Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • 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 4342 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

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...
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

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 by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
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?.....:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I know Eastern Counselling have caused some concern in the past so I thought I would print the reply I got explaining who/what they are. It may be old news, I'm not sure.

 

"Following the repossession of your property in *************** 2010 you were concerned about fees charged to your account notably a charge of £360 related to Eastern Counselling. This charge was comprised of two charges, £250 relating to the first occassion that your account went into arrears on ********* 2008 and a subsequent £110 charge applied on the second occasion that your account went in top arrears on ********* 2008. I would like to clarify that in 2008 it was the companys practice to place accounts in default under Eastern Counselling, these charges were reflected in Swifts tariff of charges in force on completion of your mortgage in October 2007. I would like to clarify that as of March 2009 accounts are no longer placed under Eastern Counselling, however the charge appears on your completion

statement as it forms part of the account history"

 

Dont know if thats relevant at all or nothing new.

 

Shoops

 

Very relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Following the repossession of your property in *************** 2010 you were concerned about fees charged to your account notably a charge of £360 related to Eastern Counselling.

 

Well Eastern Counselling are/were an unlicenced trading style of Swift Advances plc which means that this charge cannot be made.

 

This charge was comprised of two charges, £250 relating to the first occassion that your account went into arrears on ********* 2008 and a subsequent £110 charge applied on the second occasion that your account went in top arrears on ********* 2008.

 

What was the charge for? - Did a Counsellor get involved or was this just a letter sent out chasing up arrears? Ask the question.

 

I would like to clarify that in 2008 it was the companys practice to place accounts in default under Eastern Counselling,

 

- Policy?, Practice?, Term of your agreement? Ask the question....

 

Who exactly was ' Eastern Counselling'? "under Eastern Counselling" - Make up? staff? department? No, just a different letter heading which they charge £250 for. They stick this information on their terms and conditions which you have absolutely no say or control over and you get SFA for it other than a bill which attracts interest at your contractual rate making that £250 more like £500 by the time they've finished.

 

 

these charges were reflected in Swifts tariff of charges in force on completion of your mortgage in October 2007. I would like to clarify that as of March 2009 accounts are no longer placed under Eastern Counselling,

 

Ask them why accounts are no longer 'placed' under Eastern Counselling - they didn't have a licence to do so that's why and they got caught out!

 

however the charge appears on your completion statement as it forms part of the account history"

 

Very kind of them to inform you - ask for the money back at the contractual rate you were paying.

 

As I say, no OFT Licence, No right to charge (Unless of course they can send you a copy of the licence which states that what I say is wrong).

 

Very relevant as I say.

 

But then who am I? Swift know best...

 

..and once you've done that come back here and I might, just might show you that they may not have had the right to have repossessed you at all and that you may be able to sue them for doing so and the loss you've suffered....

 

That my friend, will be my pleasure. Don't hold your breath, but it's coming.

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to keep the distinction between calling ' Eastern counselling department' a 'Company' and a trading style. There is a subtle difference.

 

Eastern Counselling 'Department' never showed itself on ANY of the Swift companies licences. Eastern Counselling Bureau and Eastern Counselling Agency maybe, but that is not what it says on the letter heading of the Swift Advances plc's charges which it relates to and to which we are discussing here.

 

Devils in the detail and a 'Company' would be something registered as a separate body at Companies House. Eastern Counselling Department was never a ' company'. Not a Ltd company nor a sole trader.

 

Eastern Counselling Deparment is a totally unlicenced trading style and for Regulated Loans at the very least, this is a criminal offence. - I'll leave the Fraud angle to Dougal who is far more experienced in that 'department' than I.

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...