Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[andrew1]

1st point is the last point:

 

( 8 This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.”

 

if it does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement would that not dispel any action of a consumer agreement?

 

If what this says to the exclusion of 8. is true then 6 (b) will be quite useful to those with Interest only loans I would imagine.

[andrew1]

I which case a number of people here will have some rejoicing to do.. thank you WP3

[andrew1]

A mortgage has the first charge, is not subject to the CCA as it is exempt being for the purchase of land.

 

Secured loans whether Regulated or not these days comes with the protection of the Consumer Credit Act. They are usually for debt consolidation, home improvements and other purchases which the bank requires security on, but are not for the purchase of land per sa.

 

One might be tempted to follow Professor Bennions view on top-up loans which are added to Mortgages though (when you ask your mortgage lender for further funds to purchase things and they just stick them on the mortgage account) - he has a view so check out his website on Top-Up Loans). These loans should be regulated CCA agreements.

[andrew1]

ok, well mines a 1st charge non cca secured loan. Whats that mean? Because I can't figure it out and neither can my solicitor it seems.

 

Could this be that your house was paid for and you took out a loan for something against the house as security and the amounts are over £25k and after April 2007?

[andrew1]

Can you explain the 2 loans - were they with the same lender ? How or why did you need them consolidated? Sorry to be asking personal questions it just helps understand where you're at. The TIF is to protect their title should your title happen to belong to some remote church back in the 1600's and they can't get their money back - it's a remote problem, but a money spinner for them. Have you asked for a copy of the Insurance policy seeing as you paid for it and it is a prescribed term on your agreement?

[andrew1]

It's a really complicated situation and I'm also embarrased about going into it as I think Im a complete idiot for trusting them.

 

First things first. I do not EVER want to hear you saying you are embarrassed or feeling an idiot anymore. This forum is full of people who have been hoodwinked into all kinds of things and the reason it was set-up by Bankfodder and Dave in the first place was to bring people together to focus ideas and stories which you wouldn't have done had you been on your own out there. So, hold your head high as you hold the moral high ground.

 

Your situation needs opening up into its constituent parts so the jigsaw can be put together by some of us who have been there before and it looks like Sparkie is gathering some of this. I will liaise with Sparkie initially so we are not repeating ourselves, it's hard enough as it is. Be back later, but don't worry, you are in safe hands and we'll unravel this for you.

 

They've got to be good to beat CAG, Sparkie and the Cabot Fan Club .

[andrew1]

This is from OFT Consumer credit - regulated and exempt agreements

 

Variation of agreements

 

2.14 An unregulated agreement can become regulated because of a variation made to it. This can happen when the parties make a further agreement which varies or supplements the earlier one. In such a case, the Act regards the earlier agreement as having been revoked and replaced by a new agreement which incorporates the terms of the earlier agreement. This new agreement may be regulated under the Act even if the previous agreement was unregulated.

11

 

2.15 This does not however apply where the earlier agreement or the modifying agreement is exempt under section 16(6C) (regulated mortgage contracts and regulated home purchase plans) or section 16C (buy-to-let agreements). In such cases the earlier agreement and the modifying agreement are treated as separate for the purposes of the Act.

 

 

12

 

9

 

Section 13.

 

10

 

Section 14.

 

11

 

Section 82(2).

 

12

 

Section 82(2A).

 

4

 

7

 

2.16 If the earlier agreement was regulated under the Act, it cannot become unregulated because of a variation, unless the modifying agreement is for running-account credit or is exempt under section16(6C) or section 16C.

 

 

13

13 Section

 

Okay WP3 may I ask what your take is then in relation to OFT guidance as so described above on a Regulated loan Agreement secured by a 2nd charge loan by company 'A' say of 12k being absorbed into an Unregulated Agreement for say 40k with company 'B'...under a condition by Company 'B' when one requires a larger loan that the 2nd charge loan be cleared in their favour when granting a new loan?

 

There is reference on this forum to 'Once regulated, Always regulated' as confirmed by Prof Bennion. Thus any 2nd charge regulated loan absorbed into another should remain Regulated irrespective of the fact the larger amount in the new loan will be over the 25k boundary.

 

Be interested in your understanding from the OFT's point of view.

 

Thanks

[andrew1]

Andrew Punch - CEO Westcot Credit Services . . . another company in the Alchemy Partners Portfolio along with Swift Advances: Alchemy - Deals Listed

Is this significant???

SJ

 

Depends which way you look at it SJ...this reminds me of a client I had once, a big company with a large what they called their 'Corporate Accounting Department' - this department looked after the subsidiaries financial reporting and had over a hundred qualified staff. If there were people in the Corporate Accounting department who they wanted rid of that had been with the company a long while and would be too costly to get rid of they'd promote them into a dead loss subsidiary and make them feel important as a board member then make them redundant under a new contract - all I can say is - " Watch this space" it maybe a short lived appointment! Remember, that the guy who set up Alchemy left and said Swift were in for a fall - well???

[andrew1]

I wonder if thats why my payments are going into Swift Advances bank account given that my loan is with Swift 1st..... and aother thing, how can they accept payments on Swift 1st behalf when on their website and all correspondence, Swift Advances Plc claims to be only an insurance intermidiary for Swift 1st.

 

Sparkie - everyday I grow more convinced that you're MI6 Do you know where the WMD is?

 

On which note...someone previously asked for bank account details of payments going in to swift. Could you post here which Swift bank account you pay in to please using the last 4 digits of the account number. Bank name, sort code and who the payments are actually made to. Someone will pick this up and analyse it on here.

 

Thanks

[andrew1]

Now here is a letter that confirms our account is being administerd by Swift Advances

 

 

 

With regard the above I might just ring the FLA and tell them that the complaints they have received about Swift Advances Plc & Swift 1st Ltd and they said neither of these companies in their view had done anything wrong means that they are a waste of space and are negligent in not investigating Swift in the First place before they let the crooks be a member of their association.

 

No mention of Swift Advances Plc except on the bottom of the first image ...the usual reference to the Trading style of Swift Advances, all these have gone to the OFT

sparkie

 

 

No License Sparkie - No License = No debt?, It's a Criminal offense using a trading style not on the license isn't it? oh dear.

Edited March 3, 2010 by andrew1

[andrew1]

I am now back on line after being off for 2 days ........due to an AOL...BT complete cock up.

 

I have had to get a wi fi "dongle" wont be back on limne properly for a week or so while BT and AOL sort it out....any way read all what I have missed ..I will just put my few penneth in..

 

OFT have confirmed that on Swift Avances Plc CCA licence it must show all trading styles/names that they use.............

They use "SWIFT"

They use "Swift Advances".

They use "Eastern Counselling" ( Debt Collecting and counselling)

They use "The Swift Group"

They use "SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES"

 

Non of these names are on Swift Advances License..

 

And here is another major point...everyone take a look at their loan terms and conditions from A to T.

 

Can anyone see who

Term a) You agree to pay the Total Loan amount and interest to???

To whom do all these terms and conditions refer to besides "you"

The only term that refers to who you pay what to is Term " R" ...Swift Payment Protection Insurance.

 

Neither "Swift" or Swift Adances Plc have got any payment protection Insurance ...Swift 1st Ltd do but it does not say Swift 1st Ltd in the terms.

 

In My opinion these terms and conditions are not worth a penny.

 

sparkie

 

OFT have confirmed that on Swift Avances Plc CCA licence it must show all trading styles/names that they use.............

They use "SWIFT"

They use "Swift Advances".

They use "Eastern Counselling" ( Debt Collecting and counselling)

They use "The Swift Group"

They use "SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES"

 

Non of these names are on Swift Advances plc License..

[andrew1]

We should all send Mr Blocksidge the link to this Advert and Mr Webster....with special note that The Swift Group is another trading style of Swift Advances Plc.........................NOT LICENSED TO CARRY OUT CCA BUSINESS

 

sparkie

 

Don't you just love the small print: right at the bottom of the page of that Ad...

 

SWIFT GROUP, ARCADIA HOUSE, WARLEY HILL BUSINESS PARK, BRENTWOOD, ESSEX CM13 3BE TELEPHONE: 0845 0748800 FAX: 0845 0729009

 

This is not a consumer advertisement and is not to be shown to existing or potential customers. Information correct at time of going to print. Telephone calls may be recorded for training and security purposes.

Swift Group is a trade name of Swift Advances plc.

[andrew1]

"even disagreements" - perish the thought!

 

What I think may be important to remember about all this is that these names appear to be innocent enough names which are an abbreviation to their over all trading company/style of Swift - I mean, who refers to Kelloggs corn flakes as Kelloggs plc? We don't, and companies often use trading styles and life today is all about abbreviating. Swift Advances Plc or Swift or Swift Advances? Who cares we all know who we are talking about....BUT....

 

I did some work for a company in the midlands not so long ago. They were a building company. The owner had a self employed trading style of (I'm making this name up) "Jack the Lad" builders...he also had a Limited Company trading as "Jack the Lad Limited". He also had another Limited Company called "Jack the Lad Training Limited". They all had the same address, they all had the same telephone number, they were all answered by the same people and when they ordered goods from suppliers guess what? They just said this is Jack The Lad calling can we have......

 

The Jack the Lad Limited company went bust owing suppliers tens of thousands, but they carried on trading in their training company using the same old names effectively using all the assets of the bust company and leaving many creditors singing for their money.

 

So, lets get back to Swift - same company, You all call them Swift or Swift Advances, how many of you know what is behind all these trading styles? How many of you know if the one you dealt with has a license to use the trading style and how many of you know what to do about it? How many different bank accounts are they operating and are monies going to the right company and people?

 

We found that 'Swift Advances,' whilst many loans were being underwritten in that trading style, was actually licensed to a completely different company with the OFT than the one you all think is Swift Advances...never take this lot for granted.

 

That's what the OFT are supposed to be for - to tell us, guide us and make sure they do not license companies or trading styles they are not supposed to AND we expect the OFT and Trading Standards to exercise their powers in bringing them to heal when abusing their position. We must keep piling in the information to the OFT, but it would be nice if the OFT would issue a little guidance to some as to whether Swift are about to pay the proce or whether we are all wasting our time. ...Pleeease.

Edited March 15, 2010 by andrew1

[andrew1]

Take no notice of Andrews woffling folks ........

 

sparkie

 

I beg your Pardon? Waffling (with an 'a') is my trade mark...however, people should take note as they will realise that what they see is not always what the reality is behind what they want you to see... Woffling indeed!

 

It is deception, you are quite right as it was with the Midlands companies - made me sick thinking they were doing that to creditors ..and I told em so too!

[andrew1]

I agree entirely, it is not the same without Sparkie....

 

As always best wishes to everyone

 

Dougal

 

I don't - I think he 'woffles' too much

[andrew1]

Just a quickie folks ..If you can prove 100% either Swift Advances Plc or Swift 1st (first) Ltd whichever they say is their correct title ( they have used both at sometime or other) paid a "SECRET COMMISSION" of more than the documentary fee that Mr White states they ONLY pay it will & DOES render the agreement unenforceable............and that is good breakfast food for thought;)

 

 

sparkie

 

based upon what, over my cup of tea?

[andrew1]

I note we have a guest. Might that be Mr Webster or Sparkle come to say hallo?

[andrew1]

Brilliant work sooper snoopers :D:D Looking at the trouble auditors are in with Lehmans, who are the auditors that sign off Swift & Kestrel's books? Surely they've been a bit slap dash.

 

KPMG.. .and I believe a certain set of accounts each year was never signed off...

[andrew1]

No, but they keep coming up with new names all the time it seems, so perhaps they have an umbrella type name that covers all their companies.

 

Just remember that it is a criminal offense to trade under a trading name which is not registered with the OFT (not sure about FSA) Swift Advances, at the time of many peoples loans were licensed not to Swift Advances plc, but to another company altogether called Swift Financial UK Ltd - no connection to the Swift we all love. How many people have headed paper from Swift Advances (not plc) which also comes with the name Swift Group too..another name unlicensed.

[andrew1]

Any chance of answer to my question please?

 

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo View Post

As you guys know much more than I do about securitisation, short of asking my bank if my loan is securitised, is there another way [or ways] for me to find out?

Also, my bank has been taken over by another since my loan was taken out.

Should it be the original bank or the bank that has taken over that should be taking me to Court, regardless of any securitisation questions?

 

LFI,

 

From what I understand from another thread, there are ways to tell if the securitisation and banks know about it. Firstly, your bank Direct Debit/Standing Order will show on you bank statement a reference to these payments. See what that reference is and come back here as if what Mr Sparkie says were true, then the beneficial rights will be going straight to the spv. Also, test out your home insurance and ask them who the name of who is named as the owner of the mortgage. They have to register the proper owner. Results on the other threads were varied when people asked.

 

One thing we have to keep in mind. I have read here that their Chief exec Mr Weston is it?..states that the company DO NOT securitise their portfolio. If anyone has that information in writing then that is good support in the argument.

 

From what one reads here it appears Kestrel Acquisitions are the securitisation vehicle for something. Finding out what was securitised, when and through whom the spv provided this portfolio and for how much will be the key.

 

Just keep equitable assignment in mind.

Hope that's of some help.

[andrew1]

Cannot seem to get over this fact.

1 Mark White has stated that Banks (who ever they are and I imagine he means the securitising banks) will only lend about 70% of the equity...that is Andrew 1's Equity transfer...he keeps on about.

 

Swift Advances Plc accounts they sold £200 million of mortgages and loans ....if that was done as an equitable trasnfer deal only Kestrel could only have borrowed £140 million......BUT they were able to borrow the full amount Swift wanted ....HOW because the titles were transferred also ...it could not have been an equitable transfer of rights but a full transfer sale. Absolutely ..SIMPLES

Grasshoppers

Look at a problem simply and you will arrive at a simple answer....look at a problem and interject problems that do not exist and you will have a hard time finding the answer.

 

The new "Confuchious"......sparkie :D:D:D

 

Confuchious?....

 

By laying out the possibilities of what may have happened, no matter what the 'keeps on about' thought process behind the posting, it aides those ferrets amongst you in dismissing the obvious or simplicity in what we see as Swift would want us to see it.

 

Just one thing I notice for example is the constant reference in their accounts to the number of staff they have. Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd - 109 staff when I read here that inquiries made to the company address state they had never heard of Kestrel let alone share the office with 109 ghosts. Mind you minimum wage springs to mind as they had a salaries bill of around £45,000 for the year. This is however deceiving to would be traders with this company as are the figures which are supposed to reflect their trading, liabilities and net worth.

 

What concerns me more is the overall net worth if this lot went belly-up and assertions being made are true. Now that's another matter altogether.

 

I have read with interest the securitisation issue on another thread which has hammered out this issue with Preferred and Spml who have securitised and parallels cannot be dismissed given the CEO's background of Swift Advances plc. He worked for Preferred.

 

Most points raised on this thread like mine which questions what we would normally mean was 'simple' or normal business practice have been dismissed by the careful scrutiny you and your colleagues have researched and exposed, so my questions/doubts/devil advocate points are a healthy ingredient in this process one hopes. We are not privy to exactly what has gone on, but the unearthing of all this will surely either bring this company to its knees or return them (if they were ever there in the first place) to trading a much healthier and wise/cleaner/ more respectable organisation than it has been, putting many wrongs to right.

 

Good luck.

[andrew1]

Now look what I've found in our paperwork,..... it's an notification of interest rate rise from Swift First....they tell us its going up on our "mortgage"......they then say if "our loan" is either fixed or discounted etc etc

So have we got a mortgage with Swift First ( trading style of Swift First Ltd) or is it a loan with them.......or is it with The Swift Group or Swift Advances Plc ........who owns our loan /mortgage out of all these .....but then again where does Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd fit in also?

 

If they all own it then they have made themselves a hefty extra asset on their books!....of some £ 120.000 or so if they all say we owe it to them and claiming it as such on their books:)

 

 

 

 

Just noticed our agreement hasn't got an agreement number on the executed agreement, has anyone else got a number on their actual agreement???

 

sparkie

 

Sparkie, this creates an interesting concept here.

 

You have an agreement with Swift Advances plc and here you have a completely different company issuing interest rate hikes.

 

It produces evidence that the systems/staff and all else are controlled by the same people, some of whom fail in their duties to differentiate between the companies when issuing documents. Hence the Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd being printed at the top of some of the Subject Access paperwork.

 

This all comes down to pressure previously discussed where staff get confused, switched to other duties due to outside pressures such have been inflicted upon them by consumers hungry for both the truth and answers.

 

They trip themselves up time after time as witness in Cabot when we went after them. It's only a matter of time before..

 

Can anyone answer the question you ask with regards to the account number being on the agreement?

[andrew1]

Oh dear, here we go again. But I think Takeiteasy is right. All the people on this forum, including Mr Sparkie are all up their own backsides trying to dodge debt and should be responsible borrowers and live up to what they sign up to, pay it all back and live happily ever after. That's what you are implying of course (and no, you are not winding me up as well).

 

I agree, people should be responsible, honest, not break the law or try and dodge their legal obligations -it's common decency after all, I support you 100% - you're a fine fellow/woman if those values glide through your bones. We'd all subscribe to that.

 

Of course, when organisations with a fiduciary duty, legal obligations for which they are granted license to operate, and a duty of care, who are transparent and who are respected members of the professional business community to who we hold in high esteem as purveyors of all things good turn out to be liars, crooks who do anything they can to weasle their way into repossessing honest (in the main) citizens homes without a care in the world in the name of profit then one can hardly be surprised if someone eventually catches on to their evil ways, investigates and then tries to ask honest and decent questions which are always met with a deadly silence or evasive brick wall. - Enter Mr Sparkie et al.

 

Have you ever tried asking honest and decent questions about something only to be stifled by an ignorant response?

 

Actually, we don't usually feed trolls, but you are obviously someone with a considerable knowledge and as has been suggested, you may even have an insight into the subject matter company. If that is the case and you have any kind of decency within you, come and join us in uncovering the web of deceit that is going on rather than mocking the considerable efforts going on on this thread to uncover the truth.

 

That's all this is about. If Swift told the truth when asked most of the litigation which goes on and all the speculative avenues of advice we try to establish would never have happened in the first place.

 

Look in the mirror whoever you are and ask yourself if any one of the posters on this thread was a member of your family about to be thrown out of their home due to deceit - what would you do?

 

Jump ship - come and join us and be constructive and use some of those obvious talents you have..

[andrew1]

Quote from Andrew1

 

"Oh dear, here we go again. But I think Takeiteasy is right. All the people on this forum, including Mr Sparkie are all up their own backsides ..........."

 

Not sure if I like that!:p:D:D:D

 

I wouldn't be rude to the Queen and I wouldn't be rude to you sir

 

My argument is not about a company showing compassion although that should be a part of their ethos as when you lend money as a business it is understandable that sometimes people do fall into personal crisis which requires compassion.

 

No, my issue as it has always been is the foundation of ALL business people and that begins with a 'Core term'

 

"ACT WITHIN THE LAW "

 

Do that and the rest follows....all I see on here are Agreements which are incorrectly calculated, draughted or executed, Trading Styles unlicensed and abused and even laughably using someone else's licensed name. Default notices tampered with, signatures faked, Terms and Conditions abused the list is endless and that's before all the alleged lies told in court and so on..

 

Now these people apparently received £400 million's to set this company going. They have a team of legal people who frankly should have gone through all these agreements to ensure they were abiding by the Rules and Regulations to which they subscribe, the Acts of Parliament requirements for the industry sector they are trading within and trained their staff to carry out a professional and legal, law abiding company. I ran a business for 30 yrs and it was all about contracts - I had my solicitors pawing over these all the time watching the changes to legislation from within my industry. So what have these people been doing? That is a very critical question, these are not newbies to their industry either.

 

Please don't come crying on here lecturing the mainly innocent on morals and legalities before getting your own business in order - You abide by the law - so will we. You are in no position yet to start lecturing anyone. Thus far you are bullies, callous, crude, arrogant, lying bullies but your day will come as have others with whom you may not know, but who have walked in your shoes beforehand and perished....don't say you have not been warned (or, been given the chance to avoid )

 

Takeiteasy, as I have said, if you have any conscience search your soul.

 

 

andrew1

[andrew1]

Anyone who can offer a different angle to the debate is welcome on CAG, even I would imagine by sparkie, that's what makes the forum what it is..a little like Wikapeidia..people keep adding to the momentum, keep it in check and reality and then others with a more learned background come forward to correct. You are welcome TIE, so long as the personal attacks come in the form of respecting the other persons knowledge, but begging to differ with facts known to you and posting them up for debate, not mockery..as busterg states, just a little bit of TLC and thought before hand.

 

Sarah, behave.

Edited April 17, 2010 by andrew1
typo