Swift Advances Plc?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hmm,
Not so sure, seems to me that there was a reason why parliament decided there should be a limit on a single cca loan, even though they seem to have changed their mind.

really isnt t up to the creditor to decide how he lends his money, if he does not want to provide that option why should he have to? You can always take your business elswhere.

There is no law or regulation that says he has to split the loan in order for it to be regulated, in fact i would say that this would defeat the spirit of the statutory requirment.
Peter

Hi Peter,

I think you misunderstood ....... it would not be a single loan agreement it would be two or three.........I agree totally there is no law that says a creditor must do this ....it is the fact that he "COULD" do it....that is if he wanted to be fair and transparent the option is there that allows a sum over the limit of a CCA loan.

Lets cut it down a little ......if one would like to borrow £28,000 .....it could be done many ways to suit both borrwer and lender
1 Loan for 25K over 72 months or what ever
1 loan for 3K over 36 months over what ever.
That is to say total money borrowed £28K
But proteced by regulation

Thats the view of the OFT only obtained in the last few day on this particular question and scenario of loans pre April 2008.......only passing the info on.......it was available to do it this way without contravention of any statute


Sparkie

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

THe owner is whom it is registered to on the land registry which is you/us...in any event Swift Advancs plc state quite clearly that they can lend money secured on your property even if the first charge mortgagee does not give their consent.

There would not be any added costs to the lender because the borrower allways has to pay these.......the borrower should still be given the choice if he wants to go that way and pay the extra costs.

Sparkie
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Off subject are there any other "Swift" Borrowers (I use the word "Swift" because it includes Swift 1st ltd's borrowers also) who's Broker was Promise Finance Ltd ..now gone bust...........I may have some news and info that couold make them happy

Can Questions be asked on the other forums for me ....it is of great imortance and benefit to all who they were brokers for.
they should contact me.

Sparkie

Hmm,
Not so sure, seems to me that there was a reason why parliament decided there should be a limit on a single cca loan, even though they seem to have changed their mind.

really isnt t up to the creditor to decide how he lends his money, if he does not want to provide that option why should he have to? You can always take your business elswhere.

There is no law or regulation that says he has to split the loan in order for it to be regulated, in fact i would say that this would defeat the spirit of the statutory requirment.
Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Yes they could, playing devils advocate, i suppose they would say that this would mean added costs to the lender. Three sets of arrangment fees, land registery fees?. Also i am not sure how the creditor would feel about having to enforce three sepperate agreements in the event of default. After all at the end of the day the owner of the property,and/or of the first mortgagee has to approve any arrangement.

Peter

THe owner is whom it is registered to on the land registry which is you/us...in any event Swift Advancs plc state quite clearly that they can lend money secured on your property even if the first charge mortgagee does not give their consent.

There would not be any added costs to the lender because the borrower allways has to pay these.......the borrower should still be given the choice if he wants to go that way and pay the extra costs.

Sparkie
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Off subject are there any other "Swift" Borrowers (I use the word "Swift" because it includes Swift 1st ltd's borrowers also) who's Broker was Promise Finance Ltd ..now gone bust...........I may have some news and info that couold make them happy

Can Questions be asked on the other forums for me ....it is of great imortance and benefit to all who they were brokers for.
they should contact me.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

hi found this for you may help
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=63&ved=0CCYQFjACODw&url=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.2clix.com%2Fsite%2Fdownloads%2F05unit03section2.pdf&ei=Ux0cTrnJPIy2hAfAioXJBw& usg=AFQjCNGe9ek01uHJpkKtB2Ovu2GhdGsQLw

Thanks for that Peter just found this hidden away in there


"Loans for mixed purposes are usually separated into regulated and non regulated elements, because the procedures are different for each"

That is EXACTLY what we put on our application form. for 3 specific purposes we ticked 3 of the 7 boxes shown on the application form.....home improvements ....clear existing credit and .....other.

I would think that this would make our agreement partly regulated and partly exempt and the agreement should have stated it was partly regulated by the CCA Act ...would that be right??

Sparkie

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

A different slant on all this

Here is what the OFT have said ....Prior to the lifting of the limit in 2008 there was nothing preventing ANY lender from lending any of money whatsoever and it would be regulated by the CCA.

Which throws up a massive argument about breach of fiduciary duty and transparency.

It was explained in this manner.....A lender could lend you say £75.000 in one lump sum secured on your property...............exempt from regulation of the CCA.....at an interest rate of 10%

Under the CCA the lender "could" break the loan down into 3 separate secured loans of £25.000 at 10%.
The lender would not lose anything by this...........But the borrower would have the protection of the CCA on all three agreements.

Or the lender could do exactly the same and make the personal unsecured loans at an interest trate of say 20% and again the borrower would be protected by the CCA.

The borrower then has the choice of if or not to take the option and decide what agreement he/she would take.

Lenders / brokers/ financial advisors know this but never advise a borrower of this..........they conceal this from them......
It is quite legal and from the horses mouth the OFT.

This raise a lot of issues....borrowers are deliberately misled into taking the type of loans they do that have no protection and are severely disadvantaged

Sparkie

Yes they could, playing devils advocate, i suppose they would say that this would mean added costs to the lender. Three sets of arrangment fees, land registery fees?. Also i am not sure how the creditor would feel about having to enforce three sepperate agreements in the event of default. After all at the end of the day the owner of the property,and/or of the first mortgagee has to approve any arrangement.

Peter

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

hi found this for you may help
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...B2Ovu2GhdGsQLw

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

A different slant on all this

Here is what the OFT have said ....Prior to the lifting of the limit in 2008 there was nothing preventing ANY lender from lending any of money whatsoever and it would be regulated by the CCA.

Which throws up a massive argument about breach of fiduciary duty and transparency.

It was explained in this manner.....A lender could lend you say £75.000 in one lump sum secured on your property...............exempt from regulation of the CCA.....at an interest rate of 10%

Under the CCA the lender "could" break the loan down into 3 separate secured loans of £25.000 at 10%.
The lender would not lose anything by this...........But the borrower would have the protection of the CCA on all three agreements.

Or the lender could do exactly the same and make the personal unsecured loans at an interest trate of say 20% and again the borrower would be protected by the CCA.

The borrower then has the choice of if or not to take the option and decide what agreement he/she would take.

Lenders / brokers/ financial advisors know this but never advise a borrower of this..........they conceal this from them......
It is quite legal and from the horses mouth the OFT.

This raise a lot of issues....borrowers are deliberately misled into taking the type of loans they do that have no protection and are severely disadvantaged

Sparkie

[Dougal16T]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Worth a look at the 2003 Guidance by the OFT.
http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre...Agreements.pdf

It mentions the debtor not being able to draw more than £25,000 at a time we did not receive a cheque for £43,000. we received a cheque each for £21,500 in our separate names.

There might be an argument in that we each have a reguated loan agreement?????

The agreement says that it is joint and several.........our property is in joint names we are not married we are partners...........when we die our equal shares of the property would be split between each of our separate legal survivors......my share of 50% would be divided between my 4 children.......my partners 3 children would share 1 third each of her 50%............Could it not be argued by splitting the total loan into 2 cheques they have negated the joint and several term and made each £21,500 a sole responsibility.........again more legal arguments...i.....ts getting more and more complicated ........I think its me making it so ..... is it me making it so or has Swift advances plc???

I'll have to give it a rest my "old senile brain" can't cope with what has been unearthed today. ......I'm nearly 75 now and its tiring work

Sparkie

Morning all,

Exactly the same happened to us two SEPARATE cheques, one in my name and one in my wifes name.

I shall ponder this and post later.

Regards to all,

Dougal

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Had a good nights sleep and have been pondering all Peter has said.......and as he has pointed out its hard work trying to untangle isues.

So I post this up for discussion.........and by doing so probably making waves without water.


With the help of the information that Peter has kindly provided, I “think” I have finally worked out what an “unregulated” loan is, and put this up for discussion.

Because of section 16 any loan of any amount secured on land is classed as an exempt agreement….i.e. exempt from regulation of the CCA Act.

No only a secured mortgage as defined by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.(see earlier in this thread.) Which states the exemption nly applies to your first loan. This deffinition is the same for the one given by the FSA . This exemption ony applies to your inital mortgage.

This means even loans under £25,000 if it is secured on land is an exempt agreement. (see section 107 of the CCA)

No only if it is your firts mortgage, see above. Section 107 is a request for secured loan info, this proves the point, as it would not be possible to request info uder the act if it was exempt,it would not exist.

The Financial Services Act Peter has posted states that this Act does not regulate any loan where less than 40% is spent on the property.

No the figure of 40% is the qualifying point if thre loan sum is used to purchase $0% of the land then the whole agreement is regulated by the FSA

This means that if you have borrowed money under a secured loan and used it for other purposes or more that 60% of it for other purposes.

Then it is these that are “unregulated”. By either the CCA or the FSA (Act) or the Financial Services Authority.

Any loan where more 40% or more has been spent on the property on repairs, improvements such double glazing, extensions, patios etc, etc.

Then it is regulated by the FSA, and The Financial Services............or is it????

Section 107 of the CCA which deals with loans under which a security has been given,…….. I think this means such agreements secured by Jewellry, Car, Caravan or other valuable item……section 107 does not mention security give on land.

In our case we borrowed £43,000..( £46,955 including fees and charges) we spent £30,000 on repairs to our property………so its regulated by the FSA.............................or is it???

Does this make sense??? Or are they more ramblings of a dumb senile old auto spark


Sparkie

No not ranting.

The thing is that these figures £25k, 40% etc are all qualifying points, they do not mean that only that amount is regulated or unregulated.

If you take a cca loan out for say £60k before April 2008 then the whole loan is unregulasted by the cca not just the remaining £35k.

Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Had a good nights sleep and have been pondering all Peter has said.......and as he has pointed out its hard work trying to untangle isues.

So I post this up for discussion.........and by doing so probably making waves without water.


With the help of the information that Peter has kindly provided, I “think” I have finally worked out what an “unregulated” loan is, and put this up for discussion.

Because of section 16 any loan of any amount secured on land is classed as an exempt agreement….i.e. exempt from regulation of the CCA Act.

This means even loans under £25,000 if it is secured on land is an exempt agreement. (see section 107 of the CCA)

The Financial Services Act Peter has posted states that this Act does not regulate any loan where less than 40% is spent on the property.

This means that if you have borrowed money under a secured loan and used it for other purposes or more that 60% of it for other purposes.

Then it is these that are “unregulated”. By either the CCA or the FSA (Act) or the Financial Services Authority.

Any loan where more 40% or more has been spent on the property on repairs, improvements such double glazing, extensions, patios etc, etc.

Then it is regulated by the FSA, and The Financial Services............or is it????

Section 107 of the CCA which deals with loans under which a security has been given,…….. I think this means such agreements secured by Jewellry, Car, Caravan or other valuable item……section 107 does not mention security give on land.

In our case we borrowed £43,000..( £46,955 including fees and charges) we spent £30,000 on repairs to our property………so its regulated by the FSA.............................or is it???

Does this make sense??? Or are they more ramblings of a dumb senile old auto spark


Sparkie

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Worth a look at the 2003 Guidance by the OFT.
http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre...Agreements.pdf

It mentions the debtor not being able to draw more than £25,000 at a time we did not receive a cheque for £43,000. we received a cheque each for £21,500 in our separate names.

There might be an argument in that we each have a reguated loan agreement?????

The agreement says that it is joint and several.........our property is in joint names we are not married we are partners...........when we die our equal shares of the property would be split between each of our separate legal survivors......my share of 50% would be divided between my 4 children.......my partners 3 children would share 1 third each of her 50%............Could it not be argued by splitting the total loan into 2 cheques they have negated the joint and several term and made each £21,500 a sole responsibility.........again more legal arguments...i.....ts getting more and more complicated ........I think its me making it so ..... is it me making it so or has Swift advances plc???

I'll have to give it a rest my "old senile brain" can't cope with what has been unearthed today. ......I'm nearly 75 now and its tiring work

Sparkie

Hey i am right behind you, i think we are confusing ourselves a bit, you had it right earlier in the thread i will be on line tomorrow.

The thing to remember is that you have the statutory assitance you need to show unfairness to the court in section 140, all those irregularities you have discovered can be used, section 140 gives a very broad protection to the consumer in that it takes into account anything done or not done at any time in or before the contract.

God my spelling is awful gets worse when i get tired.
Peter

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Peter

The amount of the second legal mortgage was lower tha our first legal mortgage

Second one taken out long after our First mortgage

2 thirds of the second mortgage was spent on property repairs ie complet new concrete floors to the ground floors ...underground central heating pipes corroded away and water leaked for several years undetected insurance would not pay out because under floor copper pipes just laid in concrete was illegal when the house was buit in 1973.

Am I right in sayiny The Financial Services Act refers only to First Charge Mortgages that would be £25K and below that woul be regulated by the CCA.........above would be FSA that is I think where the point of law argument sets in.....no one has noticed what Swift Advances plc conditions of the legal mortgage says or means until now. It is a second Legal mortgage above £25K
I think I am getting a little out of my depth here and why I have asked for your take on matters Peter


Sparkie

All first motgages whatever value are covered under the FSA if taken out after december 2005 before that it they where regualted under a voluntary code of practice. First mortgages have never ben regulated by the CCA they fall into the exempyion of section 16C of the CCA

Second mortgages are regulated under the cca provided that they are within the financial limit applicable at the time.

If your second mortgage was taken out before April 2008 and was over 25K it will not be regulated, but it will still come under the section 140 protection because it is still an agreement.

Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Worth a look at the 2003 Guidance by the OFT.
http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre...Agreements.pdf

It mentions the debtor not being able to draw more than £25,000 at a time we did not receive a cheque for £43,000. we received a cheque each for £21,500 in our separate names.

There might be an argument in that we each have a reguated loan agreement?????

The agreement says that it is joint and several.........our property is in joint names we are not married we are partners...........when we die our equal shares of the property would be split between each of our separate legal survivors......my share of 50% would be divided between my 4 children.......my partners 3 children would share 1 third each of her 50%............Could it not be argued by splitting the total loan into 2 cheques they have negated the joint and several term and made each £21,500 a sole responsibility.........again more legal arguments...i.....ts getting more and more complicated ........I think its me making it so ..... is it me making it so or has Swift advances plc???

I'll have to give it a rest my "old senile brain" can't cope with what has been unearthed today. ......I'm nearly 75 now and its tiring work

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I think the act is clear in that ranking in priority means," the amount of the loan" , the time when the loan was taken, out and how much of the loan was spent on the actual property.
Has you second charge the same status as the first in these requirements?
Peter

Hi Peter

The amount of the second legal mortgage was lower tha our first legal mortgage

Second one taken out long after our First mortgage

2 thirds of the second mortgage was spent on property repairs ie complet new concrete floors to the ground floors ...underground central heating pipes corroded away and water leaked for several years undetected insurance would not pay out because under floor copper pipes just laid in concrete was illegal when the house was buit in 1973.

Am I right in sayiny The Financial Services Act refers only to First Charge Mortgages that would be £25K and below that woul be regulated by the CCA.........above would be FSA that is I think where the point of law argument sets in.....no one has noticed what Swift Advances plc conditions of the legal mortgage says or means until now. It is a second Legal mortgage above £25K
I think I am getting a little out of my depth here and why I have asked for your take on matters Peter


Sparkie

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I think the act is clear in that ranking in priority means," the amount of the loan" , the time when the loan was taken, out and how much of the loan was spent on the actual property.
Has you second charge the same status as the first in these requirements?
Peter