Jump to content

Some tips for Swift Cases

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3608 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Let me give you some tips with swift


1. Check your tansaction history time lines. It clearly shows how long a member of staff worked on your file. Check the date / time section. the Judge in may case was very intrigued that the charge fr a ER cost from mortgage co, which took 3 minutes, was charged at £25. This meant the mortgage co was charging the customer the equivelent of £500 per hour....the Judge actually laughed when I pointed this out!


2. The settlement figure...when it was given to you was it to be used within a certain time preiod? Normally it will state something like "redemption of £XX,XXX.XX up to and including 21st Never 2010." If you go over that date then they can and will change the amount owed under the early redemption clause. HOWEVER check your agreement...some of them have clauses stating the ERC will be a % which decreases in total the longer you have the mortgage. E.G. Clause X: ERC of 6% if taken within 24 months, ERC of 5% if taken within 36 months etc etc. If they are charging you more tha the % stated then they are breaching their own contract!


3. If you have a figure and the mortgage is settled withint the set timesclae then you could rely on "Loss of Bargain".

"Loss of Bargain is the loss resulted out of the inability to do an act consequential to a non performance of duties or contract by another person or entity. Eg.. Failure to deliver a product due to the non-supply of raw materials by the sub-contractor"


So as Swift added charges onto the figure at the las tminute...and those charges were not included in the relevant er figure (which is still in date at the time of the sale) then I belive LOB is the answer. They have simply breached their contract by giving you one figure and then changing it.

I relied on this for my ERC. I said that the cost was clearly shown on a redemption quote and I redeemed within the said timescale. Due to Swift adding a further £X I was unable to find the extra and so the sale of the house fell through. I suffered LOB due to Swift not giving me the correct figures. Judge stated I has suffered LOB and awarded me the amount added in charges (on top of ERC) and the same again in damages.

Also my agreement stated i was to be charged 5% if I redeemed after 5 ys. they then charged me equivelent of 8% AND added charges. Judge found they had breached their contract and were to only charge 5% for the sale which was goin ahead. The successful sale went through and I repaid 5% erc and NO charges. They had to refund me in excess of £5000


4. Has anyone thought of doing these cases as class action against Swift? This could be to your advantage for a number of reasons. It will reduce the costs for each person included. It will give weight to each case. You will be able to show swift often have no reasoning behind the chrges and how they were derived. It will show Swift your not scared to take this all the way.


5. Regarding the case to strike out using the Bank case rule...Swift cant have it both ways. My argument would be swift dont want to abide by guidelines set by OFT (Calculating Fair Default Charges in Credit Card contracts) in that charges should not exceed £12 and that mortgage companies were asked to bring charges in line with CC default charges (section 5.14), however they do want the ruling regarding the default charges of banks to apply to their case. They cant have their cake and eat it!!


My case with Swift has ended in my favour! The pointers I have shown above are those which the Judge in my hearing questioned their barrister on. My case was about charges and ERC. I was lucky and had excellent legal advice on the end of the phone and the Judge was very accommodating. Hope this helps!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this very helpful information Small_Fry and well done on your victory against Swift!

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%


MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI


MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded


MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%


MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded


MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded


Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded


Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%


Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%


Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%


M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI


M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%


Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%


Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%


Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded


Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give you some tips with swift



My case with Swift has ended in my favour! The pointers I have shown above are those which the Judge in my hearing questioned their barrister on. My case was about charges and ERC. I was lucky and had excellent legal advice on the end of the phone and the Judge was very accommodating. Hope this helps!!


WOW Small Fry, what a brilliant piece of news and I am surprised not more people have acknowledged your achievement?


I am very pleased for you and I hope this will help and encourage more people to go on to victory!!


Its such a refreshing change to hear about a concrete success rather than the usual predictions which never come true and promises which are never kept which unfortunately are rife on this site.


Well done !!!!



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Landy and Marky. I think some people are wary as this was my first post. I will admit to being an "older" member and have changed my name on here in order to be able to help those who are battling against Swift. even if Swift are reading this..all I got to say is THANKS!


I really hope my advice helps even if its just one person. This company need to be "assisted" into beng a better co

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Just spotted this small fry. Some good tips here although Early Redemption Charges are at best dodgy. I think the fact that there were so many problems with this worked in your favour, so as you say - you were lucky.


Doesn't take away from the fact that you took Swift on and won. Well done!


What's Best for You?



The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.


Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007



Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a transaction history sheet butthere are no time lines shown on it anywhere........ any ideas how to actually get them?

If you kick a Tiger in the Ass youbetter have a plan to deal with its teeth :madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Important changes to the mortgage repossession pre-action protocol As of 6th April the introduction of the pre-action protocol for mortgage arrears has ensured that lenders must explore all opportunities to agree a repayment schedule with the borrower before commencing proceedings. Lenders must be able to evidence their compliance with the protocol before the court if they seek an order for possession. If they cannot, the order will not be granted. It used to be that a lender should have followed the rules; this has now been changed to state that they MUST follow the rules. In addition, as part of the proceedings the lender would need to submit a N123 form outlining to the court what they've done to adhere to the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...