Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am sorry about getting your status mixed up.  I have noticed one thing in your excellent WS. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is  in their Point C that  states along the lines of -the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable. So on your No keeper Liability section  You may prefer  to alter 13 to    . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded  as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving.  BY  only pursuing the keeper  when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails. See what the Site team thinks as it should  stop the Judge from looking at who was driving as your statement preempts them from even thinking about it.
    • What would suffice as proof? I just emailed them back my date of birth. Should I send a copy of driving licence? 
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton   MCOL Northampton N1 ? Manual Claim CCMCC (Salford) ? New beta WWW.MONEYCLAIMS.SERVICE.GOV.UK ?   If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form.   This has been uploaded in my previous messages in the bundle of documents     Name of the Claimant ? Asset Link Capital (NO5) Limited   How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to./   14/02/2020   ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total Not relevant as his claim was set aside, and has now been brought to the court again by the claimant       Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please see bundle of documents in previous thread   What is the total value of the claim? £10,734.1    Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  Yes - this is one of the grounds for getting it set aside   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  Apparently 2000   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I do not recall entering into an agreement with Barclays   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?  It was, but it is not anymore   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned to Asset Link   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No - although they have provided a copy of the assignment notice in their bundle of docs for the hearing   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't remember - but again a copy of a letter has been provided (see bundle on previous thread)   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No    Why did you cease payments?  2015   What was the date of your last payment? December 2015   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved?  I wrote to Barclaycard back in 2015 to ask them to send proof of the original agreement but they just sent me a reconstituted document which had no personal deals on relating to me   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? yes - step change took control and set up payments of £1 pm
  • 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

swift mis-selling mortgages


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3515 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

  • 5 weeks later...

Even though it would be nice to see a reply from Swift they will just tell you what they and the courts/solicitors, FOS and CAB and all the others will tell you.

 

This is that they didn't sell or mis-sell you their product the broker did and the broker is responsible for the mis-selling.

 

The relevant people cannot see the obvious which is that Swift are responsible for issuing loans to thousands of people under dubious conditions, irresponsible lending, because they will just look at things case by case so Swift are able to hide behind the brokers.

 

I am sorry if I don't sound too positive for you but it is just another technicality that they are well aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carry on with the complaints even though you might know what to expect.

 

Unfortunately you will find ,

like we all do, that even though there are rules, regs, good practices and general consensus around to protect it has all been to twisted to enable escape routes for these firms.

 

It doesn't really matter whether a rule or regulation reads as though they are doing wrong if it has already been interpreted different in court then that interpretation seems to stick.

 

This is why you find it difficult to get support because all of the legal minds and authorities are aware that they will need to overturn some of these other rulings to achieve anything.

 

It is frustrating when you see the big picture and realise that a lot of people complain about the same things but the powers around do not look at that they just look at each case on its own merits so you might have a thousand complaints about mis-selling which are all so similar but when judged individually some might win and some won't.

 

Swift and their ilk read these forums and must be chuckling away to themselves with what they are allowed to get away with, like in South Africa at the moment you can get away with murder if you know the technicalities of the laws and know how to present them to your favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit sad if Swift read the forum, why would they be reading it, worried:madgrin: or is it they like to wallow in others problems, speaks volumes for their types. Now that is sad.

 

At the moment it may be case by case but that's a good enough reason to complain to FOS asap.

 

They said women would never get the vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware Swift are struggling with legal bills mounting up from all of the questioning and legal challenges and the general downturn in their business.

 

I am sure their business plan has been hit by the general goings on in the world and if their plan is what it is believed to be, as opposed to what they want people to believe it to be, then it would be struggling even more.

 

They have and are being caught out on more things it is just whether any of these things will help their victims and in a timescale that will be helpful.

I don't believe the change in regulators will help because the FCA seem to be making noises about sweeping older OFT and FSA investigations under the carpet across the board not just swift.

 

One thing I am sure of is that the people who make a living out of fighting companies like this aren't interested because they think along the lines of what has happened and will not entertain any new way of thinking so good answers will come from outside people who look at things in a different way and will maybe discover some obscure info that will really help.

 

As for Swift reading these forums, yes they might be scared who knows but one thing is foe certain it is always better to know your enemy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...