Swift advances plc

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

What's the sanction for telling lies on a court form is probably more pertinent.

M1

Is it ?
Contempt of court, should the judge agree of course. Is this going to be helpful ?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

What is the sanction for breaking this rule ?

Hi andy,
Actually it is up to the SRA to apply sanctions.( if any) and they do have sweeping powers if necessary.......but the usual thing they do is that they have "a word!!??" with the offender to take steps to rectify the problem and no more is done if they do rectify the matter..........the steps SGLS took was not to conduct any more "reserved business" ie litigation.
I would say ( of course) that what Mathew Payne did on N244 Court applications was.. (I know I harp on about this) was Fraud by misrepresentation.
But as I reported what I could remeber from what happened on Tues the Judge took no notice and you will see I did point it out about SGLS and their actions........when I get the transcript .which I've been told I should get it in about 15 days time.

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift advances plc

Hi andy,
Actually it is up to the SRA to apply sanctions.( if any) and they dod have sweeping powers if necessary.......but the usual response is that they have "a word!!??" with the offender to take steps to rectify the problem and no more is done....the steps SGLS took was not to conduct any more "reserved business" ie litigation.
I would say that what Mathew Payne did on N244 Court applications was.. (I know I harp on about this) was Fraud by misrepresentation.
ut as you see from what happened on Tues the Judge took no notice and you will se I did mention it ...when I get the transcript .which I've been told I should get it in about 15 days time.

Sparkie

Not trying to be awkward or belittle the hard work being put in here just wondering if there is any practical application, where this could be used to help your case. Did these transgressions prejudice you in any way, did the transgression effect the validity of the charge/agreement or constitute unfair treatment for instance .

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

What SGLS did over in N.Ireland was ...They wrote to Solicitors Firms over there (and I have copies of some of these letters) saying ..." We act for our client Swift Advances or Swift 1st which ever etc etc we wish to instruct you in the proceedings against XYZ.
These solicitors then without checking SGLS out took on the claims and instructed Barristers to act in the claim.
I actually wrote to one of these soicitors and put them in the picture and again .....soon after they no longer took instructions from SGLS who then contacted other solictors firms over there in the same manner.
So you see They got away with it all over there too.
Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

Not trying to be awkward or belittle the hard work being put in here just wondering if there is any practical application, where this could be used to help your case. Did these transgressions prejudice you in any way, did the transgression effect the validity of the charge/agreement or constitute unfair treatment for instance .

I understand what you are saying andy .....I would say that this should be considered fraud by misrepresentation and if accepted would nullify every Court Order and hearing from day 1...and may I say every other repossession case obtained by the use of SGLS filing Court claims
As per this case law.
But I would need Counsel advice on this and we just can't afford that.this is why I fight on, on my own.
I would also say this would apply.

In the early case of Holman v Johnson^[2] Lord Mansfield CJ set out the rationale for the illegality doctrine.

“

The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both were equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

Just rang the Chester Court..They have received my tape transcript request I sent by e-mail and its been printed off and will be processed and sent to the transcibers today who have told me that they will get on to it asoon as they receive it...so I might get it quicker than I thought.
Sparkie

[pt2537]

Re: Swift advances plc

Just rang the Chester Court..They have received my tape transcript request I sent by e-mail and its been printed off and will be processed and sent to the transcibers today who have told me that they will get on to it asoon as they receive it...so I might get it quicker than I thought.
Sparkie

have you enquired about the fee sparks?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

have you enquired about the fee sparks?

Morning pt..I have been told by the transcibers that the fee should be no more than £150 plus Vat.....M's Daughter has said she will find that and pay for it
Oh forgot when I mentioned we wre on Pension credit they said if it is more than their estimate they will give us some discount to ensure that it will be around that figure , which I thought was real generous of them.....there are some other good people as well as yourself and a certain Barrister we know.
Thank you

Sparkie

[Amethyst]

Re: Swift advances plc

Morning pt..I have been told by the transcibers that the fee should be no more than £150 plus Vat.....M's Daughter has said she will find that and pay for it.

Sparkie

That sounds very cheap.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

I am sure that when I get the transcript it will show the ambigous statements made by Judge H ...at one point he said ...the proceedings of this case are surely ended aren't they? ...Swifts Barrister said ...That is our view your Honour...Judge H then said ....but then they can't be.... because if Mr G stopped paying you would apply for a warrant wouldn't you?.... No answer from the Barrister.

On a side note ...did anyone watch the House of Lords last night and catch what Lord Woolf said about keeping the publics respect for justice and the rule of Law......I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

That sounds very cheap.

It was only an hrs hearing Amethyst

[Amethyst]

Re: Swift advances plc

It was only an hrs hearing Amethyst

Ahhh yes as he wanted to get home for his tea....

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

My single cell brain has been working overtime............Lets say that what Judge H said that our loan is not a mortgage and is not a consumer credit loan agreement ( because it is over the £25,000 consumer credit Act 1974) and as he could not tell me what type of agreement it was....is correct.......How would this argument sit.
Every Swift borrower with a loan over £25,000 never asked to more than the amount they applied for...........That was the loan limit they applied for in our case it ws £43,000, in meelis's case it was £67,000, in A1's case it was £64,000 ( I think or thereabouts) he will know the exact amount.
To our loan Swift added £3,955, fees chages etc
To meellis's loan they added £2,460 fees charges etc
To A1's they added £3,000 or so fees and charges
Their agreements state that they will ALSO lend you the above mentioned fees and charges.
I think that as the agreement isn't a mortgage or a consumer credit loan...these MUST be as stated loans but they are "extra separate" loans and not part of the loan we applied for. The main loan, which at present we do not know what it is


This would bring these other loans under the remit of the CCA act, making them regulated loans......the main loan would still be an "unknown item/contract/agreement what ever!
Under the circumstances they Cannot be considered as Charges for credit their is no legislation that covers things like this Judge H said so.
The phrase " Charges for Credit" derives from the Consumer Credit Act the case law about this only ruled on consumer credit agreements..our agreements are not consumer credit agreement
There is no mention on the agreement that says they are but refers to them as loans..so they must be loans as I have said above.
Judge H is wrong........ they are covered by the Misrepresentaion Act and the New Fraud Act.

By not telling us in the beginning that these agreements are not covered by any Consumer Protection law or statute is IMO Fraud by Ommission ....not telling us was a specific deliberate ommission made for their massive advantage and our loss and detriment....if one pary knows something about a contract the other party doesn't it can be voidable by this misrepresentaion, so I believe....... and there is a lot of case law about this....it could also be considered delberate deception.

Furthermore I have judgements and Judges recording that all the way through the many hearings about our case. Mark White used the Consumer Credit Regulations.....they are mentioned by the recorder one instance and These are his exact words over the issue and my argument that the total loan should be shown on the agreement taken from our unfair relationship claim in Dec 2009, which of course we lost.
" Mr White suggested that regulations deny a creditor the option of adding up all the information into one box, ther being no faclity to do so"

White then exhibits sample agreements of other lenders ....BUT they were samples of REGULATED agreements.We all know about these and the charges for credit are shown separately and case law ruled they were not part of the amount of credit....in REGULATED loans.
When this has been read by a few people ...I'm going to post elsewere what I'm goig to do about Sandra Bailey the Swift employee who signed the application to the L/R posing as Swifts conveyancer/solicitor.

Finally at the hearing last Tues I raised the issue of Fraud AGAIN ....judge H said " Fraud has not been pleaded at any time in this case".....I've just checked Skeleton Arguments, hearing and Judgement transcripts......and it is pleaded many many times..... .it was just washed over .......by Judge Newman.........and...... Judge Halbert himself ...I'm sorry but this shows Judge H. never read one tenth of what I put in my arguments and pleadings.
If any one wants to see these in black & white I can post them if asked to
Sparkie

[LEGALLABS]

Re: Swift advances plc

This is not correct you can appeal this decision. Secured loans over £25,000 are covered by the law. I can provide copies of judgements if you need help. You have a month to appeal in a higher court.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift advances plc

This is not correct you can appeal this decision. Secured loans over £25,000 are covered by the law. I can provide copies of judgements if you need help. You have a month to appeal in a higher court.

THank you LEGALLABS,...... I am aware that there is a route for an appeal ....it is my understanding that I have to make an application to the Court for permission to appeal to the High Court and a single Judge who will decide if permission should be granted........I have to wait for copy of the Judgemen Order to do that........JUdge Halbert on the day told me that the application would go before him....and hinted what he would recommend to the High Court once he had the application in front of him...................also as I have found it takes legal brains to put the grounds for permission to appeal together....and that is what thing I haven't got ........the legal brain to put grounds for an appeal in the proper context..........I only have a " single cell" logical brain.........The court fee cost of the application I can have paid by the Court fee remission rules........but don't have the funds to instruct a solicitor to put the grounds together for us.......We are 77 year old pensioners on pension credit as most members of L/B know well.....that's how we qualify for fee remission.

Sparkie