Swift Advances Plc?

[Atlantis]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Sparkie,

Thanks for that. :thumb:

It would appear that Swift Advances change of entity coincided with their purchase by Alchemy Partners LLP on 11/05/2004 and Swift 1st changing from plc to ltd on the same day.

I still can't understand though why it seems to be taking the OFT so long to conclude their investigations!

Anyway Sparkie, the very best of luck for Friday, and keep us all posted as to how things go!

Atlantis

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

With reference to our case...........It was SWIFT ADVANCES who wrote to our first mortgage lender requesting that they gave unconditional agreement for a legal charge to be entered on our title deeds in their name SWIFT ADVANCES....their permission was given to SWIFT ADVANCES..................but the registration was entered by SWIFT ADVANCES PLC.....another criminal offence.
I obtained a copy of that letter from our first mortgage company. Also other correspondence from SWIFT GROUP LEGAL SERVICES ....another unlicensed trading name used by Swift Advances plc.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This is an extract from a letter from the OFT…I have quite a few of these with the same sort of statement.

I do not agree with what it says here about this not rendering the agreements unenforceable

“The Act also requires an applicant to have all names under which he intends to
carry on licensable activities on the consumer credit licence. A licensee who carries
on a licensable activity under a name not specified in his licence commits an
offence under the Act; however this will not render relevant credit agreements
unenforceable”.

I cannot for the life of me see the officials logic who make such statements as the above statement.

It has been confirmed by other officials at the OFT that this offence is/would be deemed a criminal one.

If the agreements are set up by way of a criminal offence the result of that offence is an unlawful act they are making you pay them back plus interest and charges that are unlawfully applied……….the agreement cannot be enforced as that would be condoning the criminal offence.

All agreements prior to 6th October 2011 were set up by SWIFT ADVANCES the unlicensed trading name the use of which was a criminal offence.

The agreements must be a void agreements by way of the criminal offence

Do you follow my argument,….. think about the repercussions of a ruling condoning a criminal offence………it could be used in all sorts of scenarios ….criminals could get away with murder……that is not a pun it is and would be fact..

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Dougal, Sparkie & All,

I wonder what your thoughts are as to why the company name was changed from Swift Advances plc to Swift Advances ltd and then back to Swift Advances plc between 11/05/2004 and 13/05/2004 (2 days), as stated in the Companies House register.

Also, surely there must be a limit as to how long CCA licenced activities can be carried out by a company without their licence actually being renewed? Swifts renewal has been outstanding since 14/04/2010! :suspicious:

Atlantis

Hi Atlantis,
I haven’t looked into this in too much great detail but I’m pretty certain it had something to do with the fact that they Swift Advances plc/Ltd and Swift 1st Ltd had to “swop” places with regard to their FSA and CCA licences and the selling of Insurances, and this led to slight problems with the informing of the authorities.

After Friday I will have a deeper look into this, unless you would like to follow the trail back…..I’m working on my case for Friday and have some real serious stuff to ask the Judge to make Swift do, I’m asking for a full discovery order as I have said.

There is a very strong possibility he will make that order, we will find out some things then……about what they did with all our loans when they sold them to the “Kestrel Companies” to borrow more money.

Re the CCA licnce the Consumer Credit Act allows a lender to carry out ctivities UNTIL a decision is made on whether the licence will be granted

Sparkie

[Atlantis]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Dougal, Sparkie & All,

I wonder what your thoughts are as to why the company name was changed from Swift Advances plc to Swift Advances ltd and then back to Swift Advances plc between 11/05/2004 and 13/05/2004 (2 days), as stated in the Companies House register.

Also, surely there must be a limit as to how long CCA licenced activities can be carried out by a company without their licence actually being renewed? Swifts renewal has been outstanding since 14/04/2010! :suspicious:

Atlantis

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

One of the other major issues I have with Swift Advances plc is the use of the trading name of Swift Advances prior to the 6th October 2010.

Conducting regulated consumer business under this trading name is/was, under section 39 (2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 deemed an offence and a criminal one at that..for reason it was not a named trading name on their CCA licence

Furthermore up until November 2009 the trading name of Swift Advances belonged to another completely unrelated limited company.

It has been argued by Swift Advances plc that the use of it in conducting unregulated agreements the above was/is “irrelevant” as they do not fall under the remit of the CCA, that maybe so.
The two issues here are
1…As it belonged to another company that cannot be considered "irrelevant," as it makes one believe that they could be or were dealing with this other company. Which was in fact Swift Finance (UK) Ltd. as shown below
CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details


Application / Licence Details




Licence Number:0560151
Licence Status:Lapsed on 03/11/2009

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business NameCompany Registration NumberSwift Finance (UK) Limited5208034

Categories:

Consumer credit Consumer hire Credit brokerage Credit reference agency Debt adjusting/counselling Debt collecting

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:Yes


Trading Name(s) (Current):

Swift Advances Swift Finance Swift Homeloans Swift Insurance Services Swift Mortgages Swift Solutions

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

Swift Insurance





2…The second is that despite the CCA Act, using this trading name in any Consumer Credit business (regulated or unregulated) and /or related business prior to 6th October 2010 was a misleading misrepresentation of fact, and a known misrepresentation of fact, contrary to the Misrepresentation Act 1967, that also is deemed an offence and a criminal one at that.

Just my personal opinion

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Morning all

Here is my thought for the day! :

If a company - a plc to be exact- did not exist as a legal entity until 6th October 2010, does that make any agreements made by consumers with the entity:

(a) unenforceable by that entity?

(b) null and void and capable of full rescission?

Answers on a postcard......??

Best wishes

Dougal

ps : There are no prizes for guessing who I am talking about!! :beagle:

Hi Dougal,

I am not sure what you mean by this .........the Company I believe you are talking about was a legitimate incorporated Company registered with company's house as a PLC.
The history of this is that
In 1984 it registered as a Private Limited Company with Companies House

In 1995 it changed itself to a PLC and notified companies house of that chamnge.

The only issue I have over this is that "normally" a company does this to enable shares to be offered to the public in general.

This did not happen in the case of this company......the other main reason for a company to do this without offering shares to the public is to give more credibilty to its credit standing and status....ie that it would "appear" that the company would be more responsible in its business operation as it would be considered to be handling consumer investments and be looking after it in a responsible manner to make a profitable return for their investment money.....quite reasonable business operation.

But what we do know is that no shares are offered to the public the shareholders remained the same as they were as the Private limited company.

The company were able to use this newly acquired credit status to boost and be able borrow more money which they did................if they had not become a plc and borrowed this money as a private one ....the director shareholders would have been personally responsible for the debts.......becoming a PLC limited the directors personal responsibility further than being a Director of a Limited Company.

Crafty immoral move in my personal opinion....but quite legal.


Hope this assists in some way



Sparkie