Morning Jessie, what have you done so far in relation to this issue? Have you requested/received all the information from Swift on the charges and account? Have you been to anybody like FOS and presented a case?

Evening Jamie, have you looked into your agreement and have you anything further to report on how your case is going?

Congrats, sounds as though you have a decent judge. To go forward I believe you might be in a position to look at clause L in the terms and conditions on your agreement. If you could post up what exactly your terms say we could then go through what it states and then people can give a view on how they read it. I am hoping you have the same agreement as me and most others who have unregulated loans with this company. Term L should be concerning the application of charges and they are on the reverse or second page of the agreement.

You definitely need to SAR them and find out how a £10k loan which would have been regulated has become un-regulated. Unless they are saying you re-financed at some point with loan above the £25k limit then the original agreement would be covered by CCA. If you did re-finance then the circumstances would need to be investigated.

https://consumercreditlitigationanddebtcollection.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/swift-advances-plc-v-daley/ This is from one of the other threads that I mentioned it on so I hope the link works

You certainly need to calculate the PPI but it will be the responsibility of the broker if they are still around, Swift will be very quick to let you know this because it is one of their stock answers. As for some of their charges they have just been through a legal case where a lot of their charges were found to illegal and that was on a loan similar to yours which should be covered by CCA regulations. Make a request for all of the information they have by SAR so you can truly see the fuller picture.

They have been doing this to me and when I have asked why they just state about late payments have caused increases, a lot of these payments were made on time but there system logged them late citing bank transfer delays. Personally I think they incur penalties if they pay there funders late so they are doing what they can to increase their cashflow and we are the ones paying the price.

Andy, being site team I guessed you would know. My reply was more generic for the others who might be reading and might not understand and also to highlight that 1st and 2nd charge are now both covered as mortgages but the relevant authorities have chosen not to include existing products. This has left existing 2nd charge loans ( usually termed as mortgages by the likes of Swift) as totally devoid of regulations of any type because the authorities will not recognise them as mortgages or as consumer loans. The concern we all need to understand though is these are generally long term products which are only just beginning to end and I fear there are a lot of people who are just unaware of the position they might be in.

Andy. a 10 year loan against your property is/was as good as a mortgage in everything but the important eyes of the laws/regs. I say was because it has been recognised and all current secured lending comes under mortgage regulations, surprisingly though existing products are not being included. If I was cynical I would say the regulators are aware of the problem so are avoiding the onus to act being placed upon them. You also asked whether it was an interest only loan, with any of these loans if you have charges added near the beginning it is added to the capital which nullifies the payment, you are soon only covering the interest. If you are unaware of this then the payments are never increased to cover the charges or costs that are added hence the fact you never pay the loan off. Companies like this know there is no requirement to keep you fully informed on an unregulated loan so don't. Read into that what you want.

I wish you luck Fudge, I feel there are a load more of you on Swifts books they just don't know it because they haven't got to the end of their loan yet. The sheer lack of info supplied by Swift over the years allows all the charges and interest to accrue before you have a chance to nip it in the bud. Because of the capital/interest repayment schedule very little is coming off of the capital at the beginning so any charges placed then stop the repayment being any use and once you end up owing more than you borrowed it is a slow downward spiral. The cynical amongst us would say that this is there overall plan, they certainly understand how little help the victims receive from the law and regulators.

A link as been posted on another swift thread on here hopefully you will find it.

Maybe you should request a copy of all calls made which they have a duty to supply. They come on a password protected cd so they make it difficult to access but it can be done with the right programme.

Ok Swift Advances PLC v Daley case no 4PB02756 is a recent judgement regarding issues including charges. Unfortunately this was an un-regulated loan which didn't have the protection supposedly offered on your regulated loan but it might have a few pointers that could help

Ok Swift Advances PLC v Daley case no 4PB02756 is a recent judgement regarding issues including charges. Unfortunately this was an un-regulated loan which didn't have the protection supposedly offered on your regulated loan but it might have a few pointers that could help.

From reading between the lines I am imagining that the mortgage company and Swift are unaware of James's mothers passing and his Aunt has just kept up the payments which if it is the case then getting the required info might be difficult if the account holder is unable to authorise access. The only other answer would be that they were joint mortgages/loans and the other account holder is still around. I cant believe that the mortgage and loan would have been allowed to continue if the lenders were aware the borrower, who the agreement would have been with, was no longer around to fulfil their side of the agreement. The only way the property should have stayed in the estate would have been either an insurance policy clearing the mortgage/loan, a new agreement made which sounds very unlikely or just a grace period for bereavement in my opinion.

I have to be honest and say I am confused how this position has been come to. Is the mortgage and loan in somebody else's name as well because I cannot understand how there could have been any choices after your mother passed away. The usual terms and conditions of both the mortgage and secured loans is that there should be life insurance in place to pay them in this situation. If there is no insurance then the mortgage company usually sells the property to recover their funds and any shortfall would be taken up by the estate and either wrote off or paid from other funds. The loans would have been in your mums name so only she should have been allowed to pay unless something had already been put in place. The other thing that really needs looking into is Swift's conduct, if the loan was only for £15,000 it would be a regulated loan that is covered by consumer credit laws which means they would have had legal obligations for it not to get into this position so when you get paperwork you need to start a case with the ombudsman.

James, a word of caution from just quickly reading your thread. Your family might have made some errors while administering the estate but I wouldn't be to quick at jumping to that conclusion where Swift are concerned. They seem to have an habit of letting the accounts fail and not informing the victims but just letting the accounts accrue more interest. If you read a lot of forums that have swift threads on you will find a lot of people complaining that the balance hasn't really dropped since the loan started, I am one, and it seems to be a trick they play. Really do some homework and keep an open mind on who is to blame until you acquire the required info. While asking around knowledgeable people enquire how a loan facility in the name of you departed mother could be administered by anybody else and whether that facility has been carried out properly. I am just thinking that if it shouldn't have been allowed to carry on then there might be an argument that it also couldn't accrue further interest. Just thinking out loud.

The consultation has been promised for a long time. The government would like to take credit for it but the truth is Europe is bringing in tighter controls on the market which it is forcing the UK to adopt. These rules come into place next year and one of the things it will do is bring second charge lending truly under the banner of mortgages, probably one of the reasons Swift don't go for the jugular as readily now. The consultation is based around how to implement the changes and knowing the government how to sideline some. Till the consultation is over nobody knows how it is going to relate to consumers past or present, so like normal there are hopes on the skyline but how far the skyline is nobody knows.

Any of these companies only send what they want and hope that the you don't know what you should have. Just because you might not get or you might have to fight is not the reason not to try. Just remember to keep all of the evidence of your efforts so it can never be questioned that you didn't try and they didn't comply. They record phone calls so you are entitled to the recordings, history notes, copies of correspondence and I would request all of this and a copy of actuarial accounts. They are doing something wrong but purposely make everything complex so you cant work out what but one day they will give somebody the evidence needed. Only when there is hard evidence is it worth considering joint action or anything else, going to court with an assumption is no good.

Wayne did you get any paperwork from swift through a SAR and if not try to get some ,especially an actuarial account. They will try to not send out a lot of things especially if you don't request it.

Same old story cannot see why it was worth making you bankrupt because they aren't going to get anything. Did you owe as much as they said at everyday. To be able to annul the B/R you would have to be able to pay off all the un secured creditors and admin costs at the insolvency practitioners which would be a job. If I am understanding your posts correctly there is no equity in your property so I doubt if the B/R will force a sale you really need to fight on these things which starts with really understanding what needs to be done. If you keep the arrangement you had with Swift they have no reason to repossess, they could only do it if you break the arrangement and don't pay. None of what you owe them will be included in the B/R except for the Insolvency practitioners to calculate affordability and equity within the property. The B/R should not make you homeless unless it was financially worthwhile or you ignore it all and they just go through the motions make sure you supply anything they want as promptly as they want so you can get things sorted as quickly as possible. In a strange way swift are helping you keep the house because the more you owe them against the house the less equity there is there, horrible thought isn't it. The insolvency service isn't the enemy they are just trying to sort out your financial affairs up to B/R so you can start a new life after but you have to keep on top of these things and not just roll over. Swift issues are completely separate to the B/R so even if they are the reason you have ended up in this position because of them view it as a different issue and start researching into whether you were actually mis-sold the loan. If it was only the everyday loan that was in the B/R then you could look into whether that was all above board but it is only worth spending the time if you can get a worthwhile result. If you spent the time on everyday and managed to get compensation you might end up just giving it to the B/R and still be B/R. If you wonder about me, I am a swift victim too and B/R so I am posting from experience but not professional standing so check up on the things I say and don't just think that what has happened with me will happen with you.

I haven't posted much but I have been reading with interest. We need to put a stop to any misunderstandings or false information or beliefs before it gets to far. Basic fact is that the bankruptcy only covers un-secured debt not secured so you really need to understand who will be creditors on any Bankruptcy. First charge mortgage and second charge secured loans will not be part of B/R so Swift being a secured loan cannot be creditors and if it was them that made you B/R then something needs looking at. As somebody as posted any debts within your B/R need to be dealt with by the insolvency practitioners and it is important that you do what they ask but also fully understand the position you are in so they can't take liberty's. The B/R will only be interested in equity within your home so they will only force a sale if financially viable. Swift come into that scenario due to the fact that security is placed on your home so if the home is sold then the B/R has to pay off the mortgage and the secured loans before anything else, hence why the secured loans aren't included in B/R. Because Swift are secured it is important that you do talk to them and keep paying as with any other mortgage so you don't accrue charges and lose due to false info.

D, the thing is that in the past no regulatory body has taken an interest seriously because it is a hard nut to crack. Too many decisions have gone against the victims due to either poorly researched or presented cases, courts bias towards the better presented case brought about by the limitless funding they have, general public perception based around the theory that you borrowed the funds so you knew what you were doing or the real cost of doing something will ruin the country further. I have heard that the ombudsmen is taking more of an interest now but they always take things case by case whereas there are too many people with the same problems with companies like swift that it needs a more far reaching approach. The original start of this thread is a case in point, I believe there will be a lot more coming out of the woodwork as more and more people come to the end of their terms and find they still owe a great deal. My only court appearance so far was with a very thorough bundle which was conveniently disregarded and the only words I was allowed to say was my name and whether I could maintain payments.

Like most been round the houses being told that I need to complain to one who then tell you its another who then tell you its another who then tell you its nothing to do with any. Then I read that all the regulatory bodies were changing so have been formulating a complaint and deciding where to place it. It gets worse when you know the stock answers that have been given and accepted to a lot of the complaints so I am constantly looking for a different angle. The other angles are naturally a lot harder to prove but there is definitely something going on with them.

Where there is a debit and a comment like reversal of charge is their way of refunding. They usually refund a charge but forget about any interest it has accrued and I am sure there is always something sitting deep within the account that is accruing interest that you do not know about. They tell everybody that there isn't a requirement to send out statements and the ones they do aren't very detailed so you only ever find out about how bad it as got is when it is too late. This is another part of the relationship that is unfair but they seem to get away with it especially in court where it is hard to overcome the bias against you for missing payments in the first place.