care to read this if a Swift customer

[John 1963]

I have to explain that it is an unqualiified view but the information and interpretation is believed to be accurate.

 

 

 

Swift have a revolving account of £400 million with Barclays ( Its like an overdraft).

 

But before Barclays will allow Swift to draw down the funds from this account by way of the cheque they send you the customer, Barclays demand:

1…Your executed credit agreement.

 

 

2…The Legal Charge that Swift Register on your property, and;

 

 

3….The verification of income and Swifts assessment ability to pay back the loan.

 

 

What happens in a behind the scenes there is an agreement deal done and that is, Swift assign the loan and the Title Charge to Barclays……………This is never disclosed it it done under the veil of Corporate Secrecy.

To all outsiders it appears that Swift own the Title Charge…….but this is not true…….they have had to assign it to Barclays.

This is what an Xdraw document is all about, it is a prommisary note between Swift and Barclays

look up what a promissary note is and you will see what is meant

 

 

This is Barclays secret way into the sub Prime Lending market..and it is Barclays that control the Interest Rate by way of the LIBOR Rate which they fixed.

Edited February 10, 2013 by John 1963

[determindator]

Thank you John for your well explained post which I believe is correct. Sometime back I and there must be other borrowers, received a letter from Swift advising to find another lender to repay the loan. It seemed in the writing quite desperate to me. I suspect they got into financial trouble with Barclays borrowing and were under pressure to raise funds. Don't know what happened after that as it died a death and both Swift and Barclays probably worked out they both had much to lose and had to come to some sort of agreement between themselves to save the day. We need more people to get their SDAR's in and come back on here if they have problems with the reply. I know the info they have disclosed to other customers so that info must be available to all.

 

I'm advised some random Building Socy controls my int rate! Probably a connection to Barclays in there somewhere or i've been sold on?! Keep digging everyone, we're getting nearer to the answer. Complain to the FOS and OFT.

 

Swift's lending is unethical, and there's plenty more 2nd charge lenders like them who have done the same. Thank goodness those 'helpful' adverts we used to see on TV regularly have all but gone.

Edited February 10, 2013 by determindator

[John 1963]

When a lender wants to raise cash they engage a legal firm ( these are called Presentors) who draw up the legal documents which they then lodge with companies house....these are called 395 Debentures..........it is these documents that record the legal assignment of securities required by the Bank in question to lend further money on YOUR loan agreement with Swift...........this although not acceptable to us is accepted by the financial world and the law of Finance.

[Mallymoo]

I want to take Swift to Court over the rate of interest they are charging us. We have never been in arrears with them. Could the above information be of any use to us in this respect?

[determindator]

Hopefully others will reply to your question about taking Swift to Court as the bottom line we expect from Swift is, because we can. Reading post three on here shows what at the moment is acceptable in law and this is always the direction of Swift. I believe the best way to go at the moment is compile all your complaints i.e apr never reduces but continues to rise, sold as short term assistance but when you try and repay, an extortionate redemption figure given, unreasonable and unclear charges etc etc and send complaints to the FOS and OFT.There's more for you to add which relates to your personal experience.

[Mallymoo]

Hopefully others will reply to your question about taking Swift to Court as the bottom line we expect from Swift is, because we can. Reading post three on here shows what at the moment is acceptable in law and this is always the direction of Swift. I believe the best way to go at the moment is compile all your complaints i.e apr never reduces but continues to rise, sold as short term assistance but when you try and repay, an extortionate redemption figure given, unreasonable and unclear charges etc etc and send complaints to the FOS and OFT.There's more for you to add which relates to your personal experience.

 

 

 

I've tried the OFT FLA FOS but none of them are interested. It is ridiculous how these people can get away with it and no supposed "authority" iseems to have the power to stop them.

[Cvsc]

 

 

 

I've tried the OFT FLA FOS but none of them are interested. It is ridiculous how these people can get away with it and no supposed "authority" iseems to have the power to stop them.

What was your outcome following your complaint with the FOS? Not sure why you think that the Oft are not interested as they can only accept information not complaints from the general public, this is used to assist there decision to allow a firm to use there credit licence, they cannot act on behalf of the general public! try oft v swift in google and then you will see that there very interested in Swift, just because back ground information is not made public does not mean nothing is happening What association do the FLA have in regards to Swift Advances?

[determindator]

I tried a complaint to the FLA but they confirm that as Swift is not one of their members, they could not assist further. I had a try there as I believe Swift were a member at one time and also wondered if Swift may have shown as a connection to Barclays, listed on page 2 and 3 on FLA list http://www.fla.org.uk/media/members?page=3

[Mallymoo]

What was your outcome following your complaint with the FOS? Not sure why you think that the Oft are not interested as they can only accept information not complaints from the general public, this is used to assist there decision to allow a firm to use there credit licence, they cannot act on behalf of the general public! try oft v swift in google and then you will see that there very interested in Swift, just because back ground information is not made public does not mean nothing is happening What association do the FLA have in regards to Swift Advances?

 

 

 

FOS said they could not help as loan was taken out in 2005. Swift advised us to complain to the FLA as they were members. My local MP went straight to the top of the OFT, but even with her involvement they showed no interest in what Swift were doing. I want to take them to court not because we don't want to or can't pay, we just want a fair rate of interest. Even though we are examplary payers, Swift seem to be hell bent on aggravating us over this. I feel genuinely sorry for anyone having problems paying these people, they treat us badly enough.

[determindator]

 

 

 

FOS said they could not help as loan was taken out in 2005. Swift advised us to complain to the FLA as they were members. My local MP went straight to the top of the OFT, but even with her involvement they showed no interest in what Swift were doing. I want to take them to court not because we don't want to or can't pay, we just want a fair rate of interest. Even though we are examplary payers, Swift seem to be hell bent on aggravating us over this. I feel genuinely sorry for anyone having problems paying these people, they treat us badly enough.

 

Hi M, when did Swift advise you to complain to the FLA please?

[determindator]

Please read this, it's all steps towards the help we need, post 9

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?384484-50-payday-lenders-face-ban-warning-from-OFT

[Mallymoo]

Hi M, when did Swift advise you to complain to the FLA please?

 

 

 

I will have to go through my file but it is a while ago

[CatchtheMonkey]

I do not often post on CAG ..........I used to post as Sparkie and was not liked very much........SWIFT CERTAINLY do not like me in fact I have been classed in Court by hem as "A DIFFICULT BORROWER TO DEAL WITH FROM THE OFFSET" ........however I believe that this post is essential reading for ALL Swift borrowers not the few that are aware of this.........You may take it or leave it but if you doubt the sincerity and accuraccy of this post ..check it out yourself.....this has been sent to the OFT to place in my Personal complaint file and the SWift complaint file in general.

 

All this is in the pubic domain if you care to check.....but more of the general public should also be made aware of it all.

 

I have been in dispute with this lender for some 6 years during this time I challenged their respectability and began my own personal investigation into their Business Operations and Business Plan.

 

I began looking into their audited accounts and by some simple “Sums” I discovered the following discrepancies in the way their whole group have presented their accounts and had them audited by KPMG ( world known accountancy firm).

 

I discovered the following.

The Ultimate parent company of this group of 11 companies is Kestrel Holdings Ltd.

Each year each individual company submits their own yearly accounts to Company House.

The Accounts submitted by Kestrel Holdings is an amalgamation of all the company’s financial accounts.

This set of accounts should tally/match the total of each individual company accounts with of course a small degree of slight error(s).

However with this particular group this “appears” not to be so. These accounts are in the public domain for anyone to check and carry out their own little sums as I have done.

 

Below you will see why I say something serious is wrong with these accounts and I believe it should be brought to the Publics attention in general and the question should be asked how is this allowed to happen?

 

Company House say that it is not their responsibility to check accounts for accuracy only to ensure that they are filed correctly and on time.

 

These findings are my personal findings and are not official ……BUT …anyone can check to see if I am wrong or right I believe I am right in my sums.

 

I believe the public should be made aware of this as the loans that these accounts relate to affect a lot of members of the public who have borrowed money from them.

 

There “ Appears” that fraud is taking place which affects a fairly large section of the public.

 

Kestrel Holdings Ltd Account 2007 to 2008 are the amalgamated accounts of The Two Fully Active Kestrel Companies and Swift 1st Ltd and Swift Advances PLC

Briefly the main run down points are as follows.....this what Kestrel Holdings Ltd Accounts say.

 

New Loans are stated as…………………………£369. Million.

Total Loan Book is stated as…………………….£776. Million

Turn over………………………………………£129.2 Million

 

Wages and Salaries

( does not include Directors fee and emolments)……£5,095.487 Million

DWP Costs…………………………………… £ 528.899

Private Pension Contributions ……………………£ 210.959

 

 

But when each individual Companies accounts on these figures are checked and amalgamated manually as I have done, …….this is what shows up

 

Total New Loans are stated as………………………………………………….£ 662.0 Million

Total Loan Book is stated as……………………………………………............£ 957.5 Million

Turn over………………………………………….£145.5 Million

 

Wages and Salaries……………………………....£5,583.206 Million

DWP Costs……………………………………….........£ 579.708

Private Pension Contributions……………………………£ 230.611

 

Notice the differences in heavy red highlight.

 

There is about 300 Million that is missing in the loan records not accounted for,...... that I have always claimed, these accounts cannot be altered and furthermore every single account after this wouold appear to be false also and KPMG the auditors are as much to blame ….if I can pick it all up so should they …….

 

These are all done by simple basic sums from the figures shown in all their accounts, I have not carried out the analysis on the figures of the previous year(s )..its a lot of headwork .....maybe someone else could check them out, I have taxed my brain enough I think.

 

But I am certain they will be out also.

 

This is my personal post and CAG have no responsibility for its content.

 

CatchtheMonkey

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2013 by CatchtheMonkey

[determindator]

Thank you for your informative post CTM. Let's hope there is an in depth investigation being undertaken and keep the evidence coming.

[CatchtheMonkey]

THank you Determinator.

Just a Few Further facts & Information about the way “Swift” operate.

 

Fact 1

Up to and including the month of October 2010 They used Swift Group Legal Services to conduct legal activities and business “ Outside” their lawful remit under the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

 

Fact 2

One of the solicitors Mr Mathew Payne used and uses TWO different signatures.

One of his signatures is used in correspondence signed by him to borrowers on the headed paper “Swift Group Legal Services”, many thread members will have had these, but he used a different signature when he signed Witness Statements of Truth, and Court Repossession Claim Forms.

This is deception In My Eyes, and my personal opinion.

 

Fact 3

Mr White uses the same method, he also signs letters on behalf of “Swift Advances” using one signature (with his name stated underneath that signature). However he uses another signature when he signs Statements of Truth.

 

Fact 4

Under oath in 2 Court Cases Mr White swore that “Swift” Do Not Pay Commission as “Such” only a documentary fee of £100, in one of these Court cases 2 independent Witness have provided Witness statements wherein they confirm that they heard Mr White Say this under oath.

 

Fact 5.

Under oath again Mr White swore that their agreement rate of interest is governed and linked to the LIBOR rate of interest.

 

Fact 6

Under oath again Mr White admitted and confirmed (and it is recorded in a judgement summary) that the costs of their funding referred to in terms agreement is solely governed by the LIBOR rate of interest.

 

Fact 7.

Since the LIBOR rate scandal Swift have now denied that their interest rate is governed by LIBOR and is not linked to LIBOR or the BOE base rate, or any other Bank base rate.

They now claim they set this themselves.

 

Fact 8.

They used to call their second charge loans …Mortgages, exempt from regulation by way of Section 16 of the CCA 1974, but now because I discovered that they did not hold the necessary Certificate issued by the Secretary of State.

 

 

They now call them “ secured” loans exempt …not by way of section 16 of the CCA….but by way of section 8 (2) of the CCA. But by claiming this…… it makes ( in my opinion ) these loans regulated by way of Section 8 ( 1) and coud be strongly argued it is a MONEY Lenders agreement.It is a personal loan for any amount

 

This last paragraph is not a Fact as are the others but is my opinion and not to be taken as a legal opinion I am not qualified to give a legal opinion

Edited April 14, 2013 by CatchtheMonkey