Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim 2

[Dougal16T]

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

 

 

Well now, firstly good evening all,

 

I am in a very strange position (no jokes or innuendoes please!) - you see my first mortgage provider were GE MONEY (Another bunch of .............)

 

I am writing to them this week to let them know the true picture.......(they are already 'nervous' following the GMAC saga!)

 

Any helpful suggestions will be very welcome - does what I have read mean that the second charge with Swift Advances was illegal? I am not after a refund of the money (yet!) but a refund of their excessive charges, including the redemption charges. If you have any thoughts please let me know, feel free to PM me if you wish, I understand matters may be a little delicate!

 

As always my very best wishes to all on CAG,

 

Dougal

[caro]

I think everyone should reclaim excessive mortgage charges Dougal. Many people have done so successfully against many mortgage providers, so it's been tried and tested.

 

I understand that there's a lot going on with Swift and once the OFT have finished investigating, and potentially important cases have reached a conclusion, there may be much more that can be added to claims, but at the moment that's on-going.

 

A lot of people seem to have had massive charges added by Swift, so if they go to court they are likely to be fast or multi track, so will be at risk of costs. Because of this I would urge people to avoid risking using arguments which may leave them open to more risk than is really necessary. If you can win a case using solid proven arguments, I don't see the point in risking adding issues that may be open to dispute.

[jacqui_o]

I am a little confused......... it seems there are no solid arguements where Swift are concerended......... it seems no one has actualyl managed to reclaim anythignfrom them.........my understanding of what you hcve said caro is................ leave Swift alone till the OFT ahve finished and all theother court cases have finished............ then people might have solid arguemnts touse against them....

[caro]

The law is the law jacqui, whether it's Swift or anyone else.

 

For example, people have successfully claimed back mis-sold PPI. Also mortgage charges. If they've been added they can be claimed with interest because they're unlawful.

 

It seems that with Swift there are probably other issues too, and maybe in time there may be scope for further claims, but for now there's no reason not to make claims, and if Swift don't cough up then there is the option for court cases or going to the FOS.

[andrew1]

As I see it, there are claims and there are claims. What Caro says is sound sensible advice that all should take note of.

 

There are the claims for unreasonable charges which is going on throughout the industry which would not put anyone in danger of losing their homes if they claimed.

 

Then there are the claims being made on these threads which are risky to say the least and would put your homes at risk if you issued a court claim on the strength of them.

 

Swift litigate and try to repossess generally more aggressively than many others, that is proven and given the position they face with the FSA and OFT investigations it would be in their interest to repossess as much as they can as it will improve their cash-flow. However, that said, they are being forced to be a little more reasonable before taking repossession action because these bodies are breathing down their necks just now to be more reasonable and they would be ill advised to cross swords with them whilst facing severe fines.

 

What there is though is the possibility that IF Swift are litigating against you and threatening to take your home and taking you to court, THEN and ONLY THEN might it be a reasonable time to counterclaim in your defence to keep your home using some of the issues which are being discussed on here, BUT only do this with proper legal advice otherwise you could be landed with huge court costs which might outweigh any benefits you may receive in return and could jeapordise your security over your home so DONT do it unless you are 1000% sure you know what you are doing.

 

Swift defend vigourously using top barristers and it's no good anyone going into court without a barrister against them. You can get them as Direct Access which you need to pay for or you can get Pro Bono which you don't, but you have to search them out.

 

It is Ill advised to take up a claim against Swift on your own. There are a number of people going through the courts just now who are testing some of these issues and no doubt there will be feed back on them in due course, but as I have said before, keep paying them or pay the money into somewhere you can recall it if you are taken to court which will save your home if they try to repossess. I cannot emphasise enough how difficult it is to take an action against this company without risking a lot of money. They know that and that's why they do it. The OFT are taking forever, but it is coming worry not about that. They know exactly what they are up to.

 

Make your claims for the charges and normal things, just be careful on the rest.

Edited January 25, 2011 by andrew1

[jacqui_o]

Thank you both, I kind of mis ubnderstood I think.... I read it as there is no point as they willnot pay and ther eis nothign you can do........thanks for the clarification......

 

ok will get the charges stuff ready.......the other issues I will not on this forum as we all know they are reading it.........but think douglas former profession may well be helpful:):

[paulwlton]

I think everyone should reclaim excessive mortgage charges Dougal. Many people have done so successfully against many mortgage providers, so it's been tried and tested.

 

Midshires didn't want the matter going to court.[/color]

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/advice/money/2007/03/28/man-of-steel-has-won-on-penalties-115875-18818070/

[landy_alert]

Thanks Paul - you are an inspiration to us all! Unfortunately there are still so few success stories with Swift that many of us get discouraged from time to time.........then posts like Andrew's and yours give us the impetus to try again. From my own perspective, even though I paid off Swift a while back and am no longer with them my loan was for over £25,000 and the FOS have said they cannot help, so court is my only option.

 

Landy x

Edited January 26, 2011 by landy_alert

[Doc2527]

Wikipedia states:-

 

Perjury, also known as forswearing, lying under oath or lying on oath, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.

That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case.

 

In the United Kingdom a potential penalty for perjury is a prison sentence of up to 7 years.However prosecutions for perjury are rare. (This no longer appears to be the case as in todays latest news headlines).

Tommy Sheridan (MSP) jailed for three years for perjury

[lesterlass]

As I see it, there are claims and there are claims. What Caro says is sound sensible advice that all should take note of.

 

There are the claims for unreasonable charges which is going on throughout the industry which would not put anyone in danger of losing their homes if they claimed.

 

Then there are the claims being made on these threads which are risky to say the least and would put your homes at risk if you issued a court claim on the strength of them.

 

Swift litigate and try to repossess generally more aggressively than many others, that is proven and given the position they face with the FSA and OFT investigations it would be in their interest to repossess as much as they can as it will improve their cash-flow. However, that said, they are being forced to be a little more reasonable before taking repossession action because these bodies are breathing down their necks just now to be more reasonable and they would be ill advised to cross swords with them whilst facing severe fines.

 

What there is though is the possibility that IF Swift are litigating against you and threatening to take your home and taking you to court, THEN and ONLY THEN might it be a reasonable time to counterclaim in your defence to keep your home using some of the issues which are being discussed on here, BUT only do this with proper legal advice otherwise you could be landed with huge court costs which might outweigh any benefits you may receive in return and could jeapordise your security over your home so DONT do it unless you are 1000% sure you know what you are doing.

 

Swift defend vigourously using top barristers and it's no good anyone going into court without a barrister against them. You can get them as Direct Access which you need to pay for or you can get Pro Bono which you don't, but you have to search them out.

 

It is Ill advised to take up a claim against Swift on your own. There are a number of people going through the courts just now who are testing some of these issues and no doubt there will be feed back on them in due course, but as I have said before, keep paying them or pay the money into somewhere you can recall it if you are taken to court which will save your home if they try to repossess. I cannot emphasise enough how difficult it is to take an action against this company without risking a lot of money. They know that and that's why they do it. The OFT are taking forever, but it is coming worry not about that. They know exactly what they are up to.

 

Make your claims for the charges and normal things, just be careful on the rest.

 

Excellent and helpful post A1

 

I think everyone should reclaim excessive mortgage charges Dougal. Many people have done so successfully against many mortgage providers, so it's been tried and tested.

 

Midshires didn't want the matter going to court.[/color]

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/advice/money...5875-18818070/

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

 

Winston Churchill

 

 

Brilliant congratulations PW

 

LL:-D

[jacqui_o]

Shame a class action could not be done.........

[caro]

I've a feeling that in the fullness of time there may well be developments that'll help everyone jacqui.

 

The OFT investigation is encouraging and once the results of that are published that may help, and I gather that there may be cases going on which have the potential to help a lot of people.

 

No doubt once these things are finally sorted, and there is rock solid information it'll be posted for all the world to see.

 

In the meantime I'm afraid we have to be patient because no-one can predict what the outcome will be with any certainty.

 

Softly softly catchee monkey.

[jacqui_o]

I understand Caro, and thanks....you know Sparkie suggest we SAR Swft Group Legal SErvices, I have attempted this, oddly have had my £10 fee returned... apparently it was address to the wrong company!!!!.

 

I appreciate that due to the sensitive nature of some of this and other issues posting apublic reply might not be a good move, espec as we know they are readinghtis....... so any suggested could be pmd to me........... it would be greatly appreciated........

[andrew1]

To send an SAR to Swift Group Legal Services would result in Swift (generically) returning your money and claim that Swift Group Legal Services are a 'department' of Swift Advances plc, just like the Accounts department or Sales department, they will however state that any documentation that Swift Group Legal Services have between them and ' their client (as they describe them as) Swift Advances plc or Swift 1st Ltd., will be subject to legal priviledge and therefore not for your eyes or anyone else's. The staff of Swift Group Legal Services are employees of Swift Advances plc although not according to the Law Society or SRA. Read into that what you like.

 

If you seek information of any kind from this company, just SAR the particular one you have your mortgage or loan with. I believe the suggestion made by Sparkie may have been on the basis of a European directive on in-house solicitors not being able to hold legal priviledge, but that has now since been confirmed as relating to Competition laws and although this may be something to argue further down the road, it is unlikely to hold water or be worth anyone trying to pursue or suggest at this juncture in relation to any other types of in-house solicitors. Phew! - says Swift!

[lesterlass]

This looks like good news

 

LL:-)

 

Mortgage borrowers to get increased protection

Second charge mortgage borrowers and sale and rent back customers to be brought under FSA safety net

 

Share

 

Comments (2)

Jill Insley

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 26 January 2011 13.18 GMT

Article history

 

Transferring second charge mortgages to FSA control will simplify regulation for lenders and borrowers, says Mark Hoban, financial secretary to the Treasury. Photograph: /David Levene

Mortgage borrowers will benefit from increased protection following the implementation of new regulations announced by the Treasury today.

 

The regulation of second charge mortgages is to be transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Services Authority. First mortgages already fall under the remit of the FSA, and Mark Hoban, the financial secretary to the Treasury, said transferring second charge mortgages would ensure consistency of standards and simplify regulation for lenders and borrowers.

 

Second charge mortgages are usually taken out by customers deemed to be higher risk by lenders, and they are often used to pay off other debts. The mortgages are therefore more expensive than first charge mortgages, and the lenders are quicker to act if the borrower falls behind with payments.

 

The FSA's current regulation of sale and rent back businesses will also be extended to all providers, including individuals who might buy just one property and rent it back to the former owner, such as a parent trying to help a child in financial difficulties.

 

A spokeswoman for the FSA said the move is intended to extend the protections afforded to sale and rent back customers to people who would otherwise just have normal tenancy rights. Most assured shorthold tenancy contracts last for six months, but someone selling his home on a sale and rent back basis is entitled to a rental agreement fixed for five years. Such tenants also benefit from a 14-day cooling off period, and must have the risks of and alternatives to the scheme spelled out to them by their prospective landlord. The landlord will also have to ensure an independent valuation of the property is conducted.

 

The government has proposed regulation of companies that buy mortgage books from the lender that originated the loans. This will in particular benefit borrowers who are struggling to pay their mortgage, as the new owners of the book will be required to adhere to the FSA's rules on forbearance and the treatment of borrowers in arrears.

 

Hoban said that the new measures would enhance protection for mortgage borrowers. "Giving the FSA responsibility for the whole residential mortgage market will simplify mortgage regulation for consumers and lenders. This will ensure that existing second charge mortgage borrowers who fall into arrears or face repossession on both first and second charge mortgages benefit from being regulated by a single organisation, maximising consumer protection and ensuring a more coordinated approach between lenders."

 

"The measures on mortgage books and sale and rent back have been introduced to address a genuine gap in the regulatory architecture, and will ensure consumers will be better protected in the mortgage market."

 

Peter Tutton, social policy officer at Citizens Advice, said: "Citizens Advice welcomes the government's continuing commitment to ensure that people with mortgages, secured loans and sale and rent back agreements are protected against bad practices. We are pleased that the government is acting to close loopholes in the mortgage and sale and rent back rules.

 

"We also welcome the decision to bring secured loans and first charge mortgages into a single framework of consumer protection. The challenge now will be for the FSA to make sure that the rules for second charge loans build successfully on both the existing FSA rules for mortgages and the safeguards that were provided by the Consumer Credit Act."

 

Paul Broadhead, head of mortgage policy for the Building Societies Association, said the measures were sensible, particularly as any tightening of the underwriting criteria of first charge mortgages (as proposed in the FSA's Mortgage Market Review) could result in driving customers to other forms of credit, such as second charge mortgages.

 

But he added: "The announcement today adds to the weight of regulatory proposals the FSA needs to consider. As we have consistently stated, it remains vital that the FSA assess in detail the cumulative impact of all the proposals prior to pressing ahead with implementation, particularly to ensure that the revised regulations facilitate the desired outcomes for UK consumers."

 

The FSA will have to issue consultation papers on the proposals, but the Treasury says it expects the rules applying to sale and rent back and mortgage book buyers to be implemented towards the end of the year, while the transfer of regulation of second charge mortgages to the FSA should take place in early 2012.

[Killerschick]

This is old news in relation to second charges, they're just resurrecting a policy Labour decided to implement in March last year but couldn't follow through because they lost the election.

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407010852/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_mortgage_regulation.htm

 

It may well be good news as the FSA have some powers the OFT don't (the ability to impose fines and order redress for starters) but it will depend how it's implemented and how long it takes, current best estimate is the back end of 2012 not early 2012 as that article (or The Treasury?) suggests:-

 

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/loans/fsa-will-regulate-secured-loans/1025170.article

 

Bear in mind that, depending on how it's done, some of the beneficial elements of the CCA may be lost such as s140 Unfair Relationships, the requirements for default notices, notices of default sums, etc. Fingers crossed it will result in the best of both worlds rather than the worst.

[jacqui_o]

I did that Andrew but but they have not fully complied and only given most basic of details. for obvious reason do nto wish to elaborate further ont he open forum.......... as we know they do read!!!!!

[caro]

I did that Andrew but but they have not fully complied and only given most basic of details. for obvious reason do nto wish to elaborate further ont he open forum.......... as we know they do read!!!!!

 

There are 2 things you can do about that.

 

1. Complain to the ICO. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx

 

2. Take court action. Item 2 in this link deals with Data Protection letters. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?609-Can-t-find-the-letter-you-want-Look-here

[busterg]

Hi All

 

I've not been posting for a while because of the ongoing case I have and I've not really had the time to keep in touch on the thread as I would have liked.

 

I'm at a real crucial point on mine with many aspects before the court. I wanted to thank the many caggers who have been PM'ing me with their support with whom Ive been able to discuss a few aspects of my case with before trial

 

I've received a number of Pm's lately from caggers who are being asked to post on behalf of others and just double checking that the posts are not detrimental to my case and future cases for the rest. Thank you for keeping me informed - I appreciate it.

 

What I'd ask is: If you don't understand what you are posting then please don't. If you don't know if it will cause long term issues for other cases then please don't post it on someone's behalf.

 

We had situation not so long ago when a cagger posted for another and it was evident it was to get at another cagger. A little embarrassing for one or two people, not good or helpful.

 

I have it straight from the horses mouth that the trolls are directed to this thread for our arguments. It's by keeping quite that I've succeeded as far as I have. Just waiting for the final leg now.

 

Caro made an excellent point about sticking to particular aspects of cases until other matters have been decided on at Court. Fantastic advice. No point in arguing something you don't fully understand or something you've not researched for yourself. It's your home at stake and it's in your hands. No one else's.

 

Thanks again for your support and keeping in touch. It's really helped I'll post as soon as I have something concrete for you, case not up for a few months due to court listings. Confident we'll have a good Spring/Summer

 

Best wishes

Busterg

[Doc2527]

 

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

 

 

Folks

 

Has anyone heard anything from their 1st Mortgage holders?

 

Regards

 

Doc

[jacqui_o]

I had'nt informed them of this, but thanks for the reminder, will send a letter today..... not sure GE will respond though.lol

[Dougal16T]

Good afternoon all

 

I have not got around to doing this yet, but will write to GE and let them know...yes that's right, my first mortgage was with GE too!!!!

 

This could prove VERY interesting....

 

As ever

 

Dougal

[jacqui_o]

l;ol ha ha ha lets see what the response is like

[Apollo18]

Hi All,

 

It's good to see that Swift are getting some of the bad publicity they deserve in the 'Mail On Sunday' !!!!!

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1358696/My-mortgage-10---Im-trapped-possibility-remortgaging-elsewhere.html

 

Apollo18

Edited February 20, 2011 by Apollo18

[caro]

For info.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml

 

 

It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.

 

Furthermore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.

 

Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.

 

You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.

 

Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.

We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.

 

It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.

 

You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.

 

However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.

 

Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.

 

If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.

 

You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.

 

You must not make any complain through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.

You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.