Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


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 2839 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

Sparkie just started posting on another consumer forum.


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

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found an interesting judgment on Bailii while looking for any cases involving Swift (sadly, no successful CCA S140 actions) . Link below together with the full text. Good news for anyone wanting to defend possession proceedings whose property has been vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.

 

http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Ch/2011/2.html

Swift Advances Plc v McKay & Anor [2011] NICh 2 (10 February 2011)

Neutral Citation No. [2011] NICh 2

Ref:

DEE8070

Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down

Delivered:

10/02/11

(subject to editorial corrections)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

CHANCERY DIVISION

_______

SWIFT ADVANCES PLC

Plaintiff;

-v-

MICHAEL GERARD McKAY

First Defendant;

-and-

BRIAN F WALKER

Second Defendant

SWIFT ADVANCES PLC

Plaintiff;

-v-

GERARD DALRYMPLE

First Defendant;

-and-

BRIAN F WALKER

Second Defendant.

________

DEENY J

[1] This judgment relates to the proceedings issued by the plaintiff against these two defendants. The circumstances of the two defendants are very similar. The chronology is not without its complexity. This judgment will therefore deal principally with the chronology regarding Michael Gerald McKay. In so far as there are any slight differences with the facts relating to Mr Dalrymple they are not material to the decision.

[2] The point at issue is a relatively novel one as to the right of these two former bankrupts to defend possession proceedings brought against them by way of an appeal from the Master to the High Court in circumstances where they no longer have a proprietary interest in the dwellings in question and where their trustee in bankruptcy (and former solicitors) purported to withdraw the appeal.

[3] The matter arises in this way. On 6 November 2008 the plaintiff issued a summons against Mr McKay seeking delivery by him to the plaintiff of the premises which consisted of a dwelling house. Mr McKay lives at that dwelling house with his wife and three teenage children.

[4] By originating summons of 7 July 2009 the plaintiff brought possession proceedings against Mr Dalrymple in respect of premises. Again this was a dwelling house, in which Mr Dalrymple resides with his wife and four children.

[5] In both cases the plaintiff had advanced substantial sums of money to the defendant on repayment terms. In both cases the defendants were in substantial default in regard to the monies owed. The loans were secured by way of charges, the plaintiff contends, on the two dwelling houses in question. A firm of solicitors entered an appearance for Mr McKay on 19 November 2008 but it is clear on the papers that by 15 January 2010 at the latest his solicitors were Messrs Walker McDonald. That firm had entered an appearance on behalf of Mr Dalrymple on 29 July 2009 and acted for him thereafter.

[6] On 22 July 2009 the plaintiff's then solicitors served a notice of appointment on Mr McKay requiring his attendance before the Master on 16 October 2009 and they served with that an affidavit of Mr Michael Bennett supporting their claim for an Order for possession because of default in payments. On that date the Master adjourned the originating summons to 24 November 2009 but made two relevant orders in addition. First of all, he ordered that Brian F Walker, by then the trustee in bankruptcy of the first defendant's estate, be added as defendant. This followed Mr McKay's adjudication in bankruptcy on 1 April 2009. Furthermore the Master ordered the second defendant i.e. Mr Walker, to file and serve an affidavit in answer on or before 30 October 2009. Similarly Mr Dalrymple was declared bankrupt and Mr Walker became his trustee in bankruptcy and similar orders were made by the Master. On 24 November 2009 the matter came back before the Master who again ordered the second defendant i.e. Mr Walker, to file and serve an affidavit, this time before 16 December 2009, because none had been filed, and he adjourned the hearing of the summons to 18 December.

[7] Such an affidavit was filed but not until 15 January 2010. In that affidavit Mr Walker briefly indicated concerns that Mr McKay had both about the changing identities of the plaintiff and its right to rely on the charge and in addition about whether the plaintiff's loans complied with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act, 1974. The plaintiff responded to these matters with an affidavit of Mark White filed 16 February 2010 and again, for some reason, on 19 February 2010. One appears to be a draft of the other. The matter came back before the Master on 17 May 2010. A period of some 3 months had elapsed from the plaintiff's affidavit without any response from the defendants. In particular they had not responded to Mr White's complaint that the allegations of breach of the Consumer Credit Act had not been particularised. On 17 May Master Ellison ordered the second defendant i.e. Mr Walker to pay the plaintiff's costs to be taxed if not agreed and paid as soon as possible. He then adjourned the matter to 14 June. On 14 June no further affidavit had been provided. The Master then again ordered the second defendant to file and serve such an affidavit, no later than 21 June and again ordered the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the adjournment to be taxed forthwith if not agreed and paid as soon as possible.

[8] In a subsequent affidavit of 15 September 2010 Mr McKay paints a most unhappy picture of confusion on the part of his instructing solicitors and/or counsel instructed on his behalf. As this affidavit has not been addressed by the persons concerned I shall not set out these criticisms in detail. Suffice to say that it appears from the court file that the affidavit required by the court was only filed on 29 June and not by 21 June as ordered by the Master. Furthermore although Mr McKay's case related to documentary evidence which he himself had garnered and although it was necessary to respond to the case being made by Mr White on behalf of the plaintiff there were no exhibits attached to the affidavit. Mr McKay has averred that it in any event the draft failed to deal with many of the points which he himself had identified. On the papers before me I accept Mr McKay's averments that even on the day of the hearing the Master kindly adjourned the matter twice to allow Mr McKay to try and put the affidavit before him and locate his counsel who was meant to be appearing on his behalf, but that gentleman was unwilling to appear. It is not surprising that in all the circumstances the Master ultimately granted the order sought by Swift Advances plc.

[7] Without going into the matter in detail a similar picture emerges from the affidavit of Mr Dalrymple and the court file. In the events orders for possession were made in respect of the homes of both Mr McKay and Mr Dalrymple by the Master. I make it clear that they were not critical of the Master in so doing in all the circumstances and in my view no criticism can be made of him.

[8] Without ruling on all the criticisms of Walker MacDonald I conclude for the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraphs that the cases were not properly presented at and before the Master's court.

[9] It may be that the solicitors accepted that, as they agreed to lodge a Notice of Appeal. In fairness to them they say that they agreed with the present appellants to submit the papers to counsel and abide by his advice on whether the appeal was worth pursuing. They did so but I must observe that the counsel they chose, although an experienced junior, was not one I have ever seen appearing in the Chancery Court. His advice against appealing was not accepted by Mr McKay and Mr Dalrymple.

[10] The matter came before me on 16 September 2010. On that occasion an assistant solicitor in the office of Messrs Walker McDonald who had carriage of the matter sought to withdraw the appeal which had been lodged by the trustees. The present appellants were present and strongly objected to that course. Mr David Dunlop, who appeared for the lenders, contended that they had no locus standi. In the circumstances before me an appellant required the leave of the court to withdraw the appeal. If there is an issue of the authority for a solicitor to compromise proceedings, or, as here, by analogy, abandon them, but the dispute is brought to the attention of the court before any order of the court has been made the purported compromise does not bind the client. See Shepherd v Robinson [1919] 1 KB 474. Without at that stage having much information about the case I was uneasy abut the request being made by the assistant solicitor and in the circumstances leave was not given to withdraw the appeal but the matter was listed for argument on 24 September.

[11] In the interval Mr McKay realised that he was entitled to be discharged from the order of bankruptcy as 12 months from the making of the original order had ended with 1 April 2010 and he obtained such a discharge on 20 September 2010. Mr Dalrymple did likewise. Mr McKay put forward a further helpful and detailed statement of 23 September making his case that the loans were bad in law and that he and Mr Dalrymple should be entitled to have that heard by the court. On 24 September Mr Colmer of counsel instructed by Messrs Hewitt and Gilpin indicated that he had provisional instructions only for the two appellants. He sought time to consider the matter. By then the court had become aware that the Master had twice awarded costs against the putative appellant's solicitor/trustee and become aware of several of the other matters dealt with earlier in this judgment. I was concerned that they had not had a fair hearing contrary to common law and Article 6 of the European Convention. I granted a continuing stay on the possession proceedings on condition that the putative appellants either lodge their own Notice of Appeal or an application to be heard within seven days. At the request of the solicitors an extension of time was granted to allow an emergency legal aid application and the matter was listed for review on 8 November and hearing on 20 December. In the event legal aid was ultimately refused. However, at the request of the Pro Bono Committee of the Bar of Northern Ireland Mr William Gowdy very creditably agreed to act on that basis for Messrs McKay and Dalrymple. The hearing took place on 18 January 2011. I am obliged to both Mr Gowdy and Mr Dunlop for their able written and oral submissions and citation of authority.

[12] The sole issue at the hearing of 18 January was the question of the standing of Messrs McKay and Dalrymple to appeal where the action is one for possession of the appellant's principal residences which have vested in their trustees in bankruptcy. It will be recalled that under the legislation currently in force (Art. 265A of the Insolvency (N.I.) Order 1989, as amended) the bankrupt's property remains vested in the trustee in bankruptcy for three years from the date of the bankruptcy i.e. from 1 April 2009. Mr Gowdy therefore accepted that they have no proprietary interest in the property.

[13] The plaintiff respondents were also taking the point that the appeal had in fact been withdrawn by the trustee but Mr Dunlop at the hearing before me accepted that in the light of the actual orders made by the court in September 2010 and the authorities cited by Valentine Civil Proceedings: The Supreme Court; para. 20.34 that the original appeal had not been withdrawn and he did not pursue that point. For the avoidance of doubt even if that had not been the case I would have been minded to grant an extension of time to Messrs McKay and Dalrymple to pursue the Notice of Appeal, giving them an extension of time up to the date in which they in fact filed such an notice. As matters stand however that notice would appear to be superfluous.

[14] In seeking to address the remaining ground counsel agreed that a leading authority was that of the Court of Appeal in England in Heath v Tang [1993] 4 All ER 694. The court (Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., Steyn and Hoffmann LJJ) was dealing with a situation where two persons had lost an action and had judgment ordered against them. Following their failure to satisfy the judgments bankruptcy petitions were presented and they were adjudicated bankrupt. In one case the trustee was unwilling to appeal and there was no trustee in the other case. Both bankrupts applied for leave to appeal contending that they, as opposed to their estates, had an interest in the proceedings, because if they could have the judgments set aside they would be in a position to have the bankruptcy orders annulled on the ground that they should never have been made. The Court held that the general principle in bankruptcy was that following the vesting of the bankrupt's estate by statute in his trustee when appointed, the bankrupt was divested of and ceased to have an interest in, either his assets or his liabilities, and by virtue of statute after the making of a bankruptcy order creditors had no remedy against the property or person of the bankrupt in respect of any debt provable in the bankruptcy. Furthermore, in principle a bankrupt could not appeal in his own name from a judgment against him which was enforceable only against the estate vested in his trustee. However, a bankrupt was entitled to bring an action, e.g. for defamation or assault, which was personal to him and to defend an action seeking relief such as an injunction against him personally and to appeal. As Hoffmann LJ pointed out there was at common law, going back to Spragg v Binkes (1800) 31 ER 751, a jurisdiction in the court to supervise the actions of trustees in bankruptcy and such is now to be found in statute. It is therefore no great extension of this principle to conclude that a bankrupt could appeal in such personal matters. It follows, a fortiori, that a former bankrupt divested of his estate which is now vested in the trustee could also act in an appeal in connection with personal matters. I observe that that must be particularly so while there is ground for criticism, as here, of the actions of the trustee.

[15] Mr Dunlop relied on the judgment of Treacy J in Young and Another v Hamilton and Others [2010] NI Ch 11. The judge accepted there and ruled that indeed personal claims could be brought by a bankrupt. He went on at paragraph 25 to deal with hybrid claims:

"Some rights of action are hybrid – that is to say the cause of action gives rise to claims which are both 'personal' in nature and 'proprietary'. If, within a claim, both kinds of remedy are sought and the claim is therefore hybrid it falls outside the 'personal' exception and vests in the trustee – see Ord v Upton [2000] 1 All ER 193 at 197. Only those claims which are solely personal in nature will fall outside the bankrupt's estate – see also Fletcher Law of Solvency Sweet and Maxwell 2009 at para. 8-013 and Gowdy and Gowdy Individual Solvency – The Law and Practice in Northern Ireland SLS 2009 at paragraph 8.18 and 3(2) Halsburys Laws (4th Edition) (2002 reissued) at para. 436."

[16] Mr Gowdy did not dispute the rightness of that finding. His primary submission was that this was not a hybrid claim. The defeat of these possession proceedings by the creditor or plaintiff here will not re-vest this property in the plaintiff. The properties will remain vested in the trustee in bankruptcy with the range of powers open to him under the Insolvency Order 1989 as amended. I accept that submission. I accept that the residence in these dwelling houses by these men is a personal matter. It could hardly be more personal. To be dispossessed of their homes must be at least as personal a matter as having their character damaged by defamation. If support for that were necessary Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights could be prayed in aid.

[17] That is sufficient to establish locus standi on behalf of these men. If, of course, at a full hearing of this matter the plaintiffs establish the legal validity of their charges then they will be enabled to contend that it is necessary to protect their rights for an order for possession to be made against the appellants. Article 8 does not prevent possession orders in themselves but merely ensures that they must constitute a necessary and justified interference with the privacy rights of occupants and they must be according to law.

[18] Mr Dunlop sought to rely on the authority of Rochfort v Battersby and Others 9 E.R. 1139 (House of Lords) and James v Rutherford-Hedge [2005] EWCA Civ. 1580, [2006] BPIR 973 but in neither of those cases was the bankrupt in question in occupation of the premises concerned. Therefore their personal rights to their homes as here were not involved.

[19] In the circumstances I need not rule finally on Mr Gowdy's alternative submission that even if this were a hybrid claim the defendants would be entitled to appeal as they were defendants rather than parties acting as plaintiffs pursuing a cause of action, although that submission may be well founded.

[20] I therefore confirm my oral order that Mr McKay and Mr Dalrymple have locus standi to pursue the appeals on their behalf initially lodged on 5 July 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May the force be with them :-)


Cabot and the Cabot Fan Club Threads:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html

 

Legal Actions Explained for Businesses:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20492-legal-actions-explained-company.html

 

Payplan CCCS Advice:

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/getting-out-debt/128587-info-cccs-payplan-experiences.html?highlight=Payplan

 

How to use the Forum

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

A click on the scales below is appreciated if my posts were helpful

Do not regard my postings or suggestions as professional advice. If in doubt seek a professional opinion.

 

PLEASE DONATE IF SUCCESSFUL - Every little helps :)

 

PLEASE, Do not Private Message me with basic questions, start your own thread and PM a link if you wish, but I will not be able to respond to all individual questions as I am very busy on numerous other things and anyway, others cannot learn from PM's. It also stifles contributions from the vast talent base this site offers from it's contributors and I'm not all that clever really! :D Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More power to your elbows Sirs.

 

Brilliant work . :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just asked for the interest rate and was told I could not not be given the APR rate only the AER rate and monthly interest rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just asked for the interest rate and was told I could not not be given the APR rate only the AER rate and monthly interest rate.

 

Hi DM,

 

Found this on Money saving expert.

 

LL

 

APRs - The official rate for borrowing

 

Right, now we're going to get a little bit technical. APR stands for the Annual Percentage Rate, and when it's calculated it has to include both the cost of the borrowing and any associated fees that are automatically included. Thus it's meant to give you the overall equivalent cost of a debt. This is from the regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

APR stands for the Annual Percentage Rate of charge. You can use it to compare different credit and loan offers. The APR takes into account not just the interest on the loan but also other charges you have to pay, for example, any arrangement fee. All lenders have to tell you what their APR is before you sign an agreement. It will vary from lender to lender.”

 

The fact it includes charges means sometimes the APR can be a bit confusing. It is possible the interest rate is 14% per annum, but due to charges the APR is 17%, as the impact of the charges adds the equivalent to another 3% interest. Yet this is useful as it allows a true comparison.

AERs - The official rate for savings

 

The AER or Annual Equivalent Rate is the official rate for savings accounts, and is designed to allow easy comparisons as it's meant to smooth out the variances between accounts (it's the equivalent of the APR for debts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So looks like they're planning on paying you interest Termi!! :roll:

Annual equivalent rate (AER)

 

An AER is quoted on savings accounts and current accounts for when your balance is in credit. It is like the EAR but refers to interest earned, rather than paid. The AER shows how much interest you will earn over the course of a year and takes into account how often the interest is paid and what effect compounding will have.

This measure allows you to compare how much you will earn on an account where interest is paid monthly with one where interest is paid annually.

PiggyC.jpg AERs allow you to compare accounts and work out where your savings will earn most. Photograph: Getty

The gross rate paid on an account offering monthly interest may be lower than the gross rate on an account offering only one interest payment a year, but when interest is compounded it may offer higher returns than the latter account.

 

Annual percentage rate (APR)

 

An APR is used as a measure of how much it costs to borrow money and is quoted by mortgage lenders and companies offering personal loans and credit cards. The APR includes any upfront fees charged by the lender, spread over the period for which you are borrowing the money.

The APR tells you how much your borrowing will cost over the course of a year, as a proportion of the amount you have borrowed. So if you are borrowing £100 at an APR of 9%, you will pay £9 in interest and charges over the first year.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/oct/25/debt.savings


 

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
I have just asked for the interest rate and was told I could not not be given the APR rate only the AER rate and monthly interest rate.

 

Hi DM, I found the same when asking for the interest rates charged on my loan..... The reply I got from Swift included a list of AER and monthly rates..... Not an APR in sight! I've come to the conclusion that most of us on CAG probably know far more about interest rates and the associated terminology than Swift. Apollo18

Edited by Apollo18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thanks for the replies. Wouldn't it be nice to get credit interest however, I reckon they'll be giving me extra debit interest! The int rate is around 14% now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swift Alert! If you receive a letter tday, from Solicitors which conveys a message of Court Proceedings to repossess your house, I'm informed by Swift it is just a Notification of change of Solicitors. It is not for the faint hearted as it is read as though you are in Court soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all,

The charging by Swift for fees relating to Eastern Counselling is an offence of Fraud. Any doubters, please e-mail me and I'll explain fully why and what to do about it!

 

The charging for 'Counsellor' visits or services when you have not been notified that this is about to take place has been deemed illegal.

 

Best wishes to everyone

 

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
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.


Cabot and the Cabot Fan Club Threads:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html

 

Legal Actions Explained for Businesses:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20492-legal-actions-explained-company.html

 

Payplan CCCS Advice:

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/getting-out-debt/128587-info-cccs-payplan-experiences.html?highlight=Payplan

 

How to use the Forum

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

A click on the scales below is appreciated if my posts were helpful

Do not regard my postings or suggestions as professional advice. If in doubt seek a professional opinion.

 

PLEASE DONATE IF SUCCESSFUL - Every little helps :)

 

PLEASE, Do not Private Message me with basic questions, start your own thread and PM a link if you wish, but I will not be able to respond to all individual questions as I am very busy on numerous other things and anyway, others cannot learn from PM's. It also stifles contributions from the vast talent base this site offers from it's contributors and I'm not all that clever really! :D Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way Andrew?

Share this post


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

Cabot and the Cabot Fan Club Threads:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html

 

Legal Actions Explained for Businesses:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20492-legal-actions-explained-company.html

 

Payplan CCCS Advice:

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/getting-out-debt/128587-info-cccs-payplan-experiences.html?highlight=Payplan

 

How to use the Forum

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

A click on the scales below is appreciated if my posts were helpful

Do not regard my postings or suggestions as professional advice. If in doubt seek a professional opinion.

 

PLEASE DONATE IF SUCCESSFUL - Every little helps :)

 

PLEASE, Do not Private Message me with basic questions, start your own thread and PM a link if you wish, but I will not be able to respond to all individual questions as I am very busy on numerous other things and anyway, others cannot learn from PM's. It also stifles contributions from the vast talent base this site offers from it's contributors and I'm not all that clever really! :D Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swift like using the term 'irrelevant' too....


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
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

 

Hi Shoops,

 

When was your letter dated? if you look at the CCA license Eastern counselling/collection was historic and not on their license renewal of 2005.

 

http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/default.aspx

 

Trading Name(s) (Current):

 

Swift Advances Swift Group Swift Group Legal Services

 

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

 

Eastern Counselling Agency Eastern Collection Agency

 

Issued Date: 09-Apr-1995

Expiry Date:

 

Another money making scheme ILLEGAL.

 

LL:-x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LL

 

I'm not sure I understand this. My mortgage was only taken out in 2007, the letter above was dated 23/12/2010, and the £360 of charges are listed on the list of transactions on 22/02/2008 (£250) and 22/05/2008 (£110) Also, the trading name above says Swift Advances but my mortgage was with Swift First (Although a couple of recent letters have come through on Swift Advances letter headed paper.

 

Shoops

Edited by shoops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all,

 

Andrew 1 said:

 

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.

 

BUT : If you look at the T&C Eastern Counselling are NOT mentioned specifically by name. So any charge made under the name of a Company that did not exist is fraudulent.

Reason: It could be argued that swift could charge for any Company they held a licence for at the time of the fee, BUT not for a company that they did not hold a licence for at the time of the fee. My fees for Eastern Counselling were added in June 2009!!

 

I have written to Swift and informed them they have 14 days to repay this fee or I shall make a full and detailed compaint to my friendly CID office, and name those who wrote to me in the context of 'Eastern Counselling', with a view to them being added to the prosecution file for 'Aid abet, counsel and procure'. If you Google those few words, it makes VERY interesting reading!

 

As always 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

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

Cabot and the Cabot Fan Club Threads:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html

 

Legal Actions Explained for Businesses:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20492-legal-actions-explained-company.html

 

Payplan CCCS Advice:

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/getting-out-debt/128587-info-cccs-payplan-experiences.html?highlight=Payplan

 

How to use the Forum

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

A click on the scales below is appreciated if my posts were helpful

Do not regard my postings or suggestions as professional advice. If in doubt seek a professional opinion.

 

PLEASE DONATE IF SUCCESSFUL - Every little helps :)

 

PLEASE, Do not Private Message me with basic questions, start your own thread and PM a link if you wish, but I will not be able to respond to all individual questions as I am very busy on numerous other things and anyway, others cannot learn from PM's. It also stifles contributions from the vast talent base this site offers from it's contributors and I'm not all that clever really! :D Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evening all,

 

Andrew 1 said:

 

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 conditionslink3.gif which you have absolutely no say or control over and you get SFA for it other than a bill which attracts interestlink3.gif at your contractual rate making that £250 more like £500 by the time they've finished.

 

BUT : If you look at the T&C Eastern Counselling are NOT mentioned specifically by name. So any charge made under the name of a Company that did not exist is fraudulent.

Reason: It could be argued that swift could charge for any Company they held a licence for at the time of the fee, BUT not for a company that they did not hold a licence for at the time of the fee. My fees for Eastern Counselling were added in June 2009!!

 

I have written to Swift and informed them they have 14 days to repay this fee or I shall make a full and detailed compaint to my friendly CID office, and name those who wrote to me in the context of 'Eastern Counselling', with a view to them being added to the prosecution file for 'Aid abet, counsel and procure'. If you Google those few words, it makes VERY interesting reading!

 

As always Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

 

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.

 

Hi shoops,

 

A1 and Dougal have answered your question, I would do the same as Dougal and send them a letter asking for tour money back plus interest.

 

LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all . We have just received the annual statement and ALWAYS, every annual "statement" they put Amount of credit for Loan, Broker Fee, Admin Fee. So am I right in thinking that every time we make a payment, they are charging interest on the Broker fee and admin fee as well, and not just the loan amount? So that would be 3 seperate, extortionate interest rates. Taking the raw figures from the statement, it works out roughly 62% is taken from our monthly DD with interest....2/3 of the payment pays the interest and only 1/3 off for the loan. Basically what they have said is £5000 credit for loan, £625 for broker fee and £150 for admin fee. Why quote this annually on the statement if they are not charging interest on fees? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all . We have just received the annual statement and ALWAYS, every annual "statement" they put Amount of credit for Loan, Broker Fee, Admin Fee. So am I right in thinking that every time we make a payment, they are charging interest on the Broker fee and admin fee as well, and not just the loan amount? So that would be 3 seperate, extortionate interest rates. Taking the raw figures from the statement, it works out roughly 62% is taken from our monthly DD with interest....2/3 of the payment pays the interest and only 1/3 off for the loan. Basically what they have said is £5000 credit for loan, £625 for broker fee and £150 for admin fee. Why quote this annually on the statement if they are not charging interest on fees? Thanks.

 

Hi CC

 

Can you post up a copy of your annual statement, I'd love to see what one looks like as I've never seen one in all of the years I've been with Swift?

 

Obviously blanking out key information like your name and account details.

 

ta

 

doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who haven't heard the good news about Swift, the OFT have told Swift to clean up their act or they'll lose their licence.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?310483-Swift-face-wrath-of-Office-of-Fair-Trading-Comply-or-else-face-losing-CC-licence.

 

Surely they'll have a hard time repossessing anyone if the judge sees this. :-D


 

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

Well now, isn't that interesting?


Cabot and the Cabot Fan Club Threads:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html

 

Legal Actions Explained for Businesses:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20492-legal-actions-explained-company.html

 

Payplan CCCS Advice:

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/getting-out-debt/128587-info-cccs-payplan-experiences.html?highlight=Payplan

 

How to use the Forum

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

A click on the scales below is appreciated if my posts were helpful

Do not regard my postings or suggestions as professional advice. If in doubt seek a professional opinion.

 

PLEASE DONATE IF SUCCESSFUL - Every little helps :)

 

PLEASE, Do not Private Message me with basic questions, start your own thread and PM a link if you wish, but I will not be able to respond to all individual questions as I am very busy on numerous other things and anyway, others cannot learn from PM's. It also stifles contributions from the vast talent base this site offers from it's contributors and I'm not all that clever really! :D Thank you.

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...