Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim 2


caro
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4360 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Report them to the OFT as well.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

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

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Something might interest a certain person who works in the risk department:

 

Nine months’ imprisonment for signing false statements of truth

 

Nield & Acromas Insurance Company Limited v Loveday & Loveday [2011] EWHC 2324 (Admin)

 

A defendant has been given an immediate sentence of nine months’ imprisonment for contempt of court in signing statements of truth on documents that he knew to contain untruths. This is the first contested case of contempt over statements in documents used in civil proceedings before the Divisional Court (Queen’s Bench Division). The claimants were able to show, using evidence that included covert surveillance footage and photos from Facebook, that the first defendant had grossly exaggerated his claim for compensation following a traffic injury.

 

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that any statements of case or witness statements are carefully reviewed by the person who is signing the statement of truth and that they are aware of the consequences of knowingly signing a statement of truth that contains falsehoods.

 

 

 

Better get your armour out young man!

Edited by spot
I've been purrrrrrrring so much after seeing this I left out an rrrrrrr !in armour LOL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest blackie

Swift are giving me £278.00 refund of charges, however they have charged me nearly £5,000 in charges. Can this be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Swift land what they do or say is always right and good luck if you don't agree. They refunded me £600 from £31,000 of charges (I only had a mortgage with them for 30 months) Being Swift they didn't bother to break the refund down so I asked them to send one through. It took 3 requests to finally get it. @r5eh0les.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Swift land what they do or say is always right and good luck if you don't agree. They refunded me £600 from £31,000 of charges (I only had a mortgage with them for 30 months) Being Swift they didn't bother to break the refund down so I asked them to send one through. It took 3 requests to finally get it. @r5eh0les.

 

Hear hear :mad2: They (Swift Advances, not Swift 1st) refunded me approx £900 on £3000 worth of charges earlier this year and this was after nearly two years of trying. We were only with them for 18 months and got shot of them some years back - thank god!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear hear :mad2: They (Swift Advances, not Swift 1st) refunded me approx £900 on £3000 worth of charges earlier this year and this was after nearly two years of trying. We were only with them for 18 months and got shot of them some years back - thank god!!!

 

 

Hi People,

 

I do hope and earnestly request that ALL of you who have suffered at the hands of Swift (in whatever incarnation they are/have been), to please send your details of what has happenend to you to the OFT now! It will greatly assist this matter, and ultimately may well assist others including ourselves..

 

I have a direct contact for you to send them to:

 

 

Sam Bragg

Secured Lending Team

The Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX.

 

My sincere thanks for your co-operation and my very best wishes to everyone,

 

Dougal

 

Read more at: Swift Advances Plc - Page 28 - Legal seagulls Consumer Forum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just decided to go down the PPI route. I am claiming against Alliance & Leicester, HFC and Swift.

 

I took out a loan in around 2003 and ended up paying back 18k MORE than I borrowed, depsite almost losing my flat. I have instructed a PPI recovery company to work for me on a no win no fee basis.

I am confident that I will get SOMETHING back from the first two, but am I wasting my time trying to challenge Swift.

I cannot recall what the breakdown of the charges was, I seem to recall shredding the documents in disgust when I was shot of the parasites, but I know the PPI company will request this from Swift, but has anyone here had any joy with reclaiming ANYTHING from Swift?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Afternoon all,

 

I could not resist this:

'Important notice about this website for members of the public.

The information on this website is for the use of professional mortgage intermediaries, credit brokers and existing Swift customers only.

 

It is not intended for the general public. Members of the general public seeking further information about Swift should speak to their financial adviser.'

 

 

'Swift Advances plc is an appointed representative for insurance mediation activities only of Swift 1st Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Limited are both registered in England under company numbers 1800474 and 5020019 respectively'.

 

 

The above was taken from the bottom (if you will pardon the word) of their website today.

 

My view of this: 'Pride always comes before a fall....'.......Need I say more?

 

Best wishes to all,

 

Dougal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Hi are people still fighting swift I am another one of there victims .due to there ever increasing monthly payments on my secured loan that I couldn't meet and missed payments I had horrendous charged stick on Im now in payment arrangement with them and have been told once my areas are clear (will be forever as my £768 monthly payment is apparently only covering the interest) I will have £10,000 of charges and additional interest to pay off can I claim back these charges ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...