Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[busterg]

Hi I've contacted Mr Blocksidge and explained everything that has happended to me regarding Swift.

 

I just want you guys to look at this document I was sent in 2009 by the compliance team.

 

Mines is an alledged unregulated agreeemnt over £25,000 with Swift 1st. But if you look at this document - which one do I fall into? Swift 1st or Advances? in any event have a look at the very bottom of this document where it states what Swift Advances are. What insurance mediation activities? Can anyone shed some light as to what has gone on here?

[Guest blackie]

I also have one of these, not sure if I am Swift 1st or Advances, but to be honest never really looked very closely. Can't wait to see what the others think

[busterg]

Hi Blackie

 

I have to really look closely at everything as Im trying to get it all readyfor the solictors to instruct the barrister. Any insight you can offer....

[Guest blackie]

I have to be honest and say that I have been so busy fighting these b....stds myself that I have had little time to think about anything else. They have just started again now, sending a reminder letter stating I have not paid last month, paid it into Barclays over a month ago, so here goes again. But I am meeting with my sols in two weeks so will raise the subject then, although I have to say I am not sure how much solicitors reaslly know with regard to this kind of law. But will keep you posted. Sorry I can not be of more help, but Swift are slippery.

[busterg]

I know just how slippery they are. Ive had to make payments through Barclays as well. (pay money directly into their account) I wonder of your account details for payment are the same as mine?

 

I fully understand how difficult it is trying ot get solicitors to understand this. It's a nightmare. I think I may have just managed it though. I'm desperately trying ot get hold of Sparkie. Think I can really help him with some documents. Still waiting for him though. I thhink I have all the points he and others make in just my one case!

 

Keep smilking mate - they'll get theres!

[Guest blackie]

I notice sparkie has not been around lately, hope all is ok, he has been through so much, it makes me feel ashamed, he has kept this thread going and informed, god knows how he has coped. I hope with all my heart that he wins and get compensation for the trauma he has been through, to me the man is a hero.

[andrew1]

I notice sparkie has not been around lately, hope all is ok, he has been through so much, it makes me feel ashamed, he has kept this thread going and informed, god knows how he has coped. I hope with all my heart that he wins and get compensation for the trauma he has been through, to me the man is a hero.

 

You should know better than that - he's scheming

[busterg]

You should know better than that - he's scheming

 

 

God I hope so!

 

Whilst you're here, do you know whatthis form 109 at the land registry is? I can't make any sense of it.

[busterg]

I notice sparkie has not been around lately, hope all is ok, he has been through so much, it makes me feel ashamed, he has kept this thread going and informed, god knows how he has coped. I hope with all my heart that he wins and get compensation for the trauma he has been through, to me the man is a hero.

 

 

I know - totally agree. These Bar Stewards hiave no morals.

 

That's why im trying to get hold of him. I think I can help. :)

[busterg]

Okay guys and gals,

 

Here's one for you all.

 

If the FSA states that a particluar broker cannot hold client money, and their license extends to only handling Regulated Mortgages/agreements, if say this broker then brokered an unregulated secured loan of over £25,000 with Swift 1st, then could this be deemed as unfair or unenforceable?

 

Any ideas? Anyone?

[Killerschick]

Swift 1st usually only dealt with first charge mortgages (your main mortgage registered first with the land registry) while Swift Advances did second charge loans.

All first charge mortgages have been FSA regulated since 2004 regardless of size while second charge loans over £25,000 were not regulated in any way shape or form until 6 April 2008 when the CCA 2006 took effect but it is not retrospective on loans agreed prior to this date.

Anyone could sell an unregulated loan and it would not have any effect on its enforceability. The fact that your broker is/was authorised to sell regulated products does not stop him selling other products as well in fact it's not uncommon even now as many brokers who deal with residential loans also do buy to let, bridging etc.

In order to sell an FSA regulated product a broker would need FSA authorisation and in order to sell a CCA regulated product a broker needs a consumer credit licence.

If you did have a first mortgage with Swift 1st this is good news as it should mean it was FSA regulated and you are in a position to complain to FOS regarding the broker, lender etc.

[busterg]

Killerschick

 

Thank you so much.

 

Not getting much good news back from my solicitors at the moment - they just seem so down about the whole thing. It's a nightmare!

 

It feels like a constant fight all around. Do you know anything about a case called Heath? I tried to pursue the argument about multi contratcs and they said I wouldn't win becasue of this.

[Smarterchick]

We have learned of a rather alleged disturbing event going on behind the scenes which we would like any Swift account holders being litigated against by Swift to complain - or enquire to the OFT about.

 

As has been reported previously on here early in our investigations Swift Advances Accounts and Directors reports filed at Companies House year on year have items in them which show the sale of loans to Kestrel Loans No 1 and No 3 Ltd, both separate companies. The Kestrel Accounts show the same transactions. Therefore, there is a question, yet to be answered by Swift about who owns the title to your loans and who has the rights to litigate against you.

It is a fair enough question to ask them, but one which they refuse to answer properly. Given they had no license to do such things they are potentially facing a bundle of trouble if they have got things wrong.

 

We now have confirmed by the OFT that the holding company of Swift, Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd and Kestrel Loans No 3 Ltd, - Kestrel Holdings Ltd, that Swift Advances Plc have applied to use Kestrel Holdings Ltd as a trading style and obtain a license. A little like the employer working for the employee and very late in coming.

 

What we would like everyone to do who is in the position of being litigated against is to contact Mr Blocksidge at the OFT to register your opposition to this license being granted whilst the investiagtions of alledged 'irregularities' are being concluded.

 

For the Clarity of trolls and snoopers, Sparkle et al, let me make this clear.

 

We are aware that allegations of alleged irregularities are being made against the company by certain individuals which are yet to be proven, so there are no malicious accusations being implied or made on CAG that have not been aired before. They are just reflections and questions being asked of Directors reports filed at companies house containing information in the public domain (Companies House) which needs clarification as litigation is being undertaken in the name of Swift Advances plc when the Accounts and Directors Reports show the loans being sold to another entity. Mr Webster, the CEO assures many account holders that Swift do not Securitise their portfolio so this must be a straight sale which requires transfer of title (we assume). This assumption has yet to be corrected by Swift so we object to the granting of any trading license in the name of Kestrel of any shape or form until this matter has been resolved publically as if the allegations were to be upheld this would have serious consequences for them all.

 

Please contact the OFT with your objections.

 

 

david.blocksidge@oft.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

sc

Edited February 18, 2010 by Smarterchick

[Sparkie1723]

Been very busy folks so I "spout" up again.

 

Kestrel Holdings Ltd do not hold an FSA,OFT or DPA licence and neither do any of the other Kestrel Companies....So what is the OFT playing at....they may be applyng for a license now but all our loans have been sold illegally.....the OFT must be made aware of that ..........try telling the police who caught you last week driving without a Driving License and then saying OH ...but I,ve got them now.would that be accepted ....I don't think so!!

 

I cant see how another Limited company can ever be considered to be a trading style of another company ...don't think the Companies Act will allow this

 

sparkie

[Smarterchick]

Been very busy folks so I "spout" up again.

 

Kestrel Holdings Ltd do not hold an FSA,OFT or DPA licence and neither do any of the other Kestrel Companies....So what is the OFT playing at....they may be applyng for a license now but all our loans have been sold illegally.....the OFT must be made aware of that ..........try telling the police who caught you last week driving without a Driving License and then saying OH ...but I,ve got them now.would that be accepted ....I don't think so!!

 

I cant see how another Limited company can ever be considered to be a trading style of another company ...don't think the Companies Act will allow this

 

sparkie

[busterg]

Received this email this from OFT

 

We would like to clarify that Swift has not applied to add Kestrel Holdings Limited as a trading style to its licence nor applied for a licence to cover that company. Instead Swift has sent OFT a notification that Andrew Punch and Kestrel Holdings Limited are now officers of Swift Advances Plc.

The notification is in compliance with section 36 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which places a statutory requirement on licensees to notify OFT of such a change within 21 days of it happening. OFT is in turn required to update the Public Register accordingly.

[Smarterchick]

Received this email this from OFT

 

We would like to clarify that Swift has not applied to add Kestrel Holdings Limited as a trading style to its licence nor applied for a licence to cover that company. Instead Swift has sent OFT a notification that Andrew Punch and Kestrel Holdings Limited are now officers of Swift Advances Plc.

The notification is in compliance with section 36 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which places a statutory requirement on licensees to notify OFT of such a change within 21 days of it happening. OFT is in turn required to update the Public Register accordingly.

 

 

Amazing what truth is available when the temptress feeds them a line

 

How do they know we always ask innocent questions?

[Tophat]

 

 

Do you still want us to write in to appose what they are trying to do?

[Smarterchick]

Do you still want us to write in to appose what they are trying to do?

 

 

Nope, job done

 

Keep complaining about what Swift are up to though and let me re-iterate the fact that EVERYONE needs to get a hold of their Actuarial Accrual Account Summary sheet to establish what they are charging you and when.

[Tophat]

Thanks Smarterchick, I am of to see my local MP today and have just sent another email to David Blocksidge as well. Would it be of any help if we all sent in verying emails every day for a week to the OFT to make them sit up and act?

[busterg]

Nope, job done

 

Keep complaining about what Swift are up to though and let me re-iterate the fact that EVERYONE needs to get a hold of their Actuarial Accrual Account Summary sheet to establish what they are charging you and when.

 

Ive tried three times now and they keep sending me the same statement through that still doesn't tally up.

 

I was told this is what it is.

[Sparkie1723]

Amazing what truth is available when the temptress feeds them a line

 

How do they know we always ask innocent questions?

 

I would thing that this means that they will have to notify Companies House of all these changes to all their company registrations

 

 

sparkie

[Smarterchick]

Ive tried three times now and they keep sending me the same statement through that still doesn't tally up.

 

I was told this is what it is.

 

What statement do they send you? They generally send the one which is showing Payment History across the top. This Actuarial statement is very different.

[busterg]

What statement do they send you? They generally send the one which is showing Payment History across the top. This Actuarial statement is very different.

 

then I've definately (sp?) not had this. They tell me they have but it does say Payment History, Annual Arrears Statement, and Annual Payment History.

[Smarterchick]

then I've definately (sp?) not had this. They tell me they have but it does say Payment History, Annual Arrears Statement, and Annual Payment History.

 

Then send an email to this guy, Mark.White@swift.co.uk he's the whizz who proclaims to have an Economics Degree and the one who makes these things up and churns them out. What you want is:

 

The Actuarial Account Accrual Summary sheet

 

 

They produce them for Swift Advances plc 2nd Charge loans, whether they supply them for Swift 1st Mortgages or not is another thing altogether as I don't know.