Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apologies in replying, I was up for 30 hours and had to catch up on sleep. And I don't have my laptop right now either.    I already sent in the defence on Tuesday  as that was the only day I could before the 24th. I did use the defence from CAG, I did try rewrite as best as I could removing a lot of the waffle, making the set points with the evidence.    When I hear from the court next - I believe a questionnaire and direction of some sort- I will update you and see what the next steps are.    Thanks a tonne!! For all of your advice! I wouldn't have been able to even get close to what I have with setting aside the ccj and the defence without you. I am very lucky to have the help I've been given from you all out of your own time. You are awesome!
    • this is a normal contract for when you forget your wallet and fuel up your car and then promise to pay them later. If you return righ5t away you dotn pay any extra and you can even demand your paperwork back from the garage as they then have no lawful reason to process it. Now is it a fair contract? well, yes and no, if you dotn have the means to pay for your fuel before you fill up then you are committing a criminal offence by doing so but as i many cases of this nature the company would rather farm all the aggro out to a third party who then screw you out of money rather than invoke the available law. So, as you werent offered the contract to consider before you fuelled up then none of it is enforceable and the petrol companies should get their heads around this rather than allow the third party just coin money out of the unfortunate or forgetful   what I fail to understand is why you didnt just pay for the fuel with the card that you were going to use to get the cash? As for the rest of your story listing your afflictions , that doesnt make any difference to a contract, if you are not capable of entering a contract you shouldnt be driving either.
    • Their Order is somewhat confusing...yes you get your set a side and they will not object.   No defence has ever been submitted so it can't stand.(unless you submitted a defence with your application ?) They then state Directions Questionnaires be issued (goes to allocation) and then the next paragraph states the claim is stayed.   Anyway the " Schedule  " is irrelevant it's the " ordered by consent " part that matters.....claim is stayed.     Typical Robbers Way     Andy    
    • Yes thanks both  Have been on the phone to a UC call centre today  to help someone in my Council ward, they said that there is NO paper based system, but if someone is blind or has a vulnerability that makes it difficult to access  then what TomTom has linked to is a way to do it.  That mythbuster link is very useful indeed. DWP are known for pushing easy options  (for them) but will help at a Jobcentre if no other way.
    • UKDomains that's a great shout, I'll open a support ticket on LBC & hopefully they can provide that information.   I've just spent 2 hours in branch, it turns out the fraud dept. never received the proof of entitlement that the branch scanned & emailed to 2 separate email addresses given. That has led to the 3 chargeback amounts, & once again the girl on the other end of the phone had "no idea" about the £685.16, & said "it must be a calculation" well that's good & vague. I have the name of the person in branch I've been dealing with (who has been great btw, & has suffered through this this with me).   Also, by sheer coincidence, she was dealing with the very same rude woman in the fraud dept. who refused to give me her name the other day, but did provide it to the lady in Branch. So now I have that in full, & her employee ID.    I did query with the woman in branch, why TSB aren't backing a customer who has proven beyond any doubt that the transaction was legitimate. Her response? "I got the strong impression when I called the Fraud  dept. on Monday, that we've already reversed the funds to Monzo Bank, this is why they want you to pay the money back into your account."   Well how stupid is that, based on what can only have been a verbal claim by Monzo's customer, this has led to TSB saying "here you go".  & then asking me to kindly underwrite their own stupidity.   I have also just received this by email:   Hi Gavin   Thank you for your note and for contacting me about the difficulties you’ve encountered with TSB.     I have passed your note on to my Head of Customer Service and asked her to ensure that either she, or one of her team, contact you as soon as possible.     Thank you once again for contacting me.     Kind regards     Debbie    Debbie Crosbie CEO, TSB         
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 3 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies

Swift charges unlawful

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 797 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

Good news.

Swift have been ordered to pay back all charges plus interest in a county court judgment. The judge ruled that their standard terms between 2002 to 2009 were unfair.




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

That's brilliant news Paul. Well done!!! :-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



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

hi do you mind advising which solicitors you used to win the case?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure this refers to a case for PW I think someone else.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

has anyone got any details regarding this case where swift was made to pay back all charges plus interest, or details of the solicitor firm used against them. would be a great help!!!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul hi,



I was interested in your comments regarding Swifts unlawful charges for the period you listed, only I took out a swift loan in 2007 for £7500 for ten years that's due to end in October this year.

I have already paid back £15000 and Swift are demanding an additional £18500 IN October FOR INTEREST AND ACCOUNT CHARGES due to some missed payments during the last 10 years.

This amount seems crazy I wondered if it is even legal I would have to sell my house to raise this sort of money. any advice or info would be appreciated.



Best Regards

J Dallison.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

the FSA recently meted out a £630000 fine for excessive arrears charges


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ombudsman took a similar view too.





Mrs M complains that Swift Advances Plc (Swift) has applied excessive fees and charges to her secured loan account.



The amount Mrs M owes Swift has increased over time rather than reducing as she has made repayments.



Mrs M is very concerned that she will end up losing her home.



Mrs M took out a secured loan with Swift Advances Plc in September 2005 for around £20,000 over a 10-year term.


The secured loan history shows that some repayments to the loan account have been missed, paid late or made in part since 2006.



The account has had arrears charges, legal fees and additional interest added to it over the years.



As a consequence, the loan balance has not reduced in line with a standard loan profile.


A number of repayment arrangements have been agreed, however, repayments made have not been large enough to cover charges and additional interest on the account, and have not reduced the loan balance.


During discussions with Swift in 2013, Mrs M became aware of the extent to which her loan balance had increased and so she raised her complaint.



adjudicator’s findings

The adjudicator recommended that the complaint be upheld to the extent that he considered there were a number of fees that should be refunded to Mrs M,



but, in general, he found that the loan account balance was reflective of the money Mrs M owed to Swift, and that Swift had demonstrated it had made sufficient effort to agree “affordable” repayment plans with Mrs M.


Mrs M rejected the adjudicator’s findings and so this complaint has now been passed to me for a final decision.


my findings

I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.



Having done so,

I have come to the same decision as the adjudicator and for broadly the same reasons.


I note that Swift has now increased its offer to refund charges to Mrs M since the adjudicator’s opinion was issued.



Swift has offered to refund nearly £3,000 of fees and charges to Mrs M’s account.


Swift has also placed Mrs M’s borrowing onto a lower interest rate as part of a 12-month concession agreement, due to be renegotiated later in the year.


arrears fees and charges

The approach of this service is that arrears fees and account management charges, also charged by Swift to loan accounts in arrears, should not be charged in months where the loan repayment has been made, or where a contractual repayment plan was in place and the agreed payment made.



Arrears charges and account management charges should reflect work undertaken by the business in managing those arrears, and multiple fees each month are considered to be unfair.


Swift’s offer to refund charges is in line with this guidance. The arrears charges that haven’t been reversed have been applied in months where repayments were not made. I am satisfied that the offer Swift has made to refund fees seems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

interest rate


I appreciate that Mrs M had wanted Swift to “freeze” interest on her loan account as she considered that interest was escalating to the point where she would never be able to repay her loan.



I find that Swift’s concessionary agreement, reducing the rate of interest charged to around 8%, is reasonable in the circumstances.



I hope that Swift will continue to honour a concessionary interest rate when the current agreement is up for renewal later this year.



I understand how concerned Mrs M must have been when she realised that her borrowings with Swift had escalated to such a degree.



Even after the refund of fees offered by Swift, this still leaves Mrs M with a significantly higher balance to repay than the initial sum borrowed in 2005.


Whilst regrettable, this balance has resulted from partial, late, and missed secured loan repayments.

I am satisfied that this balance is a true reflection of Mrs M’s loan account.



I would encourage Mrs M to try to meet her secured loan repayments as per her agreed repayment plan with Swift although I accept that repayment of this debt by monthly instalment will take significantly longer than Mrs M might have hoped.


my final decision

My final decision is that I uphold Mrs M’s complaint, to the extent that Swift Advances Plc should make its existing offer in full and final settlement of this complaint by:


- Refunding of the agreed fees and charges to Mrs M’s account, with an adjustment of interest; and

- Honouring the lower interest rate already made available to Mrs M to the end of the current 12-month concession period.

Emma Peters



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

The ombudsman's finding are very similar those awarded to myself and would not agree that Swifts charges/fees are by any means excessive or unlawful.

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...