Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer and that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim and don't add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the members of suggested above – it should be the final version. court, that I would respectfully requestup but I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

swift exit fees


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6236 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

Need a little advice here.

Redeemed motgage (2nd charge) with Swift last year. upon opening the account the Admin fee was £165. When we redeemed the account, the admin fee was £250.

 

We wrote to Swift who replied inaccurate data, waffle and bluster, (quoted us being in arrears - which has since been rescinded) and more importantly stated that they had reduced exit fees to include sealing fees etc, and that a charge of over £300 would have been payable if we had the original costs handed down, so £250 was fair.

 

when we redeemed, the quote was specific in adding "Admin fees £250" to the amount owed, it didn't quote zero for other sundries, nor have we been notified of any changes....their tariff sheet also says that they can waive or reduce their fees as they wish.....

 

any opinions - is it worth pursuing, or are these catch-pennies not wrth the effort?

Halifax - paid out without getting to court - £250 WON - no intention of going, stated too costly!!

Halifax no 2 account - paid out without a fight - (by mistake, £1650 - should have been £1200 - had to pay some back)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the product admin fee they increased or the exit fee/mortgage discharge fee?

If its an application/product fee you can't do anything about this but if they increased the exit fee from when you took out the mortgage until you redeemed it you are entitled to the difference back. The FSA have recently advised lenders to reimburse borrowers if this fee was increased during the term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the exit fee - but they claim it is amalgamated with other fees to be a fair single price - i've put a complaint into the OFT, and will see what happens

Halifax - paid out without getting to court - £250 WON - no intention of going, stated too costly!!

Halifax no 2 account - paid out without a fight - (by mistake, £1650 - should have been £1200 - had to pay some back)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This company is called Swift Advances plc - they are a prime lender as well as a sub priume lender. Made an operating profit of £38mn to end of march 06, and claim to be a small company. I've never had cause to run in with them but they are trying really hard to wriggle out of paying us. Their first letter to me was defamous, and when I challenged it by email, it was corrected and apologies were made due to an oversight.

 

translated, and after I had read both letters again, it really means nothing. They wanted 28 days to investigate, then got it completely wrong!! - I've put a complaint into the OFT and am considering FISA and the FLA. There is no room for manouver at all with them, their making me believe that they might be right after all:D !!

Halifax - paid out without getting to court - £250 WON - no intention of going, stated too costly!!

Halifax no 2 account - paid out without a fight - (by mistake, £1650 - should have been £1200 - had to pay some back)

Link to post
Share on other sites

reply from OFT - "take it up with the financial ombudsman" -and their tlephone number:rolleyes:

went to the website - they can't enforce, but can slap wrists if the complaint is justified

Halifax - paid out without getting to court - £250 WON - no intention of going, stated too costly!!

Halifax no 2 account - paid out without a fight - (by mistake, £1650 - should have been £1200 - had to pay some back)

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure how it all stands really - i will complain to the relevant bodies, but reluctant to sue.:confused:

Halifax - paid out without getting to court - £250 WON - no intention of going, stated too costly!!

Halifax no 2 account - paid out without a fight - (by mistake, £1650 - should have been £1200 - had to pay some back)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive got my anger up -

 

Can someone please view this letter, and give an opinion..please??

 

Swift Advances plc

Arcadia House

Warley Hill Business Park

The Drive Great Warley

Brentwood

Essex CM13 3BE

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Former Agreement:XXXXX/XXXXX

 

Thank you for your amended reply of XXXX, in response to my email of the same date.

 

Regardless of your reply, we still maintain that your increase in the Administration Fee was increased from the original quote, and that it does not satisfy the test of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCRs”).

 

You claimed to have fully investigated our complaint, and made a final response on the afternoon of XXXXXXThis letter contained a number of irregularities and untrue facts. We pointed them out and you claimed to have had an oversight, apologised and amended the letter sending it via email on the XXXXXXXXXXX

 

This proves that the complaint was not investigated thoroughly, and from our point of view is irregular.

 

You also claim that Swift Advances plc is a small company, so small in fact it made an operating profit of £38 million to 31/3/06. A profitable success for such a “small” company.

 

Your list of duties supplied in your original and amended replies to redeem this loan were irrelevant in this case, although they weren’t exhaustive, they weren’t in any way conclusive to this matter. I’m sorry if you think otherwise.

 

Our argument is simple:

 

You quoted £165 in your “Tariff of Charges – November 2002”, and listed the item as a “Redemption Administration Fee”.

 

Then you quote in addition to Balance outstanding quotations -

15th November 2004 – “Redemption administration Fee £250.00”, and

25th April 2005 – “Redemption administration Fee £250” – these were written quotations sent to us on our request.

 

We could reasonably assume that you chose to waive sealing or discharge fee and the checking and releasing deeds fee, because all of the charges didn’t apply in our case.

 

 

Regardless of the fact your company changed it’s tack in charging, it neglected to tell us, the customer, concealing your charges. This is an unfair term.

 

We formally now request you send us the difference being £85.

 

If we do not hear from you within 14 days of the date above, we will pursue this matter without further correspondence or delay.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Mr and Mrs Stevesj

Halifax - paid out without getting to court - £250 WON - no intention of going, stated too costly!!

Halifax no 2 account - paid out without a fight - (by mistake, £1650 - should have been £1200 - had to pay some back)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...