Swift Advances Plc?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This what Mr Webster sent me......and just a little snippet from the case law I will be using..........bearing in mind I have two e-mails from Swift Advances plc solictors stating clearly that they DO NOT SECURITISE THEIR LOANS

Date 23/09/2009
Dear Mr Sparkie
In a sincere attempt to save you from unnecessary legal expense, please note:
The transactions referred to in our accounts refer to loans that were sold by equitable assignment which is a valid and enforceable sale that transfers all the benefits, interest and liabilities of the loan, title has always remained with the lender.

Yours sincerely

John Webster

Our Loan was transferred to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd on 18th April 2007


This is just one of the snippets from the case law I will be using tomorrow


"It is quite plain from his judgment that no formal requirements are required for a notice of assignment. It is sufficient if it brings

"to the notice of the debtor with reasonable certainty the fact that the deed does assign the debt due from the debtor so as to bind the debt in his hands and prevent him from paying the debt to the original creditor."

I have a copy of one of these such Master Deeds of Assignment between a bank and an assignee.

I will be sumitting that the Court is precluded from ordering us to pay Swift Advances plc as it did do and therfore acted "ultravires". Don't mind if Swift Advances plc know about this they cannot dispute it.

As SWift Advances plc say they kept hold of the title .........To sue us ............Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd should have joined them on the N244 application for possession which they did not ..it was an unlawful application..........they have deceived and misled the court so many times......bearing in mind I was an LIP who knew very little about all this at the time.....up against a Solicitor and Barrister........a serious imbalance of legal representation.............but I have learnt fast...................I have had to

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

So what does this actually mean with regard to their unregulated agreements
1.The amount borrowed..... Fact .............................a duty to pay it back ....Normally Correct
2. Charges fees interest payable .....No.....reason The Criminal Justice Act .........no-one should suffer loss and no-one should profit/gain from the result of a criminal act ......all fees charges interest are Swift Advances plc profit. Not payable
3. As their agreements were conducted by using the trading styles stated which were not on their licence was a criminal act therefore I submit that voids the agreement completely.

Sparkie

[jumper999]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

That'll be the day Jumper!! That'll be the Day!!
:violin:

I found some info in this below quite helpful and useful

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

So as to clarify what I believe...Swift say that the CCA act is irrellevant in relation to their unregulated loans

Section 8 (1) says different a credit agreement is any kind of personal loan/credit agreement for any amount....it does not matter if its reguated or unregulated it is a credit agreement.................... Section 21 says to conduct any kind of credit business, you have to have a licence......section 39(2) says if you use a trading name that is not on your licence you commit an offence.
They used Swift group Swift Advances and Swift Group Legal Services.....all offences.
That is what this is about UNLICENSED TRADING names used in conducting their unregulated business..........they did commit criminal offences one after the other....time and time again thats my take anyway
.
The CCA act regulates the regulated agreements but not unregulated ones ....BUT Swift Advances plc still need a CCA licence to conduct unregulated business..... .it is pure and simple as that.
Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

You carry on finding this kind od info sparkie I bet they will get you to write the next consumer credit act lol............that's if they dared

That'll be the day Jumper!! That'll be the Day!!
:violin:

[jumper999]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

You carry on finding this kind od info sparkie I bet they will get you to write the next consumer credit act lol............that's if they dared

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

In order to show the court tomorrow what an underwrinting sheet contains I will be presenting copies of other subprime lenders underwriting sheets that show exactly what is on them........and why I want a copy of ours from Swift Advances plc with the same information.:smash:

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Consumer credit agreements
(1)A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (" the debtor") and any other person (" the creditor ") by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.
This is Money Lending, ……………
Unregulated loan agreements are money lending activities
Money Lenders have to have CCA licences. BINGO


(2)A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000.


(3)A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an " exempt agreement ") specified in or under section 16.

(2) limit was increased to £25,000 by a later amendment.

It is (1) above where Swift Advances plc fall down with their constant arguing that the CCA is irrellevant as far as licencing is concerned
Section 21 states
21(1) Subject to this section, a licence is required carry on a consumer credit or consumer hire business

As I have always said that they must have all their trading names on thier CCA licence Swift Advances, Swift Group, and Swift Group Legal Services......they didn't.

Swift Advances plc are in truth MONEY LENDERS

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Swift Group Legal Services

This “entity” has been conducting ancillary consumer credit business since early 2008.

It was used as a trading name of Swift Advances plc.

This is bourn out by the fact that on 6th October 2011 a variation was obtained for this entity to become a trading name of Swift Advances plc.

In the view of a reasonable thinking person one would come to the conclusion that Swift Advances plc had been and were aware of the fact that to use a trading name that is not included on a CCA licence was/is a criminal offence.

If this was not so, no variation order would have been needed and it would not have been necessary to apply for said variation.

The variation order is not retrospective.

It has been confirmed in writing by the SRA that Swift Group Legal Services would not be covered by the group CCA licence that is held by the Law Society that covers all solicitors who are sole practicioners, LLP’s and law firms.

Swift Group Legal Services is not a law firm, it is registered with the Law Society as an Organisation.

The solicitors in the employ of Swift Group Legal Services hold practicing solicitors of their own and, are/would be covered by the Law Societies group licence, BUT…….. they are only covered by the Law Societies group licence if they were to act on their own as a sole practioner.

When Swift Group Legal Services said that they acted for Swift Advances plc prior to 6th October 2010, it is my opinion that they acted unlawfully, this is going to be ruled on in the High Court soon, and the arguments above will be tested, I am fairly confident that it will be deemed favourable.

It is agreed that as from 6th October 2010 they rectified the legality of their operations but before that…………I leave it for all to consider what this means………..if they were not unlawful before that date ….why rectify the situation.

If you are fully covered to drive any car on someone else’s insurance policy, why would you pay to get car insurance of your own?

Sparkie

Just more of my ramblings and personal views

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Not sure if I have posted this ........but I'll post it again.......this is about the underwriting sheet and Swifts failure to supply it and say they do not have to.
I think they are wrong.
Sparkie


a) Failed to disclose information
Failure to reveal information is tantamount to fraud by conduct or omission. In some cases there will be an overlap with Section 2 offences.
There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to "material" or "relevant" information, nor is there any de minimis provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the actus reus of the offence could be complete. Under such circumstances the Defendant would have to rely on the absence of dishonesty. Such cases can be prosecuted under the Act if the public interest requires it, though such cases will be unusual.

It is no defence that the Defendant was ignorant of the existence of the duty, neither is it a defence in itself to claim inadvertence or incompetence. In that respect, the offence is one of strict liability. The defence must rely on an absence of dishonesty and the burden, of course, lies with the prosecutor.

Prosecutors must be acutely aware of the public interest in such cases, bear in mind the relative standing of the parties and pay particular regard to any explanation for the failure given by the Defendant.
b) (When) he was under a legal requirement to do so
A legal duty to disclose information can arise as a result of a contract between two parties or because of the existence of a particular type of professional relationship between them; for example, a solicitor/client relationship. In its report on fraud the Law Commission (Note: Fraud. Law Commission Report No 276 Cm 5560 (2002)) made the following comments about the circumstances in which a legal duty might arise:
7.28 ... Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).
7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non- disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Swift Advances plc have had our full second witness statement for over a week now so I am not posting anything that will give them a head start but these are snippets out of it, it may assist others who are in conflict with them

Sparkie
14. Shown at this point as Exhibit 12, is a copy of a letter that accompanied the data supplied to another of the Respondents customers, in response to his SDAR, as to why underwriting sheets are not supplied, the Applicants draw the Courts attention to the use of the words/phrase “ sensitive commercial information” and ask the question who has decided what is “sensitive commercial information” and what is not? Merely because the Respondent says so is not in the Applicants view acceptable.


15. Exhibit 13 is a copy of a recent letter sent to another of the Respondents customers, it is seen that in this letter the Respondent, is admitting that commission is paid, but puts forward another explanation/excuse that because that customers loan is unregulated the underwriting sheet is not required to be supplied under a SDAR, this is not correct the ICO has assessed that all information that is not deemed “sensitive commercial information” must be disclosed. There is also reference to charges, which are stated to reflect the “approximate cost” it is statements such as these, why the applicants have requested, a full breakdown of how these charges are arrived and how they are costed, the Court agreed that this should be supplied, the Respondents still have not supplied a satisfactory breakdown explanation.


16. The Applicants ask the Court to order the Respondent to supply the Court, and the Court
Only, with a full unaltered true copy of the underwriting sheet, in order for the Court to rule on what is “sensitive commercial information” and what is not. Once this has been decided, then there is no reason for the Respondent not to provide the Applicants with a copy of their underwriting sheet, with the “sensitive commercial information” removed, but to show the “hidden commission paid” that is blocked out on certain underwriting sheets they believe this would not be unreasonable request for this to be done. It maybe, that these documents are shown to be “tampered with” before being supplied.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Sparkie and all,

I have spoken to Guy Anker previously - a good guy. If you can get in touch wih him do so - he WILL help. He works for Martin Lewis's website.

Can't recommend him too highly!!

Best Wishes

Dougal

Thanks for that info Dougal ........I will be contacting him very soon.....I am buried deep in my evidence for my Application hearing for friday, am working all hrs on it..........got some extra info I will showing the Court on friday that I can't post at the minute ....but its heavy stuff that I believe will hurt Swift Advanes plc badly.

Sparkie

[Dougal16T]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This is what John Webster sent to The Mortgage Strategy

From John Webster

While reading the November 12 issue of Mortgage Strategy I was disappointed to come across Guy Anker's article entitled 'Secured loans spell trouble for clients', in which he questions the need for secured loans.

It is in nobody's interest to lend to consumers who cannot or will not re-pay loans, which is why the subject of affordability is taken so seriously by secured lenders.

I have some comments to make about this little piece later and prove that they massaged our incomings and outgoings to make it appear we could afford to pay it back......we were 70 at the time we applied for a £30,000 loan which we were pursuaded/convinced to increase it to £43,000.
Thats another reason why they will not supply our underwriting sheet freely.........they will be forced to now.

Sparkie

Hi Sparkie and all,

I have spoken to Guy Anker previously - a good guy. If you can get in touch wih him do so - he WILL help. He works for Martin Lewis's website.

Can't recommend him too highly!!

Best Wishes

Dougal

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This is what John Webster sent to The Mortgage Strategy

From John Webster

While reading the November 12 issue of Mortgage Strategy I was disappointed to come across Guy Anker's article entitled 'Secured loans spell trouble for clients', in which he questions the need for secured loans.

It is in nobody's interest to lend to consumers who cannot or will not re-pay loans, which is why the subject of affordability is taken so seriously by secured lenders.

I have some comments to make about this little piece later and prove that they massaged our incomings and outgoings to make it appear we could afford to pay it back......we were 70 at the time we applied for a £30,000 loan which we were pursuaded/convinced to increase it to £43,000.
Thats another reason why they will not supply our underwriting sheet freely.........they will be forced to now.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Something for all Swifties to consider working on.....this is an examination of the most popular agreement Swift Advance plc use.....some are a little different

Swift Advances plc………Unregulated Credit Agreements.
It is fact that Unregulated Credit agreements appear to be exactly what they say they are.
They are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) or the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 nor the amended Regulations 2004 (CCA Regs) which came into effect in May 2005. Except Section 140
This has been confirmed and argued in Courts by Swift Advances plc by the Barristers they have engaged in such proceedings, it has been confirmed by Recorders and Judges that is a matter of fact. They do not apply to unregulated agreements

Therefore a different approach must be taken by Defendants when faced with Swift Advances plc enforcing these agreements in possession hearings.

We have to look at the construction of these agreements and not even think of the consumer statutes for reason they do not apply ( except the Unfair Terms in Consumer Credit Contracts and Consumer Protection Regulations), however for the purpose of these arguments these 2 statutes are not considered, arguments are concentrated around the following;

The first point that must remain foremost in the minds of the readers is that it is only in the CCA and CCA Regs that the phrase or words "Charges for Credit" are used.
We must apply common contract law of tort

We now look at the construction of Swift Advances plc unregulated credit agreement such as the one attached and referred to in these papers.

The First Box stating; Key Financial Information.
It is seen that it says

Amount of Credit; Principle Loan; Insurance loan ( if any) and Total
The other Information in this box is;
The Amount of monthly repayments; the Number of payments to be made and other explanatory Information.
It is to be noted that there is no interest rate shown in this box.

The Second Box below this, states:
Fees payable which say;
Brokers fee; Loan Administration Fee; Title Indemnity Fee; Rate of Interest; % p.a

It is here that the information clearly shows that the regulations are not considered in the construction of these agreements and they are not applied in the construction of said agreements, for reason these fees are not stated to be "charges for credit" because it is only the CCA statutes that state what is to be contained in Regulated Agreements.

Heavy emphasis is made of this "unregulation status" of their agreements by Swift Advances plc in the court proceedings referred to above and in correspondence from Swift Advances plc and the various other trading styles that they use.

These fees are not totalled up as would be required under a regulated agreement, they are not referred to as "charges for credit" as would be required under a regulated agreement, there is no mention of a Total Charge for Credit as would be required under a regulated agreement.

The borrower therefore is without doubt made to understand they are not charges for credit.

The agreement makes the borrower to believe this for reason above.
See Section 20 of the CCA Act 1974
We therefore have the fact in front of us that they are not considered or stated to be Charges for Credit, so what are they?
The answer to this question I submit is found just below the signature boxes on the front of the agreement which states;

You should note the following;
1. We agree to lend you the total amount of credit and the broker fee, loan administration fee and title indemnity fee (if any) shown above (the "Total Loan Amount")
Besides there still being not being any reference or statement of "Charges for Credit" and /or "Total Charges for Credit" there is nowhere on the agreement that states Total Loan Amount or what this
Total Loan Amount is.

We therefore have the questions;
Does it mean the Total shown in First Box? or does it mean the totals of the Second Box of the three sets of figures in that Box?
It would be straight forward if this was the case, but it cannot be because the total shown in the First Box is minus the three sets of figures in the second Box, and the fact that the argument has been out forward that the are not stated to be "Charges for Credit" and the reasons why they are not stated to be so.



We must go to the Note 1 quoted above;
" We agree to lend you etc etc etc"
It is here that it is stated what the three sums of Fees are, they are stated to be loans Loans, the words "We agree to lend" is a complete statement of fact that a loan is being made, not a "Charge for Credit as it would be under the CCA Regulations for reason the regulations do not apply to unregulated agreements, a fact Swift Advances plc consistently rely on in their arguments.

Bluntly in the words of a prominent Senior High Court Judge in a recent Court proceedings he said " A dog cannot have two tails"

Therefore I argue that;
It cannot be the case that part of the regulations apply and others not, they either apply or they do not, and it is an absolute fact that they do not, and as argued by Swift Advances plc that they cannot.

The fact is that they are loans, not "charges for credit" now means that we have a completely different light on these agreements.
It is in fact a "Partly Regulated" agreement as follows;

The main loan ( above £ 25000) is an Unregulated Unrestricted use Credit agreement.

The Broker Fee is a Debtor-Creditor-Supplier restricted use credit agreement falling under section 11 (1) (b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and section 12 (c) of the afore said Act.

The Loan Administration Fee is also a Debtor-Creditor-Supplier restricted use credit agreement falling under section 11 (1) (b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and section 12 (c) of the afore said Act.

The Title Indemnity Fee is also a Debtor-Creditor-Supplier restricted use credit agreement falling under section 11 (1) (b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and section 12 (c) of the afore said Act.
It is also a multiple credit agreement falling under section 18 (1).

The agreement is therefore a "Partly Regulated Credit Agreement" and the heading of the agreement should state that it is.
In a manner such as this
This is a Consumer Credit Act "Partly Regulated" by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

These arguments have been put forward by me in our Court case but because the Judge thought I was a dumbo as all judges think LIPs are, and knew nothing in comparison with a Barrister, dismissed these arguments, the Court should declare the agreement not just unenforceable but more than likely Void.

No Court will do that. But the judges are wrong, an LIP stands no chance at all. But these arguments are valid arguments and have a great deal of merit.

I have no legal training…..BUT!! I do have a logical mind……. I Think??!!

I haven't put these arguments to a Barrister but someone may wish to do so nfor a good opinion on it

Sparkie

This is just my opinion