Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Guys,   Following in from my 17 page thread, that dates back over ten years, I am starting a new thread, at the suggestion of the site team. My issue relates the a) service charges relating to the Leasehold flat I bought back in 2006 b) a Managing Agent who is of questionable abilities as a manager of our block of flats. The Managing Agent has claimed £6k in fees to which (I think, as does the new Landlord) he was not entitled. I am wanting to get it back, and/or the fees on my account calculating properly which would leave me with a credit balance.  I am recently in receipt of a 4th claim relating to this dispute, with two of the previous three going 'no where'. The other one they won in default on 2011, but I successfully had that set-aside.They have not given me the money back though. It all started due to poor management of the block, and it transpired upon scrutiny that the management arrangements appear to be unenforceable prior to 2014. It's very complicated. This information is required simply posted, and not as a PDF, so here goes:   1.       BlurredFX Service Charge Saga 2.       Sept 2006 a.       In 2006 BFX buys a leasehold flat. His solicitor advises him that Ground Rent is payable to Landlord-one and Service Charges are payable, but to be wary of the service charges, as he is unable to confirm how they are being administrated. b.       BFX is sent a bill for service charges from PQR Managing Agent. BFX enquires as the legitimacy of the service charges, but is unable to get a satisfactory answer. The service charge requests are not complicit with the required legislation – such as the name of the Landlord. They are served in the name of ABC Management Company Ltd c/o PQR Managing Agents. c.       ABC Management Company has two Directors, both residents of the block in which BFX resides and to which this dispute relates. d.       Landlord-one is absent, except for Ground Rent requests. 3.       2006-2009 a.       Despite written and verbal requests, BFX refuses to pay any service charges until ABC Management Company are properly authorised by Landlord-one – because without such, he has no recourse or way to complain. b.       Demands are not complicit with the legislation. c.       The property was not properly maintained. For example, the lease obligations for an internal redecoration every five years had no been met. The obligations to maintain the exterior of the had not been met, and the timber double glazing was starting to rot quite badly. 4.       2008/2009/2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent Ltd buys out PQR Managing Agent (a sole trader, I believe). They seem to operate interchangeably for a few years, using different headed paper along the way. They seem to be interchangeable. It is the same personnel. 5.       June 2009 a.       TUV Managing Agent LTD, on behalf of ABC Management Company Ltd, file a court claim against BFX. [CLAIM2009] b.       BFX asks them to fully particularise their claim, including asking for details of who authorised them to manage the building and various other pertinent questions. 6.       10th August 2009 a.       BFX sends CPR18 – request for information to TUV Managinig Agent c/o ABC Management Company 7.       2009 a.       Hearing is scheduled for Jan 2010 [CLAIM2009] 8.       February 2010 a.       There is a hearing. b.       Ref: [CLAIM2009] c.       From the Court: IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim be stayed to enable the Parties to endeavour to reach a settlement if no application is made to restore by Tuesday 6th April 2010, the claim be struck out 9.       24th March 2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent sends BFX an agreement to sign, agreeing to pay. BFX does not sign the document. 10.   2010 – 30th or 31st March 2010 a.       BFX attends a meeting with a Director of ABC Management Company and Director of TUV Managing Agent. b.       BFX outlines his position, and suggests a verbal agreement to pay from 2006-2010 once the management of the block is properly administrated – my preference being the ‘RTM route’. c.       The other people at the meeting do not appear to understand. 11.   1st April 2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent on behalf of ABC Management Company write to the Court, asking that the claim be restored, claiming BFX has remained silent. b.       Notice of allocation from the Court, dated 15th April, for a hearing in July. 12.   July 2010 a.       On the day, a lady at the Court informs BFX that TUV Managing Agent has been on the phone, and said that BFX has paid the money and to cancel the hearing. b.       BFX had not paid any money at all. c.       Nothing more is heard of [CLAIM2009] 13.   6th October 2010 a.       ABC Management Co c/o TUV Managing Agent send a letter, after the Freehold Reversion of BFX’s block comes up for sale. TUV Managing Agent outline three options – do nothing, RTM, or buy the freehold. b.       BFX opines that it is not good advice, but is ignored. 14.   December 2010 a.       BFX’s health starts to visibly deteriorate. 15.   Late April 2011 a.       BFX is blue-lighted into the regional hospital, as witnessed by Director of ABC Management Company. 16.   Early May 2011 a.       TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company, commence a new claim against BFX – literally within a week or so of BFX going into Hospital! b.       This is [CLAIM2011] 17.   August 2011 a.       TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company are awarded Judgement in Default. b.       BFX remains critically ill in Hospital. 18.   September 2011 a.       Letter from BFX’s Mortgage Company-One to BFX b.       “We have been advised by TUV Managing Agent that your Ground Rent and Service Charges of £6k-ish has not been paid.” Iy goes on to say pay them. 19.   September 2011 a.       In reference to [CLAIM2011] a letter from TUV Managing Agent to BFX’s Mortgage Company-One states: b.       “As the managing agents of BFX’s Block, I write to advise you that your client, BFX, is in severe arrears and therefore is in breach of his lease. c.       “A County Court Judgement was served on August 2011 in the sum of £6k-ish. A Copy of the Judgement is enclosed for your reference. d.       “I therefore request that this payment is now made in full by your client within 21 days, failure to do so will result in further action being taken and a Section 146Notice [sic] being served on Mr Piggin” 20.   October 2011 a.       Letter from TUV Managing Agent to BFX’s Mortgage Company-One states: b.       “Further to your letter of 25th October 2011, please find below the details of the bank account to make payment of the outstanding service charge and ground rent for the above property” [BFX’s property] c.       Mortgage Company-one makes a payment to ABC Management Co c/o TUV Managing Agent, for the claim amount. 21.   January 2012 a.       Landlord-one sells his freehold to Landlord-two. BFX receives a letter from Landlord-one’s solicitor. It states: b.       “…we write to advise that the benefit of the receipt of the ground rent payable under such Lease has now been transferred to Landlord-two to whom all future payments of ground rent including all arrears and the amount due from 2st January 2012 shall be payable to and whose receipt shall be a full and absolute discharge under such Lease” 22.   February 2012 a.       Landlord-one sells his freehold to Landlord-two. b.       Landlord-two writes to BFX stating that he owes Ground Rent since 2006. c.       That letter from Landlord-two to BFX also states d.       “While we have no wish to disrupt and current workable management arrangements we do have concerns in that respect as the building is not being managed strictly in accordance with the Lease provisions and although we would have no great objection to ABC Management Company Ltd continuing with the management of the structural and communal areas of the building we would be happier if the present informal arrangement, which could in theory be discontinued at any time by any party, could be formalised either by a Deed of Variation being entered into in connection with each individual leaseholder or by a complete Deed of Variation being entere into by all parties. We hope you will support a Deed of Variation and would request your written views in that respect. e.       “We were in direct communication with PQR Managing Agent prior to completion of our purchase and enclose for your information copy letter written to that firm on 11th January 2012. PQR Managing Agent have confirmed they have never received any ground rent payments and they are raising our ‘insurance concerns’ with X Insurer.” f.        The letter referred to above also asks PQR Managing Agent to make certain material disclosures to X Insurer. g.       In his letter to TUV/PQR Managing Agent, dated 11th of Jan, Landlord-two also states, h.       “As management is current [sic] carried out by you on behalf of ABC Management Company Limited, who are not named in the Lease and therefore maintenance obligations are unenforceable against or by that company, you may wish to give consideration to:” It then proposes a) a deed of variation, or b) Landlord-two becomes a client of TUV Property Management, and long term management is done that way. i.         The letter from Landlord-two continues: j.         “Finally, while we appreciate that you are not authorised to collect ground rent and indeed we assume you have not therefore been collecting ground rent, can you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt that you have never collected any ground rent payments from any leaseholder in connection with this building or, if you have collected any ground rent payments, can you please let us have details of such payments.” 23.   October 2012 a.       BFX makes an application for the Judgement to be set-aside, an account of his being hospitalised almost constantly since April 2011. b.       A hearing is scheduled. 24.   January 2013 a.       There is a hearing, the Judgement against BFX is set-aside. TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company do not attend. BFX has until February to file his Defence and Counterclaim, which he does. 25.   March 2013 a.       AQ’s submitted, and hearing scheduled. b.       TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company is ordered to pay the hearing fee. 26.   18th April 2013 a.       Court orders unless TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company pays the fees, the claim shall be struck out. b.       Letter from the Court: BFX’s counterclaim remains listed for May 2013. There is a hearing, and TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company fail to attend. 27.   May 2013 a.       After a hearing, where TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company fail to attend, the Court orders: “The claim be adjourned generally with the liberty to restore on the application of either party.” 28.   2nd half of 2013 and 2014 a.       Various letter from TUV Property Management, and meetings of residents. It is decided by Leaseholders in BFX’s block that we should exercise our ‘right-to-manage’. 29.   17th February 2014 a.       Letter from a solicitor dealing with the RTM progress, it says Landlord-two now has 28 days to file a response. 30.   4th June 2014 a.       BFX Receives a letter from TUV Property Management it states: b.       “Please find enclosed a new standing order form for BFX’s block. c.       “We have opened a new current account for BFX’s block due to the Right to Manage coming into effect in 1st July 2014 d.       “The new standing order is to commence on 1st July 2014…” e.       It continues with pleasantries about cancelling old SO etc. 31.   2nd July 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.3k, the description on the invoice being ‘Account Adjustment: Transfer from previous Management Company’ 32.   2nd July 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.6k, the description on the invoice being ‘Account Adjustment: For period 4th July 2014 – 30th September 2014’ 33.   28th July 20014 (1) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.5k, having added £12. It states ‘Account Adjustment: Title Register’. b.       IT ALSO SHOWS BFX’s FIRST PAYMENT of 1 month’s service charges to ABC RTM Company Ltd as ‘Payment Received’ 34.   28th July 20014 (2) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.8k, having added £360 court fees. It states ‘Account Adjustment: Court Fees’ 35.   28th July 20014 (3) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £4k, having added £120 in court fees 36.   11th August 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX adding another £85. Description: ‘HM Court fee as fee is £205 not £120 – difference’ 37.   August 2014 a.       Following another emergency admission to Hospital for BFX, ABC RTM Company Limited immediately file a claim [CLAIM2014] for alleged arrears from 2011-2014. Approximately £4k. 38.   November 2014 a.       From the Court: Claim [CLAIM2014] stayed until February 2015, by which time the Defendant is to serve his Defence and in default shall file and serve further medical evidence supporting his inability to do the same. 39.   September 2015 a.       Claim stayed until end of October 2015 40.   November 2015 a.       Claim stayed until Jan 2016 41.   8th January 2016 a.       BFX makes an application for summary judgement [of CLAIM2014] that the claim be struck out, as it is a relitigation of [CLAIM2011] 42.   Feb 2016 a.       Transferred to local Court. 43.   31st March 2016 a.       There was a hearing of my application (I think) b.       From the Court, re [CLAIM2014] c.       IT IS ORDERED THAT d.       The hearing of today’s date be adjourned e.       The Claimant to file and serve a fully Particulars (detailed) Particulars of claim [sic] to set out the basis to the claim, entitlement of the Claimant to recover sums from the Defendant, detailing sums recovered and any outstanding payment plus other details which the Claimand may advise to address by 22 april 2016 f.        The Defendant to file and serve a detailed defence addressing the Particulars of Claim in paragraph 2 above by 12 may 2016 g.       If the Defendant wishes the application of today’s date to be relisted (upon consideration of the fully particularised Particulars of Claim), the Defendant should write to the court, at the same time as filing a defence, with a copy of this order, asking for the Court to relist the application for hearing with an estimated length of 1 hour 30 minutes (30 minutes of it being reading time). In the event that the application is relisted, both parties to file and serve detailed statements addressing the subject matter of the application 7 clear days before the hearing. 44.   17th May 2016 a.       From the court: b.       “IT IS ORDERED THAT The Defendants application be relisted in accordance with the order made on the 31st March 2016 on Monday 27th June at 15:30pm with an elh of 30 minutes,not to be heard by telephone” [sic]” 45.   June 2016 a.       I think there was a hearing, possibly. I am looking for the paperwork. I attended the hearing directly from a different regional Hospital to the usual one, where I was being treated for a brain infection. We got our heads bashed together by a clearly infuriated Judge, Judge advised ABC RTM c/o TUV Managing Agents to get a solicitor, tells BFX to be clearer in what he says. Nothing further was heard. Until… 46.   7th April 2017 a.       BFX has an invoice for 1066.00 from TUV Managing Agent c/o ABC RTM Company Ltd 47.   August 2017 a.       BFX mortgage sold from ‘Mortgage Company-one’ to ‘Mortgage Company-two’ 48.   13th September 2017 a.       BFX received an invoice for £5,000 for his share for new windows to BFX’s block. It seemed complicit with s20 LTA 1985 etc. BFX pays £5k. b.       There was a lot of confusion during this process, I am pinning down the paperwork, but it was paid. The total invoice was not split as per the lease – Leaseholders were asked for funds on a per window basis, but the Lease says the total should be summed and divided by the number of units. c.       N.B. BFX’s flat is in a conservation area, and the price reflects expensive windows, as specified by local planners. There were other attempts to put in cheap, nasty windows, but BFX was able to stop this by making informal representations to the local Borough Council – who in turn contacted TUV Managing Agents, who in turn eventually put in a proper planning application for proper windows, which was approved. d.       There was a lot of confusion during this process, I am pinning down the paperwork, but it was paid. The total invoice was not as per the lease – Leaseholders were asked for funds on a per window basis, but the Lease says the total should be summed and divided by the number of units. 49.   12th October 2017 a.       BFX receives invoice for service charges (or statement of account): £4,800 approx. No payments are made by BFX 50.   25h September 2018 a.       BFX receives an invoice (or statement of account) for a total of £492. b.       It appears they have decided not to collect this amount 51.   March 2020 a.       Claim2020 from ABC RTM Company Limited c/o Company Director (not TUV Property Management) for £890 plus £70 Court fee. BFX has not been paying his fees because the management of the block is terrible.
    • Yes I know.  We would like the story posted up plainly on a post in a new thread with no attachment simply a step-by-step account of what happened and what led to the litigation. I think we can understand why this thread has gone on for 18 pages
    • I think he's hoping the attached pdf would be a satisfactory starting point for a new thread?
    • Please start a new thread so that you can post up a nice brief bullet pointed chronology of what happened which led to the litigation.
    • Hope it all goes well for her CB, let us know how she gets on.
  • Our picks

caro

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim 2

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2832 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I agree Coolchris, if it wasn't deliberate, presumably Swift Advances PLC's (Swift 1st's sister company for 2nd charge mortgages) customers will be redressed in the same way? Unfortunately the OFT who regulate Swift Advances plc don't have the same ability as the FSA to order redress. However as it is all an unfortunate mistake and system failure, Swift will want to do the right thing. Those customers have not been "treated fairly" either.

 

I wonder how much effort Swift 1st will put into tracking down families whose homes they have repossessed? Some of those families may have broken down as a result. Swift will have to go to great efforts to redress those people. Would people who have suffered extreme detriment be able to sue for compensation? What cost would the courts put on family breakdown?

 

SJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree Coolchris, if it wasn't deliberate, presumably Swift Advances PLC's (Swift 1st's sister company for 2nd charge mortgages) customers will be redressed in the same way? Unfortunately the OFT who regulate Swift Advances plc don't have the same ability as the FSA to order redress. However as it is all an unfortunate mistake and system failure, Swift will want to do the right thing. Those customers have not been "treated fairly" either.

 

I wonder how much effort Swift 1st will put into tracking down families whose homes they have repossessed? Some of those families may have broken down as a result. Swift will have to go to great efforts to redress those people. Would people who have suffered extreme detriment be able to sue for compensation? What cost would the courts put on family breakdown?

 

SJ

 

Totally agree SJ............ALL Swift customers, whether Swift 1st or Swift Advances were treated like cr@p and ALL deserve to be refunded. As someone who narrowly escaped repossession by Swift Advances, my OH took an overdose 'cos he was so ashamed of what he felt he had done to his family and to crown it all we had to pay a ridiculous sum in early redemption fee when we managed to get out of their clutches, I truly feel for those who weren't so fortunate :mad2: I can't see Swift making the effort to track down those who they previously terrorised and feel that if Swift can get away with paying out the bare minimum they will do so.

 

Our 'loan' was for in excess of £50k, but was a 'second charge' so won't be covered by the FSA ruling. I did manage to get some charges refunded, but only a fraction of what were applied............

 

Landy x


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SJ. My home was repossessed and Swift know my new address but only because I was in touch with them trying to reclaim some of the ridiculous costs incurred over the previous few years, and also the unbelievable eviction costs. If others that have been repossessed didn't give Swift their new address what are the chances of Swift trying to track them down? Nil is my guess.

 

I dont think these refunds will add up to much but it's a start. I've sent my complaint to the FOS and they have asked Swift to explain their charges in full. Also, my MP has written to Hector Sants, CEO of the FSA, and his reply is due back by this Wednesday at the latest.

 

I don't hold out much hope but we've all got to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've received a letter from Swift today saying they are repaying some of my costs that they over charged me and others between 2004 and 2009. It's part of the FSA investigation rather than my complaint. At the end of the letter they give the FSA web address for us to see how refunds will be calculated. But oops, they wrote the address down wrong. The correct address is fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/swift_1st.pdf

 

By the way, I've posted on here many times but I've changed my username for this post.

 

Thank you for this post SR as my agreement started in 2003 and the notice given by the FSA mentions a date from 2007. Funny enough, I received a reply to a letter I sent them and they offered a refund as a gesture of goodwill and I had a certain time in which to respond or lose it! It was negligible compared to the amount I would consider, plus there're trying to ignore my PPI claim and want to charge an extortionate amount to redeem the loan!! So your info is of significant importance. Stay with us:-)

 

A nice big advertisement in National Newspapers to ask anyone who has been affected by Swift Advances to contact the FOS, FSA and OFT to complain and get redress, would be amazing!

Edited by determindator
I'm getting into warrior mode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Swift are paying a flat rate of 8% interest to everyone they overcharged. To be honest it's better than I expected but nowhere near the 14% they were charging me.

Edited by shoops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently Swift are paying a flat rate of 8% interest to everyone they overcharged. To be honest it's better than I expected but nowhere near the 14% they were charging me.

 

Personally I think people should claim the contractual rate they were charged, and I don't think it would be out of order to claim 8% on top of that. If it was necessary to go to court it would be acceptable to claim it, and FOS will often allow it too.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Caro,

Should all Swift Advances customers have been notified about this as I have heard nothing at all recently from them ?

I sent the OFT the last letter I received from them mentioning interest, fees etc but have heard nothing back other than automatic acknowledgement...

Has anyone ever contacted their supposed regulatory body "The Finance and Leasing Association" to complain about them?( As Swift mentioned them themselves ,I cant imagine they'd be very helpful1)

Is anyone receiving regular letters/phone calls as usual or has it all gone quiet for everyone?

Also, did anyone else get their secured loan through Personal Loans of Bristol ?

Hoping for some news,

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FLA are next to useless in my opinion.....and their members pay them to represent their 'body'.....they won't even make a sound when one of their members gets fined/investigated by the FSA....


PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Caro,

Should all Swift Advances customers have been notified about this as I have heard nothing at all recently from them ?

I sent the OFT the last letter I received from them mentioning interest, fees etc but have heard nothing back other than automatic acknowledgement...

Has anyone ever contacted their supposed regulatory body "The Finance and Leasing Association" to complain about them?( As Swift mentioned them themselves ,I cant imagine they'd be very helpful1)

Is anyone receiving regular letters/phone calls as usual or has it all gone quiet for everyone?

Also, did anyone else get their secured loan through Personal Loans of Bristol ?

Hoping for some news,

M.

 

Hi M,

 

I contacted the FLA when Swift Advances had rejected my complaint and as 42man says, they were no help whatsoever - they agreed with SA's opinion that my complaint was unjustified. Eventually, when there began to be rumblings of the OFT/FSA investigations, I tried again with SA and they did refund some charges...............but my account is no longer operational as I repaid it in full some time before complaining.

 

Landy x


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mariknub

 

What I was referring to (That Caro replied to) was Swift First. They've been investigated by the FSA and made to pay back certain charges and fees that were considered excessive. I don't think it included Swift Advances, although I believe they are also being investigated at the moment (Maybe somebody could correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Apart from this refund which is small compared to the outrageous fees and interest rates I was charged, I've got my MP on the case and she is in touch with the CEO of the FSA and the FOS have also instructed Swift to provide them with all the details from my account so they can look into it. I get the impression that Swift are going to have to be more cooperative in future or risk losing they're license so now is a good time to be demanding answers to questions that they might previously have ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mariknub

 

What I was referring to (That Caro replied to) was Swift First. They've been investigated by the FSA and made to pay back certain charges and fees that were considered excessive. I don't think it included Swift Advances, although I believe they are also being investigated at the moment (Maybe somebody could correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Apart from this refund which is small compared to the outrageous fees and interest rates I was charged, I've got my MP on the case and she is in touch with the CEO of the FSA and the FOS have also instructed Swift to provide them with all the details from my account so they can look into it. I get the impression that Swift are going to have to be more cooperative in future or risk losing they're license so now is a good time to be demanding answers to questions that they might previously have ignored.

 

Evening all,

 

It is important (I think) to note that whilst Swift 1st are currently in the firing line', they are the parent company for Swift Advances plc, as I understand it. The reason it seems is that Swift 1st only offer 1st Mortgages and Swift Advances only offer 2nd Mortgages.

 

I also think it possible that in reality the 'Swift' group did very little(by compaison to others) in the 1st charge market but concentrated on second charges and the sub-prime market.

 

I have already been in touch with Swift Advances plc for a refund of my fees and charges at the rate of 8%, but in my request I indicated that I reserved the right to amend that request. looking at my figures again I had a second mortgage with them for £16,500 and six months later they wanted £31,000 to redeem!!

 

I shall spend the day tomorrow redrafting my request!!

 

 

.....in the meantime,

 

Best wishes to all my fellow caggers,

 

Dougal

Edited by Dougal16T

Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be able to answer something for me Dougal. Mine was a 1st mortgage with Swift First and all the paperwork has Swift First letter heading....until they sent replies to my SAR, and the two letters they sent (on totally different occasions) were both on Swift Advances letter heading. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shoops,

 

I wish I could answer that. I just do not have any sensible explanation.....I don't have any insensible ones either!! I do think everything will 'come out in the wash' as my Mum used to say!!

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal


Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody please post up a legible copy of Swift 1st tariff of charges please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sawyer, I've attached 2 files to this post. Are they what you are after? They are both Swift First tariff sheets.

scan1.pdf

scan2.pdf

Edited by shoops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is of any help but the FSA have just fined Swift 1st Limited £630,000 for treating customers unfairly. They have also agreed to pay redress to customers that they have overcharged, an amount estimated to be £2.35m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to Swift earlier regarding the interest they're paying on the refunds the FSA have told them to make. In my opinion it's obvious Swift should be paying back the interest I paid on the debt (10.5%) and then they should pay interest on the refund amount because they shouldn't have had it in the first place. No surprises that they refused categorically but the thing that irritated me most was this....their argument that they didn't have to pay back all the interest I've paid, or pay interest for the fact they've been holding my money, was that the FSA hadn't told them to. Thanks FSA. So Swift can lend us money and charge interest, but when we "lend" them money they don't have to pay us interest. What chance do you stand when the governing body come up with rulings like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I spoke to Swift earlier regarding the interest they're paying on the refunds the FSA have told them to make. In my opinion it's obvious Swift should be paying back the interest I paid on the debt (10.5%) and then they should pay interest on the refund amount because they shouldn't have had it in the first place. No surprises that they refused categorically but the thing that irritated me most was this....their argument that they didn't have to pay back all the interest I've paid, or pay interest for the fact they've been holding my money, was that the FSA hadn't told them to. Thanks FSA. So Swift can lend us money and charge interest, but when we "lend" them money they don't have to pay us interest. What chance do you stand when the governing body come up with rulings like that?

 

They told me the same. That's why I filed a complaint with FSA and FOS. Although a tiger with one tooth can't hurt the more teeth the bigger the bite. FILE A COMPLAINT AS I HAVE

JOES MY LANDLORD:mad2::mad2::mad2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently my MP got in touch with the FSA regarding my account and repossession. She got a reply from Clive Adamson, Director Of Supervision/Conduct Business Unit. He pointed me in the direction of the FOS regarding my complaint, but he added that Swift were carrying out this redress programme, so I've written him a letter today pointing out that with the FSAs blessing, Swift have paid back less then many of us paid to them. (If your interest rate was over 8%) And on top of that they will also be keeping the interest that 2 million pounds has made them over the years instead of it earning interest in our bank accounts where it should have been.

 

I await the fudged reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shoops and anyone with an M.P. helping them with Swift problems, arrears, repossession etc.,

 

Have just got an appointment with mine and the secretary asked me if I had any names of M.P.s already involved to speed things up etcso they can share info etc. instead of starting all from scratch...(makes sense!)

 

So, can anyone help with just giving M.P's name and constituency please?

 

Many thanks,

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 8% interests me as i was in court with SWIFT who stated under oath that their cost of borrowing was 12% when the judge was determining the interest during my time order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in your back pockets where interest charges are concerned the Sempra Metals vs Inland revenue case law....google it...

Edited by spot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree SJ............: I can't see Swift making the effort to track down those who they previously terrorised and feel that if Swift can get away with paying out the bare minimum they will do so.

 

Our 'loan' was for in excess of £50k, but was a 'second charge' so won't be covered by the FSA ruling. I did manage to get some charges refunded, but only a fraction of what were applied............

 

Landy x

Well for all my letter writing I never got a penny back from Swift for all my charges so I am lost as to what change has happened to shake Swift into refunding anything ever.


If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...