I would imagine that since 2007 there funding costs probably did not go up as they are saying. While it looks like they expect you and their other customers to sign agreements that the rate can change at their discretion I seriously doubt they would do the same with their banking partners. I would again echo what I've said before that you should pursue breaches of TCF against them. I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure what you can do other than try to get them on TCF because it looks like they are telling you that they can raise your rates whenever they like.

 

This hit the press today and shows the FSA have some teeth when it comes to TCF. I'm sure a lot of this applies to you and the board based on the posts I've seen. This is why I said the FSA may be doing a lot of the work for you already.

 

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited fined £1.225m

 

12 April 2010

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today announced it has fined Kensington Mortgage Company Limited (Kensington) £1.225 million for poor treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears.

 

The firm has agreed to redress customers who were in arrears and charged specific unfair and/or excessive charges. It is estimated that the redress will cost the firm up to £1.066 million.

 

The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Kensington which occurred between 1 January 2007 and 31 October 2008 in relation to its mortgage arrears handling processes and in its dealings with customers in arrears.

 

These include:

 

- Failing to ensure mortgage servicing staff acting on its behalf had adequate understanding of treating mortgage arrears customers fairly;

 

- Concentrating on the repayment of mortgage arrears over a short period of time rather than agreeing an arrangement to pay the arrears based on the customer's individual circumstances;

 

- Applying three charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were:

 

- A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid;

 

- An excessive fee for cancelled direct debits which did not reflect administrative costs;

 

- An early repayment charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance.

 

The firm also failed to take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, and to ensure adequate risk management systems. Its management information focused on the performance of the firm's mortgage book and the profitability of the business, rather than on treating customers fairly.

 

Kensington qualified for a 30% discount under the FSA's settlement discount scheme. Without the discount the fine would have been £1.75 million. The FSA has also taken into account that Kensington has made significant improvements to its arrears and repossession processes since the early part of 2008.

 

Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

 

“This case should serve as a strong reminder to firms dealing with retail customers, especially customers in a vulnerable position such as those with mortgage arrears, that the FSA will take robust action where it sees that customers are not treated fairly. Retail firms which fail in their obligations to customers should expect not only a substantial fine but also that they will have to pay back customers who have been disadvantaged.”

 

Nice one TIE -

 

Does anyone (out of curiosity I am not a customer of theirs) know how Kensingtons' charges stacked up against Swift?

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

TIE

Note the FSA does not regulate second charge lending institutions such as Swift Advances Plc. ............Swift 1st Ltd is regulated by the FSA.

 

Or is this more misleading information that I am giving out??.

 

Secondly contrary to your statement about the non importance of trading styles being on a Consumer Credit Licence, as I have made members aware that Swift Advances Plc have asked for a renewal of their licence with the OFT.

This time they have asked for the trading styles Swift Advances and S.G.L.S. ( the old Swift Group Legal Services).

 

The reason that Swift Advances are being asked to be added is because they act as an intermediary in setting up all Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances Plc loan agreements.

 

The regulations that govern this ..........states that any credit agreement that has been negotiated on behalf of a creditor whilst not being registered or on the license of the creditor/firm/organisation it is conducting business for can only be declared a legally binding agreement on the Decision and direction of the Director General.

 

Before the Director General makes that decision, the creditors history of conduct is put under close scrutiny, including the number of complaints and the seriousness of those complaints made by consumers about the particular creditor.

 

Swift will encounter dificulties in this area, as there are as we all know that many many complaints have been made about both of the "Swift Companies".

 

Today a phone call was made to Swift First Ltd about the position regarding the sale of a First Mortgage agreement to one of the Kestrel Companies, the caller wanted the details of the Kestrel companies account so that the direct debit account details could be changed to the Kestrel company.

 

The caller was put through to Mr Strickley who began the conversation quite polite but as more questions were asked he started getting more agitated as the minutes passed by ....on being asked about the loan sale, the caller was told that it was just an internal accounting procedure that had nothing to do with the caller.

 

Caller was also told that the Kestrel company Bank account number was the same bank account number as Swift Advances Plc ( that I find strange).

 

The question was asked as to why a letter about arrears and posssible court action being taken was recived from Swift Advances when the mortgage was with either Swift 1st Ltd or Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd an attempt was made to say that this was a computer error......however the caller informed Mr Strickley that he was the person that had actually signed this letter personally it was not acomputer generated letter.

 

Mr Strickley began to get more abrupt, he was asked if Swift Advances Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advaces Plc were all the same firm ...caller was told that he was not in a position to answer that question ..........the caller then asked as he had promised a written response would the caller be receiving the letter on Swift 1st Ltd headed paper, Swift Advances headed paper, Swift Advances Plc headed paper or ..........Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd headed paper. That really upset Mr Strickley.

 

With that Mr Strickley put the phone down on the caller. That is TCF in operation the Swift version again

 

Much more later when I will be joined by a close friend of the two N. Ireland people in the High Court tomorrow .....funnystuff to come;):D:D

Maybe some more false information also:D

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
little spelling mistakes as usual
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently they charge £50 per arrears notice as you can see from this thread-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/3462-kensington-mortgages.html

 

Takeiteasy would you be good enough to confirm what is said on post 14 of that thread.

 

Also, if you read the article on Kensington and the FSA, the customers only get repaid something like £8.25 for each returned direct debit. I don't know how much the initial charge was but that seems pretty typical of the FSA. In Court, if found guilty of overcharging, the whole amount would have been repaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply TIE.

 

I've had my secured loan with Swift since 2002.....8 interest rate increases and no decreases.

 

Initially Swifts interest rate was:

8.92% above the bank base rate

8.71% above the 3 month libor rate

8.18% above my mortgage rate (first charge lender)

 

As of now it's:

14.89% above the bank base rate

14.74% above the 3 month libor rate

12.89% above my mortgage rate (first charge lender)

 

When I pressed them to justify their rates they stated, 'be advised that Swift is not obliged to release any information deemed as sensitive and related to the operation of the company'

 

So you see.....It's all smoke and mirrors!

 

Apollo18

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3755 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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...