Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Smarterchick]

folks I have been reading this thread with great intrigue!! I have a 2nd charge with these vultures..anyhow due to some financial difficulties in nov 2007 I got sent a date for repo hearing.. foolishly got the dates wrong and missed the hearing..so the court gave them posession.

 

 

Anyway, I repaid my arrears immediately and carried on making payments as normal..until recently... I fell behind again and am now a couple of months in arrears... They have sent me a letter saying they have possession and are going for an eviction date..anyway I rang them and said surely the possession order has expired? Hell no they said its valid for 6 years... I offered them a payment plan which they duly accepted but to cut a long story short my charges are more than the arrears!!

 

I have asked them numerous times to break down all these extra charges and they just ignore the letters... I am going to dig out my agreement and associated paperwork tonight.. Would anyone be happy to help me out with this? I'm thinking of going to court to set aside the possession order (poss will have to wait till my arrears are clear?) but at the same time try and address all the extortoinate charges... It seems I will never pay back what started out as a pretty small loan that has now grown to over 10k (yikes!)

 

 

Post it up my friend, there are plenty of us eager to put these creeps to bed once and for all...You'll find with a little searching, people who have claimed charges back, but Swift are notorious for not supplying what they are supposed to and making up documents to suit their needs. What I suggest to you is report everything they do to the ICO, FSA, FOS and anyone else remotely related to getting them to abide by the law. Do not expect them to tell the truth, do not expect them to abide by the law, do not expect them to do things the way you would expect any respectable financial organisation to behave, because you will be sorely dissappointed - they are rogues in the first order and they'll treat anything you say or do with contempt. Record everything, keep all documentation including the envelopes they send you and be ultra careful what you say. They will hang you out to dry and go off and laugh it off in the pub - that's the kind of people you are dealing with - East End Rogues and never, for one minute believe otherwise. You just have to be smarter and catch them out on their own mistakes and they make plenty of them in their thirst to rip people off. Be brave and confident, rise above their intimidation and you'll pull through this, but you'll have to be very thorough.

 

I wish you good luck, because to fall victim to these financial thugs brings no pleasure to any decent citizen.

[zoew]

ok great stuff.. hmm i might need to use an alias though so as not to predjudice my dealings with them? I am sure they are watching..!!

[Smarterchick]

ok great stuff.. hmm i might need to use an alias though so as not to predjudice my dealings with them? I am sure they are watching..!!

 

 

Start your own thread but don't mention swift and if you can use a different user name do, then pm one or two of us in these threads who look like they have a gripe with them like Sparkie and pkelly as to where the thread is..then we'll get to work on them. Can't promise anything, but at least you'll be in good company. Keep it in the secured loans and mtgs forum.

[zoew]

ok will do this tomorrow thanks v much

[Sparkie1723]

As we all know Swift totally refuse to supply any information about the Title Indemnity Insurance to any borrower/customer of theirs...but it is referred to on the secured loan agreement and the borrower pays for it...they will not lend you the money without it...despite wat they try and say ...you are entitles to a copy of it and the terms and conditions appertaining to it ........so they have never considered this

 

 

Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

18. Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

 

"7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

 

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it."

Attacked in the right way, this could be used to give Swift a headache ...I'm looking further into this aspect fr all...others may dig around about this and how we stand.

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

The agrument that would be put up against this is that it would be claimed that it only applys to insurance applicants in that they must not give false information when applying for insurance, if they do tehe insurance would be void.

BUT it doesn't specifically say this and if it did then this is just a single barrelled section of the Act and therefore unfair because it protects only one side......I would argue that Swift have a duty to supply information about the Title Indemnity Insurance because this section specifically refers to Contracts of Insurances or am I just being pedantic.

 

sparkie

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all,

Sparkie is absolutely correct, he is referring of course to my old friend the Fraud Act 2006. Section 3 is definitely the 'killer' in some respects, but Swift appear to ignore this. However in my own situation I have mentioned the Home Office Financial Crime Unit, and this has bought a response out of them! (I thought it might), you see I checked my agreement and discovered that whilst they say they have deducted certain fees from the loan, they have actually ADDED them on!

 

I have just written to them asking them to explain, and I will report them to the Police (and the FSA, FOS if neccessary) if I get no response. I always do what I tell these bozos I am going to do, NEVER say you are going to do something and don't then do it!

 

As a matter of interest I have just reported my ex-wife for Perjury during the Divorce, and the Police are proceeding against her for that, so in my book if you can't play fair, I'll come looking for you!

 

If you PM me I'll tell you what to look for in the agreement, but it is on this site anyway, I've just lost the post it's on!

 

Best wishes to everyone

 

Dougal

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Dougal,

 

My sentiments exactly, that is exactly what they have done with everyones loan...what they say is as Dougal says "They have deducted certain fees from the loan, they have actually ADDED them on!"

The agreement shown as an example on this thread states that the loan was for £43,000 but they added all the fees etc making a total of £46,955...the application was for £43,000.

The loan agreement states quite clearly that the "Total Loan" is £43.000.

But Civil Courts do not see it that way.....so we will have to go the Criminal Way.

 

sparkie

[overdone]

the Title Indemnity Insurance because this section specifically refers to Contracts of Insurances or am I just being pedantic.

 

sparkie

Well I paid this £135.00 on two remortgages but not on the original mortgage. I'm not sure what it is for.

[Sparkie1723]

Well I paid this £135.00 on two remortgages but not on the original mortgage. I'm not sure what it is for.

 

If you remortgaged with Swift then the one indemnity insurance would have bee suffice ...they made you pay double and that IS a criminal offence they misled you and it was to.your loss and failed to produce the docs.

 

You will more than likely have them in a bit of trouble with this, tell them you are going to take action against them under the New Fraud Act.

sparkie

[Dougal16T]

Good morning everyone,

 

Well, it looks as if Swift have finally 'cooked their own goose'!

 

I do strongly recommend at the very least direct contact with the Financial Crime Unit at the Home Office, if you went to local police with this it would almost be a non-starter, because it is serious fraud.

 

I have researched this in some depth, and the starting point could also be:

Serious Organised Crime Agency

PO Box 8000

London

SE11 5EN

 

The 24/7 telephone number for SOCA is 0370 496 7622.

 

If you look at SOCA's home page, you will see that they arranged for :

Cash to be returned to Victims of financial crime.....is this the end of the road for Swift......I wonder what a Class Action against them would do??

 

There is also:

 

Metropolitan Police Service - Fraud Alert

 

As I have said, it really is essential to use all of the tools the Law provides to stop these rogues, together we could do exactly that.

 

Best wishes to you all

 

 

Dougal

 

Feel free to PM me....I'll always reply

[pkelly]

Zoew

 

Dont worry about them they will come a cropper sooner or later, as for all their huffing and blowing, thats all it is, I saw a letter from them to a victim the other day.

after over a year without paying they have still not taken them to court, ??

Another victim I know insisted they take him as soon as possible. They both will wipe Swifts plate clean,

Swift never give the details you or even your legal team ask for, but in a courtcase they have no choice,

Looks like they will have to take swift to court, for not taking them to court honest,

Swift only take on the easy battles, and fight dirty or try to settle out of court without prejustice. so as to gag their victims.

After all they are fighting people who borrowed money in the first place, so most of them are unable to fight back, but those days are gone.

a world wide rebellion has already started, look at the mps saga?

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act, thanks to the decent people of this world, the sparkies etc, rise up to fight back,

 

`Yesterday I dared to struggle. Today I dare to win.`

The first principal of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation,

 

Anything said is my own opinion but its time all you onlookers did the same, no point in letting a few stick their head up.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning (again)

 

Whilst I hope that this is true, it will not happen of its own accord, it is VITAL that a concerted effort is made to deal with SWIFT now, rather than just wait it out.

 

I have already put the wheels in motion, by asking them to explain their accounting and mathematics......

 

I will only wait for 28 days (letter sent yesterday).. then I shall be off to SOCA with the details I have -anyone care to join me??

 

All the best

 

Dougal

[42man]

Good work Dougal........!! I will be writing to them myself...!!

[Sparkie1723]

You have my backing Dougal....

 

Just for interest as everyone knows you can fall behind with your mortgage payments now by 6 months and no action for possession can be taken before then. if only a mass of people with held their payments for 4 months, it would cause Swift so much damage they would collapse ....their money coming in cut by say £500,000 a month for 4 months ...just think about it that's what should be organised a mass revolt by swift customers that would show what people power could do.

Trouble is not as easy as it seems......but it would bring them to their senses quick.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

I believe one of the reasons Swift refuse to supply any informtion about Title indemnity Insurance is that.......They never even take them out...they just charge for it.

My reasoning for this is that if you have a first mortgage...... the first mortgagee will have carried out extensive checks on the land title....this why a first mortgae takes so long more than 6 weeks.

They don't require a fee for title indemnity because they have checked.

 

Therefore Swift know that the searches and checks have already been done, and the title is safe.

So they make an extra £30 £150 £180 or so "upfront money"....but if it is discoverd that they have not taken the insurance out they would be hit with a fraudulent transaction claim. Fraud by misrepresentain of facts gaining a pecuniary advantage to the loss of the borrower. So they tell everyone it has nothing to do with them .....wrong it does. It would void any agreement that has charged it and they haven't taken it out.

This is why we must continue to obtain proof it has been taken out, a CPR 31.6 will force them out into the open

 

sparkie

Edited May 29, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[sunray001]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Do you honestly think Swift will wait 6 months before starting repossession?

I will soon be able to let you know.

 

regards

 

sunray

[Dougal16T]

Good evening all,

 

I myself am due to be at my County Court against Swift on 15/6/2009, as they wish to become an 'intervenor' in the sale of my property.

 

I shall be:

 

1. Opposing the application

2. Serving documents under CPR 31.6 on their representative

3. Requesting an 'unless order' for disclosure

4. Asking for Costs at Legal Aid rates against Swift if my opposition is successful.

 

Let' s do it to them before they (try) to do it to us!!

 

Best wishes all

 

Dougal

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Do you honestly think Swift will wait 6 months before starting repossession?

I will soon be able to let you know.

 

regards

 

sunray

 

HIsunray

Govt guidelines say they can't/shouldn't/not acceptable etc etc...I think they may be able to give borrowers a hard time but they won't chance the FSA and OFT taking their license off them....by not waiting the specified time

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

HI Dougal

 

You have to make an aplication to the court under CPR 31.6 for an order to be made for further disclosure of documents and attend a hearing for that application to be heard of course that costs another £85.

 

I know I made one against the RBS, its a very tight CPR for the applicant and has to made properly....even the judge had to get the CPR' s out to check I'd made it properly

sparkie

[Dougal16T]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Many thanks, the good news is I am exempt fees! No disclosure has been made to date, so at this stage standard disclosure will be requested.

 

Kind regards

 

Dougal

[rainbow144]

We are having trouble with swift they hold a second charge over us and are threatening us to enforce a suspended order. This whole thing has been terrible from the start aranged by someone, advised by someone it was all we could get, filled and signed by someone on our behalf, things we never knew so called legal companies did, i am going to write to everyone i can, its about time we all helped each other and got things like these shut down, are they really people who care about others?rainbow144

[pkelly]

Hi Sparkie,

 

Do you honestly think Swift will wait 6 months before starting repossession?

I will soon be able to let you know.

 

regards

 

sunray

 

Hope not the sooner the court case the sooner my mates recon they will get back what they have paid swift at least. prob is one mate is nearly 18 months and still no word of court,

[Sparkie1723]

I know I keep on about the Title Indemnity Insurance, and the fact that Swift refuse to supply copies of any Documents relating to it, is of the utmost importance.

I believe that in a lot of loans Swift have charged for this insurance but have not taken it out……………The borrower has no choice to pay the fee for it, because if they do not ….Swift will not lend the money ( [EDIT]). It only needs one case to prove the Insurance has not been taken out, then Swift have had it ……..

I am certain that is the reason why they will not produce any info about this Insurance.

Everyone must keep on insisting they supply a copy of that policy.

sparkie

Edited December 14, 2009 by alanfromderby

[Smarterchick]

I know I keep on about the Title Indemnity Insurance, and the fact that Swift refuse to supply copies of any Documents relating to it, is of the utmost importance.

I believe that in a lot of loans Swift have charged for this insurance but have not taken it out……………The borrower has no choice to pay the fee for it, because if they do not ….Swift will not lend the money ( [EDIT]). It only needs one case to prove the Insurance has not been taken out, then Swift have had it …….[EDIT].

I am certain that is the reason why they will not produce any info about this Insurance.

Everyone must keep on insisting they supply a copy of that policy.

sparkie

 

Where there's a will Sparkie, where there's a will

Edited December 14, 2009 by alanfromderby