Jump to content



Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3668 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

Marky1701 ........Swift will NEVER tell you that Kestrel own your loan ........the answer you will get

 

My answers to him are in red ...I never got any more info off him again

 

 

Dear Sparkie

I am not prepared to open a fresh line of dialogue until we have closed previous ie your message concerning the basis of our funding. You have not addressed my response in the light of which I believe both Swift and my colleagues referred to in your message are entitled to a full retraction.

 

I'm happy to deal with as many issues as you wish to raise, but one by one.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

John Webster

 

 

Dear Mr Sparkie

I write further to your email of 4 August 2009.

 

I acknowledge you have also submitted a further Subject Access Request to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd, and it is my understanding that you will receive a response from the Compliance Department about this shortly.

 

With regard to the points you have raised within the attachment I would comment as follows;

 

There was no legal transfer of the mortgage from Swift Advances to Kestrel Loans no 1 - this was an internal accounting procedure only. The mortgage has at all times remained in the name of Swift Advances plc.

It doesn't it is with Barclays Bank

How come Kestrel are also processing the account on their computer system along with Swift

 

The mortgage with Swift Advances was covered by title insurance from 4 April 2007.

My SAR says it was from 21st May 2007

 

I am also satisfied that Swift has at all time complied with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and we will be happy to discuss any questions that we may receive from the Information Commissioner's office.

 

The dispute you raised was not a genuine dispute since you clearly had to pay back what you borrowed (which the court later also decided) and so we were entitled to continue to process your data including sending any account information to credit reference agencies. You will appreciate that Swift, as with all lenders, are bound by reciprocal arrangements with the CREs where we are required to file account information so that other lenders can make informed and responsible lending decisions.

Neither ourselves or the Court was aware that our account had been transferred to Kestrel No 1 a company that does not hold a licence for processing data.

No lender is bound by any arrangement to supply data/information ….it is purely by choice. Why make such misleading statements.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

John Webster

Chief Executive Officer

 

The internal accounting pocedure he talks about is the DOUBLE BORROWING

 

Swifts accounts state they sold these mortgages Kestrels account say they acquired them so by saying they remained with Swift JOhn Webster is conradicting what he said in his directors report and signed it as a statement of truth.

 

What he has tried to say for argument is for example that

 

You can sell something you own to some one for money and try to say it still belongs to you ........( that's what Webster is trying to say)............Can't be done ..........simple as that.....try getting a car back you have sold for £ 10.000 to someone by saying you still have the log book....especially if its still under H.P

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
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

Hi Sparkie,

 

So what is the bottom line? Swift say this and you say that etc etc and it seems to go round and round with neither side backing own.

 

BUT WHAT, in all practicality, does it mean and what can we do?

 

All I know is this: taken from a recent 'This is Money' article:

 

Editor's commentary: The important three-month sterling Libor rate rose from 0.61% to 0.61375%, announced on Friday, 27 November. It fell to a record low of 0.54% on 28 September, bobbed around that mark for a while

 

Swift base their lending rates on 3 mth LIBOR, which according to the above is 'bobbing' around 0.6%. Swift charge me 17.3%

Edited by Marky1701
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sparkie,

 

So what is the bottom line? Swift say this and you say that etc etc and it seems to go round and round with neither side backing own.

 

BUT WHAT, in all practicality, does it mean and what can we do?

 

 

I know this is easy to say and hard to take............Swift know that they have the power of money...........they know you have to lie down and take the whip.............or you can do what I am doing fight the in their own backyard.........take them on and fight..............easy to say mate .....and very hard to do do .......I am 72 years old and fought the Communist terrorists in the jungles of Malaya back in the early 60's ........they used some dirty tricks I can tell you...But they were pussy cats compared to these leeches.

 

That was a long hard fight but we beat them in the end .cost a lot of our lads lives.but we did it.

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this for a quote!

 

'The late payment interest is not down to late payments'

 

That's what it says on a recent letter from Swift.....I wonder what they'll come up with next?

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

What they are saying ...We are charging you late payment interest...not because you paid late ....we just decided to charge you it bcause we can, if you try to argue then ............we will just say its because you paid late:evil::evil:

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another quick e-mail to Mr Webster

 

 

Dear Mr Webster

 

I copy below a section taken from one of your e-mails, as your company has re-instated possession proceedings against us, the application hearing is to take place on 3rd December 2009, in order to make this e-mail clear to the Court would you be so kind as to explain what you mean by this paragraph, bearing in mind I will be presenting to the Court the 395 Security Document, I am sure you will be completely aware of what its terms, conditions and pledges are contained in that document.

 

Especially the Negative Pledge. Would you explain this below, I may ask the Court to subpoena you to explain it.

 

There was no legal transfer of the mortgage from Swift Advances to Kestrel Loans no 1 - this was an internal accounting procedure only. The mortgage has at all times remained in the name of Swift Advances plc.

 

With regard to the internal accounting procedure, are you referring to the “double accounting” procedure that is taking place;

One on Swifts computer system and…… one on Kestrel No 1’s accounting system, ( of which I have proof) I will be asking the Court to order these accounting procedures to be presented and explained to the Court

 

Yours sincerely

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no legal transfer of the mortgage from Swift Advances to Kestrel Loans no 1 - this was an internal accounting procedure only. The mortgage has at all times remained in the name of Swift Advances plc.

 

 

Just to explain to those who may not know, the term 'legal transfer' refers to securitisation where Swift might sell the rights to the loan..the rights being the interest payments you make. Under a 'legal transfer' (which is all they can do in America) the title is transferred on the 'sale' to another company) Under 'equitable transfer' this is securitisation which happens to most financial products, this interest they are entitled to for the term of the loan gets hocked out to investers via an SPV ( Special Purchase Vehicle) or Trust which if it happened in Swifts case would be Kestrel. BUT, and this is the big 'but'. Mr Webster Swift's Chief executive and Direcor of Kestrel also is on record as saying Swift keep all their loans on balance sheet and do not securitise..so what are they doing selling the loans to Kestrel then? What is the purpose? This is the question Swift will not answer and the one which Sparkie is pressing for. It would appear they are 'selling' the loans on face value to Kestrel and trotting along to a bank and saying " we have all these loans we are going to make loadsa money on please lend us against them" That, needs some explaining when they are already tied up in a Barclays Debenture (security over the loans Swift gave to Barclays) - at fixed capped rates of interest . Unlike the loan interest rates you have on your loans here which appear to rise at a whim based upon Bank of England rates, Libor, Shareholder pressure or whatever they can think of next which sounds plausable to a Judge on the day...dodgy!

Edited by Smarterchick
clarity on legal title
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to explain to those who may not know, the term 'legal transfer' refers to securitisation where Swift might sell the rights to the loan..the rights being the interest payments you make. Under securitisation which happens to most financial products this interest they are entitled to for the term of the loan gets hocked out to investers via an SPV ( Special Purchase Vehicle) or Trust which if it happened in Swifts case would be Kestrel. BUT, and this is the big 'but'. Mr webster is on record as saying Swift keep all their loans on balance sheet and do not securitise..so what are they doing selling the loans to Kestrel then? This is the question Swift will not answer and the one which Sparkie is pressing for. It would appear they are 'selling' the loans on face value to Kestrel and trotting along to a bank and saying " we have all these loans we are going to make loadsa money on please lend us against them" That, needs some explaining when they are already tied up in a Barclays Debenture (security over the loans Swift gave) - at fixed rates of interest capped. Unlike the loans you have here which appear to rise at a whim based upon Bank of England rates, Libor, Shareholder pressure or whatever they can think of next...dodgy!

 

 

Absolutely smack on S/M/C and I intend to force them out into the open, one way or another.

 

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ring in 1st thing on Monday to the switch board and ask for any Kestrel company after all there is almost 100 workers there

but with the DIRECTOR HAVING JUST LEFT lol they might be in a bit of a fluster.

TO LATE TO GET OF THE SINKING SHIP NOW :D :D

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Matie I see youve been busy,,,

 

whats the chance of MARK WHITE coming up to see you on thursday

 

 

That would be the best xmas present I could have pkelly;) Do I have some questions to put to that man,

And one of them isn't ...taken off a Beatles album...... DO YOU LOVE ME???

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ring in 1st thing on Monday to the switch board and ask for any Kestrel company after all there is almost 100 workers there

but with the DIRECTOR HAVING JUST LEFT lol they might be in a bit of a fluster.

TO LATE TO GET OF THE SINKING SHIP NOW :D :D

 

 

That's right everyone just ring and ask to speak to anyone from Kestrel so you can have it confirmed from one of their employees that they have bought your loan/mortgage and ask them to explain because you have only just found out about it....you need the explanation before you challenge this under section 140 of the New CCA 2006 Unfair Relationship ....doing things without your knowledge. Start giving them problems the way they have given you problems

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just another quick e-mail to Mr Webster

 

 

Dear Mr Webster

 

I copy below a section taken from one of your e-mails, as your company has re-instated possession proceedings against us, the application hearing is to take place on 3rd December 2009, in order to make this e-mail clear to the Court would you be so kind as to explain what you mean by this paragraph, bearing in mind I will be presenting to the Court the 395 Security Document, I am sure you will be completely aware of what its terms, conditions and pledges are contained in that document.

 

Especially the Negative Pledge. Would you explain this below, I may ask the Court to subpoena you to explain it.

 

There was no legal transfer of the mortgage from Swift Advances to Kestrel Loans no 1 - this was an internal accounting procedure only. The mortgage has at all times remained in the name of Swift Advances plc.

 

With regard to the internal accounting procedure, are you referring to the “double accounting” procedure that is taking place;

One on Swifts computer system and…… one on Kestrel No 1’s accounting system, ( of which I have proof) I will be asking the Court to order these accounting procedures to be presented and explained to the Court

 

Yours sincerely

So thats the reason he give up his FSA licence JUST THE DAY after he was told he would have to go to N Ireland.

between calling up with you and the lads he will NOT BE WANTING TO F UP any more than he already has

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone seen MUTTLEY today ...oooops sorry its MUTT1 isn't it? .......I've been watching cartoons today ..........my favaourite is .."Road Runner" .......reminds of a Finance company I know

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see on facebook your maties just made another new contact with one of those 14 your talking about, who as he himself said flew the nest lol

 

how on earth do those guys think up the ideas and ways to meet new friends matie

I cant even befriend Sparkle and I pm them every day :confused:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Webster claimed in Swifts accounts last year that he saved over £1.600.000 by reducing Swifts staff by 14..............If I was a Swift employee I would be getting a bit worried about my job ......he might be thinking if I get rid of another 14 ...I could save another £1.500.000.........There's a very old song that 's called " Look over your shoulder, I'm walking behind". Swift workers should get a copy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Webster claimed in Swifts accounts last year that he saved over £1.600.000 by reducing Swifts staff by 14..............If I was a Swift employee I would be getting a bit worried about my job ......he might be thinking if I get rid of another 14 ...I could save another £1.500.000.........There's a very old song that 's called " Look over your shoulder, I'm walking behind". Swift workers should get a copy

 

YEP THEY ARE CUTTING CORNERS I wonder was it a cost cut pulling out of the FSA

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Webster, chief executive of Swift Group said;

‘At a time of rising interest rates we realise that intermediaries may have to work a bit

harder on their marketing spend to win new business. We hope this additional fee along

with our decision to hold our new business rates for the time being will help all of our

introducers have a terrific start to the summer.”

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul McGerrigan from Dream Mortgages welcomed the promotion saying: “This is a great

promotion that will really kick-start a good summer of business. One of the many things I

like about Swift is that they are proactive in offering initiatives such as this. With many other

lenders, brokers are forced to take the lead in developing promotions or simply made to feel

as though they should go cap in had to ask for extra support. I think that this promotion will

be a winner for Swift and brokers alike.”

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The additional 1% commission is payable on all non CCA Second Charges signed up and

completed by 31 July. All intermediaries need to do is send their fully packaged cases to the

Swift underwriters in the usual way and the extra 1% will be paid on completion.

IS THIS THE COMMISSION YOU WERE SAYING THEY PAY THE BROKERS MATIE

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

kestrel Holdings Limited

 

here is the contact details if anyone wants to telephone them to see if they own their loans its on this site

alert data

 

Try the PHONE NUMBER at the top of the page :D

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3668 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...