Come together to fight Swift Advances

[Angel-Stingray]

Hi everyone. I am in shock at what I am reading about Swift. My gran has very similar trouble with an original loan of £40,000, fell into £5,000 arrears, paid back £47,000 so far, and now being told there is still £39,000 to pay. WHAT !!!!! I can't believe this can happen in Britain in 2012. Reading the threads, it seems that Swift are getting away with it through many technicalities, while many of our countrymen suffer immense hardship at their hands.

I am thinking of taking a leaf out of the Americans books by try to get as many people together to collectively take a class action against Swift. This may be the only way for the ordinary man and woman to afford to go all the way to the European Courts if necessary, while putting Swift through a very costly procedure.

At the very least, there should be many many many cases where they have broken the rules or worse, that will be uncovered.

I'm hoping to get as many people as possible to come together. So if you are interested in fighting back against this evil company/sharks, let's see what we can do.

[pam56]

Too true. I think that we should start a pettion to get loans & 2nd mortgages the protection the deserve like 1st mortgages. I believe that I read somewhere that this might be happening at end of 2012(?) A petition of (I think) 100,000 names has to be looked at in parliament. So let's start a petiton and get parliament to look at this. I'm not computer savvy enough to start a petition but I'll certainly sign it, so will my mum, my gran, my milkman, my cat !!! Rememeber you don't have to be a swift customer to sign it!!!! So if every one of us cld get 100 signaures each we'd be well on the way. Can someone start a petition now?

 

Would love t be in a class action!!

[cosytoes]

Count me in

[pam56]

Maybe we could get on one of those consumer programs as that would publicise what Swifts are doing. Swift customers would be aware of a class action, petition etc and also thebad publicity would save all those other poor sods from not dealing with them. My neice works at the BBC so will ask her how we can get on.

[tertiary alcohol]

http://news.rkllp.co.uk/?p=467

 

may we quote from the website

 

"

FSA REGULATION OF ONWARD SALES OF MORTGAGE PORTFOLIOS

 

More Protection for Borrowers

 

HM Treasury announced on 26 January 2011 that it intends to bring the onward sale of residential mortgage portfolios within the scope of regulation by the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”). The proposals follow a lengthy consultation initiated in November 2009. The Government identified a failure to protect borrowers whose mortgages are sold on to unregulated entities by their lenders. Such borrowers lack the protections afforded by the FSA regime such as the “Treat Customers Fairly” (“TCF”) principles and a borrower’s right of recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service. According to evidence provided by the FSA, by the second quarter of 2009, unregulated firms had purchased 16,500 regulated mortgage contracts to the tune of about £1.7 billion. The figure has since increased and the signs are that this figure will continue to rise over the next few years as investors identify opportunities to exploit the difficulties currently faced by the traditional originators of residential mortgages.

 

The Government is proposing to achieve this regulation by expanding the definition of the regulated activity of “administering” a regulated mortgage contract. This will mean that mortgages that have been sold on are caught by the definition and the regulatory protections ordinarily afforded to borrowers will continue to apply post-sale.

 

HM Treasury intends to publish statutory instruments “later in 2011” but expects the FSA to commence work immediately to implement these proposals.

 

The Current Problem

 

Residential mortgage lenders in the UK must be authorised by the FSA and comply with regulations so long as they continue to make such loans. The problems arise when such lenders decide to sell on their mortgage books, ordinarily in order to minimise losses or raise funds or to leave the UK market.

 

Many of the purchasers of these books are not regulated by the FSA (i.e. hedge funds and private equity firms) and the new owner’s plans may not necessarily place great emphasis on the borrowers’ interests. The FSA’s fear is that they may seek to maximise margins by raising rates and charges and initiating repossessions to liquidate assets. Notwithstanding the FSA’s fears, purchasers of mortgage books instruct Third Party Administrators (“TPAs”) to manage the day-to-day mortgage contracts on their behalf. These TPAs are already regulated by the FSA (as their role falls within the current definition of ‘administering’ mortgages) and they are therefore already required to adhere to TCF principles. However, technically an unregulated purchaser of a mortgage book does not itself have to comply with TCF principles and comply with the FSA’s regulatory regime; it could therefore make decisions, which the original lender could not have made, which have an adverse effect upon the borrower.

 

Securitisation

 

As part of its consultation, the Government considered the impact which any change in the regime would have on residential mortgage securitisation. Despite the lack of securitisation transactions closing in recent years, the Government estimates that there is currently approximately £400 billion in outstanding UK residential mortgage securitisation. The FSA’s proposals to amend the definition of “administering” a regulated mortgage contract are intended to avoid the requirement for the special purpose vehicle within a securitisation structure having to become FSA regulated.

 

Second Charge Regulation

 

In addition to the proposal to regulate the onward sale of mortgage portfolios, HM Treasury has, as expected, also announced a proposal to transfer the regulation of new and existing second charge residential mortgages to the same regime as first charge mortgages. The Government expects that the proposed Consumer Protection and Markets Authority will take on responsibility for second charge mortgages on the same date that it takes on the FSA’s existing responsibility for first charge mortgage lending. The current proposal is that this will take place on 1 December 2012.

 

Practical Impact?

 

It is difficult to see the real practical effect of the Government’s proposals to regulate the onward sale of mortgage portfolios. Although, theoretically, purchasers of mortgage books could ignore TCF principles and fail to adhere to the FSA’s regulatory regime in making decisions affecting borrowers, in practice TPAs are appointed in order to administer the purchased book; the TPA, of course, is bound to comply with existing regulations.

 

For further information, please contact James Walton or the Partner with whom you usually deal. "

[tertiary alcohol]

this guy needs a bit of help

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?357976-swift-advances-and-roslyn-king-repossession-papers&highlight=swift+advances

[pam56]

lol lol

Pam

[kencharlie]

i had my house reprossed in 2000 ,only had my mortage with them in 1999 only owed 12.000 pound when i took loan out my house was sold for 64,ooo but i only recieved 9800 approx ,tried to claim on my insurance policyand they said i couldnt has the house had been reprossed the month before,was on sick when house reprossed

[kencharlie]

this company has been arranging inpossible payback loans for years ,i lost my house to them in 2000,after only dealing with them for 18months i would be more than glad to help focus on this company practices

[Angel-Stingray]

OK. So clearly we may have more than a few people ready to take on Swift. I'm pleased I don't have to go this alone.

There are 2 angles to attack this issue from, The 'Class Action' I suggested and the 'Consumer Program' to raise the awareness. These I believe can go hand in hand and happen simultaneously.

I'm terribly sorry this has come too late to save some people the pain of their clearly unfair repossession, but maybe something can be done retrospectively to compensate them if we are able to stop Swift in the courts.

 

Clearly the most difficult thing initially will be gathering together to start this because of the anonymity of this forum. Equally, I have been told that Swift follow these and other forums and will be aware of what is said on here.

So we do face some challenges. Nevertheless I think we should start by getting an idea of likely numbers interested. I will an indicative discussion with some Legals to set out the idea I have, as well as try to speak to someone at the FSA about what is being proposed and the reasons I believe there are serious breaches of the law or at least the spirit of the law by Swift.

 

Pam56, are you able to find out about getting on a consumer program? I think getting on one of those would be the key to getting those 100,000 signatures we need to get this looked at by Parliament.

I'm more than happy for any other input or advice anyone can give on this matter. I am by no means looking to lead on this thing, but as I will be taking on Swift regardless of anyone else joining me, I will be going doing some of the things I said above.

Doing it together just means we can collectively get extremely good Legals and publicity to stop other suffering in silence and feeling alone against a 'giant'.

 

Come join us !!!!!!

[ccrl14]

I'm with you.......there must be something we can do to stop them.

[willerby20]

we too lost our house, horrible experience, lived in hotel prior to xmas with two children, managed to privately rent a home 2 days before xmas day. Anyway that was 2006, but the pain is still there. Thanks to this site it was January of this year we became more aware of this company. Received our SAR in March, and couldn't believe the amount of charges they applied to the account. These charges were never indicated at the time of repo.

With calculations and compound interest, our claim out weighed the actual arrears!

Along with a letter, this claim will be submitted, today!

The PPI is another story - just awaiting a few answers before submitting this too - most likely to the broker (any ideas).

We are willing to take this as far we can, because the heartache still lingers, and we are with you guys who are still feeling the wrath of these lot.

count us in!

[tipsy64]

Hi, I will join you in any fight against Swift. I have had and still have problems with them.

[sweetjane]

Any problems you have with Swift should be sent to both: [email protected]; '[email protected]' Sam Stoakes is the person at the FSA who is collating information regarding consumer detriment from second charge loans. Neither of them can get directly involved in complaints but they are both key in changing regulation. Here's what Sam Stoakes wrote to me:

"the government has actually announced its intention to transfer responsibility for regulation to the new Financial Conduct Authority in 2014. There is more information on this web page: http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/consumer-credit-regulation.

The updated government position is set out on this web page: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_sector_mortgages_enhancing_consumer_protection.htm.

Sam Bragg at the OFT is in the Secured Lending Team. The team are overseeing Swift Advances and how they treat consumers. The OFT is also keen to hear how Swift is treating customers since their OFT warning.

I have met and written regularly to my MP about Swift. He in turn has written to the Treasury and Finance Ministers, the FSA, Swift and the OFT. The more MPs who get involved at this critical time - while the new Finance Bill is going through Parliament, the better. MPs who are interested in better consumer credit legislation include Stella Creasey (Walthamstow) and Chris Leslie (Nottingham East). Which? have also shown an interest. Another ally is Mike Daily of Govan Law Centre - he also sits on the FSCP (Financial Services Consumer Panel) who are also trying to do something about second charge loans.

What a lot of MPs and other finance industry people don't seem to realise is that the Council of Mortgage Lenders' (CML) figures for possession do not include second charge lenders. This area of repossession is much greater pro rata than first charge repossessions through high st lenders.

My family member's loan has now been paid off but we will continue to fight against this extortionate form of lending. People have lost their homes, the contracts are not transparent, they do not treat customers fairly. We got the PPI redressed via the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme). This is because our broker had gone out of business and the FOS referred us to the FSCS. The brokers are responsible for the initial mis-selling as Swift will be only too pleased to tell you. We got the majority back plus contractual interest. The small balance (FSCS only pay 95% over £2k) we got back from Sterling who were the insurance company via the FOS. We also got charges redressed which were over and above a monthly management charge for arrears plus interest. Ours was referred to as a regulated loan.

I strongly believe there is a massive amount of consumer detriment going on in this area. Payday lenders are getting a lot of press at the moment but we must also try and get the media to focus on second charge lending. Lenders have seen a profit to be made in the equity in people's homes and they have gone to extremes to try and acquire as much of that equity as they can. I see it as a kind of asset stripping. Very few people seem aware of the details of these loans when they take them out. The total cost of the loans is not spelt out and the high cost of early settlement is not clear - the total amount of the balance plus interest over the full term are taken into consideration with only a cost of finance rebate deducted. That plus extortionate charges and compound interest is why settlement figures are so high whether through repossession or early settlement.

Good luck everyone.

SJ

[tipsy64]

Hi Sweetjane,

Thank you for your help and advice.

Earlier today I contacted JMP Partnership, who were also very helpful. I will be following the advice from both of you.

I have a huge file of everything they have ever sent me and I am now trawling through it to compile the facts with which I intend to take Swift to task.

I will keep you all informed and welcome any suggestions etc.

Thanks again and Good luck all.

[spot]

Keep this in mind when looking at s.140 claims and Swift's interest rates which only ever go up. Compare them with bank base rates, Libor and any other rates then apply this from the FSA Unfair relationships cases:

 

Case 12

 

Upendra Rasiklal Patel v Vithalbhai Bikabhai Patel

10 December 2009 (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division) Case No: [2009] EWHC 3264 (QB)

 

 

Claim: The creditor, Mr Upendra Patel, advanced sums to the borrower, Mr V B Patel (no relation), between 1979 and 1983. The borrower challenged whether the agreements were legally binding, and if so, whether the court should make an order under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act to discharge or reduce the sum payable on the ground that the relationship was unfair to the borrower.

 

Type of agreement: Unsecured loans totalling £56,450 made between

1979 and 1983. All the agreements made were oral. Between 1979 and

2001 the borrower made repayments totalling £72,336. According to the creditor, it was agreed that interest would accrue at 20% per annum, compounded monthly. By the time of the hearing the amount claimed totalled over £6 million.

 

Judgment: The judge found that:

 

 There were legally binding loan agreements made at each stage of the relevant history on the terms alleged by the creditor.

 

 The borrower’s claim for relief under section 140B was not time-barred. In order to make the determination required by section 140A, the judge was entitled, and obliged, to have regard to all the matters referred to in section 140A whenever they occurred.

 

 The loans agreed were initially made on fair terms to the borrower. It was unlikely that the borrower could have arranged an unsecured loan from a bank on better terms. The amount of money advanced was substantial, the business was a new venture and the loan was unsecured. The borrower was capable of making a realistic estimate of the potential turnover and profits of the business and of calculating whether the terms on which the creditor was offering finance made the business viable.

 

 By 1992 however the amount of the debt had reached critical proportions. At that juncture, fairness to the borrower would have involved attempting to formulate a realistic schedule of payments which would have enabled him to reduce and ultimately to pay off the debt, with a reasonable rate of interest charged in the meantime. However, that was not what happened.

 

 Instead, terms were agreed orally in 1992 which were unfair to the borrower and which became progressively more unfair to him thereafter.

 

The judge found the repayment terms to be unfair because:

 

 The 1992 agreement was no longer in any sense a joint venture in which the creditor’s return was linked to the profitability of the business. It was a straightforward loan agreement under which a fixed rate of interest was payable irrespective of how the borrower’s businesses fared.

 

 By 1992, the business was no longer a risky start-up for which the creditor could be regarded as providing ‘seed capital’. It was an established business, trading profitably, and the risk to a lender was correspondingly less.

 

 The creditor had adduced no evidence to show that an interest rate of 20% per annum, compounded monthly, was a reasonable commercial rate to charge a borrower in the circumstances. In the absence of such evidence, the judge concluded that it was an unreasonable rate to charge. At that time the Barclays Bank base rate was 7%. To charge an interest rate almost three times greater than the base rate and 13% above it was completely out of line with the terms of the original loans and in the circumstances seemed exorbitant.

 

 As interest rates fell, the rate of 20% charged by the creditor had become more and more exorbitant. In January 1993, the Barclays Bank base rate fell to 6%; at the time when the 2003 document was signed, it was 3.75%; and it was currently

0.5%.

 

The judge also found that the creditor’s subsequent conduct and the way in which he exercised his rights under the agreement very substantially increased the unfairness of the relationship. In particular:

 

 The creditor did not make any written record of the terms of the

1992 agreement until 2003. The absence of any written record made it easier for the borrower to believe, as the years went by and no steps were taken to request repayment, that the agreed terms might not be enforced.

 

 Although in 2003 the creditor did record the terms of the 1992 agreement in a document which the borrower signed, he did not provide the borrower with a copy of that document. Fairness to the borrower would at the very least have involved giving him a copy of the document.

 

 Not once in the 15 years after July 1992 did the creditor provide the borrower with any calculation of the amount outstanding. In circumstances where interest was being charged at a very high rate and was being compounded monthly, it was a matter of basic fairness that the creditor should provide the borrower periodically with calculations of the amount claimed to be owing. Not to do so once during such a long period over which the debt grew to a colossal size was grossly unfair to the borrower.

 

 Of equal or greater significance was the fact that outstanding sums were to be repaid only as and when requested by the creditor and that after January 1993, only once during the next

14 years did the creditor request any money to be paid to him. This request was for a sum of £20,000, by then tiny in comparison with the size of the debt. The effect of this approach, in circumstances where no reminders or calculations of the amount outstanding were being sent, was to encourage the borrower not to pay the interest accruing on the loan and also to foster a not unreasonable hope, which would have gathered strength as time went on, that the creditor was not going to insist on payment in accordance with the terms agreed in 1992.

 

 The creditor did not keep a proper record of payments received.

The creditor owed it to the borrower as a matter of elementary fairness to keep a proper record of such payments and not to depend on the borrower to provide this information and try to reconstruct it from bank statements and other old documents many years after the payments were made.

 

 Even when the creditor met the borrower in October 2007 to discuss repayment of the debt, he did not provide the borrower with any calculation of the amount said to be due, either before or after the meeting. Instead, he discussed the rate of interest only in abstract terms, without informing the borrower of the practical consequences. This was a deliberate strategy on the creditor’s part, and was not a transparent approach.

 

The judge concluded therefore that the relationship arising out of the

1992 agreement was unfair to the borrower – because of the terms of the agreement, because of the way in which the creditor had exercised his rights under the agreement, and because of the other acts and omissions of the creditor referred to.

 

Result: Unfair relationship under section 140A. The judge ordered a reduction in the sum payable by the borrower to £207,465. This was the sum payable in July 1992, before the interest charges which were found to be unfair were added.

 

It all helps build up a case....

Good luck

 

Spot

[tipsy64]

Hi spot,

Thank you for the information, I hadn't thought to compare it to other rates when I state my claim.

Thanks again

All help and advice most welcome:lol:

[janieski]

hello,

how can we join in with this? what do we have to do? we used to have a mortgage with swift years back, in 2006 we sold up, but the charges they levied on us were HUGE, we tried to get a solicitor onto it, but he gave up on us, are we too late to do anything about it,

Edited November 14, 2012 by dx100uk
behave - dx

[42man]

Have you made any formal request to Swift to refund the charges ?

[pam56]

Have you made any formal request to Swift to refund the charges ?

 

Hi I did but they offered me just under £1,000 with no delibarating!!!!! Stingy amount on fees & charges of over 5K so writing back to them to demand more charges back like excessive letter charges etc. Do not let them bully you and don't accept their 1st offer either!

[42man]

Did you see this ? - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?244476-Reclaim-unfair-mortgage-arrears-fees-FSA-says

[adaeze01]

Hi, I am so glad that I've found these posts on Swift. They have made my life a misery for the past seven years, continually threatening repossession and harrassing me. As for the constant £64 charges......Am totally up for any kind of class action and will do whatever necessary to get some justice!

[John 1963]

I had a reply today off a firm of solicitors who said they weren't prepared to take on Swift, and I would struggle to find a company that would because the chances of winning against them are so small.

[spot]

We should start up a firm of our own - (in-house so to speak!) and take these cowards on.

[John 1963]

I would have loved to taken them on but where do you find a competant legal team? That firm I mentioned in my previous post have vast experience of Swift and their methods so if they wont do it who would?