Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • 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

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim 2


caro
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4325 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

  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just wanted to ask a quick question on here about these interest rates. Does APR and Annual Nominal Rate mean the same thing? I know that unreg agreements are covered by the CCA but should the words APR have to be shown on unreg agreements or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody fantastic stuff there pkelly, especially that part about interest rates as I am looking for something similar to that with my own stuff.

 

Thanks a million

 

wassnt me this time I seem to be able to get cross wires or a short circuit I see sparks every now and again

lol it only takes one to start a forest fire. and you know what happens they the poor wee birdies fly off to another nest

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to ask a quick question on here about these interest rates. Does APR and Annual Nominal Rate mean the same thing? I know that unreg agreements are covered by the CCA but should the words APR have to be shown on unreg agreements or not?

 

1…APR% interest is not a requirement to be stated on unregulated Credit Agreements nor High Nett worth agreements

2…The nominal % rate of interest is not the same as APR% interest…..The APR can be worked out from the nominal rate if you wish to do so.

When borrowers borrow money from Swift Advances plc, their Broker never corresponds or negotiates the " Deal" DIRECT with Swift Advances plc....It is all done via "Swift Advances" who were an unlicensed trading name of Swift Advances plc.

In truth and fact " Swift Advances" were another intermediary between the borrower and Swift Advances plc, who have categorically stated that they do not deal direct with the public.....they do ( or did it) via "Swift Advances" ..........."Swift Advances" are therefore an intermediate broker.

Unlicensed trading name/style being used to conduct Consumer Credit and Credit related business......result....Criminal Offence, Section 39 (2) of the Consumer Credit Act.......and a Misrepresentation of fact.

If you have a First Mortgage it is Swift Advances that contact them during the antecedent negotiations,

let your First Mortgage holder know that they conducted business with an unlicensed trading style , you will find they will not be "happy chappies" .....they could be drawn into the "mellee" so to speak

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it would be worth anyone being taken to court by Swift for possession or eviction to show the judge proof of the use of unlicensed trading styles and the costs added to their loans by those potentially unlawful trading styles which have lead to loss and detriment and quite often made the loans unmanageable thereby affecting your ability to pay. All those judges everyday all over the country as far as I can see from Court Lists with several Swift cases on the go would be very interested in these issues. Also make sure you make the Judge aware that Swift are being investigated by the OFT & FSA and that Swift themselves are putting aside many millions for expected fines and consumer redress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks pkelly for the info on the interest rate, bit of a bummer but guess if that's what the regs say then nothing I can do FOR NOW LOL.

 

Andrew blimey mate you really have put some very good and supportive info up for any swift customers facing difficulties with swift. I hope that everyone gets justices from this, really I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew 1 you are such a wordsmith. Brilliant and concise - thank you. Just in time for my meeting with my MP this morning - I think everyone should send Andrew's posting to their MP and campaign for Swift's repossessions to be halted while they are being investigated. Also campaign for the Consumer Advocate which would have been set up by Consumer Focus (now disbanded becuase of the Quango cull) to be reinstated in some way urgently. This would be a means for a group of consumers to take group legal action. Might I suggest Andrew that you post your info on other consumer sites because there are so many people being taken to court by Swift and the more judges we put this in front of - the better for us all. :whoo:Good Luck everyone.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks

 

Well written Andrew1 (very concise and thorough), excellent post.

I will certainly be informing my first mortgage provider with the information regarding them having conducted business with an unlicensed trading style.

 

Can someone give me some idea of what they would possibly do under these circumstances? My first Mortgage provider that is. (PM me if this would give too much information to others watching on the open forum?)

 

Regards

 

Doc

Edited by Doc2527
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/analysis/1938190/video-taxman-makes-arrests-offshore-evasion

 

have a look at this

the tax man had been contacted by a bright spark and they want all the stuff we have on our friends, this will take a while to put in order but they will without doubt act on all the information we are putting together.

it will take them a while but I would not want to be a swiftie at the minute

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you seems so inadaquate a word for allthe valuable info you guys have posted........ Andrew,Sparkie( got it right) Pkelly & Dougal

 

Andrew does this only apply ot new repossesion applications? or couldit be used for an suspended one? tohave it cancelle duntill all the investigations have been completed?

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

Thank you seems so inadaquate a word for allthe valuable info you guys have posted........ Andrew,Sparkie( got it right) Pkelly & Dougal

 

Andrew does this only apply ot new repossesion applications? or couldit be used for an suspended one? tohave it cancelle duntill all the investigations have been completed?

 

Any. This is about the trading style of Swift Advances being used in the past. They have only recently registered the trading style and applied to the OFT to have it applied to their licence following one of our teams revelation on here and to them that they were using unlicenced trading styles - it is not retrospective. If a possession order is suspended, then I would suggest you pass this information on to either the solicitor who acted for you, the CAB or the court direct for their directions.

 

If you have a Consumer Credit Act regulated loan (under £25,000 in old money) then they have no answer in our opinion. If you have an unregulated loan Swift Advances plc will tell you they didn't need a licence as your loan was unregulated so it is 'irrelevant' to suggest they do need one - ask your legal adviser, Trading Standards or the OFT whether it is irrelevant or not, don't take my word for it, We are not lawyers as I have said - We can only point you to things we have found out and it is for you to have legally accredited and confirmed as to the remedies . We'll let the court advise Swift through their judgements. Just take care and take advice.

Edited by andrew1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi pkelly, you inbox is full mate

sorry dont use this much am only able to access it via ipod at work and its not easy

I am mostly out of the country email me anyone on

Edited by MARTIN3030
You know full well rules on posting

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for an excellent post Andrew - tried to give you rep, but I need to spread it around first, lol!

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

http://www.do-business.net/Indexer/Company/Rent-A-Hand-Ltd

 

any chance of someone popping around to rent a hand to see if Amanda is still about there

No one has yet made sence of why this wee company is in with the big guys

cant say what we found out otherwise big brother will bar me like sparkie

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Andrew, so a letter direct to the court enclosing copie sof the documents posted? yes? pointing out they acted unlicenced....... would it help if I posted a draft of the letter prior to sending it? sorry for asking what may well be obviousl questions...

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

Is showing how thicvk she is but what highlighted docs.....lol.......

 

Hey Kestral are showingthe same addy as SEfit!!!!!!!!!!! maybe I should be SARing them as well then.....

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...