Hi all Have you seen what seems to be the most recent guidance from the OFT dated March 2010. Too late for most of us but some useful stuff in there when fighting previous bad practice. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft1107.pdf BW SJ

Hi Citybloke I want to claim back Additions fees and o/d protection too - just beginning the process. It goes so far back the cost of both must be 000s. I didn't request either, tried to cancel the account and was persuaded not to. Never told o/d protection was optional. I'll keep you posted. SJ

I agree too Frettful. I've passed my letter from Swift to the FOS and the OFT. Swift Advances plc say because the Additional Information Authorities and Declarations form stated commission "may" be applied that is enough. I have argued that not knowing exactly how much is not being transparent and not giving consumers time to read the form or a copy to keep is being unfair. The broker (agent of Swift) just got the forms signed "where crossed" and speedily took them away with her. There was never any confirmation of commission or notice of the amount. All the best SJ

Hi garymac, it sounds as if you are suffering financial hardship and should go to the CAB or National Debtline urgently for their help. They will draw up a financial statement and may agree to speak to Swift on your behalf. You must act quickly or Swift will start re-possession proceedings especially if you are not . They are bound by the pre-action protocol. However the repossession process itself racks up extra charges even if you only get a suspended order. You can write to the OFT etc but they won't intervene in your individual case and it sounds like you need personal help now. Are you paying Swift anything regularly?

Hi Dougal Only just seen your post. Thanks and I'll adapt your letter for Swift although it was a final reply so I might just tack it on to my ongoing complaint. BW SJ

Sounds like a carbon copy of my letter Landy See my post on Secret Commissions thread. I'm sending it on to OFT and FSA.

Swift advances wrote to us recently saying: "You will note that within section 6 (of the signed Additional Information, Authorities and Declarations Form) it clearly states: If your loan was introduced to Swift by a broker then it is likely Swift will pay the broker commission." The letter goes on "As you may be aware, recent case law has held that generic disclosure of this nature is sufficient to negate secrecy"

Oh no this was a several page response job - def not computer generated

Just catching up with the last few pages. Brilliant news Sparkie - well done Has anyone else had a letter from the Compliance Team recently with no name at the bottom - just "Compliance Team" and a squiggle for a signature? Are they getting worried about what they're putting their names to?

Look after yourself SMC. Many thanks for all your support and guidance. Hope our paths cross in the future. All the best SJ

Hi Martin3030 I wondered whether this mass complaint has been submitted to the powers that be? The stories are appalling and continue day by day. Best wishes SJ

I know we are all up to our eyes fighting debt problems but I would urge anyone who is unhappy with the FOS to complain to their MP. Mine is getting involved and asked for copies of all FOS correspondence (I have several complaints with them at various stages). I do not think the FOS is fit for purpose - it is not independent enough. How can customers' claims be rules against so often when we know how unfairly the banks have behaved in mis-selling product by incentivising their staff and charging disproportionate fees. If the FOS was truly independent and after such a catastropic collapse in the financial world, the majority of complaints would be in the customers' favour. Believe me you don't go to the FOS lightly. The amount of paperwork, time and energy the complaints take is huge. When they do rule in your favour, they offer some paltry sum of compensation eg £50 for months and months of unecessary stress and paperwork. This kind of award is then included in the figures in favour of the consumer when it goes nowhere near giving due compensation for the financial loss or time spent dealing with the problem. It is absolutely disgraceful and the FOS needs to be radically changed to have a much more "fair for the consumer" slant. The Banking and now Lending Codes need to be made compulsory and fleshed out in much more detail and policed properly by the FOS with FSA and OFT scrutiny. SJ

Hi Masha Go to CAB, get a financial statement drawn up with them which all creditors will have to accept as proof of your financial hardship situation and start paying Halifax a goodwill payment of £1 pcm. CAB will contact Halifax for you if you request. Good luck SJ

I turn my back for one afternoon and look at all the excitement I miss! Mole, go back in your hole!!! We're all doing splendidly without you and your voodoo:mad::eek:

Hi westlandbabe Good advice from busterg - go to CAB asap they will help you prioritize debts and deal with Swift on your behalf if necessary, especially if you are suffering financial hardship. Swift are legally obliged to follow the Pre Action Protocol. Put everything in writing to them so you have a paper trail and copy David Blocksidge at the OFT: David.Blocksidge@oft.gsi.gov.uk. If you get to court, a judge will not be happy to see them having deliberately avoided the protocol although these b*******s do everything they possibly can to avoid the rules as you will discover when reading this thread. You need to act quickly because Swift don't hang around when it comes to repossession attempts. We're all here to help, so keep us informed. bw sj

Ours too

Further to my previous post about the Companies Investigation Branch - here's what the website says: Criminal investigations and prosecutions | Policies | BIS Fraudulent trading (section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 and section 993 of the Companies Act 2006); Malpractice by company directors in relation to the keeping and preservation of company accounting records (sections 221-222 of the Companies Act 1985 and sections 387 & 389 of the Companies Act 2006). The majority of the offences that we prosecute are punishable by a maximum penalty of 2-10 years imprisonment and/or a fine. We will always consider making an application for ancillary orders. For example, after a conviction we will apply for confiscation and compensation wherever appropriate. Where a person is convicted of certain offences in connection with the setting up or management of a company, the sentencing court may also disqualify that person from being a director or being involved in the management of any other company for up to 15 years (section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986).

Has anyone reported Swift (and all their guises) to Companies Investigation Branch: Companies Investigation Branch (CIB) CIB is part of the regulatory arm of the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). Prior to the creation of BIS, it was part of the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). Although CIB is located within the Insolvency Service, an Executive Agency of BIS, it is not limited to companies that have become insolvent. In fact, most of our investigations are into companies that are actively trading. SJ:cool:

That's good news for me Marky - the FOS told me it would take another year for the OFT investigations to be made public and they didn't specify whether or not Swift was included in their investigations into second charge loans. Although I think we're pretty sure they are They also stated it would be "unfair" for the lender if my complaint was kept open that long. Ahhh so unfair on Swift all these nasty customers complaining about their treatment of us!!! And how dare I ask for my complaint to be kept open until the OFT details were published - especially when its taken the FOS a year to get round to us in the first place. One rule for us and another for them from this "independent" organization. Ours is still an open complaint though, oh yes siree. My MP and my sister's MP are also asking questions about Swft. Pump up the pressure

You betcha Marky

Sorry cleaned up version: Waiting for my accountant're report on the Accrual Summary but he has said: "almost Loan Shark rates, the default and litigation charges are Obscene". No suprises there. Great post PW - just need a week to read it thoroughly! SJ

Waiting for my accountant're report on the Accrual Summary but he has said: "almost Loan Shark rates, the default and litigation charges are Obscene". No suprises there. Great post PW - just need a week to read it thoroughly! SJ

This is good news for us and hopefully others out there. The referral fee was charged by UCA. 'I confirm that the outstanding balance is £****. The previous balances quoted were by External Agencies which included their referral fees of £617.87. This amount has been refunded. We no longer charge referral fees.’

Hi Sparkie, good stuff! The OFT have seen a lot of stuff from me as you know! I also copied my latest FOS missive which included trading styles info to David Blocksidge. I have also encouraged them to share info with FOS and FSCS under their Memorandum of Understanding: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/FOS-OFT_MoU.pdf

How can they justify different rates for different loans with rises at different times? Don't lenders usually announce AN interest rate increase or decrease for ALL their borrowers, at like the same time