Swift advances plc

[Amethyst]

Re: Swift advances plc

Well the UTCCR is not about credit at all, it's consumer contracts NOT consumer credit contracts.

4. (1) These Regulations apply in relation to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer.



http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...ed/explained/#


I know it's a small point but it bugged me.

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

Indeed but of course a consumer credit agreement is a consumer contract of course, just that the "goods being sold" is the credit .

There are many cases where the UTCCs have been used on unregulated and exempt agreements, some times successfully some times not.

[Amethyst]

Re: Swift advances plc

I put everything in front of him manipulation of our joint truly declared income income by Swift upwards by £3,000 and McConnells admittance they did ......Judge just said whats that got to do with it .....that would be considered a mistake ........."that is not your problem Mr G that is Swifts problem". Lending you money without checking you could afford it doesn't mean you do not have to pay it back.
When I get the transcript I'll be able to post exactly what he said and exactly what I said....I am only relying on my memory.....but as it is less than 24 hrs ago I've 99% accurate recollection.
Gave him the OFT guidance on irresponsible lending.........his answer that is only guidance Mr G it is not law and therfore I do not have to accept it.
Sparkie

May I just say that your Judge sounds like a right To$$er.

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

I don't take offence except that the judge explained that the UTCCC's are about consumer credit contracts and as it is not a consumer credit contract they do not and will not apply and emphasised..........." I am not wrong" .....meaning he was not wrong...your saying he is ......but then I'm refused permission to appeal and any claim I could think of making would go before him.
You tell me how I can prove you right and him wrong.
Sparkie

Was the judge referring to the enforcement of the agreement or of the charge ? The charge would be enforceable via the deed.

[Amethyst]

Re: Swift advances plc

But if the charge is for X amount but variable based on charges/interest etc added under the terms of the contract and said contract was deemed unfair under UTCCR wouldn't that affect the deed?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

That is my BIG problem Amehyst ......any application or claim I make MUST be placed before him a UTCCC claim would go before him and I doubt very much that he would entertain that also, so you see what I'm up against.
He would not admit he was previously wrong.
Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

Was the judge referring to the enforcement of the agreement or of the charge ? The charge would be enforceable via the deed.

Both andy because the deed is security for the loan....The only answer to it all from what I can see is recission.........but how I could achieve that I haven't got a clue.....and I can't be sure that the B/H case is not in his mind in that pt has challenged his ruling on that and has sucessfully got our appeal on the go.....he asked about it and said that was a couple of weeks ago Mr G how has that gone......I just said its been delayed untill October or thereabouts.......so he's keeping his eye on that very closely.........one doesn't know how these peoples minds work.
Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

But if the charge is for X amount but variable based on charges/interest etc added under the terms of the contract and said contract was deemed unfair under UTCCR wouldn't that affect the deed?

Refermg to the legal charge on the property this can be enforced under the LOPA,

[Fred]

Re: Swift advances plc

That is my BIG problem Amehyst ......any application or claim I make MUST be placed before him a UTCCC claim would go before him and I doubt very much that he would entertain that also, so you see what I'm up against.
He would not admit he was previously wrong.
Sparkie

Am absolutely gutted for you sparks as for the Judge say no more. This is going to push me even more now its a disgrace going back to the "dark ages" Rumplestiltskin prevails again.........no wonder the FCA want 3+ years consultation before adding these loans to the mortgage market regs in line with the EU

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

Both andy because the deed is security for the loan....The only answer to it all from what I can see is recission.........but how I could achieve that I haven't got a clue.....and I can't be sure that the B/H case is not in his mind in that pt has challenged his ruling on that and has sucessfully got our appeal on the go.....he asked about it and said that was a couple of weeks ago Mr G how has that gone......I just said its been delayed untill October or thereabouts.......so he's keeping his eye on that very closely.........one doesn't know how these peoples minds work.
Sparkie

The problem is that under regulated agreement the security cannot be enforced without an order , in other words the agreement has to be breached before the charge can be realized, tis may not be the case in an unregulated loan, if this is a charge by way of mortgage then the security can be enforce under section 103 of the LOPA (I think) once three payment have been missed, there is no agreement to stop them doing this.

[meellis]

Re: Swift advances plc

It isn't great news but also doesn't make logical sense, it might make legal sense. When you miss payments you have broken the terms of the agreement hence why a possession order can be sought. If the consumer has no protection that implies to me that the agreement is one sided because you have nothing that keeps them to there side of the agreement, if they break it how can you make them honour it? I also was on the understanding that that was the reason for all agreements from 2006 and existing agreements being brought under unfair relationship with the limit being raised in 2008. No dig Andy but as per usual we are back to this mortgage word, Sparkie was told it wasn't a mortgage and in post 25 you say that if the charge is by way of a mortgage there is no agreement to stop them. This is why I have always had a problem with the word mortgage because these agreements always come back to this word yet there seems to be a difference of opinion and no firm evidence that constitutes this as a mortgage, even this judge didn't think it was.

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

It isn't great news but also doesn't make logical sense, it might make legal sense. When you miss payments you have broken the terms of the agreement hence why a possession order can be sought. If the consumer has no protection that implies to me that the agreement is one sided because you have nothing that keeps them to there side of the agreement, if they break it how can you make them honour it? I also was on the understanding that that was the reason for all agreements from 2006 and existing agreements being brought under unfair relationship with the limit being raised in 2008. No dig Andy but as per usual we are back to this mortgage word, Sparkie was told it wasn't a mortgage and in post 25 you say that if the charge is by way of a mortgage there is no agreement to stop them. This is why I have always had a problem with the word mortgage because these agreements always come back to this word yet there seems to be a difference of opinion and no firm evidence that constitutes this as a mortgage, even this judge didn't think it was.

All charges registered under the LRA are considered to be a charge by way of mortgage unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

It is just the way that it works. The word charge and mortgage are very much interchangeable nowadays, since the abolition of mortgages by demise.

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

When the judge said that sparkie did mot have a mortgage I suspect he meant first mortgage, if this was the case it would have come under the remit of the FSA and been regulated.

[meellis]

Re: Swift advances plc

The way Sparkie has posted the judges opinion makes you feel like any of these agreements, not just Swift, could be interpreted as you stick to the agreement but we (the company) don't have to. The agreement says for instance that they will inform 14 days before raising the interest but if they decided to just raise the interest without informing you what can you do? Just doesn't make any sense, I can understand limited protection but what if you paid all of your agreement on time with no problems but they decided to put charges on in the end what can you do.

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

The way Sparkie has posted the judges opinion makes you feel like any of these agreements, not just Swift, could be interpreted as you stick to the agreement but we (the company) don't have to. The agreement says for instance that they will inform 14 days before raising the interest but if they decided to just raise the interest without informing you what can you do? Just doesn't make any sense, I can understand limited protection but what if you paid all of your agreement on time with no problems but they decided to put charges on in the end what can you do.

Indeed and i suspect the remark about being able to bend the law was a reference to that, unfortunately these agreements were pretty much a black hole as far as consumer protection is concerned.