Could not have put that better Gallahad.....VILE what a brilliant name for them LL8)

I hope the smile is what I am thinking?? LL:jaw:

Sorry LL didnt realise........ space now..... Still not enough space LL

This is what I have posted on a couple of Kensington threads Good luck LL Re: Kensington v angnnig Originally Posted by angnnig Hi again,I am about to calculate all the charges from the statements that i have got from kensington.I know that i can include the £50 monthly arrears figure in my list of unfair charges but not sure i can include "compound interest on arrears ",agents costs",counsellors costs and "notice of default charges" Thanks regards angnnig Hi angnnig, I also have a mortgage with Kensington and have tried to get monthly arrears charges back (£50.00). I wish you all the luck.....I have had no luck so far and the FSA DID NOT fine Kensington for unfair monthly charges GOD KNOWS WHY?? they now do not charge the £50.00 fee if you have an arrangement in place. Here is what the FSA charged Kensington for. The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Kensington which occurred between 1 January 2007 and 31 October 2008 in relation to its mortgage arrears handling processes and in its dealings with customers in arrears. These include: Failing to ensure mortgage servicing staff acting on its behalf had adequate understanding of treating mortgage arrears customers fairly; Concentrating on the repayment of mortgage arrears over a short period of time rather than agreeing an arrangement to pay the arrears based on the customer's individual circumstances; Applying three charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were: A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid; An excessive fee for cancelled direct debits which did not reflect administrative costs; An early repayment charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance. I hop you beat them.....we may all get money back then Kensington are legalised loan sharks LL

Hi I posted this on another Kensington thread LL Re: Kensington v angnnig Originally Posted by angnnig Hi again,I am about to calculate all the charges from the statements that i have got from kensington.I know that i can include the £50 monthly arrears figure in my list of unfair charges but not sure i can include "compound interest on arrears ",agents costs",counsellors costs and "notice of default charges" Thanks regards angnnig Hi angnnig, I also have a mortgage with Kensington and have tried to get monthly arrears charges back (£50.00). I wish you all the luck.....I have had no luck so far and the FSA DID NOT fine Kensington for unfair monthly charges GOD KNOWS WHY?? they now do not charge the £50.00 fee if you have an arrangement in place. Here is what the FSA charged Kensington for. The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Kensington which occurred between 1 January 2007 and 31 October 2008 in relation to its mortgage arrears handling processes and in its dealings with customers in arrears. These include: Failing to ensure mortgage servicing staff acting on its behalf had adequate understanding of treating mortgage arrears customers fairly; Concentrating on the repayment of mortgage arrears over a short period of time rather than agreeing an arrangement to pay the arrears based on the customer's individual circumstances; Applying three charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were: A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid; An excessive fee for cancelled direct debits which did not reflect administrative costs; An early repayment charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance. I hop you beat them.....we may all get money back then Kensington are legalised loan sharks LL

Hi J_O tried to PM you messages are full LL8)

Sorry DOC cleared some messages, with you now. LL:|

Hi Doc replied LL:-)

Hi J_O Not exactly.....I have to work out how much arrears instalments are on there.....statement only shows payment and monthly interest, no actual statement of what I have been charged for. NO SURPRISE THERE!!! A couple of hundred arrears.....they must like you......bet it will be more before March I am being charged 16.45%. Cant go to much into detail BUT they are going to have to send me a break down of all charges and what for. (PM if you want to know more). LL:???:

Hi J_O They send them out annually now and are supposed to have done since October 2008.....not that it gives much information. I have a letter from September 2010 I have unpaid charges of £2,506.00 since October 2008.....god knows what that is now four months later. I will be paying then off for life at this rate!!!!! LL:-x

Hi angnnig, I also have a mortgage with Kensington and have tried to get monthly arrears charges back (£50.00). I wish you all the luck.....I have had no luck so far and the FSA DID NOT fine Kensington for unfair monthly charges GOD KNOWS WHY?? they now do not charge the £50.00 fee if you have an arrangement in place. Here is what the FSA charged Kensington for. The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Kensington which occurred between 1 January 2007 and 31 October 2008 in relation to its mortgage arrears handling processes and in its dealings with customers in arrears. These include: Failing to ensure mortgage servicing staff acting on its behalf had adequate understanding of treating mortgage arrears customers fairly; Concentrating on the repayment of mortgage arrears over a short period of time rather than agreeing an arrangement to pay the arrears based on the customer's individual circumstances; Applying three charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were: A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid; An excessive fee for cancelled direct debits which did not reflect administrative costs; An early repayment charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance. I hop you beat them.....we may all get money back then Kensington are legalised loan sharks LL

Hi Glen hold on in there Swift are in for big trouble.....read through Swift Loan recharges claim.....long read but worth it. The FSA and the OFT are onto Swift now here is the link http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/distribution/swift-investigated-by-fsa-over-arrears-handling/1023883.article They are expecting a heavy fine. Here is a link also to help with your PPI http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/unfair-relationships/yates-lorenzelli-nemo.pdf LL

Many thanks FF LL:whoo:

No Problem FF the piece I have just posted is from the OFT web site, think the whole judgement is on there web site now. Here is the link. http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/unfair-relationships/yates-lorenzelli-nemo.pdf LL:-D

Happy New Year All I think FF posted this I an now taking Kensington on for MPPI Case 20 1) Mr Yates 2) Miss Lorenzelli v Nemo Personal Finance and another 14 May 2010 (Manchester County Court) Case No: 9HG00904 Claim: The borrowers, Yates and Lorenzelli, alleged (1) that there was an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act; (2) that the creditor procured a breach by the broker of the fiduciary duty owed by it to the borrowers by paying to the broker an undisclosed commission; and (3) that the agreement was a multiple agreement within section 18 of the Act and the part relating to payment protection insurance (PPI) was improperly executed. Type of agreement: Secured loan agreement dated 25 April 2007 for £60,500 repayable over 20 years, plus £15,468 PPI premium and £2,000 broker’s fee. Judgment: The judge noted that the claim of unfairness was raised by the borrowers and so the burden of proof was on the creditor to prove the contrary. He found that: • The PPI policy appeared to be very expensive for what it offered. • Of the PPI premium of £15,468, he was told that 57.45% (£8,886) was retained by the creditor effectively as commission, and of this £4,232 was paid to the broker. Although the fact that commission would be likely to be paid was known to the borrowers through the FISA booklet, the amounts were not. • The borrowers were led to understand that the PPI had to be taken out as a condition of the loan. The fact that the broker received £4,322 if it was taken out clearly created an inducement to sell the policy. • If the customer was paying £15,000 for a policy of insurance he was entitled to know in the interests of fairness that less than one half of that was actually going to pay for the policy itself This case summary has been prepared for guidance only. It should not be relied upon as an accurate expression of the law. and more than one half was going to be paid in commission to the broker and the lender. • The amount of the commission created an incentive to the broker to sell the product and thereby gave rise to a potential conflict of interest with the customer. Having paid that commission in that amount and thereby having created the conflict for the broker, the lender could not wash his hands of it by leaving everything and passing all responsibility to the broker. • Not only did the payment of commission affect the broker’s independence, it also affected the way the customer might assess any advice given by the broker. • There was a failure to remind the borrowers of their right to cancel the PPI within 30 days. On the other points, the judge found that a fiduciary relationship did not exist in this case and that the agreement was a multiple agreement under section 18 of the Act. Result: Unfair relationship under section 140A. The judge ordered the PPI part of the loan agreement to be rescinded. This case summary has been prepared for guidance only. It should not be relied upon as an accurate expression of the law. Hope this helps LL:whoo:

Thanks FF nearly all over for them Have googled for you.....sorry cant find anything, why not try ringing the court?? They may be able to help. LL:???:

Hi ALL Been talking to our electrical person who is “locking horns” again with Swift Advances plc on the 4th January 2011, over the sale of his loan to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd. He had a long 1 plus hr phone chat today with a certain reporter who is on the link supplied by sweetjane……she told him that weather permitting and train schedules she will be attending the 2 hr directions hearing our “Spark-er-ling” friend has in court ..........as an observer………should be some "sparks" flying at that hearing from the info I have, as you know he is banned from posting …but ….he will soon prove everything he has been banned for is TRUE. LL MERRY XMAS TO ALL

More news HOMENEWS & ANALYSISTHE CAPITALISTLIFESTYLECITY FOCUSINVESTMENTSLIVINGTHE PUNTERSPORTSUPPLEMENTS Archive Where Am I? Home » News And Analysis » FSA Probes Swift Mortgage Firm FSA probes Swift mortgage firm Tuesday, 21st December 2010 BANKING MORTGAGE company Swift Advances has been under investigation by City watchdog the FSA since July 2009, the firm revealed in recent accounts. The public company said the group is likely to incur £9.4m of costs linked to the probe into its handling of mortgage arrears and lending practices, including a potential fine. The Office of Fair Trading is also investigating the company under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The lender, which deals with customers unable to secure credit elsewhere, turned over £128m in the year to 31 March, its accounts noted – £108m of which was used to repay debts and meet interest costs. Swift Advances made a pre-tax profit of £9.4m for the year. 9.4m profit 9.4m costs they are in BIG trouble LL:rockon:

To the great electrician.....the man who would be a millionaire if he was paid for the man hours he has put in.....and to the lads in NI.....who have also put a massive massive amount of work in (quietly). I raise a glass and say THANK YOU. I don`t think most people (not all)l on this thread understand exactly how much hard work you guys have put into bringing Swift down. You are stars. Massive massive THANK YOU!!!!! Best xmas present for so many people All you doubters eat your words!!!!! So many people can now sleep easier at night!!!!! Once again massive thankyou!!!!!! LL:whoo:

Hi Deol I am just sending you 2 letters by pm, allow them 14 working days to reply to the first letter, in my parents case they ignored the letter then sent another demanding letter. They also sent a demanding letter from there solicitors. I also sent the solicitors the second letter. I sent the letters by fax and email, they are a PO BOX so they do not sign recorded delivery. When they eventually responded to me they emailed and I forwarded all to Trading Standards and the FSA. Hope this is of help Need anything else just ask Good luck.....GO GET THEM!!! LL:whoo:

Hi FF Who said Santa`s not real??? ha ha LOL LL:-o

Hi BTB Never heard a thing again RESULT!!!!! thanks to all for your help Hi Deol, Do as above make sure you email and keep all copies.....they will soon give in GOOD LUCK LL:whoo:

LETS HOPE SO FF !!!!!!!! LL:whoo:

Hi FF I saw that as well everything seems to take them a life time though.....they should have more than enough evidence on Swift ......lets hope it`s soon!!!!! LL:-x

Here is some info for all Swift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd customers. On September 12th 2010 the European Court along with the OFT have ruled that In House solicitors are not covered by Legal Privilege. I would advise that all should submit a full SDAR to Swift Group Legal Services as they state that they are the In House solicitors for the above named companies. Request that they supply you with all transcripts of telephone calls between other departments within Arcadia House, copies of all e-mails between same, Transcripts of all telephone calls e-mails, and letters to and from all outside solicitors and Barristers and other agents appertaining to you and your account and court case if applicable. Do not accept any attempt to bluff you or avoid your request you are now legally entitled to all this information. In my next confrontation in the Court room with Swift Advances plc this is one of the many orders I will be asking the Court to make…..to make all these available…..this should happen within the next two weeks or so maybe sooner Compliments of “Sparkie”