Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[MWB]

Hi,

I dont know if they are breaking the law - I am not an expert - but my point is that if they were, surely it would be common knowledge by now?

Insofar as not mentioning any wrongdoing on Swifts part on CAG - eh? - what are we here for then? I am not a lawyer either but I am sure that something could be said in such a way as to not render CAG liable?

[pkelly]

Hi,

I dont know if they are breaking the law - I am not an expert - but my point is that if they were, surely it would be common knowledge by now?

Insofar as not mentioning any wrongdoing on Swifts part on CAG - eh? - what are we here for then? I am not a lawyer either but I am sure that something could be said in such a way as to not render CAG liable?

yes and let swift know so they can be prepared :-| to fight everyone as they do one at a time and as much as behind closed doors,

they have a few fights on their hands just now and sooner or later they will fall `again.`

we are here to let people know whats happening, and it is working. even `swifties` have this saved on their fav buttons.

sparkies wee youtube adventure is only the start for the RBS

Swift will be next and I would not want to be them:p

[Mallymoo]

We too are having trouble with Swift Advances. We've asked them to reduce the rate of interest they are charging (currently 11.19%) but they have refused to, even though we provided evidence that the LIBOR rate, on which they tell us they rely, had reduced. Our interest rate has only ever risen, never decreased. We've tried the Financial Ombudsman (not interested) FLA (not interested) and the OFT who were only marginally interested.

We consider there is a case for this being an unfair relationship. Has anyone taken them to court for this, and does anyone know of a good company/solicitor who can deal with this issue efficiently? There are a lot of companies out there who advertise they can deal with cases of this type, but we just don't know who to trust, as they all seem to want money up front. Also can anyone tell me how to work out if Swift have made a "mistake" with the interest on our loan please?

[42man]

When I spoke to them last week they were still stating that they base their rates on Libor, however the compliance department state that it is the 'cost of funds'....and yet their last 3 increases in the interest rate were because of the 'base rate' increase.....I'd say it would be a potentially unfair agreement.....

[42man]

Whats more with the recent ruling all judges have to look at the fairness of agreements now - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/204563-european-court-ruling.html

[MWB]

Hi pk,

 

I understand completely what you are saying and agree to a point, however a couple of things I would say to counter your argument;

 

1. If anyone has had any sucess against Swift I am sure its on a firm legal basis - because this company will not have settled out of any sense of goodwill or compassion because they do not have any of either. As such would that not be deemed a legal precedent to enable others to persue them with the same action?

 

2. If we are all here to let people know whats happening then lets let them know what is happening!! - That will enable us all to go for it - this is after all a consumer action/group not a consumer action/individual.

Surely we would be stronger acting together than individually?

 

I know many people talk about OFT and similar bodies without much apparent success - dont know if this will make a difference but I have reported this company to BBC watchdog - have any of you done this? - If a weight of evidence is presented it might be nice to see Mark White et al squirm on camera?

 

Just a few thoughts to throw into the mix!!

[Smarterchick]

Hi MWB, I think you'll find across the forum a number of individual successes, but the problem you are, and a lot of others are experiencing is that Swift are a law unto themselves when it comes to litigation.

 

First, we have to get the individuals circumstances and then compare notes, this is the main strength the forum has, despite Swifts snoopers we are able to compare what Swift come back with to individuals and produce this evidence in court when needed. Traditionally, and they still keep doing it, [EDIT] - hence the change of tack on their funding rates - they no longer say they use Libor as too many people started questioning it, they say B of E to one person, Libor to another, funding costs to others, Libors dropped like a stone so now they say it's their 'funding costs' so who can question it? They are working themselves into a corner under no-end of legislation and so long as you bring your issues to be discussed you too will learn you are a part of the force, not an individual all on your own outside of it...this is just about tactics..they think we are dumb debtors because we needed sub-prime loans - 1st big mistake

Edited December 14, 2009 by alanfromderby

[Mallymoo]

Thanks for the replies. I am determined to do something about this company. They cannot be allowed to rip people off in this way. We are lucky in that we are completely up to date with our payments, and have never defaulted on the loan. I feel this gives us a stronger case against them, as we are not "in the wrong" in any way. We therefore intend to go forward on an unfair relationship claim.

How can anyone say that rates always going up but never going down is a fair relationship? Being a second mortgage, we had no reason to believe this account would be run any differently than our first mortgage, and Swift do not mention it in their agreement, the wording is ambiguous and in my view, we have not had the loan explained to us in adequate detail.

I've also noticed, and brought to their attention the changes of wording on their letters. I cannot see how they can keep changing their minds on what system they are basing their interest charges on, as this surely enables then to use whatever is the most expensive at the time. They are required to be transparent in their dealings with their customers, and they fall extremely short on this. Surely this (amongst a hoard of other things) would be picked up by a judge when the case went to court?

Unfortunately, they picked on the wrong person when they picked on me!

[Dougal16T]

Good morning everyone,

Typical....just when I am about to say something which I think is great news - I get beaten to the post!!

No offence meant....

I was just going to say that after discussing my position with Swift, Sarah Hood has suggested that I wait until

'Heath' is decided on Appeal next month.

BUT I then mentioned to her the situation with the CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 2006 – UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS and section 140B(2)(a) (debtor’s or surety’s application for an order relating to an unfair relationship), to her. (I say the nicest things to the ladies...!)...sorry I digress ..

.her response was that this is a possible way forward with Swift, which as yet has not been tested to her knowledge.

We discussed this particular piece of legislation and she said that it had been primarily designed with PPI claims in mind, BUT it does have the provision to deal with Swift where they have added back the fees to the loan without telling the borrower. (My case exactly).

The best part is that this legislation can be used AFTER an account has been repaid......

Now then.....any comments before I stick my head even further over the parapet.....!!!?

As always my best wishes, 

Dougal

ps: SOCA precis still uncompleted - apologies - but it will be posted and then sent to SOCA, as this IS fraud by misrepresentation. [Confirmed by a very good Criminal lawyer!]

 

Thanks SC!!

I take your point, and this is really where the 'unfair relationship' comes in....

Let's see what others think....

[Mallymoo, I have no hesitation in recommending Sarah Hood at Stephensons, but she may want a fee to act for you...she has been very straight with me...!

She has been quick, and accurate with her diagnosis of my situation, and whilst I have to wait for 'Heath', I may well consider the 'unfair relationship' angle......

NOTE: My recommendation is without any liability on my part, I just feel that this firm have 'a handle on the matter'. !!]

As always best wishes to all

 

Dougal

 

Hi Mallymoo,

I've tried what you have indicated but am unable to find the reference numbers on the OFT site.

Can you be a bit more specific please?

All the best

 Dougal

 

Good morning all,

 

It sounds to me that non-adherence to the guidelines could be sufficient for the OFt to revoke a licence.

 

Need I say more.......?

 

Well I will anyway, and it is basically that we have argued that he OFT seem reluctant to take action, but maybe it is because we need to say to the OFT in no uncertain terms, that 'this company are in breach of your guidelines.'

 

I know it is obvious, but perhaps it needs to be said about this little bird by more people - "more people = more power."

 

BUT I do counsel great caution, because what if the licence is revoked and the business then can no longer trade - are we shooting ourselves in the foot, as it might not be possible to get our money back after all?

 

Food for thought...

 

IMPORTANT MESSAGE :

 

Alan from Derby has had a request from Dominic Littlewood's TV company for dodgy companies like our little bird to be exposed. If you know Dom he is both a consumer champion and a veritable tiger, and this could well be what we might be looking for...

 

Contact details are: [email protected] or telephone 0207 598 7210. Please send all info re our little bird as soon as possible.

 

As always all the best

 

Dougal

[Mallymoo]

Hi Dougall

Thanks for the information. We have decided we are going to go ahead with the unfair relationship case against Swift. We actually haven't paid off our loan yet, so it is still current.

The first thing we did was to get statements off Swift (a real eye opener - £12.00 charged to our account for their receiving a letter FROM US!) plus other unauthorised additions. Now I'm going to take if further - I just need the name of a reputable and capable company to assist me with this because I don't have the legal knowledge to take a case of this type to Court. I don't know who I can trust to do this properly because we've had problems with solicitors not doing the right things and our losing out in the past.

Thanks

[Smarterchick]

Dougal: Now then.....any comments before I stick my head even further over the parapet.....!!!?

 

Yes!!

 

Bear something in mind about Heath. Heath is based upon the fact that Judge Purle believes this case to be 'one advance' not the Multiple agreement Bradley Say is arguing for Mrs. Heath. His reasoning being that Southern Pacific paid Heaths solicitors the full amount and although the agreement stated conditions about clearing charges, the solicitors are being deemed Heaths 'agent'. That being the case, Mrs.Heath directed/instructed the 'agent' to pay the separate items off which the defence is stating was actually a Multiple Agreement. This is where I think the weakness of Heath is for many who are relying upon it.

 

If you take those loans which are not sent via solicitors and are paid out directly by the lending company who have made it a condition of the loan to clear these 2nd charges or arrears and they (the lender like Swift, GE, Welcome whoever) only forward to the borrower the balance in cash which is the residue, then you have a different situation to Heath and I think Heath being relied upon is a mistake by both the judiciary and the solicitors like Ms Hood.

 

As for your interpretation of Unfair relationships I think that Swift are certainly digging their way very nicely into that hole - big time, big hole.

 

SC

 

p.s. Watching? - those watching me are being watched themselves....

Edited September 3, 2009 by Smarterchick

[overdone]

Unfortunately, they picked on the wrong person when they picked on me!

That is the spirit you will very much need.

[pkelly]

Hi Folks JOHNS GONE,

John Webster I see is not in his office, does anyone else have another contact, where yo can get a reply with in 40 days,

[Smarterchick]

Hi Folks JOHNS GONE,

John Webster I see is not in his office, does anyone else have another contact, where yo can get a reply with in 40 days,

 

 

what dya mean he's gone?? ...is it just the 'out of office reply?

 

You can always try the other directors pk

 

Benard Barwick & Amanda Brooks [email protected] same with Barwick I guess

 

what was that old reggea song ??....stir it up, little darling !

[Mallymoo]

Thanks Dougal, but can you please tell me where Stephensons are?

[Mallymoo]

Thanks everyone!

It is certainly reassuring to know that we are not alone in getting uptight with Swift. We asked them to reduce their interest rates given the fact that Bank of England and Libor rates had reduced so much but they refused. We didn't do this with a view to taking the matter to Court, we just wanted them to be fair, but from what I have read, that's not a possibility. We think they are just being greedy as the expense of their customers, and someone needs to do something about it!

[sweetjane]

Mallymoo, did you get a full statement? I.e not just a list of transactions? If so, that must be a first. We'll chase for one now.

[Mallymoo]

Hi Sweetjane.

Well, I asked for a statement but received a list of transactions and a repayment record both of which looked like they could have been typed up by anyone. I' ll hassle them for a proper statement. I bet they won't be able to provide one.

Thanks to everyone else for their input on this. I'm going to do something about Swift Advances, so keep watching this space!.

[sweetjane]

mmm the problems is none of these documents actually tell you what your debt is. There is no "outstanding balance" figure. I just know it's going to come as a terrible shock because the phenomenal interest they charge is not shown! By law (since the end of 2008) everyone should get a periodic statement - Swift say they will be sending them out on the loan anniversary but ours has passed and we ain't got one yet. Keep hassling.

[Mallymoo]

Don't worry, I've already been shocked at how much we will have to pay back - it's an astronomical figure, no wonder they don't put it on their documentation (which they should by the way)! There is a recent piece of legislation which may interest people suffering from Swift rip off syndrome. If you go onto the Office of Fair Trading website and look up the 2nd charge guidance section 2.1, 3.6 and 4.4, I am sure you will find an additional large spade to assist Swift with digging an even deeper hole than they already have. I understand that it can also be applied to loans preceding these new guidelines. We've never had a statement from them either. They do seem to think they are a law unto themselves don't they?

[Mallymoo]

Hi Dougall

If you go onto the OFT website and type in "second charge guidelines" it brings up a number of options for you to click on. Take the first one, and to the right you will see popular searches. Directly underneath there is an Adobe document. Click on this and it brings up a 27 page document. One of the interesting items I mentioned is actually 3.5 not 3.6 (sorry). Hope this helps

[sweetjane]

Hi Mallymoo, I think that document on the OFT website is a consultation document only at this point. All good intentions but I bet lenders will object to many of its suggestions.

 

Dougal: here's a link to the doc: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/oft1057con.pdf

 

All the best, SJ

[sweetjane]

Apologies Mallymoo, You're right, I'm wrong. There are guidelines on OFT website - not just consultation doc. I am not worthy.

[Mallymoo]

Hi Sweetjane

Phew you had me worried for a minute there - I thought I'd given misleading information to Swift when I told them they were in breach of OFT guidelines!!!

I'd like to advise everyone who has a problem with Swift Advances to make an official complaint to the OFT - the more people who do, the better the chance of them losing their consumer credit licence. I'm sure I read it somewhere on this forum that the OFT already have a file on Swift and are looking into their practices. We just need to make it a much bigger file so the OFT are compelled to do something about it.

[Doc2527]

Hi

 

Can you advise me, do guidlines have to be adhered to?

 

Is that not what they are just a guide, as to how things ideally should be?

 

Doc