Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Help With Swift Please


mashmallow
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4598 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

Any advise would be gratefully appreciated.

 

We have a loan with Swift Advances and since last year April I am having tremendous problems in securing work or even a full time job therefore the burden lies on my partner. I am not even entitled to Unemployment Benefit because my partner is working therefore none of my own personal debts are being paid now leaving us more or less broke. We could not pay Swift for two months and I sent off an expenditure form with my partners wage slip as requested by them, asking if they would accept a reduced payment for the next 3 months as utility bill have come in high through the bad weather.

They have written back saying they want bank statements and interest is occurring on the arrears. I don't know what to do I have now pawned all my jewelery and nothing else worth selling, even our car is sitting idle.

 

Can anyone tell me what we can do we told them we would pay £150 per month x 3 months and try and make up the arrears.

 

Would appreciate your time.

 

Many thanks

 

mashmallow:sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm not 100% sure, but if they are lending money, presumably they are covered by the Lending Code which came into force on February 1st 2011. This makes it quite clear how they should deal with people in your situation and they are breaching a lot of the points mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, PC not working and also had probs with my password. However back to my originally post. I have has a few weeks work part time temp so just about managing to pay them their original amount but in 2 weeks I will be out of work again. Swift have been totally unhelpful, despite me sending in an expenses sheet and also contacting the CCCS who done a professional one for us they still insisted for our bankstatements to see if we could afford the payments (lies) they did not want to know to start with. Whilst looking at their annual statment they send out it is full of charges for admin fees, letters etc., which probably I have not counted add up to at least £500. We cannot pay the required amount when I am out of work again and needless to say will have the sem problem. Any advise on what we can do please or best plan of action?I would be very grateful for anyones input.ThanksMashmallow

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wrote to Swift and complained about their charges and the way they behave and blaintantly told them they are being investigated because of their lies and behaviour. My letter was forwarded to the complaints department and within a few days I got a four page letter back from Reece Goodey: To my surprise and shock my loan for £15,000 which is signed for and have copies of is not longer £15,000 but £16,750.00 which was the completed loan. Am I totally stupid to think I have messed up or is Swift Advances really taking the p--s. I would like you guys that are dealing with these monkeys tell me please. Apparently they now tell you that they do not charge for anything other than a late payment fee of £64.00. Billy b------t stories again. I can download the letter they sent for others to read and also my agreement for reference if anyone is interested. I am writing back to them today and also complaining to Debbie Kitchener if it helps.Your comments would be greatly appreciated, I want to fight these monkeys legally but not sure where to start.Regards,Mashmallow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: This is interesting I wrote to Swift and complained about their charges and the way they behave and blaintantly told them they are being investigated because of their lies and behaviour. My letter was forwarded to the complaints department and within a few days I got a four page letter back from Reece Goodey: To my surprise and shock my loan for £15,000 which is signed for and have copies of, is not longer £15,000 despite written in black and white on the agreement and signed by all parties has turned out tobet £16,750.00 which was the completed loan as stated in their letter received yesterday. Am I totally stupid to think I have messed up or is Swift Advances really taking the p--s. I would like you guys that are dealing with these monkeys tell me please. Apparently they now tell you that they do not charge for anything other than a late payment fee of £64.00. Billy b------t stories again. I can download the letter they sent for others to read and also my agreement for reference if anyone is interested. I am writing back to them today and also complaining to Debbie Kitchener if it helps.Your comments would be greatly appreciated, I want to fight these monkeys legally but not sure where to start.Regards,Mashmallow

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't know where and how to post this but to anyone effected by Swift the email I've got should opwn the doors to people like you and me:

 

Sorry about the size but I'm sure it's great news:

 

 

FSA fines mortgage lender £630,000

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Published by MILLIE DYSON

Regulation & Compliance

| 0 Comments

 

The Financial Services Authority has today fined Essex based mortgage lender Swift 1st Limited £630,000 for unfair treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears..

The firm has also agreed to carry out a programme to provide redress to customers who were in arrears and who were charged certain arrears fees and charges that were excessive.

 

Swift will provide redress to customers who redeemed their mortgages early where it miscalculated the interest on the redemption balance. It is estimated that the total cost of the redress to customers will be approximately £2.35 million.

 

The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Swift which occurred between June 2007 and July 2009 in relation to its arrears fees and charges and in its dealings with customers in arrears.

 

Swift applied certain charges to its customers’ accounts that were in arrears which were excessive in that they did not reflect a reasonable estimate of the cost of administering an account in arrears.

 

These were:

 

- Arrears management fee: a monthly management fee applied to a customer in arrears;

 

- Default notice fee: a default fee applied when a customer’s account fell into arrears;

 

- Unpaid mortgage payment fee: applied when a cheque, direct debit or standing order was not honoured by a customer’s bank; and

 

- Litigation fees: fees applied to customers’ accounts when Swift started legal proceedings.

 

In addition:

 

- Swift applied excessive early repayment charges to the redemption figures of customers who were, or had been, in arrears;

 

- Swift failed to send all its customers in arrears certain prescribed documents, providing information on the options available to them;

 

- Swift focussed on the collection of arrears without always proactively engaging with customers to establish an appropriate “Arrangement To Pay” based on their individual circumstances; and

 

- Swift also failed to have adequate systems and controls in place to deal with early redemptions which resulted in some customers who redeemed their mortgages overpaying.

 

The FSA considers that Swift’s failings are serious as under FSA rules, a firm must consider the interests of its customers and ensure that they are treated fairly.

 

Swift’s failings continued over a significant period of time and impacted about 2,500 customers. As Swift specialised in the sub-prime sector, a number of customers who already had an adverse credit status were put at further risk of financial detriment.

 

Tracey McDermott, acting director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

 

“Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly. Many of Swift’s customers were already in a vulnerable position, having fallen into arrears on their mortgage payments, and they could ill afford excessive and unfair fees.

 

"The FSA will take robust action to ensure not only that firms are fined for such failings but also that they identify and compensate customers who have been disadvantaged. The costs of doing so are often much more than the fine.”

 

Swift reported its failings in relation to early repayment charges and redemption balances to the FSA.

 

Swift also agreed to settle at an early stage and therefore qualified for a 30% reduction in penalty. Were it not for this discount the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £900,000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank you so much for this information, they should be jailed for what they have done to people

fining them is not good enough they paid their fine from our money. What do you think I should do to make sure all the wrongfull charges they have applied are deducted from our account.

 

Let me know what you think, I would be very grateful.

 

Thanks

 

Mashmallow:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marshmallow, the reply to your letter will see what they have to say about the loan discrepancy amount firstly, and their comments on any charges they have debited to your account. Ring them for a statement of your account from opening if you haven't got an up to date one to see what's going on. Hang on in there, everyone is working hard on this company:-)

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

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank you so much for this information, they should be jailed for what they have done to people

fining them is not good enough they paid their fine from our money. What do you think I should do to make sure all the wrongfull charges they have applied are deducted from our account.

 

Let me know what you think, I would be very grateful.

 

Thanks

 

Mashmallow:smile:

 

I have spoken to swift who stated that the judgement only applied to first mortgages and as my loan was a second charges we were not getting a refund. In fact they stated that they had already contacted all people due a refund.

 

As I have suffered everything in the judgement including the" Eastern counselling" I have contacted the FOS who have agreed to take on my case and are now writing to SWIFT.

 

d I keep posting here does anyone know?

:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::smile::smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JML, I agree, I can't see how first mortgages can be separated from second charges. I hate that 'Sub Prime' title. We were all lead to believe 'they' and that includes all the lenders in this category were helping people who found main stream lending hard to get for whatever reason. Help, that's rich more like hinder! We were used. We were hoodwinked. Those who could least afford it were extorted. There's a lot of MP's involved as I can see and pressure from many on CAG. If there is any justice the right thing will be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JML, I agree, I can't see how first mortgages can be separated from second charges. I hate that 'Sub Prime' title. We were all lead to believe 'they' and that includes all the lenders in this category were helping people who found main stream lending hard to get for whatever reason. Help, that's rich more like hinder! We were used. We were hoodwinked. Those who could least afford it were extorted. There's a lot of MP's involved as I can see and pressure from many on CAG. If there is any justice the right thing will be done.

 

As far as I'm concerned a crime is a crime and proven extortion can't be tagged to one type of loan and not all. I'm in touch with FSA and FOS and I can see the likes of SWIFT having to include every borrower.

 

Also I believe lenders such as SWIFT are sitting on the edge of a cliff and are guaranteed to fall.

 

Now a test case has been proven the snowball effect MUST happen

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I contacted Swift today and requested a statement of all charges etc applied. After reading a few threads I am led to the belief that Swift One has only been fined and the other companies like Swift Advances have not been dealt with? Therefore all their unjust activities does not apply, or have I got this all wrong. I am not very clued up with the financial world so hopefully someone will put me right.

 

Thanks

 

 

Mashmallow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that information I am so please to hear it. They sent me a statement it looks like they have charged interest on the brokers fee and also the adminfee and added it twice. Also we took this loan out when I had a full time job we both signed the agrrement and they sent two seperate cheques, one to me and one to my partner, the property the loan is secured on has not got my name onit. When I told them I was out of work and could they reduce the payment they kicked up a big fuss, I even thought of going bankrupt but he is now struggling to pay it on his wage alone, really don't know what to do, I am 56 and the job front is looking a no no, cannot get any benefit and not entitled to my pension yet, bascially I am finished financially. I went to the CCCS who I found were not very useful and even that did not justify my plea to swift, total b------s. As I said not very clued up on these kind of matters but I went on a website and calculated the amount of the loan and interest applied for information if anyone could have a quick look on what has been applied and if I am right in thinking this is the case of an agreement that just is not correct. Sorry to waffle but I do need some direction to who I contact firstly before I go any further, here is the breakdown of the loan signed for by both of us:-

 

Total amount of the loan is £16,750 the agreement states £15,000 (difference of 1750.00 which is the brokers fee and admin fee)

 

Interest charged £11843.60

Broker fee £1300.00

Admin fee £ 450.00

Arrears paid to mortgage company £1403.88

 

Total charge for credit: £13593.60 which was halved when paid out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...