Thanks citizenB - still not enough though! As I said £5k might make a difference to banks behaviour and FOS timescales. SJ:oops:

Hi Stokie - def worth going to FSCS. We got over £6k back on a diff claim via them. Didn't take FF any further as other things took over my life but now might try FSCS too! Well done for all your detective work. SJ

The length of time the FOS takes to process complaints is unacceptable. It takes a long time because of the massive volume of complaints about the banking (and Finance) industry the FOS has to deal with. Surely the answer is for banks etc to pay much more when complaints about them are submitted (currently £500 I believe). I would suggest the possibility of a FOS complaint should be a greater financial deterrent - say £5000. I think this would improve banks' behaviour, reduce the number of complaints and give a better FOS service to consumers. It would not cost banks more in the long run because there wouldn't be as many complaints. Banks could also be made to contribute more to the FSA (or new FCA) according to how many consumer complaints they have had made against them. This is appropriate because the more they mistreat their customers, the more regulation they need. Maybe even tax them more pro rata for complaints against them. . . SJ

Was it a credit card that came unexpected with a loan? BOS did this a lot. We successfully claimed back PPI on both loan & credit card and unfair credit card charges which wiped out the debt. Sounds like you are in financial hardship. BOS know you are struggling and may have mis-led 1st credit about your ability to pay. Make sure they know debt was in dispute and you are in hardship.

Make sure you get a full redress on charges with all compound interest applied. It is the compound interest which multiplies the debt with Swift. We were successful with FOS getting charges reduced to monthly arrears charges only. Watch their litigation charges though, they are keen to get to court, even if for a suspended possession order. The litigatiion charges also attract compound interest. Make sure any litigation work is actually carried out by their litigation department.

Here's a bit of a recent letter about LIBOR and second charge mortgages I've sent to OFT (CCA Agreement) with copies to FSA, MPs, Journalists etc: The Financial Ombudsman Service (staffed by ex-bankers and working to the Banking and Lending Codes drawn up by the British Bankers’ Association) is also unlikely to be able, willing or capable of investigating how LIBOR fixing has affected consumers. They rarely refer to the law just those codes. and one frm 2010: I copy below a complaint I have sent to the Financial Ombudsman Service this week. It outlines problems which I and many consumers have with the service. I have been reading the minutes of the Finance Bill going through Parliament and I believe many of you have a false idea of how independent the FOS is. I do not think it serves consumers well at all and I am not alone in this thought as you will find if you investigate complaints about the service and consumer websites and consult consumer advice organizations. The idea that a consumer can get a fair hearing by the FOS is incorrect. Yours faithfully Dear Sir / Madam ......................... I am very concerned about the service offered to Consumers. I feel the decisions are weighted in favour of the finance industry. I do not feel that due attention is paid by the FOS to Consumer law and Consumer Protection generally. For example Unfair relationships and the Enterprise Act, UTCCRs, Irresponsible Lending and the Fraud Act are not taken into consideration. I do not believe the service follows FSA or OFT guidelines or pays heed to the evidence against the banks and their behaviour over the last 20 years. There is a huge body of evidence now proving how the banks have lent irresponsibly and in a predatory way. There is a bill going through Parliament featuring evidence on consumers’ experience. There are consultations backed by evidence that the FSA and the OFT are carrying out. There is a review of credit cards and store cards being carried out by the Department of Business and Innovation, again with evidence collected about banking and lender practices. There is substantial research and evidence collected by CAB, Which, National Debtline and Shelter. The FOS as an independent body should be immersed in all these latest pieces of evidence. An adjudicator wrote to me recently saying: “The phrase relating to each case being considered on its own merits relates to how each individual lender looks at financial difficulties. There is no set rule that a lender must do xyz, instead the rules stated that it has to treat its customer positively and sympathetically. What one lender considers positive and sympathetic will clearly be different to another, and different again to what the customer believes. This is not something the Financial Ombudsman Service would interfere with unless we can see the lender has breached the relevant code - in this case it does not appear to have.” AND “The Financial Ombudsman Service is an independent organisation set up to be an alternative to the legal process. We are required to reach decisions that are fair and reasonable having regard to (but not necessarily being bound to) any relevant law amongst other things.” AND the company “considers it legitimate, you consider it harassment.” . . . “ The issue of debt collection is always going to, clearly, be something a customer is unhappy with and it is possible they feel that the collections activity is too much. However, a lender has the right to make attempts to reclaim money owed to it and this can be done over the telephone or in writing, or both.” An Ombudsman wrote: “a refund of bank charges would provide a welcome boost to Mr XXXXX’s financial position, but I do not think I can reasonably say that the Bank of XXXXXXX has failed to comply with its obligations simply because it has not agreed to refund historic charges” “Welcome boost” is an incredibly patronizing phrase and suggests we’re playing games and chancing our luck. These are people suffering hardship. The companies will be forced to change their behaviour by Parliament and the regulators in the future but there are people suffering NOW because of the banks’ recent behaviour. Things will change for future customers but the FOS is the only method a consumer has for “independent” complaint without going to court. I believe the FOS is not acknowledging the appalling behaviour of the banks, credit card companies and lenders. The FOS must acknowledge that the Banking Code is simply not enough to quote in replies, the service needs to be far more rigorous in their complaint handling. Another adjudicator wrote: “It is not our role to check calculations” That is ridiculous – the FINANCIAL Ombudsman Service’s role is not to check calculations? Surely this is wrong? If consumers go to the FOS saying they believe their interest has been wrongly applied. The FINANCIAL Ombudsman Service has to check that out. You rely too easily on the information and calculations given to you by the companies – that is not being independent. You are inundated with complaints, there are huge delays but when you write to a member of the public who has to struggle to find time to reply you set deadlines of less than two weeks. I know there are quotas for adjudicators to resolve so many cases per week but putting that kind of pressure on the public is not fair. The FOS and the companies have full time employees dealing with complaints. You say you want to hear from people “in their own words” but actually the public have to present a case like a lawyer. Your staff should be able to see the consumer side far more comprehensively and be aware of consumers’ rights. I believe many people do not go through the company complaints system and certainly not the FOS route because they are not consumer friendly. Many people are in serious financial trouble now and it has been caused to a large extent by the financial institutions. The FOS needs to acknowledge this evidence and be far more tuned in to the problems which have been caused by the companies. Customers have not understood agreements, they have not understood interest rates and they have not understood charges and penalties. Companies have taken advantage of this confusion and lack of understanding and have profited from it. The FOS are in the front line of dealing with the redress that is required to these vulnerable people NOW. Stop arguing that because someone signed an agreement they knew what they were taking on. It’s on the record – they didn’t. If the FOS is not following consumer law and taking on board the available evidence against the companies, I do not believe it is fit for purpose.

Which lender was it. I don't think they are treating customers fairly if they sell a property for way under the going rate. Speak to CAB definitely - look at their website their are numbers to call. sj

Which lender was it? This is the problem with repos and secured loans. The outstanding amount is usually far more than anyone expects. If the repo sale price is poor the gap between that and what is owed can be enormous. Did you have PPI on the loan? We're there unfair charges in excess of monthly arrears charges? Did the lender check the loan was affordable? These are avenues you could investigate. CAB or (make sure you get the correct organisations not those dmcs that try and copy their names on the web) may be able to help you. Send info to Sam.stoakes@fsa.gov.uk if you have time, he is looking at how new FCA will regulate.

I agree with rdm above. Complain to your MPs now about the FOS. The Finance Bill is going through Parliament now and needs as much tight enforcement as poss. The way the FOS uses the BBA Banking code to decide whether a bank has behaved properly is a compete joke and an insult to consumers. SJ

It would be good if someone could go to the BBA event on behalf of all of CAG, like you Caro. I'd contribute to a fund to cover your costs. At least Mike Dailly will be there and he represents the consumer voice. It's good to see things tightening up even if it's coming from Europe. I am concerned the Finance Bill going through Parliament will be watered down by the effect of banker lobbyists and party funders. Let's hope there will be more people with Tracey McDermott's skills at the FCA. SJ

Reports suggest LIBOR was artificially inflated prior to the crisis. Attached is what Swift Advances said about how loans were related to LIBOR when we asked why interest rate not going down when BOE rates fell. I have written to FSA (FCA co-ordinator), OFT, various MPs including mine & Mark Hoban and a couple of journalists today to ask who is taking this on for over 250,000 families (current & past) including those who have lost their homes and who may be directly affected by this rate fixing scandal. These are families in the sub-prime market who cannot afford the kind of fancy barristers engaged by banks, lenders and finance companies. SJ LIBOR LOBLACK0001.pdf

http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/28/barclays-libor-scandal-question-answer? This and other articles appearing in press. Apparently sub-prime borrowers whose rates at the time of taking out mortgages were set artificially high because of LIBOR fixing may be able to sue their lenders. SJ

Hi DMC65 When you have the paperwork check whether PPI was part of the loan. You can certainly claim for that. You will have to make a complaint to the broker who sold that originally. If they don't respond, go to the FOS with a complaint. If the broker has gone out of business the complaint will be forwarded to the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme). If you had unfair charges added to your loan, you can go to Swift and complain - ask for anything over a monthly arrears management charge to be redressed together with the contractual interest and 8% compensation. If they do not redress - go to the FOS. We made 3 complaints to the FOS - one regarding PPI against the broker (redressed by FSCS) one regarding unfair charges (redressed by Swift) and one regarding the Insurance company which had failed to cancel the PPI policy when asked (they had to stump up the balance of PPI not covered by FSCS which covers 95% pver £2k). So ultimately DMC65 the chances are good in my opinion. We had nearly £8k redressed in all. This doesn't of course cover the excessive interest, high litigation costs and unfair final settlement calculations but it's a start! This does all take time so you need to be patient. Some people prefer to go to court to reclaim charges but the problem with that is that if you lose (Swift engage some very expensive barristers) the costs plus compound interest get added to your loan (if it is still outstanding). I certainly wouldn't go to a claims company to get the PPI back - you'll end up giving them a big percentage. Good luck - get those documents out. SJ

ccrl14 - I know Ell-enn is helping you immediately with the court situation. I think you also need some local support. Debt is nothing to be ashamed about - you will be suprised just how many people you know currently have or have had similar issues in the past. Talking about this can be a huge step. It will certainly be a great burden lifted. You've made the first step by sharing your problems here and you can see how many people care and are trying to help. Believe me nothing you have done will suprise or horrify anyone here and friends and family would hate to think of you going through this alone, I'm sure. I've been there helping a family member who finally broke down with me when she was in a similar emotional state to you. It was really tough at the beginning but we've helped turn their situation around - it was much much worse than yours. Try and think of yourself going forward. You will be OK. xxx The following organisations will also help on the phone (no particular order). http://www.capdebthelp.org www.cccs.co.uk www.adviceguide.org.uk Community Legal Advice service (0845 345 4345),

Was this a Swift Advances second charge loan - roughly how much was it for? SJ

ccrl14 where abouts in the country are you? I wonder if any other Swifties could go along with you for moral support? We'll certainly all be with you in spirit. Imagine we're all giving you a big hug and we're there to catch you if you fall. x

ccrl14 Try not to panic - I'm sure Ell-enn will be on later. You are going to the court hearing aren't you? Always best - take a friend or family member for support. It's not as scary as you imagine. I'm sure the judge will be sympathetic in your case. I don't know what Ell-enn advises re charges. I can't believe you won't get a suspended possession order - I wonder if you can ask for Swift's litigation charges to be waived because you are in financial hardship and it is those charges together with the interest that will accumulate which are the killers. I believe Swift like to get to court because of the profit they make from the resulting costs. If the charges aren't waived perhaps the judge would consider waiving the interest on them at least??? Be brave x

Well done LL!!! just caught up with this. x

Any problems you have with Swift should be sent to both: sam.stoakes@fsa.gov.uk; 'sam.bragg@oft.gsi.gov.uk' Sam Stoakes is the person at the FSA who is collating information regarding consumer detriment from second charge loans. Neither of them can get directly involved in complaints but they are both key in changing regulation. Here's what Sam Stoakes wrote to me: "the government has actually announced its intention to transfer responsibility for regulation to the new Financial Conduct Authority in 2014. There is more information on this web page: http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/consumer-credit-regulation. The updated government position is set out on this web page: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_sector_mortgages_enhancing_consumer_protection.htm. Sam Bragg at the OFT is in the Secured Lending Team. The team are overseeing Swift Advances and how they treat consumers. The OFT is also keen to hear how Swift is treating customers since their OFT warning. I have met and written regularly to my MP about Swift. He in turn has written to the Treasury and Finance Ministers, the FSA, Swift and the OFT. The more MPs who get involved at this critical time - while the new Finance Bill is going through Parliament, the better. MPs who are interested in better consumer credit legislation include Stella Creasey (Walthamstow) and Chris Leslie (Nottingham East). Which? have also shown an interest. Another ally is Mike Daily of Govan Law Centre - he also sits on the FSCP (Financial Services Consumer Panel) who are also trying to do something about second charge loans. What a lot of MPs and other finance industry people don't seem to realise is that the Council of Mortgage Lenders' (CML) figures for possession do not include second charge lenders. This area of repossession is much greater pro rata than first charge repossessions through high st lenders. My family member's loan has now been paid off but we will continue to fight against this extortionate form of lending. People have lost their homes, the contracts are not transparent, they do not treat customers fairly. We got the PPI redressed via the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme). This is because our broker had gone out of business and the FOS referred us to the FSCS. The brokers are responsible for the initial mis-selling as Swift will be only too pleased to tell you. We got the majority back plus contractual interest. The small balance (FSCS only pay 95% over £2k) we got back from Sterling who were the insurance company via the FOS. We also got charges redressed which were over and above a monthly management charge for arrears plus interest. Ours was referred to as a regulated loan. I strongly believe there is a massive amount of consumer detriment going on in this area. Payday lenders are getting a lot of press at the moment but we must also try and get the media to focus on second charge lending. Lenders have seen a profit to be made in the equity in people's homes and they have gone to extremes to try and acquire as much of that equity as they can. I see it as a kind of asset stripping. Very few people seem aware of the details of these loans when they take them out. The total cost of the loans is not spelt out and the high cost of early settlement is not clear - the total amount of the balance plus interest over the full term are taken into consideration with only a cost of finance rebate deducted. That plus extortionate charges and compound interest is why settlement figures are so high whether through repossession or early settlement. Good luck everyone. SJ

A few additional thoughts (although you are very lucky to have Ellen looking out for you): Did you take out the loan through a broker? Was it sold as a short term solution? Swift loans are never short term solutions. Their redemption calculations incorporate full term expectation of loan repayment plus interest which would have been charged over the full term of the loan so if your "friend financial adviser" recommended Swift as a short term solution, he/she has not been helpful. Was PPI sold with it? If so you can claim that back through the broker - they would be responsible for the mis-selling. If they have gone out of business, go to the FSCS. I believe Swift always want to get to court as fast as possible. They make money out of the court process, borrowers end up paying for Swift's lawyers and all the litigation charges PLUS interest. They have had to tighten up their act recently but they are still fast to litigate and start adding additional charges with interest. This is how borrowers' debts add up and people end up paying them so much either over the term or when houses are repossessed. The debt always increases because of additional arrears and litigation charges plus interest. It's profitable for a lender to make unaffordable second charge loans that go into arrears quickly - you say they did not make proper checks - they have been warned about this. Make sure Sam Bragg at the OFT gets to hear how they are treating you 'sam.bragg@oft.gsi.gov.uk' . The OFT cannot get involved in individual cases but they are responsible for giving Swift a credit license. A sub-prime lender will always make a profit if there is enough potential equity in a property. If you are suffering from depression, are on medication and are in financial hardship, Swift need to be told all that and they have a duty to treat you fairly and reasonably. Good luck - Ellen is fantastic and well respected on this site. SJ

I'm all for globalism, international markets, fair trade etc BUT I'm getting more and more angry when jobs are scarce in this country and in this year of the jubilee and London Olympics that the plethora of union jack metchandise all seems to have been made abroad. What's happened to MADE IN THE UK and BACKING BRITAIN. I'm not talking about official Olympics stuff but bunting, cushions, mugs, tea cosies, egg cups, T-shirts - you name it. All being sold in shops like BRITISH Home Stores, Debenhams, etc etc why aren't these retailers supporting British manufacturers in 2012 when we should allow ourselves a little patriotism?

Maybe all caggers should go in to Morrisons on a specified day and "shop suspiciously" in support off you!

Great thread WP. I think you'll be giving a lot of people a lot of hope for their own chances with your brave and thorough fight against this toxic lender. We all know they're not the only ones and thousands of people are suffering because of unfair terms, charges and interest. I do feel the time has come to stamp out these parasites. Everyone should write to their MPs with their stories especially now while the finance bill is going through. Lets ramp up the exposure. All good wishes to you WP from SJ

I've had very mixed results from the FOS. Recently got a loan reduced by over £3000 because the bank should have organised a repayment plan when I fell into arrears instead of a consolidated loan. Also charges back from a couple of lenders with their help BUT I have got nowhere on other complaints which I will now consider court on. Have you noticed they now have far more ombudsmen on staff but the majority of them come from the financial industry and not consumer champion organisations like CAB, National Debtline, Which? Etc. some come from the very worse companies like Eversheds, GE Money, Moorcroft etc. how can they be independent when they are responsible for south consumer detriment?

I agree Coolchris, if it wasn't deliberate, presumably Swift Advances PLC's (Swift 1st's sister company for 2nd charge mortgages) customers will be redressed in the same way? Unfortunately the OFT who regulate Swift Advances plc don't have the same ability as the FSA to order redress. However as it is all an unfortunate mistake and system failure, Swift will want to do the right thing. Those customers have not been "treated fairly" either. I wonder how much effort Swift 1st will put into tracking down families whose homes they have repossessed? Some of those families may have broken down as a result. Swift will have to go to great efforts to redress those people. Would people who have suffered extreme detriment be able to sue for compensation? What cost would the courts put on family breakdown? SJ