Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[frettful38]

Hi sweetjane, whilst your on the topic on refunding charges is it possible that I can ask my lender Blemain to refund my charges too. There must be over 20 letters of arrears reminders at £35 each letter.

If my lender does not comply then could I also complain to the FOS, my loan is over £25k and unregulated.

[frettful38]

I'm afraid I'm not an expert on what is and isn't covered but the easiest thing to do is ring the FOS and ask them. Their phone staff are generally very helpful and knowledgeable, they will begin filling the form for you and send it to you for completion / signature and to add copies of correspondence. They do insist you go through the company's own complaints procedure first though.

sj:-)

 

Thanks sweetjane, will ring them Monday 1st thing

[frettful38]

THese are not what are considered a STATEMENT of account......they are purely what they say they are a record of payments and debits ..........a statement of account tells you what the state of the account was/is at any given monthly period................Swift have never supplied one of these to any customer......another point for everyone to tell the OFT about

 

 

sparkie

 

Now that you mention that sparkie, Blemain have never supplied me with a STATEMENT of account either. Each time I requested this and what they sent me in my subject access request was a record of my payments and debits.

My solicitor however has requested a statement of account, lets see what they send

[frettful38]

The issue of never having received a statement is a very strong point,

Just imagine if one person proved that swifts ( statements) are not in fact statements at all. (but just a list of payments)

 

Then it would be open day for everyone with a swift agreement or any other lender for that matter THAT DON'T SEND OUT STATEMENTS.

 

 

research ,research ,research,and if you get board do some research on this.

 

 

Required statements for regulated agreements Introduction The Consumer Credit Act and its amendments affect all those who use credit to buy goods and or services, for example, on hire-purchase agreements or using a store credit card. The Act governs the licensing of, and other controls, on traders who supply credit, or goods and services on credit. It is therefore a valuable tool to have knowledge of how it works at your fingertips. This article explains a recent change to Consumer Credit law – the CCA 2006. Specifically, it explains the requirement for a statement of money owed and paid. Required statement Section 6 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 inserts a new section (s77A) whereby a statement must be provided if the agreement is a fixed sum credit agreement under section 77A. The statement should explain the money borrowed, money paid, interest in all cases and the outstanding amount. Particulars The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit:

• Shall (with in the period of one year beginning with the day after the day on which the agreement is made), give the debtor a statement under this section; and
  
• After the giving of that statement, shall give the debtor further statements under this section at intervals of not more than one year.
  

Failure to provide the statement If the creditor fails to give the debtor an annual statement, then he is not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of his noncompliance and the debtor is not liable to pay any interest during this period. The debtor is also not liable to pay any default sum that would have become payable during the period of non-compliance or would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement occurring during that period. However a creditor will not be required to give the debtor an annual statement if there is no further sums payable under the agreement. Further provisions relating to running account credit agreements Section 7 of CCA 2006 inserts a new section (78(4A) of the 1974 Act) which requires creditors to issue further statements to debtors setting out specified information in respect of running account credit agreements. The statements must be provided at intervals of not more than 12 months. Creditors may further be required to include specified information about the consequence of failing to make repayments, or only making minimum repayments. The Dispensing Notice If there are two or more debtors, a debtor may provide a ‘dispensing notice’ to the creditor to the effect that the creditor is not obliged to provide a second statement to that debtor. However, dispensing notices will not be effective if that would mean that neither debtor will receive a statement.

 

 

wp3

 

Does the above apply to unregulated agreements too WP3?

[frettful38]

Excellent advice there WP3, does the above apply to unregulated agreements too? I have never received a statement from my lender either and my loan is over £25K

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie, very valuable advice you have given. Sticking to the 140 Unfair Relationship I have been advised and have it in writing from my solicitor that

 

"the issues regarding unfair relationship are in place to protect vulnerable individuals such as elderly people or people with disabilities in our opinion. We are acting on a no win no fee basis for you and we have to believe that the arguments we are basing a claim on have a reasonable prospect of success. We do not believe that arguments concerning the unfair relationship provisions have a reasonable prospect of success."

 

I do have to beg to differ, as I believe not only would I come under the unfair relationship but also under the irresponsible lending route too, as I was given a loan when my lender knew full well that I was on income support and receiving disability allowance., but my solicitor does not seem to think so.

[frettful38]

Right maybe I should highlight the above to my solicitor as maybe he has not yet read the above and that is why he believes that I cannot use the unfair relationship route

[frettful38]

You should tell your solicitor to "get his finger out" (and glasses) and read section 140 the Unfair Relationship, and what he is advocating is that ...... that section of the Act is a discriminatory section, the Consumer Credit Act and all its sections are for the benefit and protection of all consumers and creditors alike.... no discrimination of anyone .....he is giving you advice that he knows or should know is incorrect and could be construed as an absolute negligent reckless miss statement of the law, tell him to read the Misrepresentation Act also. Very Very poor & silly advice IMO. BUt this is only my personal view no-one elses.

 

 

sparkie

 

 

Thanks sparkie and I totally agree with you there as I believe he really does not know what he is doing OR he does know that I have a very good and solid case but for some reason or other does not want me to go as far as I should.

Its all about bloody politics isn't it, and I believe that if I did get my loan declared unenforceable then you know what repercussions that could have and we are all too familiar how the government does not want to let people know what does actually go on behind closed doors. But that will not stop us from banging on them will it.

 

I have very valid arguments and points and I know my solicitor knows this, but I get the impression that he is trying to put me off rather than support my findings. I will address these issues to him tomorrow and tell him to either take what I am informing him of seriously or I will have to find someone else who is better qualified.

[frettful38]

Sparkie we live and learn and I am learning more and more each day. Today I have been reading my microscopic loans terms and conditions. NASA has kindly let me borrow their telescope . In Term 11 it states:

 

"WHERE A BROKER FEE IS PAYABLE BY THE BORROWER FOR INTRODUCING THE BORROWER TO THE LENDER, THEN THE BORROWER AUTHORIZES THE LENDER TO PAY THESE FEES FROM THE TOTAL LOAN"

 

What I believe, please correct if wrong, it should read is

 

"WHERE A BROKER FEE IS PAYABLE BY THE BORROWER FOR INTRODUCING THE BORROWER TO THE LENDER THEN THE BORROWER AUTHORIZES THE LENDER TO ADD THESE FEES TO THE LOAN"

This is a very misleading term, and not easy to understand. It is very technical how they word their words in order to confuse the borrower but they know exactly what they are doing.

[frettful38]

Your Lender has made this a term & condition of your loan, which they can’t under the way the agreement is constructed , if they do then there is an unfair relationship from that very moment they pay it ( see Guidelines by OFT on no status lending) it becomes a part of the agreement which becomes another loan ..not a charge for credit.

This unilaterally alters the agreement from inception cause an imbalance ….brokers fees cannot be part of the terms and conditions of an agreement.

How can you authorise the payment of fees and commissions if you do not know what they are, that again is an unfair relationship.

. Section 140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides as follows:

 

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.

 

 

 

3.10 Brokers should disclose at the outset the nature and extent of the services offered to the borrower, together with any ties they may have to

lenders or other brokers. If a brokerage fee is payable this should be made clear at the outset. The amount of the fee should be confirmed in writing before entry into the credit agreement

 

3.11 The existence of any commission or other payment payable by the lender to the broker should be disclosed to the borrower at an early stage, for instance before the broker engages in specific discussions based on the prospective borrowers circumstances, so that the borrower is aware of any potential conflict of interest. The amount of the commission or override commission should be disclosed.

 

Blemain would have to prove all this is not unfair, it also makes your agreement a partly regulated agreement.

Read the UTCCC's & the Unfair Relationship Act deeply along with the OFT Guidelines on Non Status lending

 

Tell your solicitor to read these as well he might learn something;)

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft854.pdf

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft1105.pdf

 

Thanks as usual sparkie again, I have noted what you have said above and will be forwarding this on to my solicitor today. In the meantime, as I get told from everywhere that my agreement is unregulated as it is above the £25k, I was reading this part from the CCA 1974 and wandered what you thought.

 

Section 11 (1) © 1974 CCA

 

11.—(I) A restricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement—

 

© to refinance any existing indebtedness of the debtor's, whether to the creditor or

another person, and " restricted-use credit" shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

Does that mean because I had to pay off my old loan from my current loan then that has made my loan regulated, as I had to refinance? because if it is then that is awesome.

[frettful38]

Cracking question - that's me as well. Thanks fretfull.

 

 

No probs busterg, lets hope we all have a good 2010. Sparkie is doing a great job, and wish him the best of health and hope he takes down these xxxxx SOON!

[frettful38]

I'll post my views on this a bit later as the Heath Ruling would be considered on this issue.

sparkie

 

 

Sparkie, can I please ask you a question when your not too busy. I need to know if my loan is regulated by the 2006 Act. I know it will not be covered by the CCA 74 as it is over £25k, but if my £35k loan is regulated by the 74 CCA then do I have a classic multiple agreement?

 

I maybe should be asking my solicitor this question too? He has already told me that loans taken out prior to 6 April 2006 which are for more than £25k are not covered by the CCA 1974.

[frettful38]

I'll post my views on this a bit later as the Heath Ruling would be considered on this issue.

sparkie

 

 

Sparkie, can I please ask you a question when your not too busy. I need to know if my loan is regulated by the 2006 Act. I know it will not be covered by the CCA 74 as it is over £25k, but if my £35k loan is regulated by the 74 CCA then do I have a classic multiple agreement?

 

I maybe should be asking my solicitor this question too? He has already told me that loans taken out prior to 6 April 2006 which are for more than £25k are not covered by the CCA 1974.

[frettful38]

Unfortunately your agreement is not covered by the New Act the limit was removed in April 2008.....your agreement remains unregulated but as I have said I believe an argument can be mounted that it is PARTLY regulated by the CCA 1974 on the multiple agreement agument.

I am not a lawyer and this is only my personal opinion.

 

 

sparkie

 

Thanks sparkie for clearing that up before I went and put my foot in it . I do believe that there are many other things that I can argue on even if it is not regulated, thanks to you, opening my mind to a whole new world.

 

I will let you know what my solicitor says as soon as I hear from him, with this update. Thanks again and good luck in your battles.

[frettful38]

(IMHO) if your new loan is still a secured loan agreement then yes it will be a regulated agreement.

But if your new agreement is now a first charge (MORTGAGE REGULATED BY THE FSA) then it wont come under the CCA 1974 rules.

 

BUT I KNOW A MAN WHO CAN TELL YOU

 

Specific queries regarding interpretation of the Act may be addressed to [email protected].

 

wp3

 

Thank you WP3. My secured loan is the 2nd charge on my property. First charge is my mortgage company GMAC. My secured loan is over the £25k so is it still regulated?

[frettful38]

if you took out the loan before the changes to the CCA 2006 than it is not fully regulated, but the unfair relationship part will apply to your loan.

The new test will apply to all consumer lending transactions and not just those regulated by the CCA 2006.

 

wp3

 

Thanks wp3, I took my loan out in Sept 07 so where does that leave me?

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie, I have been reading the story Credit Today online very closely and have been trying to compare any similarities to my own case and have I think found one.

 

In Bentley's story it reads:

 

"Bentley’s lawyers, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS), successfully argued that Blemain had loaned the money to Bentley irresponsibly and that the agreement took advantage of his desperate situation."

 

Bentley's solicitors used the meaning Unfair Relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 to claim that his loan contract with Blemain Finance was an unfair one. I believe that I too could use this term that Bentley used also.

 

Bentley's troubles started when his mother died, and he had to cut his working hours to start looking after his sick father, therefore he had to reduce his hours of work. It was decided that Blemain loaned Bentley the money irresponsibly even though Bentley was working at the time. Now what would it be decided if my case was put forward if I was to use the unfair relationship and irresponsible argument.

 

When I received my subject access request from my broker Ocean Finance there was a record of a phone calls log in there and these are the notes written about me and my OH when we were applying:

 

"NO INCOME APART FROM MR S/E EARNINGS, TO SOURCE"

 

" MORTGAGE CURRENTLY IN ARRANGEMENT, DEFAULTS AND POOR PAYMENT PROFILE"

 

"WILL OFFER 3 MONTHS PAYMENT HOLIDAY TO LET THEM GET BACK ON THEIR FEET AS CURRENTLY UNDERPAYING ON MORTGAGE"

 

So not only were Blemain aware that I was not working, but they were also aware that me and OH had a poor payment history and defaults. They loaned us the money regardless of this. They allowed us three months payment holiday, but still I strongly believe that they loaned us this money irresponsibly, and they should be held accountable for their actions the same as they believe that we are.

 

I have raised this point to my solicitor who did not seem to believe that he could use this argument successfully, so I wrote a letter of complaint to his firm over a week ago and told them that I was not very pleased about the way they were handling and representing my case. I received an email from my solicitor on the 19th Feb 10 which he advised me that his supervisor was looking in to my complaint and would be in touch. I told my solicitor that he should be looking in to all aspects of my compliant and loan agreement and not just concentrate on the secret commission.

 

Lets see what they come back, knowing my luck they will just write back and say that sorry Mrs xxxx we can no longer represent you and therefore have closed your file. If they do write this to me I will want to know the exact reason in writing as to why they believe my case will not succeed. That's if they write this, I'm just seeing what the worst case scenario will be.

 

Anyways that enough ranting for me 1st thing in the morning.. Sparkie has given me a lot of information which I have bombarded my solicitor with, he has been incredible in explaining everything down to a T.

 

Thanks sparkie for everything, your a star!

[frettful38]

..and that Frettful is a perfect and excellent example of someone reading these threads on CAG, picking up on what is written, researching for themselves and finding the relevancies to their own circumstances.

 

By doing that you are now in a position of empowerment. It might not appear you are knowledgeable, but don't you feel a lot more confident in your arguments now? - doesn't it make you feel " hey, that's exactly the same as me?" you then go back to your solicitor and tell them where to begin their work and why you have a case. And you'll win!

 

Solicitors have so much legislation to consider and unless they are given the lead many are just not as experienced as we expect them to be or as thorough initially as a cagger in digging. This is where we all, with all our limited knowledge have the advantage - we can afford the time to do the legwork and that's what we have to do. It's also the reason those people who expect others to do the legwork for them rarely get far because they don't understand thier own cases well enough to sell their cases to a solicitor like you have done. Brilliant work and full marks to you for your efforts. Oh, and that bloke Sparkie - ? a Star? mmmm? :grin:

 

Thanks smarterchick, you are correct I do feel much more confident about my case. I do not know what the end result will be but since meeting sparkie and seeing what advice and help he has been giving so many, has open my mind to a whole new world.

I have learned so much through him, I have been doing a lot of research my also, and I have made this one of my hobbies now, studying, researching finding out things that I never thought I could. If it was not for sparkie I never would have got this far, I owe him a lot of gratitude and wish him all the luck in the world, because he so much deserves to have things go his way.

 

I have written a letter to my solicitor and would like him to sit up and take notice of what I am saying. Nowadays the onl;y way you get anywhere is by banging on a few tables , and a few heads a long the way.

[frettful38]

That's what I thought:D But it says on the first page that it becomes a legally binding contract when they release the funds and they date the Legal Charge.

 

"not outside as a love letter like yours is" - I'd hate to get hate mail!

 

Where can I confirmation in a legal capacity that it must be signed inside - Seance with Hitler maybe?

 

Thanks for the giggles Sparkie

 

 

Hi busterg, it is really good that we are learning together, and I don't know about you but sparkie has been my biggest inspiration. I have learned so much through him, and can see that you are learning too.

 

I would love to share any information that maybe of help to you or anyone else who may need it. After all everything I have learned, well most of everything is becasue of CAG.

 

I don't know if yours and my situation is the same because I believe you have a mortgage and I have a secured loan. My secured loan is a 2nd charge on my property, my mortgage is the 1st charge. If there is any way that I can be of help please ask as I will be more than pleased to do so.

 

 

Even though we learn a lot from CAG it don't do no harm in trying to get as much as information ffrom as many places as we can, after all it is all beneficial not only to us but to others too.

 

Good luck with all the hard work you are doing, and let me know if you need any information:grin:

[frettful38]

sparkie sorry if this has no relevance to this thread but have found something very interesting and was wandering what yours or anyone else's thoughts were.

 

 

CONSUMER CREDIT

The Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Made 5th June 2004 Laid before Parliament 9th June 2004 Coming into force 31st May 2005

 

 

In paragraph 10 it states:

 

1. All types. (Agreements)

 

(5) Where the credit is being secured on land the words "secured on" followed by the address of the land shall be inserted at the end of the heading.

 

Forms of Statement of Protection and Remedies Available under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to Debtors under Regulated Consumer Credit Agreements

 

All types.

MISSING PAYMENTS Missing payments could have severe consequences and make obtaining credit more difficult.

 

All agreements which are secured on land. YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other debt secured on it.

 

Basically what I make out of the above is that your loan agreement must contain these statements in them. My loan agreement which I have looked through with a fine toothecomb has nothing whatsoever relating to the above. Just another few things to point out to my solicitor, who incidentally I have heard nothing from since 2 weeks.

 

There is no reference to missing payments nor my home may be repossessed if I do not keep up my payments on my loan agreement, also the legal charge does not have my Land Registry Number on there. My loan agreement is stated that it is a mortgage agreement but I did not take out a mortgage. I took out a secured loan.

My loan agreement refers to me as the mortgagor. I am still waiting to see what my solicitor has to respond with all the questions I have sent him.

 

These are just more points that need to be addressed and I am doing a lot of research myself, in case my solicitor comes back with not much hope.

Edited March 7, 2010 by frettful38

[frettful38]

sparkie sorry if this has no relevance to this thread but have found something very interesting and was wandering what yours or anyone else's thoughts were.

 

 

CONSUMER CREDIT

The Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Made 5th June 2004 Laid before Parliament 9th June 2004 Coming into force 31st May 2005

 

 

In paragraph 10 it states:

 

1. All types. (Agreements)

 

(5) Where the credit is being secured on land the words "secured on" followed by the address of the land shall be inserted at the end of the heading.

 

Forms of Statement of Protection and Remedies Available under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to Debtors under Regulated Consumer Credit Agreements

 

All types.

MISSING PAYMENTS Missing payments could have severe consequences and make obtaining credit more difficult.

 

All agreements which are secured on land. YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other debt secured on it.

 

Basically what I make out of the above is that your loan agreement must contain these statements in them. My loan agreement which I have looked through with a fine toothecomb has nothing whatsoever relating to the above. Just another few things to point out to my solicitor, who incidentally I have heard nothing from since 2 weeks.

 

There is no reference to missing payments nor my home may be repossessed if I do not keep up my payments on my loan agreement, also the legal charge does not have my Land Registry Number on there. My loan agreement is stated that it is a mortgage agreement but I did not take out a mortgage. I took out a secured loan.

My loan agreement refers to me as the mortgagor. I am still waiting to see what my solicitor has to respond with all the questions I have sent him.

 

These are just more points that need to be addressed and I am doing a lot of research myself, in case my solicitor comes back with not much hope.

 

Any comments on the above from anyone please?

[frettful38]

HI fretful,

 

I think if you check back I made you and several others aware of this some time ago (12 months maybe) and for you to formulate your Defence around these issues.

 

On a different subject.

 

Can anyone tell me if they have a FIRST charge secured regulated loan agreement with Swift Advances Plc under £25,000.

 

sparkie

 

 

Thanks sparkie, do you have a link where I could get more information regarding this please?

[frettful38]

Hi F38

 

Leave it with me. Should be able to get some kind of answer early in the week.

 

Thanks busterg I looki forward to hearing from you.

[frettful38]

Tried to post a computer secreen shot from our brokers ( but it comes out too small to redd on the forum) but it shows that shows that they did not approach any other lender but went stright to Swift Advances Plc...........would that not be called that a conflict of interest, and a breach of fiduciary duty??.....especially when they got paid brokers fees by us AND commission by Swift Advances Plc.

 

There is a box that is headed ....Other lenders approached....Its BLANK.

 

Have another 2hr appointment with Counsel at 2 o'clock today...he is going for secret commission (amongst other things)

Mr White said they do not pay commission ....Mr Webster ( after Mark Whte had declered this in court )said they do from time to time but not on our particular agreement.

 

I have the evidence form Promise Finance that they did and a big sum at that

 

sparkie

 

 

Good luck sparkie for today, lets hope you return with good news. Boy I wish I had a loan with swift so that I could join this fight .

 

Excellent stuff go get em sparkie:D!

[frettful38]

This is for lesterlass,

Did you know that your Mortgage with Swift First Ltd is being processed and administered by SWIFT ADVANCES..........an entity that does not legally exist .....PM me or E-mail me....had a word with my leagl team the default and copies I posted will more than likely render my whole case VOID by DECEPTION.........something else for the Swift spies to report back .........OFT have copies of them.......everyone should look at the default notices sent to them to see if they were issued with the heading of Swift Advances on the default notice ..............and check to see if the copies that were supplied to the courts have been altered to deliberately mislead the court into believing they were issued by Swift Advances Plc when they were not.

 

Just like the ones I have posted

sparkie

 

 

 

Doc I have Pm'd you

 

 

Great news sparkie! Its news like that that will keep the rest of going. I am still waiting for a response on mine, no luck at the moment I think I may have xxxxxx off my solicitor unintentionally of course that's why I have been waiting for a reply.

 

I am also grateful after following your advice not to go with client cartel review, have you seen the publicity they have been getting recently?

 

 

FTAdviser.com - MoJ shuts down Cartel for outstanding debts