Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Sub-prime lender Swift Group used loophole to avoid paying £74m in tax


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3827 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

A sub-prime mortgage lender that was threatened with having its licence revoked by regulators after targeting customers who couldn’t pay back its loans has saved millions using a legal tax-avoidance scheme.

Swift Group, which has £339m worth of loans to Britons, has avoided an estimated £74m in UK corporation tax since 2008 after racking up interest of £274m on loans it has taken from its private equity owners.

...

... Consumer Action Group, said the company was “another example of an under-regulated sub-prime lender which makes its crust by exploitative mining of the resources of a vulnerable British public and which clearly has no intention of putting anything back”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/subprime-lender-swift-group-used-loophole-to-avoid-paying-74m-in-tax-8907683.html[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/subprime-lender-swift-group-used-loophole-to-avoid-paying-74m-in-tax-8907683.html?origin=internalSearch][/url]
Link to post
Share on other sites

This I might add, is as a result of a small group of Caggers and ex-Caggers (one of who was chased off the site as a result of arguing points such as this) who have fought a long hard battle as a group of people, some who have had to sell their homes or lose them whilst doing so, who have dedicated tens of thousands of hours investigating Swift and all it's connected companies, following loans through so called sister companies and subsidiaries within the group which directors have told us were set-up as SPV's but in reality and according to their published accounts were in fact trading companies with accounts made to look as though they were trading but were no such thing. These are the things the Inland Revenue were informed about and need to continually go through with a fine toothed comb as well as answering for this tax scheme being spoken of.

 

Our regime against the totally toothless and ineffective OFT who have been supplied with a continuous stream of information and supporting evidence makes them almost complicit we allege, in the alleged crimes Swift were committing, had a duty to shut them down or prosecute them for trading with unlicenced trading styles which is a criminal offence under the CCA and they should have halted ALL repossession and litigation against people UNTIL they had proven they were not breaking the law. The OFT gave them a slapped wrist by putting what they called a Determination on their licence for lesser offences, which to you, me and Swift accounts for feck-all!

 

Jump a red light and you are prosecuted, trade using a name not on your licence and commit a criminal offence? - that's okay!! Tell that to someone who has been repossessed and see what they feel about it. Nobody in the UK under the law can profit from the proceeds of crime they tell us.....Well Swift can be committing a criminal offence, but still be profiteering from taking your home?

 

What connections to whom do they have which allows that to happen if your loan happened to be a Regulated Agreement and you have the protection of the Consumer Credit Act?

 

It was we who obtained the Determination, it was we who alerted the Inland Revenue .....and there's more to come.....it will not stop until those responsible in Swift are ALL held to account, whether some of us have been repossessed or not, injustice will not supercede justice- EVER! Remember that Swift.

 

Maybe the UK spotlight has now begun shining upon you and you are not a Starbucks or Google using Tax loopholes, you are just a dull, boring sub-prime lender who will go to any lengths to heap misery on vulnerable people and strip them of their assets. You are now however, an easier target to strip to the bone. At least with Starbucks and Google they have a social conscience (I think) - they won't find that in Arcadia House.

 

Let the authorities loose on you with the spotlight on and see how far you get and those Authorities are welcome to contact us through Bankfodder to meet and show them what we have.

 

We try and fight our way through County Courts where Judges either have little time or little patience to deal with people owing money. What they fail to appreciate is how that money being asked for is accounted for. Variable rate loans which vary upwards only when Libor rates and B of E rates plummet, you then blame 'funding costs'...well now we all know why you argue funding costs and that's because you are paying your owners 20-25% interest on loans for a tax dodge....did I mention social conscience?

 

The only spv in the empire is Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd.

 

We found Loans 'sold' and bought back via a Channel Islands company all under the auspices of Alchemy who were charging Swift in excess of 20% interest for funding. Swift charged borrowers when lending 11-13%. doesn't take an Actuary to work out the equation as to why repossessions and extortionate charging regimes form the basis of your business model does it?

 

Okay on the monies borrowed from Barclays which was capped at 3%, but when 20-25% is having to be paid back on the millions from Alchemy we can now see why their business model revolves around repossessions.

 

Our day will come...

 

A1

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...