Swift Advances Plc?

[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?

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

[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?

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:

[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

[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 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

[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?

At the last hearing where I faced them alone ....they thrust the Paragon v Pender case in front of the Judge........and he accepted that because it was presented by a Barrister & Solicitor......and as usual as an LIP who was designated a " Barrack Room Lawyer" with misconceptions of the law......he accepted that case.........BUT made a big mistake and erred in law...........That dealt with securitisation NOT assignment.......the case I have now specifically deals with asignment and section 136 of the Law On Property Act 1925.
I will disclose the case I am using after my hearing tomorrow.......it is very specific...........and appeal Court ruling....not very well known, by three judges who knew what they were talking about

I have to persuade him he was wrong...........and I am crossing my fingers I can and do.........if I do Swift Advances plc are in trouble all over the place.

STARE DECISIS

Usage: "The court considered that the trial judge erred in law by declining to follow a decision that was clearly on point, thus contravening the principle of stare decisis."

In my uneducated opinion the Judge should have used the powers of the Court under CPR 1 to level the playing field on legal representation and consulted the case laws on assignments............there are three others.
Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I would really appreciate anyones comments ........act as devils advocate ......and think of arguments against all I have posted over the last 10 posts or so...........anything that you think they might challenge all this on???

Sparkie

[jumper999]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Blimey sparkie I don't many of us can act as devils advocate to what you have posted.............is there anything you have left out??????? this is very very good in my opinion and I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow as I am sure many others will too.

You have been fighting long and hard against Swift and have had to do all the groundwork and I really cannot see how any court or judge can not agree with you.

Then again anything can happen in courts and the tables can turn anytime............but you are determined and strong and believe you are right and I personally believe that that is all you need in life to win any battle your up against.

I know from experience that this is not easy but you have proven that you are not a quitter and the only way out of this that I see is that you are proven 100% right in everything you have found against Swift.

Again I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow and sorry I cannot add to anything as I am still far behind but I can offer my support which I know you know you have always had

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Blimey sparkie I don't many of us can act as devils advocate to what you have posted.............is there anything you have left out??????? this is very very good in my opinion and I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow as I am sure many others will too.

You have been fighting long and hard against Swift and have had to do all the groundwork and I really cannot see how any court or judge can not agree with you.

Then again anything can happen in courts and the tables can turn anytime............but you are determined and strong and believe you are right and I personally believe that that is all you need in life to win any battle your up against.

I know from experience that this is not easy but you have proven that you are not a quitter and the only way out of this that I see is that you are proven 100% right in everything you have found against Swift.

Again I wish you the best of luck for tomorrow and sorry I cannot add to anything as I am still far behind but I can offer my support which I know you know you have always had

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thanks a million for that jumper..........the trouble is as you know will the Judge see that I am right................they have been as slippery as eels so far and as sly as a fox., they have Tom Pepper/Billy Liar as their witness
But all I can say I have prepared well and am ready for any question that is put to me......I know how they think now.

Sparkie

[Celestine]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Best of Luck fighting your case tomorrow Sparkie.

Really impressed how hard you're fighting, fantastic effort.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This I would imagine be my final post unless it is to answer comments by members..until late tonight when I will post our two witness statements which Swift Advances plc already have ....so I will not be giving away anything they do not know already ........but will help others to formulate their own statements from in their defences against them should they be facing Swift in the next few days.

1. Even as of today Swift advances plc have not complied with my SDAR made on 14th Fbruary 2011, the fee by cheque was cashed on 28th February 2011,

2 I have received no acknowledgement of receipt of application notice ( which the Court would have sent them.)

3. No acknowledgement of receipt of second witness statement sent by recorded delivery.

4. In fact no correspondence whatsoever. Then again as I made the application for an ex partee order, maybe the JUdge has seen something that he wants me to expand on........and I can certainly do that with prima fascia documentary evidence and proof

Sparkie

[Doc2527]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Sparkie

All the very best for tomorrow.

Great work as usual......:beagle:

Regards

Doc