Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k custs

[andrew1]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

I have posted a similar post over the road, but I wonder what people think about this whilst on the subject of alleged bogus solicitor 'firms'?:

Questions for you. This is not about Wonga, but it is about the possibility of what I personally perceive as the possibility of these being a 'rogue solicitor'.

These are my own thoughts and I am not accusing Swift Advances plc as yet, of any wrongdoing, I am just investigating the possibility:

Swift Advances plc-a sub-prime lender, originally had an in-house solicitor who traded under his own name J.W.Godfrey & Co and for that he used his Practicing Certificate and charged fees just like any solicitor might have done to Swift who then passed the cost of any litigation to the account holder. No problem with that thus far all be it we often saw on documents a Swift Advances plc 'employee' signing on their behalf which we don't need to go into at this stage.

In 2008 account holders were advised of a change of solicitor to Swift Group Legal Services.

Swift Group Legal Services were a made-up name by Swift Advances plc although J.W.Godfrey's Assistant solicitor leftr and began running this new operation. It was a so called ' In-house' solicitor.

The entry at the Law Society states that Swift Group Legal Services were the 'employer' of a number of solicitors (important point that) who undertook this legal work 'in-house' despite it being a made-up trading name effectively of Swift Advances plc - or a desk in Swift's offices with a 'department name' to you and me.

Swift Advances plc also had a 'department' which it called Eastern Counselling department' which again we established was a made-up name, with its own headed notepaper which was sent out to account holders when they defaulted and Swift added £250 a shot to debtors accounts for the pleasure. Eastern Counselling was NOT on their CCA Licence as a trading style, a criminial offence according to the CCA and the OFT - (who of course did nothing when told in 2007,8, 9 and 10)

Each solicitor was registered at the Law Society with their own membership number etc and were either referred to as 'Solicitor' or 'trainee' solicitor. One solicitor even referred to himself as a 'Partner' when invoicing charges as a fee.

On legal applications to the Courts in their repossession claims, forms were submitted and the Claimant was referred to as Swift Advances plc (or Swift 1st Ltd, their sister company handling 1st Mortgages) and the solicitor acting for them 'Swift Group Legal Services' and they referred to the Claimant as 'their client'.

Go back to the beginning and remember, Swift Group Legal Services was but a 'department' of Swift Advances plc and a made up name. The solicitors as far as we know were under employment contract of Swift Advances plc and not like Godfrey who had his own Self employed Practice.

Moving on to invoices and legal charges applied to the defendants (us) account and charged interest on at Contractual rates, these were applied at normal outside Solicitor rates including one for a 'Partner' who apparently reviewed our file: Sounds like a firm doesn't it?

Swift Group Legal Services we are told, were not a Recognised Body by the SRA, but they were registered as the 'employer' on their register. Swift Advances plc are not a Recognised body either.

Swift Group Legal Services were a department and a 'Department' cannot be an 'Employer'. Yes the solicitors have Practicing Certificates, but these are not working as self employed solicitors, they are acting as employees of Swift Advances plc but implying on the SRA register and on forms presented to court that they are employed by Swift Group Legal Services.

Letters chasing money came out from Swift Advances (an unlicenced trading style until Nov 2010) - not Swift Advances plc. including default Notices (although the one in the court bundle is a copy (a true copy of course) but says 'Swift Advances plc' across the top for the Judge! then Swift Group Legal Services begin using their own headed notepaper (again not on Swift Advances plc's CCA licence as a trading style) and the same Wonga and DCA techniques are used to pressure for payment or it goes into litigation.

So,

1) Should Swift Group Legal Services be described on court documents as 'solicitors acting for their 'client' Swift Advances plc and applying to the court as the Solicitors for their client?

2) Should these solicitors be charging mainstream solicitor 'Fee' rates and adding this to our loan accounts which are attracting interest at Contractural rates when they are neither a 'firm' or a Recognised Body in accordance with the SRA Rules?

3) Should these solicitors be instructing Counsel on behalf of Swift Group Legal Services (Barristers fee invoices are made out to Swift Group Legal Services and VAT Added)?

4) Should Swift Advances plc have on their CCA licence a Category for debt collection (they didn't) when collecting under this Swift Group Legal Services name? (Swift Advances plc can collect their own debt in their own name, but use another name?...I don't think so)

5) Should Swift Group Legal Services be on the CCA Licence as a trading style?

In fairness to Swift (I owe them no courtesies), they have responded to previous enquiries denying any wrongdoing and outlining that all solicitors have Practicing Certificates - but they do that even when they are in the wrong so sadly I cannot take what they tell me as the truth. That's why I'm asking here.

In Summary:
With this situation one has to think 'outside the box'...the devil is in the detail and if one were to check every single step taken by these people, understand exactly how it is set up and what they are entitled to do in accordance to both their own Codes of Conduct and the SRA Rules & Regs and go forensic, you might then begin to understand what I am driving at. Never assume anything when it comes to Swift, if you immediately say "well they can do that because"......then that's the part you should check and double check.

Then you may be able to answer my questions.. Thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still think this is wrong. What SGLS did when they set this up was IMO wrong, just like their trading styles issue which the OFT should have taken issue with, but this was no different from Wonga other than the fact Matthew Payne, the old Godfrey solicitor set it up - he just did it all wrong....and can't see how.

a1

[PAWS]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Oh boy Andrew, That stinks to high heaven. I do not know anything about the legal implications but that seems very, very dirty to me. Hopefully one of the intelligent bods will be along in a moment to give an informed opinion.

[Nibbler]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

[EXC]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Nice one Nibbler.

I wonder if the police want them to widen their enquiries? http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/ne...statement.aspx

[EXC]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Well, nothing mentioned at prime ministers question time today regarding the Wonga and student loan scandals. Perhaps this is because although the current gang sold off the student loans, Labour were in the driving seat when the SLC ‘fake letters’ were sent out.

''Unfortunate news comes in from Westminster Wonga watchers.

I hear that attempts by MPs to demand parliamentary scrutiny of the Wonga fake legal letter scam have been kiboshed by the parliamentary clerks because of the City of London Police’s decision to U-turn on its earlier decision not to consider a criminal investigation.
Certain MPs have been told specific questions about the scandal – particularly about potential illegality – are inadmissible due to the potential police interest.

As a result, the more angry, or maybe just plain curious, MPs taking an interest have had to table peculiarly torturously phrased questions not mentioning the Wonga scandal by name but clearly referring to it.

So we get Paul Flynn, MP, asking if the Chancellor will bring forward legislation allowing the Financial Conduct Authority to stage its own investigations into “alleged illegal actions undertaken before its creation”. This is clearly an oblique reference to the fact that Wonga got off lightly because the FCA was only allowed to deploy the limited punishments available to the loan company’s deceased regulator the Office of Fair Trading.

Such questions may produce some useful answers: they may not.

But the particular events at Wonga need more forensic, and public, challenging. Were directors aware of the scam? Which members of staff were? Are steps being taken to prevent those involved working in consumer lending again? How much effort has been made to find an alternative way of levying a proper fine on the company? Ditto to finding a legal means of forcing the publication of a full report on the investigation.

Meanwhile, it appears the Wonga practice of inventing debt recovery companies is not unique. The Government’s own Student Loans Company (SLC) was sending out letters to cash-strapped customers under the inventively named Smith Lawson & Company Recovery Services (“SLC”, geddit?) and has been doing so for years.

All the more reason for detailed questioning either in court or in Parliament.

But I’m not convinced this will ever happen. It’s not unlikely that, in a few months, the plods will quietly decide they’re not going to take the matter any further (they’ve already done this twice so far), politicians will have moved on to the pre-election razzmatazz, and the whole affair will quietly disappear. No awkward questions for ministers, no trials of the wrongdoers and no details of the scandal to be published by the regulator.

Consumer credit is certainly not disappearing any time soon. Surely that makes it more vital than ever that senior people involved are questioned rigorously in public.''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...a-9580585.html

[andrew1]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Why am I not surprised?

[meellis]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

For that reason we need to find a way to keep it in the spotlight.

[Amethyst]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Paul Lewis is having a good go

Andrew - those Swift letters - maybe start a new thread concentrating just on that position and send copies of the letters to Paul Lewis so his team can investigate as well.

[meellis]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Well Paul Lewis was on bbc breakfast telly talking about Student loans and mentioned others so with encouragement he might see it through.

[PAWS]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

If my MP thinks he is not going to hear any more about this he is wrong –especially if he comes weaselling up to my door next June asking for support!
If the directors of Wonga and all the other crooks out there were hauled up over breaking the law then naturally someone at the Student Loan Company would have to answer a few questions.
When is a crime not a crime? When debtors are taken to court without the lender producing the required documents the ‘out of touch’ judge will usually find for the claimant. OLs and DCAs regularly ignore legitimate requests for documents, consistently break lending regulations and the CC act but still the debtor is punished. They harass bully and intimidate the debtor which apparently is against the law. Now we find they can also impersonate a solicitor.
The debtor borrows money in good faith and due to circumstances beyond his control cannot pay it all back in the time demanded.He gets threatened, terrorised and then publicly humiliated in court, a blackmark against his name for six years and may lose his possessions, his job and often his mind.
Enough is enough! I have got to think of something even if it is a futile protest.

[andrew1]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

If my MP thinks he is not going to hear any more about this he is wrong –especially if he comes weaselling up to my door next June asking for support!
If the directors of Wonga and all the other crooks out there were hauled up over breaking the law then naturally someone at the Student Loan Company would have to answer a few questions.
When is a crime not a crime? When debtors are taken to court without the lender producing the required documents the ‘out of touch’ judge will usually find for the claimant. OLs and DCAs regularly ignore legitimate requests for documents, consistently break lending regulations and the CC act but still the debtor is punished. They harass bully and intimidate the debtor which apparently is against the law. Now we find they can also impersonate a solicitor.
The debtor borrows money in good faith and due to circumstances beyond his control cannot pay it all back in the time demanded.He gets threatened, terrorised and then publicly humiliated in court, a blackmark against his name for six years and may lose his possessions, his job and often his mind.
Enough is enough! I have got to think of something even if it is a futile protest.

The thing about this PAWS is pretty straight forward and an argument I used against Cabot and other DCA's when their turn to be in the spotlight arose. That being:

If they want to use the laws to enforce agreements, then they have to abide by the same laws.

I could never get my head around the fact that a DCA/creditor can go into court having not filed proper Default Notices, having no agreement documents, supplying only a copy of an 'application form' and having not supplied proper Terms and Conditions (often the case with credit cards sold in shopping malls), then getting a judgement in their favour just because the judge could not understand the CCA or the laws there to protect us.

It took specialist solicitors like PT who has intimate knowledge of the CCA to convince a Judge and that should not have been the case.

I worked for 30 yrs in and around the credit industry and these companies are full of so called 'credit professionals' who know the law intimately, yet they still pursue debt on the basis of 'you borrowed so you pay it back' principle. Whilst subscribing to that moral, I do not subscribe to litigation taking place when the creditor has shirked on their duty to make sure the consumer gets the protections afforded them of the CCA. They should not be allowed to just rely upon a moral. Likewise, debtors should not just rely upon a technicality to get-off paying, there's a balance.

However, when enforcement begins and the 'heavies' arrive, that's the time to bring out the facts to obtain the level playing field. Try to enforce and you'd better get those Facts spot-on.

A Judge once said to me when I made a counter-claim against an action posed by a bank which seemed 'hefty' that "we are not here to judge the morals Mr A1, we are here to judge the facts" . I work with facts whilst respecting the morals, if the facts show I am right and they are wrong then the facts should prevail.

There is no level playing field and there are far too many 'interested parties' sitting in places of influence pulling strings who need flushing out.

A1

ps. Amethyst, I'll try and get this thread on Swift going, but I have very limited scope these days of raising big issues on Swift and spending much time following them up due to the fact my wife suffered serious overload health wise of my taking them on and having to pay £157,000 on top of the 62k I'd already paid for a 60k loan to pay them off.....I can do so much, but I might need others to push this through....I have the evidence which I'm happy to provide.

Back soon

A1

[PAWS]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Wish I could thank you twice Andrew!

[Celestine]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

Just a thought I've been discussing with PT2537 this morning......

On many litigation cases we refer to and defend using s.140 CCA 'Unfair Relationship'. Principally thanks to PTs work, s.140 can be used in various circumstances such as excessive phone contact etc.
I'm now pondering the possibility of raising arguments under s.140 where the debtor has been harassed by these 'fake' DCA recovery companies leading consumers to believe they are getting letters from solicitors firms??

[Guest]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

I think it would be a good idea and perhaps one that could be rolled out to apply in other similar scenarios if successful.

Perhaps an dedicated thread ?

The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—

(a)

any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;

(b)

the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;

(c)

any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

(2)

In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor).

(3)

For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor.

(4)

A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended.

(5)

An order under section 140B shall not be made in connection with a credit agreement which is an exempt agreement by virtue of section 16(6C).]

[meellis]

Re: Wonga to pay redress for unfair debt collection practices – FCA - £2.6m to 45k cu

It's strange but in my original court bundle on my repo hearing I placed a claim that there had been many forms of misrepresentation in my case and I claimed that was unfair under b&c above. One of the things I had put in was a letter from the same people A1 is on about, I also included that the broker asked for permission to register a charge under their company name but the charge was subsequently registered under the lenders name. Unfortunately the judge did not want to review my bundle or except any comments from me all I got was I have 5 minutes to deal with this, can you, will you pay, I don't think you can so they can have possession.