Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim 2

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

I have today copied the above to Swift..........

 

As always best wishes

 

Dougal

[caro]

Morning Dougal

 

It'll be interesting to see how they reply - if they reply that is.

[paulwlton]

I would like to let everyone know that I have become aware that at a very recent hearing in Court involving a Swift Customer, a request was made for a complete full breakdown of the following was asked for.

1….How a certain redemption figure was arrived at.

 

2….A full complete statement of customers account what the fees and charges applied were for a full explanation of the true cost of such figures, and why no statement of account had been supplied this customer despite approximately 15 written request and several telephone requests.

 

Swift tried their utmost not to supply this and tried their hardest not to be forced to, The Judge said they must supply this to the customer and a copy to him direct, as he was most unhappy with the figures and the manner in which they had been stated without any explanation of how they were arrived at, and has ordered them to produce the figures.

 

Swift are not very happy about this.

[caro]

I would like to let everyone know that I have become aware that at a very recent hearing in Court involving a Swift Customer, a request was made for a complete full breakdown of the following was asked for.

1….How a certain redemption figure was arrived at.

 

2….A full complete statement of customers account what the fees and charges applied were for a full explanation of the true cost of such figures, and why no statement of account had been supplied this customer despite approximately 15 written request and several telephone requests.

 

Swift tried their utmost not to supply this and tried their hardest not to be forced to, The Judge said they must supply this to the customer and a copy to him direct, as he was most unhappy with the figures and the manner in which they had been stated without any explanation of how they were arrived at, and has ordered them to produce the figures.

 

Swift are not very happy about this.

 

Thanks Paul. I bet Swift aren't happy.

 

Will be interesting to see what they do. Well done that judge!

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

Could we be advised as to the location of the Court hearing this case? - we do not need to know the name of the Claimant.

 

Do I hear the walls of Jericho starting to loosen....

 

Best wishes to all my fellow Caggers,

 

Dougal

[Doc2527]

Perhaps this is what every customer should be asking of swift now, and then lets see how they deal with everyones request....or has this already been done by every customer??

[Dougal16T]

Evening Doc -

My thoughts exactly, I have been doing the same, but now we need everyone to do this. There has been another very recent case involving Swift as the defendant where the Judge ordered full disclosure relating to fees, costs and their breakdown/justification.

 

I shall also ask my colleagues on LB to do the same!

 

Best wishes to you and everyone on CAG

 

Dougal

[Doc2527]

Hi LesterLass

 

I have PM'd you.

 

regards

doc

[lesterlass]

Hi Doc nothing come through.....I have deleted some messages just incase.

 

LL8-)

 

Hi LesterLass

 

I have PM'd you.

 

regards

doc

[Doc2527]

Hi LL

 

I've sent again??

[lesterlass]

Hi Doc still no message so i have PM`D you

 

LL

Hi LL

 

I've sent again??

[Smarterchick]

Landy - pm box full..please empty some:wink:

[landy_alert]

Have now made some space SC

[Doc2527]

Hi Folks

 

I'm not advertising.....but has anyone any dealings or knowledge of this company?

Their "blurb" seems interesting...or do they only deal with PPI....however it does say that if you feel that your loan has been mis sold, then you may be entitled to compensation??

 

http://www.protectionclaims.com/swiftloans/

 

Regards

 

Doc

[42man]

I would be incredibly cautious and not pay anything up front (despite what they may say) and I notice that they have only been going for just over a year and no accounts have been filed yet !!!

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 28/01/2010

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7499 - Non-trading company

Accounting Reference Date: 31/01

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 28/10/2011

Last Return Made Up To: 28/01/2011

Next Return Due: 25/02/2012

Last Members List: 28/01/2011

[Doc2527]

Many thanks 42Man

Doc

[andrew1]

One of the Directors in the above named company was Robert Wood -his company below dissolved with CCJ £3209 in Aug 2009. He resigned PROFESSIONAL PERSONAL CLAIMS Ltd on 16th August 2010

 

ALTERNATIVE FUNDING CORPORATION LTD Company Number 03679719

Registered Address BRIDGE HOUSE Trading Address Bridge House

London Bridge

London

SE1 9QR

 

He is also sole director of

 

MONEYCORP (EUROPE) LTD Company Number 07148600

Registered Address BRIDGE HOUSE Trading Address

 

 

4 BOROUGH HIGH STREET

LONDON

SE1 9QR

 

which is still alive Incorporated on 5th Feb 2010

 

Looking at the accounts of Alternative it looks like in 2003 he wasn't doing too bad, but sliding scale downwards ever since.

 

Obviously been around this business a while and still in there, but...use your instincts.

 

No longer in this Professional Personal Claims Ltd company other than holding 1 share. He's located at the same address as Professional so obviously shares the coffee..They always leave a footprint...

[Doc2527]

Many thanks for this Andrew1

 

Doc

[jacqui_o]

There was a post onhere witha letter to send to your lender pointing out if they had disclosed details to Swift.... aboutthemnot having the legal right ot the name.. I cannont find it anyone have the link??????

[jacqui_o]

Anyone any idea where the post is???????????????

[Dougal16T]

This was originally posted by P kelly:

 

Unlicensed trading name/style being used to conduct Consumer Credit and Credit related business......result....C riminal 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

 

Hope this helps...!

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

[Killerschick]

Hi Jacqui,

 

As Dougal says it was from a post by PKelly here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284157-Swift-Advances.-Secured-Loan-Charges-reclaim-2&p=3266855&viewfull=1#post3266855 number 131 on this thread a few pages back. There was no template letter as far as I am aware unless one has been circulated by private message.

 

For what it's worth I don't think it's worth the price of a stamp to pursue this. In the unlikely event that your letter landed on the desk of someone at your first mortgage company who had an earthly what you were talking about (extremely unlikely as the Consumer Credit Act and consumer credit licensing regime are of no concern to most first charge lenders), they would have no reason to be remotely concerned as they have done nothing wrong and it would in no way affect their security.

 

I am quite happy to stand corrected if anyone's first mortgagee has got involved but from experience (admittedly many years ago before FOS) it would be the type of letter that got filed in the 'nutter' pile and got a response to the effect that the first mortgagee would not intervene in disputes with third parties, would seek to rely on their security and that security was unaffected.

 

I am not deliberately playing devil's advocate here but I wouldn't want to see you wasting precious time and resources raising an issue which is unlikely to benefit you. Concentrate on issues such as excessive charges, lack of transparency, poor communication, misleading information, poor administration and failure to show forebearance. These are things which you can and should be compensated for if they apply to you.

 

This is just my view and of course you should make up your own mind but just to clarify in relation to what PKelly says. It is 'alleged' by PKelly to be a criminal offence under Section 39(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It has not been 'found' to be a criminal offence in a criminal court (a very different prospect from the view of a judge in a county or high court), in fact, there is nothing to suggest that a criminal charge has been brought. It might seem straightforward on reading s39(2) of the Act alone but there are complex arguments concerning what constitutes 'carrying on business' under the Act and even what constitutes a trading name.

[caro]

I tend to agree with you killerschick. All the first mortgager will be worried about is that their investment is safe, and as they have first call on the mortgage, it is. There are plenty of avenues to explore which can be pursued relatively safely and cheaply. To start looking at criminal matters is a whole different ball game and not for the timid or faint-hearted.

[andrew1]

Hi Jacqui,

 

As Dougal says it was from a post by PKelly here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284157-Swift-Advances.-Secured-Loan-Charges-reclaim-2&p=3266855&viewfull=1#post3266855 number 131 on this thread a few pages back. There was no template letter as far as I am aware unless one has been circulated by private message.

 

For what it's worth I don't think it's worth the price of a stamp to pursue this. In the unlikely event that your letter landed on the desk of someone at your first mortgage company who had an earthly what you were talking about (extremely unlikely as the Consumer Credit Act and consumer credit licensing regime are of no concern to most first charge lenders), they would have no reason to be remotely concerned as they have done nothing wrong and it would in no way affect their security.

 

I am quite happy to stand corrected if anyone's first mortgagee has got involved but from experience (admittedly many years ago before FOS) it would be the type of letter that got filed in the 'nutter' pile and got a response to the effect that the first mortgagee would not intervene in disputes with third parties, would seek to rely on their security and that security was unaffected.

 

I am not deliberately playing devil's advocate here but I wouldn't want to see you wasting precious time and resources raising an issue which is unlikely to benefit you. Concentrate on issues such as excessive charges, lack of transparency, poor communication, misleading information, poor administration and failure to show forebearance. These are things which you can and should be compensated for if they apply to you.

 

This is just my view and of course you should make up your own mind but just to clarify in relation to what PKelly says. It is 'alleged' by PKelly to be a criminal offence under Section 39(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It has not been 'found' to be a criminal offence in a criminal court (a very different prospect from the view of a judge in a county or high court), in fact, there is nothing to suggest that a criminal charge has been brought. It might seem straightforward on reading s39(2) of the Act alone but there are complex arguments concerning what constitutes 'carrying on business' under the Act and even what constitutes a trading name.

 

Is that right eh?.....

[Killerschick]

As I said Andrew1/Sarah, it's just my view and I am happy to stand corrected either if others have had proven success with contacting first mortgage companies, or, if anyone knows of a criminal case being brought against Swift Advances plc in relation to the trading name issue.