Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[Sparkie1723]

I don't think that Swift will have a single happy customer at all !! i'm one of them and fed up with them !! despite all the reduction in interest rates they have failed to pass on ANY cut to their customers at all.....

 

 

Exactly 42man ....is that not a sure dead cert for an "Unfair Relationship" ???...one sided if ever there was one ...See section 140 of the New Consumer Credit Act amendments.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Another argument against Swifts claim that their agreements before April 6th 2008 are unregulated.....all credit agreements after April 2006 became regulated by section 140 of the New Act....that means that the heading on their agreement is wrong ..it should read according to the CC regulations 2004 which came into force May 31st 2005 " This is a Consumer Credit Agreement "PARTLY" regulated by the Consumer Credit Act.

 

The Main core Term is incorrectly stated and is unenforceable under section 65 by way of section 127 (3) because of this. and all their agreements are the same.

Not passing the interest rate cuts

now they have plummeted is a case for "Unfair Relationship" one sided they are very quick to put it up but never down.

 

 

sparkie

[Smarterchick]

So if that's the case Sparkie and the agreement states 'Unregulated' and we find parts which are supposed to be regulated in them what are the consequences and how would we present that to a court if and when the time came..." er Mr Judge, this agreement states it is unregulated but we the Claimant say it should have 'Partly regulated on it" - is he going to throw it out because of that? or what are the consequences?

[Sparkie1723]

So if that's the case Sparkie and the agreement states 'Unregulated' and we find parts which are supposed to be regulated in them what are the consequences and how would we present that to a court if and when the time came..." er Mr Judge, this agreement states it is unregulated but we the Claimant say it should have 'Partly regulated on it" - is he going to throw it out because of that? or what are the consequences?

33.

 

Taken from Hurstanger v Wilson & anthr 2007

 

In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement.

 

Consumer Credit regulations state that if any of the Core terms are incorrect or missing the agreement is unenforceable...the stated type of agreement is a major core term....hence the agreement is unenforceable by this ruling

 

 

Swift agreements fall foul of all this

Consumer credit

Rules on credit agreements

If you provide credit or hire facilities to consumers you must provide - and get them to sign - a written agreement setting out the terms of the agreement, their rights and duties. You are now also required to provide the consumer with clear information on the terms of the agreement so they know what they are signing up to before they sign any credit agreement.

Key points on credit agreements

You must make clear the “key” financial information, including the amount of credit, the period of the credit, the total amount payable and the Annual Percentage Rate (APR). You must also provide information on the rate of interest, default and early payment and other charges.

 

Also creditors cannot charge Contractual interest on default charges they can only charge simple interest

 

 

 

sparkie

Edited February 19, 2009 by Sparkie1723
spelling

[Sparkie1723]

These regulations apply to all credit agreements made after May 31st 2005.

If your agreement with Swift was signed after this date they are in trouble.

 

sparkie

[landy_alert]

Apologies for hijacking, Overdone, but mine says 'unregulated' and was taken out in May 2006..........

[Sparkie1723]

If folks with Swift agreements look at them closely and if they went through a broker the will see that there are fees and charges shown in the "other financial information" box. ( even if they did not go through a broker, there are other fee and charges)

 

These charges in order to comply with Consumer Credit Agreements (amendments)Regulations 2004 which came into force 31st May 2005 must be shown and stated as a "Charge for Credit"....those words must be on the agreement.

 

It must also state and show the words "Total Charge for Credit" this is the total amount of interest that is payable plus the fees and charges.

 

If the interest payable is variable, an example must be shown as to what the total charge for credit would be, assuming there was no change of interest rate.

This example must be shown

 

Swifts agreements do not state these important facts which are considered core terms.

 

The Regulations state if any of these core terms are missing or incorrect the agreement is unenforceable.

...Now the reason why Swift get away with this is that the people who are taken to court by Swift have not got the money to pay for a Barrister to challenge these agreements, because if they had they would have paid Swift in the first place not knowing anything about all this....AND Swift know this so they just squash the debtor into oblivion and obtain a possession order uncontested.

 

sparkie

Edited February 20, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[pkelly]

If folks with Swift agreements look at them closely and if they went through a broker the will see that there are fees and charges shown in the "other financial information" box. ( even if they did not go through a broker, there are other fee and charges)

 

These charges in order to comply with Consumer Credit Agreements (amendments)Regulations 2004 which came into force 31st May 2005 must be shown and stated as a "Charge for Credit"....those words must be on the agreement.

 

It must also state and show the words "Total Charge for Credit" this is the total amount of interest that is payable plus the fees and charges.

 

If the interest payable is variable, an example must be shown as to what the total charge for credit would be, assuming there was no change of interest rate.

This example must be shown

 

Swifts agreements do not state these important facts which are considered core terms.

 

The Regulations state if any of these core terms are missing or incorrect the agreement is unenforceable.

...Now the reason why Swift get away with this is that the people who are taken to court by Swift have not got the money to pay for a Barrister to challenge these agreements, because if they had they would have paid Swift in the first place not knowing anything about all this....AND Swift know this so they just squash the debtor into oblivion and obtain a possession order uncontested.

 

sparkie

 

Thats 100% right sparkey every day they take people behind closed courts, the cases are only booked in for a short time. long enough for the expert swift team, to bluff off to the judge.

no one knows `not even a legal expert` that I have come across yet, how to deal with it.

most legal experts only are `workers` paid to do a job. but not fight.

 

`A man was once in a fight with 3 robbers, but he beat them off. when asked how did he manage such a thing, he answered!

I was fighting for my life, they were only fighting for my money"

[overdone]

Reply concerning my recent letter to reclaim charges.

Swift Group.

 

Dear Overdone,

Your complaint

Redeemed Swift Agreement Number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

I am sorry to hear the details of your complaint as outlined in your correspondence of 13 February 2009 received in our offices 16 February 2009.

 

My understanding is that you are unhappy with the fees and charges applied to your now redeemed Swift Account.

 

I am currently investigating these issues inder our complaints process (see leaflet attached) and will reply more fully by 16 March 2009 at the latest.

 

In the meantime, if you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Anya Foulds

Compliance team

[Sparkie1723]

If folks look at their Swift agreement it does not conform to what Professor Goode says it should ............based on the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 2004 in force 31st Maty 2005 .....unenforceable

 

sparkie

 

 

[landy_alert]

I have been advised to give up on my attempt to get any money back from Swift as I have very little chance of success - see my thread 'landy_alert v swift advances'.........

[Sparkie1723]

I have been advised to give up on my attempt to get any money back from Swift as I have very little chance of success - see my thread 'landy_alert v swift advances'.........

 

HI landy-alert

 

I can understand how you feel ...it is hard work and stressful .......but this is the very reason that Swift are getting possession orders they use bullying and scare tactics, very very few take them on ...so on percentage wise it looks like they ALLWAYS win ...they get possession orders because they are uncontested.............. we will see on tuesday.....fingers crossed.

 

sparkie

[overdone]

HI landy-alert

 

I can understand how you feel ...it is hard work and stressful .......but this is the very reason that Swift are getting possession orders they use bullying and scare tactics, very very few take them on ...so on percentage wise it looks like they ALLWAYS win ...they get possession orders because they are uncontested.............. we will see on tuesday.....fingers crossed.

 

sparkie

I agree with sparky. Though they may be bullies they have less legal teeth than all their posturing would suggest. I am still waiting for a reply to my complaint on charges.

[landy_alert]

Thanks for that Sparkie and Overdone! That's made me feel slightly better.

 

Overdone, I know you originally had someone trying to get your charges back for you from Swift, but when you took over and approached them yourself did you start from scratch - did you send for a Subject Access Request or just send them a list of your charges you wanted to reclaim?

 

Many thanks,

 

Landy

[Sparkie1723]

Hi overdone, I agree..as you know my friends had to take Swift on as LIP' because they sacked their barrister he was C**p anyway ........ they had claimed all along that by not showing the APR inthe Key Financial Information box...the agreement was unenforceable ....anyway my mate asked the Barrister if the APR had to be shown there ...well he stutterd and muttered... tried to avoid the question until the judge intervened and said "Counsel Mr .....so & so has asked a perfectly simple question Does the APR under the Regulations have be shown and stated in the box he is referring to" ...Counsel said "er" "um" "er" "um" Judge said will you please answer Mr Counsel ...(forgot his name) "Yes your honour" ...Judge said thank you very much. made a note of his answer ...[EDIT}

 

sparkie

Edited December 14, 2009 by alanfromderby
added an e to the word "not" of his answer

[determindator]

This lady is subject to a very tight confidentiality agreement with Swift Plc I do not think it very prudent to ask her for comments ....it could land her in serious trouble...knowing what Swift are like they would make her life hell....no pun meant lady_alert.

sparkie

 

 

Shouldn't this be investigated by the relevant authorities? It's sounds like Gangsters and Mafia operations! They're either above board or face the consequences. It's also not allowing information to other customers be made known which I would say is my Human Right to know.

 

The very best to you all for Tuesday, is it poss to know which Court? This info maybe in an earlier post but I'm slowly going through the 14 pages at the moment.

Edited February 22, 2009 by determindator

[overdone]

Overdone, I know you originally had someone trying to get your charges back for you from Swift, but when you took over and approached them yourself did you start from scratch - did you send for a Subject Access Request or just send them a list of your charges you wanted to reclaim?

 

Many thanks,

 

Landy

At the end of paying off the mortgage I asked for a breakdown of where the money went and the charges were listed. I have started again but this is the third time I have queried the charges with Swift and I know what to expect. If I get support over court procedure then I shall take them all the way this time.

[42man]

Sparkie....you can represent them too in court as a LAY REPRESENTATIVE, but I think you have to give the court notice beforehand that you will be doing this....McKenzie friend isn't supposed to talk directly to the judge, and can only give advice, assist with paperwork in court....(you probably knew this anyway !!)

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie....you can represent them too in court as a LAY REPRESENTATIVE, but I think you have to give the court notice beforehand that you will be doing this....McKenzie friend isn't supposed to talk directly to the judge, and can only give advice, assist with paperwork in court....(you probably knew this anyway !!)

 

The only time you can represent someone in Court as a lay represetative is if the person is handicapped ..deaf dumb mentally impaired or such ...or you can represent your wife ...partner...or if you are another person named on the summons.

 

sparkie

[42man]

Ahh....thank you Sparks...I didn't realise this !!

[determindator]

I believe you may go in to support and advise. Another human right?

[andrew1]

I acted for a guy as a McKenzie friend once in Liverpool high court where he (I) had issued a 21 day winding up petition on a plc for a debt they owed ( that was fun ) He ran a company that I was acting as a consultant for and he knew nothing of these procedures what so ever. I wrote to the court asking to be a McKenzie friend and the Judge agreed. When we got there the plc had a barrister, my guy was totally lost and kept looking to me for every answer fired at him. I asked the judge if it would not be easier if I did the talking to save the court time and he asked the barrister if that was okay with him. He agreed. So it can be done.

[overdone]

I acted for a guy as a McKenzie friend once in Liverpool high court where he (I) had issued a 21 day winding up petition on a plc for a debt they owed ( that was fun ) He ran a company that I was acting as a consultant for and he knew nothing of these procedures what so ever. I wrote to the court asking to be a McKenzie friend and the Judge agreed. When we got there the plc had a barrister, my guy was totally lost and kept looking to me for every answer fired at him. I asked the judge if it would not be easier if I did the talking to save the court time and he asked the barrister if that was okay with him. He agreed. So it can be done.

yes it can be done. I have witnessed it happen in a magistrates court. It may be if noone objects.

[determindator]

Hi Sparkie,

 

You will have thoughts on this already, but will you be in a position to say you have found this to be the tip of the iceberg with Swift, being part of a Consumer Action Group. Does it help to say the problem is endemic? Is that too feisty!!

 

The force is with you tomorrow.

 

Termi

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie,

 

You will have thoughts on this already, but will you be in a position to say you have found this to be the tip of the iceberg with Swift, being part of a Consumer Action Group. Does it help to say the problem is endemic? Is that too feisty!!

 

The force is with you tomorrow.

 

Termi

 

Hi Termi,

 

You are absolutely correct... Don't forget they have about 20.000 agreements out there .......I have a big number of Swifts agreements sent to me by members of CAG and some are more "mickey mouse" than others ...BUT.... there is not one of them that fully comply with The New Consumer Credit Regulations 1983(amended 2004) at least none of the ones I have been sent.............and as I have said before Swift have got away with them because they have not been challenged before and debtors did not have the protection of section 140 of the New Consumer Credit Act..............my friends case is one of the first to use this "unfair relationship"....its outcome will effect all challenges to loan and credit agreements.

 

I'll pass on all the good wishes from CAG members to my mate he's a bit up tight tonight won't even come round for a beer.

 

 

Just for everyones note I can't believe I fed him all the info that he took this barrister on and made him stutter. Top London Chambers

 

 

Barristers recommended in Chambers & Partners (2009 Edition )

Damian Falkowski

"Table newcomer Damian Falkowski, of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, wins acclaim from clients and solicitors for his “skilful debunking of legal jargon” and for approaching cases in a manner that is both “streetwise and very commercial.” 2007 saw Falkowski criss-crossing the country, defending mortgage lenders in ‘penalty’ and consumer credit cases, and advising foreign lenders on setting up shop within the UK".

 

 

 

sparkie

Edited February 23, 2009 by Sparkie1723