Swift Group are their actions legal

[teli]

hi i am wanting to know if anyone has had any dealings with swift advances,

back in 2007 i took out a secured loan of £27000.

i paid £330 per month until now and as far as i am aware ive paid off approx £14000.

i phoned them to tell them i was struggling this month and asked them if they could reduce payments for a couple of months which they agreed, the amount was £330 i offered £100 for next 3 months, this then put me behind by £690, but they have advised me that the £660 will end up costing me £4500 over the duration of the loan.

i also asked for a redemption figure and it was £37000, £10000 more than i borrowed & i had paid £14000 off,

is this legal, and is there anything i can do about this as i am about to let this company take my home,

i am not behind on my £20000 main mortgage with abbey so this is what is making me nearly not do it although my house probably is only worth £55000.

please any advice on what i can or should do.

[teli]

maybe i posted this in wrong place?

[maroondevo52]

maybe i posted this in wrong place?

 

Hi, teli.

 

There is a Swift Forum, I'll shift this thread there.

[teli]

thx

[teli]

Bump

[Ell-enn]

Hi, when you say you are about to let them take your house - have you had notification of court proceedings for possession ?

[ryde]

Fellow sufferers I have no doubt youre aware of this but could anyone please post up the Swift tarrif of charges which led to this fine,we have exactly the same problems with Capstone that was now renamed Acenden and if the charges are comparable we have a strong and precedental case with the FSA and the OFT as to why this oufit has completely escaped any sort of punishment for crimes of an identical nature.

Anyway great news for you,hope swift don't drag their feet refunding that which was never really theirs in the first place(don't forget to claim interest as well!)

 

Swift 1st Limited fined over mortgage arrears failings and will pay an estimated £2.35 million in customer redress

 

Tracey McDermott

 

Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly.

 

 

 

FSA/PN/079/2011

08 September 2011

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Essex based mortgage lender Swift 1st Limited (Swift) £630,000 for unfair treatment of some customers facing mortgage arrears.

The firm has also agreed to carry out a programme to provide redress to customers who were in arrears, and who were charged certain arrears fees and charges that were excessive. Swift will also provide redress to customers who redeemed their mortgages early where it miscalculated the interest on the redemption balance. It is estimated that the total cost of the redress to customers will be approximately £2.35 million.

The FSA has identified a number of serious failings by Swift which occurred between June 2007 and July 2009 in relation to its arrears fees and charges, and in its dealings with customers in arrears.

These include:

 

• Swift applied certain charges to its customers’ accounts that were in arrears which were excessive in that they did not reflect a reasonable estimate of the cost of administering an account in arrears.
  

These were:

 

• Arrears management fee: a monthly management fee applied to a customer in arrears;
  
• Default notice fee: a default fee applied when a customer’s account fell into arrears;
  
• Unpaid mortgage payment fee: applied when a cheque, direct debit or standing order was not honoured by a customer’s bank; and
  
• Litigation fees: fees applied to customers’ accounts when Swift started legal proceedings.
  

In addition:

 

• Swift applied excessive early repayment charges to the redemption figures of customers who were, or had been, in arrears;
  
• Swift failed to send all its customers in arrears certain prescribed documents, providing information on the options available to them;
  
• Swift focussed on the collection of arrears without always proactively engaging with customers to establish an appropriate “Arrangement To Pay” based on their individual circumstances; and
  
• Swift also failed to have adequate systems and controls in place to deal with early redemptions which resulted in some customers who redeemed their mortgages overpaying.
  

The FSA considers that Swift’s failings are serious as under FSA rules, a firm must consider the interests of its customers and ensure that they are treated fairly. Swift’s failings continued over a significant period of time and impacted about 2,500 customers. As Swift specialised in the sub-prime sector, a number of customers who already had an adverse credit status were put at further risk of financial detriment.

Tracey McDermott, acting director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

“Firms must ensure they treat their customers fairly. Many of Swift’s customers were already in a vulnerable position, having fallen into arrears on their mortgage payments, and they could ill afford excessive and unfair fees. The FSA will take robust action to ensure not only that firms are fined for such failings but also that they identify and compensate customers who have been disadvantaged. The costs of doing so are often much more than the fine.”

Swift reported its failings in relation to early repayment charges and redemption balances to the FSA.

Swift also agreed to settle at an early stage and therefore qualified for a 30% reduction in penalty. Were it not for this discount the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £900,000.

Notes to Editors

 

 

1. Read the Final Notice for Swift 1st Limited.
   
2. Swift is the fifth lender referred to enforcement following the FSA’s thematic project on mortgage arrears handling. Final notices were also given for GMAC-RFC, Kensington Mortgages, Redstone Mortgages Limited and DB Mortgages.
   
3. In June 2009, the FSA published the results of a review which found continued weaknesses in the way specialist lending firms were handling mortgage arrears and repossessions.
   
4. In July 2010, the FSA published proposals to establish stronger standards for responsible lending in the mortgage market and to provide extra protection for vulnerable consumers. Consultation on these proposals closed in November 2010.
   
5. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.
   

[teli]

soounds all good, does this mean i should apply action to take them to court for unfair fees etc?

[teli]

no i havent i offerred them reduced payments as i didnt want any further action.