Jump to content


Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim 2


caro
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3398 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

 

Excellent news SJ - Many thanks for that!

 

Merry Christmas to all and just to add my thanks to everyone - but in particular that famous electrician - for everything done in the name of this most worthwhile cause!

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Talking of things electricial, if anyone is in the Chester area on 4 January at 10.30 am they might like to pop along to the Civil Justice Centre for directions in a certain case. I'm told you might see Spark(le)s fly!!!

 

Jaqui: Yes I believe Data Subject Access Request and Subject Access Request are one in the same.

 

Happy Xmas to all. xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ALL

 

Been talking to our electrical person who is “locking horns” again with Swift Advances plc on the 4th January 2011, over the sale of his loan to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd.

 

 

He had a long 1 plus hr phone chat today with a certain reporter who is on the link supplied by sweetjane……she told him that weather permitting and train schedules she will be attending the 2 hr directions hearing our “Spark-er-ling” friend has in court ..........as an observer………should be some "sparks" flying at that hearing from the info I have, as you know he is banned from posting …but ….he will soon prove everything he has been banned for is TRUE.

 

LL

 

MERRY XMAS TO ALL

Link to post
Share on other sites

A merry Xmas to you to LL, and wish you and all fighting against swift the very best of luck. It has been a long and hard fight and I sincerely wish you all receive the best Xmas present in the world.

 

 

Keep my fingers, toes, feet and arms crossed for all of you.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping if anyone had any information about a case that was heard in the Southend County Court on the 29 January 2009.

 

The reason I ask is that last year I forwarded a request to my lender that they refund me the £35 charges they applied when I was in arrears and £35 each letter they charged to write to me. These charges built up quite high. The response I received was they said that there was a case heard in the Southend County Court on the 29 January 2009 in the name of Paul v Swift Advances plc.

 

My lender also said that Paul was ordered to pay costs despite it being in the small claims unit. I have written to my lender special delivery approx 6 weeks ago and they have not responded and I don't think they will either, especially after swift hitting the headlines recently.

 

So if anyone has any details on this case I would be very interested to know more about it please. Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A merry Xmas to you to LL, and wish you and all fighting against swift the very best of luck. It has been a long and hard fight and I sincerely wish you all receive the best Xmas present in the world.

 

 

Keep my fingers, toes, feet and arms crossed for all of you.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

Thanks FF nearly all over for them

 

 

 

 

 

The reason I ask is that last year I forwarded a request to my lender that they refund me the £35 charges they applied when I was in arrears and £35 each letter they charged to write to me. These charges built up quite high. The response I received was they said that there was a case heard in the Southend County Court on the 29 January 2009 in the name of Paul v Swift Advances plc.

 

My lender also said that Paul was ordered to pay costs despite it being in the small claims unit. I have written to my lender special delivery approx 6 weeks ago and they have not responded and I don't think they will either, especially after swift hitting the headlines recently.

 

So if anyone has any details on this case I would be very interested to know more about it please. Thanks in advance.

 

Have googled for you.....sorry cant find anything, why not try ringing the court?? They may be able to help.

 

LL:???:

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping if anyone had any information about a case that was heard in the Southend County Court on the 29 January 2009.

 

The reason I ask is that last year I forwarded a request to my lender that they refund me the £35 charges they applied when I was in arrears and £35 each letter they charged to write to me. These charges built up quite high. The response I received was they said that there was a case heard in the Southend County Court on the 29 January 2009 in the name of Paul v Swift Advances plc.

 

My lender also said that Paul was ordered to pay costs despite it being in the small claims unit. I have written to my lender special delivery approx 6 weeks ago and they have not responded and I don't think they will either, especially after swift hitting the headlines recently.

 

So if anyone has any details on this case I would be very interested to know more about it please. Thanks in advance.

 

Hi Frett,

 

I think maybe there's a thread on here somewhere regarding this case - Barry Paul I believe was the guy's name (not sure if that was his user name though)..............have a search around the forum and you may be lucky.

 

All the best,

 

Landy x

  • Confused 1

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some info for all to think about and how to use it.....

 

What is an in house lawyer

 

a solicitor employed by an employer that is not a solicitor's firm or an authorised non-SRA firm (in commerce or industry, in central or local government, in the not-for-profit sector, or in a trade union or other association) acts only for the employer, subject to limited exceptions which allow, for instance, a law centre solicitor to act for members of the public; "pure" in-house work, where the solicitor cannot be said to be working for the public or a section of the public, is not affected by the Act; most organisations whose solicitors currently act for sections of the public, such as law centres or insurance companies, will eventually need to be licensed as ABSs under the Act

What is an in house solicitor

An in house solicitor is the same as an inhouse lawyer

 

a solicitor employed by an employer that is not a solicitor's firm or an authorised non-SRA firm (in commerce or industry, in central or local government, in the not-for-profit sector, or in a trade union or other association) acts only for the employer, subject to limited exceptions which allow, for instance, a law centre solicitor to act for members of the public; "pure" in-house work, where the solicitor cannot be said to be working for the public or a section of the public, is not affected by the Act; most organisations whose solicitors currently act for sections of the public, such as law centres or insurance companies, will eventually need to be licensed as ABSs under the Act

All Swift Group Legal Services solicitors are stated to be employees of Swift Group Legal Services, their registration with the SRA, the Law Societies shows this quite clearly, which is admissible in Court of Law as a matter of fact. 7.—(1) The common law rule effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(a) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968 (admissibility of admissions adverse to a party) is superseded by the provisions of this Act.

This is an argument to consider using against them. As there is no such legal entity as Swift Group Legal Services and they are now firmly stated to be a “trading name” on OFT licenses……………….. a “trading name” cannot take legal action to act in court it must be an actual entity upon which liability can be placed.

(2) The common law rules effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(b) to (d) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968, that is, any rule of law whereby in civil proceedings—

(a) published works dealing with matters of a public nature (for example, histories, scientific works, dictionaries and maps) are admissible as evidence of facts of a public nature stated in them,

(b) public documents (for example, public registers, and returns made under public authority with respect to matters of public interest) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them, or

© records (for example, the records of certain courts, treaties, Crown grants, pardons and commissions) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them,

sparkie

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed Mr Webster no longer signs any accounts filed with Companies House....wonder if he is still there?????!!!

Me know a secret...... me no tell...has someone lost his pen????? ....well well well

 

sparkie

 

Happy xmas sparkie you tease LOL,

 

Thanks lesterlass and landy I will have a search on here and on google to see if I do come up with anything.

 

Well if anyone is in a giving mood and festive spirit this xmas maybe we could write and ask santa to send Mr Webster a nice new pen as I believe he is in need of one.

 

Great work guys, I sincerely wish that you all who have worked so hard in your battles have a very prosperous and successful new year

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that one set of Kestrel Accounts say they sold loans back to Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd to the value of £50million and another set says they sold £5.2million.............remember these refer to the same "block" of loans..not different ones .......discrepancy of £200,000 where has this gone:?:...how can they fix this? If these accounts are out ........so are the rest:?:. just a passing note...check these accounts out....you'll see it straight away, they are in the public domain.

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

My SDAR is now typed and ready ot go to Swift Group Legal SERvices recorded delivery tomorrow morning......

 

Am also going to submit the fraud application next week......

If you kick a Tiger in the Ass youbetter have a plan to deal with its teeth :madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sate of play now. I have to submit my PPI claim to the FOS because the broker company no longer exists and Swift are unregulated. This means I will have to calculate the figure owing. I do have a PPI thread in that forum but Swift are something else as we know, and I want to direct my questions to those directly involved with Swift. If anyone will tell me if they've submitted such a claim to the FOS and point me in the direction of the formula to use for this motley crew. I'm in the throws of deciding the best way to go forward with this claim. Thank you Caro for all your info and I will see if any of the stickys are relevant for me in the PPI forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sate of play now. I have to submit my PPI claim to the FOS because the broker company no longer exists and Swift are unregulated. This means I will have to calculate the figure owing. I do have a PPI thread in that forum but Swift are something else as we know, and I want to direct my questions to those directly involved with Swift. If anyone will tell me if they've submitted such a claim to the FOS and point me in the direction of the formula to use for this motley crew. I'm in the throws of deciding the best way to go forward with this claim. Thank you Caro for all your info and I will see if any of the stickys are relevant for me in the PPI forum.

 

Happy New Year All

 

I think FF posted this I an now taking Kensington on for MPPI

 

Case 20

1) Mr Yates 2) Miss Lorenzelli v Nemo Personal Finance and another

14 May 2010 (Manchester County Court)

Case No: 9HG00904

Claim: The borrowers, Yates and Lorenzelli, alleged (1) that there was an

unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act; (2)

that the creditor procured a breach by the broker of the fiduciary duty

owed by it to the borrowers by paying to the broker an undisclosed

commission; and (3) that the agreement was a multiple agreement within

section 18 of the Act and the part relating to payment protection

insurance (PPI) was improperly executed.

Type of agreement: Secured loan agreement dated 25 April 2007 for

£60,500 repayable over 20 years, plus £15,468 PPI premium and £2,000

broker’s fee.

Judgment: The judge noted that the claim of unfairness was raised by the

borrowers and so the burden of proof was on the creditor to prove the

contrary. He found that:

• The PPI policy appeared to be very expensive for what it

offered.

• Of the PPI premium of £15,468, he was told that 57.45%

(£8,886) was retained by the creditor effectively as

commission, and of this £4,232 was paid to the broker.

Although the fact that commission would be likely to be paid

was known to the borrowers through the FISA booklet, the

amounts were not.

• The borrowers were led to understand that the PPI had to be

taken out as a condition of the loan. The fact that the broker

received £4,322 if it was taken out clearly created an

inducement to sell the policy.

• If the customer was paying £15,000 for a policy of insurance he

was entitled to know in the interests of fairness that less than

one half of that was actually going to pay for the policy itself

This case summary has been prepared for guidance only. It should not be relied upon as an accurate expression of the law.

and more than one half was going to be paid in commission to

the broker and the lender.

• The amount of the commission created an incentive to the

broker to sell the product and thereby gave rise to a potential

conflict of interest with the customer. Having paid that

commission in that amount and thereby having created the

conflict for the broker, the lender could not wash his hands of it

by leaving everything and passing all responsibility to the broker.

• Not only did the payment of commission affect the broker’s

independence, it also affected the way the customer might

assess any advice given by the broker.

• There was a failure to remind the borrowers of their right to

cancel the PPI within 30 days.

On the other points, the judge found that a fiduciary relationship did not

exist in this case and that the agreement was a multiple agreement under

section 18 of the Act.

Result: Unfair relationship under section 140A. The judge ordered the PPI

part of the loan agreement to be rescinded.

This case summary has been prepared for guidance only. It should not be relied upon as an accurate expression of the law.

 

Hope this helps

 

LL:whoo:

Edited by lesterlass
Missed some of the guidance
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks LL, I believe this was stickied by the site team also

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273420-PPI-win-in-Court&highlight=

 

No Problem FF the piece I have just posted is from the OFT web site, think the whole judgement is on there web site now. Here is the link.

 

http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/unfair-relationships/yates-lorenzelli-nemo.pdf

 

LL:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made that request to SLSD and guess what, they replied on Swift Advances headed paper...... nothing about legal services at all....... funny thing is they have also included 2 things ( one ismissing) that Swift failed to do in my first SAR request last year........

 

Do not want to give toomuch more info here as they are reading and will ID me......:):):)

 

Any suggestions.....

If you kick a Tiger in the Ass youbetter have a plan to deal with its teeth :madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...