Swift Advances Plc?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I have been thinking of my options and I have reached the conclusion is the way forward for me is to mount a Unfair Relationship claim under section 140......this way I can use all the evidence I have to support my claim.

So I will be working on that over the next coming weeks, there is a section in it that says;
"Anythingthe creditor has done before the agreement was made during the agreement and EVEN after the agreement has ended"........that part in the favourite words of Swift Advances plc is "irrellevant"..........That way I can include as many statutes as I think would apply within that Unfair Relationship claim.
Another section says inas much "Anything the debtor alleges it is up to the creditor to prove him wrong"
For instacee
Refusing to supply information I am legally entitled to under sectrion 3 of the New FRaud Act is Unfair
They would have to prove it was not unfair
Comments anyone please

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This where Swift Advances plc used to work from....the outfit in the picture worked in close association with the Swift Group.....so the letter I have in my possession says.............also this is where the outfit EASTERN COUNSELLING AND COLLECTION WORKED FROM.
This outfit has since gone bust Oct 2010
This is how they hit you with the Counselling visit you never got and the account running fees were raised....another "Con" in my view, they used this as a cover.
Doc ........ Read the letter you got where they said that from some time in 2009 they stopped the Eastern Counselling handling the accounts......that was because this place shut down in 2009 and went into receivership.

Theres a lot more to this that meets the eye.

This will be brought to the attention of the OFT in amuch more descriptive manner ...more info

Swift Advances used to call this PURBECK HOUSE 230 to 234 Hornchurch Rd

Olympian Changed its name to Olympian House

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Remember that the trading name of “Swift Advances” belonged to Swift Finance UK Ltd until November 2009 a completely unrelated company to Swift Advances plc.

In July 2007 Mr Webster made a fairly long statement to the press as Chief Executive Officer of ……………………"SWIFT ADVANCES!!!”

He did not attempt to correct this false misleading statement then and since.
He made the claim that he was the CEO of a non entity……….he made the statement that he was the CEO of a trading name belonging to another company.#

This is my view is further proof of the use of a “stolen” trading name, it did not belong to Swift Advances plc.

Isn’t it a crime to steal something and use it, making people believe it belongs to you when you know it doesn’t? isn’t that deception?

He then later makes a statement as CEO of the SWIFT GROUP………….This also was an unlicensed trading name at the time……….. there was no such entity as the Swift Group at the time, he did not attempt to correct this at the time or since .........Swift Securities Ltd only had that trading name added to their CCA licence in August 2010

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Swift Advances plc and their default notices sent before they issue proceedings on a secured loan.

One of the Criteria with a Default Notice that it must be issued by the Lender, it must be on the headed paper of the lender and show the Full name and address and company registration number if it has one.

All the default notices that were issued bySwift Advances plc borrowers pre October 2010 were issued by Swift Advances
The stolen unlicensed trading name……………the ones that are supplied to the Courts as proof of the issue of said default notices are ALTERED.

The stolen trading name is deliberately removed and the name Swift Advances plc is inserted (type written) in its place.

Anyone who has had possession proceedings taken against them ...check this out ...you will find this correct
Despite what Swift Advances plc may say a Default notice MUST be sent under a secured loan even it is unregulated which is irrellevant they say , it is very rellevant......................... it must comply fully with what a default notice should contain.

I hope everyone realises the implications of this.............I have.......and will be pursuing this to its fullest extent......I have only just discoverd this ......otherwise I would have used this before.

Swift Advances plc think its all over..............it will be now.

I will be making the OFT aware of this as I allways do


Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I post a geat deal of what I send the OFT for reason that it is known to the publc in general exactly what info they have been given should the OFT not act in the manner they should, and use the full powers given to them under the Enterprise Act 2002,

This what I sent re the Default notices


Attachment 1…is a copy of the Default Notices I received, my partner and I received separate notices
Attachment 2…is the copy submitted to the Court in our proceedings

I wish to refer you to section 8 (1) of the CCA Act 1974Consumer credit agreements
Section 8(1) states
“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 of course includes the unregulated agreements that Swift Advances plc continually and arrogantly say that as they are unregulated the CCA Act does not apply….I agree 100% that the vast majority of the Act does not apply to unregulated agreements pre 2008, but these few sctions do

Section 21 states
21(1) “Subject to this section, a licence is required carry on a consumer credit or consumer hire business”.

Section 39(2) States
A licesee under a standard licence who carries on a business under a name not specified in the licence commits an offence.

These sections show without doubt that Swift Advances plc have been committing offences practically every minute of the day.

I submit that as it is deemed a criminal offence to contravene section 39, and all Swift Advances plc loans were set up by the committing said offence, the criminal act would render all agreements void, the Proceeds of Crime Act states that no one should gain and no-one should suffer loss from an act of crime.
The further criminal gain is the unlawfull penalty charges fees etc etc is the criminal gain the loss to the borrowers is being forced to pay these chages and fees plus interest

Section 242 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
If I can get the Cheshire Police to start an investigation ....the OFT will have to tell them what they have found out...according to my interpretation of this

242 Criminal proceedingsE+W+S+N.I.

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
(1)A public authority which holds information to which section 237 applies may disclose that information to any person—
(a)in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence in any part of the United Kingdom;
(b)for the purposes of any criminal proceedings there;
(c)for the purpose of any decision whether to start or bring to an end such an investigation or proceedings.
(2)Information disclosed under this section must not be used by the person to whom it is disclosed for any purpose other than that for which it is disclosed.
(3)A public authority must not make a disclosure under this section unless it is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it.


Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Will post what I mean in a few mins

This is what they send ..note .no-one ever receives any correspondence in the name of Swift Advances plc



This is what they produce in Courts as a genuine true copy of the original ...you can see clearly it has been tamperd with altered change...in truth and precise fact a false document



Do you notice they also remove all the info from the bottom of the page referring to the tradings style of Swift Advances?
They even remove the Swift Logo!!!
Also they never sign them and ........HOW CAN AN UNLICENSED TRADING NAME Have a litigation department
Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

The first part of this post is exactly what happened when I was contacted by Olympian Financial Services.

A couple of weeks before Swift Advances Plc issued possession proceedings via Swift Group Legal Services, a person by the name of Paul Aldridge from Olympia Financial, called and left several messages on our answer phone asking us to contact him and left his phone number.

Not having a clue who he was I took no notice of them.

Then we received a letter from him dated 4th August 2008 (a couple of days before we received the summons) I’ll post this letter later, but it said “we may be interested in various financial which may be available”
The next time this Paul Aldridge rang I spoke to him he said he could arrange another loan and pay Swift Advances plc off and stop the proceedings, I listened and he told me this, He could arrange a loan ( secured of course) that would pay our loan off which would include the early settlement penalty etc etc etc, then the clincher the interest rate would be some 2% more than the rate we had with Swift Advances plc.

This would have meant borrowing even more money at a higher interest which would have resulted in a much higher monthly payment than we were supposed to be paying Swift Advances plc.
This as near as what the facts were.

Of course they would then charge us brokers fees legal fees etc etc and more than likely commission off the New Lender.
The following is what I believe was the reason for this and I must stress here that this is my personal belief which I am entitled to say, based on the information I have.
It is only supposition and suspicions.

The letter stated that they work in close association with “Swift Group” (everyone knows my take on this was an unlicensed trading name but I did not know it at the time)

You know now that they took over the offices that Swift Advances Ltd/plc as shown in the picture I posted previously.

I believe that as Swift had moved to Arcadia House which was a completely new building and had installed their boasted “new state of the art computer system)

Olympian Finance just moved in and used Swifts Advances Ltd/plc computers.. This I cannot prove but I “suspect” this is what “may/could have” happened.

I say this because Swift Advances plc will not supply the information that they supplied Olympian Finance.
I say this because in the response to my first SDAR “Swift Advances” told me they couldn’t because it was on a CD disc along with other borrowers information.

The ICO told Swift that they could separate and extract our data that they passed to Olympian and send it to us in our second SDAR.
I have posted that they have not supplied anything I asked for in our second request, but have cashed the cheque.

I say the reason they can’t supply it, is that it was already on the computers and the system that Swift left behind remembering this is where Eastern Counselling and Eastern Collectionsworked from. This is where the Counselling fees and account running charges are instigated and charged to borrowers accounts

I think the situation was when a borrower went into arrears, Olympian Finance contacted the borrower and what I said before happened …Swift Advances plc were paid off made a lot of money by all the extra charges.

They had the money to lend some other unsuspecting borrower and trap them as they trap all their borrowers, Swift Advances plc cycle would start again.
Lend money to people who they knew that there would come a time when they too would fall into arrears and so on.
What a business plan…its called predatory lending


Olympian made money from the new deal.

Legal Beagles have no responsibility or involvement in this posting, it is purely my opinion and point of view.
Based on information and my experiences

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Another statement made by Mr John Webster in a press release was “Swift do not securitise their loans, they remain on their books at all times”.

So I asked Mr Webster in an e-mail letter to him, if this was true,… and if the e-mail he sent to me saying they were sold by equitable assignment was not true,…. and/or if would this mean the statements made in the accounts of Swift Advances plc of 2007 to 2008 lodged with companies house that loans of £200 million were Sold to sister companies Kestrel Loans Nos 1 & 2 Ltd was true or not……….because how could they remain on Swift Advances plc books if they were sold?....and if they were both true then there must be a case of double accounting.

He never did answer this e-mail.

I will post copies of the records of payments into both our account being processed by Swift Advances plc AND Kestrel Loans No 1 at the same time to show everyone I am not fantasising and making things up …when I have scanned them….the Cheshire Police and the OFT have copies of these.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Sorry folks double post

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Will post the two docs here when I have edited them.....didn't work the first time

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Here is the proof of the double accounting ...I'll say a bit more about in a minute

Sparkie





Note they both say they receive these payments at the bottom............also our loan started on 4th April 2007 as shown on these two records with the two companies....yet we only signed an agreement with Swift Advances plc.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

With ref to our two account docs.

These two separate entirely different companies use these payments as assetts in their company accounts.
That is double accounting and fraud in my opinion.

But what is significant about Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd is that it holds no CCA licence .......FSA licnece or .....DPA licence....
But as it bought both regulated and unregulated loans ....it also boufght Swift 1st Ltd Mortgages.

THey are breaking every rule ion the Book.................the same Directors are the directors of these two companies.

I hope the clever Barristers that represent SWift Advances plc and Swift 1st Ltd are looking at this thread, and hope they realise that they are assisting both of these companies to repossess house under false double accounting procedures.

Mind you these Barristers are not human beings are they?...........just greedy!!

I have three or four other customers records to back mine up....these customers did not realise how important and serious this was and how it affects their cases,
I also hope that somewhere a police officer will be reading this thread.......I have the evidence ....and lots of it.

Its time now for these directors to be called in to answer some searching questions in my opinion, before they ruin more peoples lives by repossessing their homes while all this is going on.

Finally on this No one will convince me that the staff/employees of SWift Advances plc do not know what is going on....they are the ones that operate these computer systems .....they are just as responsible as anyone and should pay the price when the time comes....if I were them I'd get off the boat before it sinks....just my opinion

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

To show further how Mr Webster tries to turn everything upside down ...he forgets what he says.
In August 2009 in an e-amil to me .....He said this....

Quote
There was no legal transfer of the mortgage from Swift Advances to Kestrel Loans no 1- this was an internal accounting procedure only. The morgage has at all times remained in the name of Swift Advances plc.

Then in September 2009 he said this.

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.

Our Loan was transferred to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd on 18th April 2007 recorded in our History notes

How does he explain the two accounts then shown previously this internal accounting procedure was as I allege.....double accounting......that's his procedure making it appear both companies are receiving money to make their books look good. To present to the funding Banks to borrow more money.

I will be posting where and how they apprioached two different banks on the same day to borrow the same amount of money using these double accounts.
I have the documents they used.

I will also be posting later on a debenture being signed off as satisfied by Mr Mathew Payne one of their in House solicitors acting as a Commissionaire of Oaths inside Arcadia House.

This was totally unlawful act….. a solicitor who has been and is involved and has any interest what so ever in the company CANNOT act as a Commissionaire and carry out that duty in that capacity. The parties to the signing of this legal document were Mr Sunny Lo company secretary of Swift Advances plc and Mr Mathew Payne.

Mr Payne may try to counter this by saying that he was at the time a solicitor employed by JW Godfrey & CO who was an independant sole Practioner..............but JW Godfrey & CO operated from Swift Advances plc offices at Arcadia House and were acting as their in house solicitors in the direct employ of Swift Advances plc.......and from what I can trace he did not submit accounts of his own to the SRA or to Companies House.



Commissioner for Oaths are most usually Solicitors or qualified Notaries Public but other people within the legal profession such as Barristers, Legal Executives and Licensed Conveyancers are just as qualified to fulfill this role. Be aware, however, that a Solicitor is forbidden to act as a Commissioner of Oaths in any proceedings in which they have a vested interest.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?




OFT threatens to cancel Swift's licence

23 June 2011 | By Natalie Thomas

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comment
• Save

Sub-prime lender Swift, trading as Swift Advances and Swift Securities, must improve its lending and collections practices or it risks losing its credit licences.

An Office of Fair Trading investigation found Swift was giving secured loans to customers with poor credit histories or limited access to credit without:

• checking whether they could afford the loan
• verifying their income
• taking account of their other financial commitments and personal circumstances
• fully checking the information provided in the application.

The OFT also uncovered evidence in some cases that Swift failed to fully explain the charges that could be incurred if customers fell into arrears and failed to exhaust alternative options before taking borrowers to court.




As a result, the OFT has imposed a set of requirements on Swift, which ensures it must:

• carry out proper assessments of a borrower’s ability to repay the loan without undue hardship
• only take steps to repossess a borrower’s home as a last resort
• be transparent about their charges and when they apply.

Mortgage Strategy revealed in December 2010 that Swift Advances is being investigated by the Financial Services Authority for its handling of borrowers in arrears and has set aside £9.4m to cover a potential fine and other costs.
David Fisher, director of consumer credit at the OFT, says: “Credit businesses must lend responsibly - failure to do so can have a very serious impact on borrowers. We require Swift to significantly improve the way it carries out its business. If they fail to comply with these requirements, they will face further enforcement action.”

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Compliments of Sparkie

NOTE FOR THE PUBLIC REGISTER UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE
CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (THE ACT)
LICENCE NO: 391 61 8
LICENSEE: SWIFT ADVANCES PLC
DETERMINATION OF MINDED TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS
NOTICE
An adjudicator, acting on behalf of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), served
a notice on the licensee that she was minded to impose requirements on the
licensee. The adjudicator received representations from the licensee.
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR ADVERSE DETERMINATION
Having considered the representations, the adjudicator decided to impose
the following requirements:
Underwriting
The Licensee will ensure that its underwriting decisions are subject to a proper assessment of the borrower's ability to meet repayments on the loan in a sustainable manner and without undue hardship and without resort to the security, taking account of relevant circumstances and any reasonably foreseeable future circumstances.

Specifically the Licensee must
a) verify income (s)declared by prospective borrowers;
b) take appropriate account of a potentia! borrower's other financial commitments;
c) take appropriate account of a potential borrower's individual financial and personal
circumstances;
d) give appropriate consideration to all information which is obtained by the licensee in the course of assessing an application;
e)ensure that its underwriting procedures are compliant with the Second Charge Lending Guidance, particularly the General Principle as stated at paragraph 2.1 which states that all underwriting decisions should be subject to aproper assessment of the borrower's ability to repay the loan without undue hardship and without resort to the security. In so doing, the Licensee will take full account of all relevant circumstances and any reasonably foreseeable future circumstances.

Arrears management
The Licensee must use litigation as a last resort and only where a
borrower is unable to meet his commitments in the long term or unwilling to engage with the Licensee; ensure that its communications with customers accurately reflect its authority and the correct legal position, in accordance with paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4d of the OFT'S Debt Collection Guidance July 2003, updated December 2006

Default charges
The Licensee must
a) ensure that the tariff of charges gives a clear explanation of when charges will be applied to an account and what they are for;
The Licensee's charges should be set out clearly and fully as part of the credit agreement and in periodic statements,
Notice of any appeal, which must be given within 28 days of the date on
which notice of the determination is issued, and of its result, will be put on the public register.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE OF A COURT. THEREFORE A FINDING THAT A PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT WHICH AMOUNTS TO AN OFFENCE OR
CONTRAVENTION OF A STATUTE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THAT OFFENCE OR BEEN FOUND BY A COURT TO HAVE CONTRAVENED THAT STATUTE.
DATE OF DETERMINATION: 17 JUNE 201 1