Swift Advances Plc?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Everyone knows that in my particular court proceedings

Mr White swore under oath that Swift Advances plc did not pay commission.........this was a full blanket statement none at all ....only a documentary fee of £100.00

Mr Webster stated to me later in an e-mail to me that commission was not paid on my particular agreement

Twice in further hearings the Counsel for Swift Advances plc told the Judge ( the senior Judge at that court) that Swift Advances plc only paid £100 to our Broker.

I have now received a letter signed by the Managing Director of our broker who has confirmed that on top of the £100 Swift Advances plc paid them they paid a furthe commission of £1408.65 which was exactly 3% of our loan total.

This was paid appoximately 1 month into the agreement.

I am making a further complaint to the police and see what the chances of having Mr White arrested for deliberate contempt of court, and I am also writing a personal letter to the Judge attaching said letter.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Everyone knows that in my particular court proceedings

Mr White swore under oath that Swift Advances plc did not pay commission.........this was a full blanket statement none at all ....only a documentary fee of £100.00

Mr Webster stated to me later in an e-mail to me that commission was not paid on my particular agreement

Twice in further hearings the Counsel for Swift Advances plc told the Judge ( the senior Judge at that court) that Swift Advances plc only paid £100 to our Broker.

I have now received a letter signed by the Managing Director of our broker who has confirmed that on top of the £100 Swift Advances plc paid them they paid a furthe commission of £1408.65 which was exactly 3% of our loan total.

This was paid appoximately 1 month into the agreement.

I am making a further complaint to the police and see what the chances of having Mr White arrested for deliberate contempt of court, and I am also writing a personal letter to the Judge attaching said letter.

I believe 3% was the average broker commission stated in the Hurstanger case.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I believe 3% was the average broker commission stated in the Hurstanger case.

Yes believe it was ..I believe they reached this conclusion in that the standard commission rates ranged from 1% to 5% that would give that average.
1 plus 5 = 6 Divided by 2 ..gives average of 3

This is the one I like about bribes and secret payments
“The real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it (Chitty L.J. in the case of Shipway v Broadwood [1899] 1 QB 369, 373)”. .


Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Added support for my argument about exempt agreements.

Removal of Consumer Credit financial limits - have you considered the implications for your business yet?

The removal of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 financial limits expected on 6th April 2008 means that all credit and hire agreements with “individuals” will be regulated by the CCA, irrespective of the amount of credit or payments to be made by the customer. This is unless they are exempted by the CCA or regulations made under it.

Section 16 remains the same under the New Act.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I have posted this on another thread but I'll post it here as well


You will see that I have placed information that states that there is no such thing as "an unregulated agreement" if it is secured by a land charge.............it is an EXEMPT agreement....... there are other exemptions one such is defined as;
A High Nett worth agreement ..........a loan made to a person with an income of over £150,000 per year.......not many of us about with those kind of pennies is there. This never came in until the New Credit Act amendments.

There is a list of them in the OFT Guide on......... Regulated and Exempt Agreements
There are only two types of loan agreements.
Regulated Agreements and Exempt agreements.

There is no statute that states " Unregulated" ....it is a word that has been invented.....and used and everyone takes it for granted............but its wrong.

Unregulated merely means that it is unregulated by the CCA.....it does not mean it is completely unregulated by other statutes.............as I say First charge mortgages are "unregulated" but what that means it is unregulated by the CCA..............that does not mean it is completly unregulated .........because it is regulated........BY THE FSA
Because it is secured by a land charge.

If you had a first charge mortgage loan UNDER £25,000..... i.e. secured by a land charge........it would not be regulated by the CCA......section 16 Barrs it from being so.

My view is interpreted from section 16 and what the OFT state
Taken from OFT guide on regulated and exempt agreements.

CONTENTS

Chapter Page
1 Introduction 1
2 Regulated agreements 3

3 Exempt agreements 7

If you read section 189 of the CCA Definitions...........you will find no mention of "unreglated" anything. In fact you can read the CCA act from front to back ...you will not find the word unregulated anywhere in it.


To further support my interpretation sect 8 (3) must also be read.

Up till now no-one has noticed this because it has been constantly thrown in your face ...."this loan is unregulated".....not true ...it is secured by a land charge and just like any First charge mortgage ......they are regulated by the FSA and the lender has to have an FSA licence.................some second charge mortgage lenders hold an FSA licence to lend under a secured second charge ..,.....but a lot do not

Pre April 2008 the maximun any lender could lend under a CCA licence was £25,000 on one agreement.............BUT they could lend as much as they wanted to ............if they did it in separate block agreements ....If you wanted to borrow £75,000 ...all that would be required was 3 separate regulated credit agreements.......they would all be regulated agreements.........But then they would be unsecured.......no lender would do that I'm pretty sure of that........but that is how a lender could lend you £75K under their CCA Licence

Sparkie

I am not a lawyer and what I post is not to be taken as absolute fact ......but to be considered seriously and proper legal opinion obtained if the argument has proper legal merit

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I know a lot of people think I ramble on BUT.
Second charge Loans Prior to April 2008 and After.

Simple questions and my answers and see if you agree with my answers
Were loans over £25,000 secured by a land charge Regulated by the CCA 1974
Answer……No!.
Since that time are they now Regulated by the New CCA Act
Answer…… No!
Is a First Mortgage secured by a land charge Regulated by the CCA 1974
Answer…… No!
Is it now Regulated by the New CCA Act
Answer……No!
Why isn’t a First Charge Mortgage regulated by the CCA 1974
Answer……It is exempt
What Authority Regulates a First Charge Mortgage secured by a land charge
Answer…..The FSA.
Why isn’t a Second Charge Mortgage regulated by the CCA 1974
Answer……It is exempt
Therefore what authority should regulate a second charge Mortgage secured by a land charge? Answer……The FSA.


This is the reason why steps are being taken to make second charge loans to be brought under the FSA remit…………someone somewhere high up has realised that they should be, and should have been stated long ago to have been under the remit of the FSA.

Someone has realised that if my argument is brought before the law Lords there can be only one answer ….think about it carefully.

I would like to ask some legal trained mind as to how I can apply to the Courts for a ruling on this specific issue right Now?
What form would I use to make such an application?
I know it will have to go through to the supreme court in the end and possibly to the Privy Council of the House of Lords, but am willing to go that far because I believe I am right 100%


Sparkie

[Dougal16T]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Morning all

Just a quickie.....


Sparkie the arrestable offence for this is an offence of Perjury - see the Perjury Act 1911.

Best wishes to all

Dougal

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Morning all

Just a quickie.....


Sparkie the arrestable offence for this is an offence of Perjury - see the Perjury Act 1911.

Best wishes to all

Dougal

HI Dougal,

I can now advise you that I have already had a first visit from the police who have viewed the documents I have......I have contacted them again a few minutes ago to inform them I now have prima fascia evidence to support my allegation of Mr Whites perjury,
I am now waiting for another visit as they wish to see the factual evidence and copy it if need be......it appears that there are now two county forces working together on this one .

I will be saying no more on this aspect.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I have spent all evening scouring the CCA 174....and I have to apologise to EVERYONE ..........I have found the word "unregulated" twice in the whole Act................It is referrd to in Part X section145 Ancillary credit business.
(a) credit brokerage
(b) debt adjusting
(c) debt counselling
(d) debt collecting or
(e) the operation of a credit reference agency

My sincere apologies for saying before I could not find that word in the CCA 1974 it IS there as I said Twice in the whole Act.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I am just sending this off to Swift Advances plc various people and departments

To Swift Advances plc
Legal, Compliance & Lending Departments
Mr Mathew Payne
Mr Stephen Mc Connell
Mr S Trimmer

Dear Sirs,
Reference: Money Lending.

In various correspondence to each of us named above, it has been declared that as our loan(s) are not regulated by the CCA 1974, there is no requirement for Swift Advances plc to hold a CCA licence to carry out this credit business activity.

With reference to section 9 of the CCA 1974 which explains the meaning of credit, linked to section 8(1) of same said Act, section 8 (1) states this:
“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”

Swift Advances plc (non regulated by the CCA 1974) credit agreements are therefore deemed personal credit agreements/loan agreements.

Would you supply me/us with the licence under which you lent us our money, as this would be construed as money lending, to lend money a licence is required, this licence would also require the trading names used in the process of money lending included on said licence

We would also like the licence number issued by the ICO to “ Swift Group Legal Services”, “Swift Advances”, and “Swift Group” that enables them to process data as it appears that they are not included on the data controllers licence held by Swift Advances plc, who proudly claim they do not lend directly to the public, and rely on the aforesaid unlicensed trading names to process all customers personal and financial information, without a licence to do so

You will note that I have asked this question some three times previously, and in my first complaint to the ICO in 2009

Under part 8 of the Data Protection Act 1998, section 21(1)
It is a criminal offence to “process data without notification”

As allways I copy the OFT in with all correspondence sent to Swift Advances plc
Yours sincerely

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Send in your complaints to nthe ICO as you did to the OFT, I have received a letter from the ICO which contains this paragraph.

We will keep a record of your complaint and take this assessment into account if we receive further complaints about Swift Adances PLC.
The information we gather may form the basis for action in the future.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

In order to show Swift Advances plc the meaning of transparency I post here the letter that is being sent to the ICO, they do not know the menaing of it so here is what it means.
I am posting this not only for the benofit of LB members but the "Swift??" TROLLS and others such as barristers who are engaged by "Swift??" I am well aware that they scour the Threads gleaning information.

6th July 2011

To
The Information Commissioners Office
First Contact Department
For The Attention of Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

Dear Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx,

Ref Case Number RFAXXXXXX Further complaint about Swift Advances plc.

Thank you for your letter of 4th July 2011 date, I fully appreciate the workload and understaffing of the ICO.

I can confirm that I have now received some of the data and information from Swift Advances plc under my second SDAR, however once again they have failed to fully comply with said request.

I have stated on many occasions that Swift Advances plc continually mislead official bodies and even make false statements under oath to the Courts.

I will now proceed to prove that they have misled the ICO, during my previous complaint of 2009 I made the ICO aware of the fact that Swift Advances plc had transferred and assigned our loan to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd ( Kestrel No1), and I asked the ICO to force that company to supply the data it was processing about our loan, personal and financial details.

I made the ICO aware of the fact that this company did not hold a data controllers licence to lawfully process data, I also supplied the ICO with all the relevant documents to prove said allegations, I also made the ICO aware of the fact that it held neither a CCA licence issued by the OFT enabling Kestrel No 1, to conduct consumer credit business, and did not hold a licence issued by the FSA.

Swift Advances plc falsely told the ICO that the Kestrel Companies ( there are 3 of them) none of which hold said licences, that they are holding companies and do not process data.
The ICO accepted that statement, despite my warnings, that, if they can make false statements under oath they will and did make them to the ICO.

I attach a copy of page of Kestrel Loans No Ltd first filed accounts, Attached as Exhibit 1, this is the company that our loan and agreement was assigned to as per the statement of the Mr John Webster the Chief Executive of Swift Advances plc, attached as Exhibit 2.

Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd do process data and they are processing it without notification, yet the ICO allows this processing to continue unabated.

Kestrel Loans No1 Ltd is not a holding company as the ICO have been misled to believe by Swift Advances plc. Their yearly accounts submitted to Companies House are absolute prima fascia proof of that they are a fully active company.
I again attach copies of said accounts stating principal business activities, which is lending to the domestic market secured on the borrowers property .Exhibit 3, a holding company does not do that.

They are processing data about 1000’s of their customers accounts and loans as stated in those accounts, these loans are secured on borrowers property, again their accounts confirm this, it is called giving misleading information I call it deliberate lies.
All these loans were sold by equitable assignment as is seen in Exhibit 2

I now attach a copy of the underwriting sheet appertaining to our loan, the ICO informed Swift Advances plc that they should supply said underwriting sheet which was supposedly to have had only the so called “commercially sensitive information” redacted. Exhibit 4, you will see that 95% or so of information has been redacted (blocked out), that is a lot of commercially sensitive information would you not agree?

You will note the difference between another “Swift” underwriting sheet which I attach also. Exhibit 5 which shows th full information of what an underwriting sheet is and contains, note the reference to commission, two lots loan commission and PPI commission.

I submit the reason that all the information that has been blocked out (“redacted”) is that it will lend more evidence to the fact that secret commission was paid on our loan that was denied being paid under oath by their witness Mr Mark White, “Swifts” senior manager of their risk assessment department.

You will also note that all information about our First mortgage has been blocked out, plus lots of other information that cannot be classed as sensitive information otherwise it would have been redacted on document. Exhibit 5

It is actions such as these that has led the OFT to impose severe restrictions on Swift Advances plc in relation to their CCA licence.

I asked for a complete history of our account in order to see if any information had been added or deleted from the History notes we received in our first DPA SDAR information,

I also asked for the key code to the codes applicable to said history notes, and have been told by Swift Advances plc there is no requirement for them to supply such key to said codes, and they will not be supplying it.

I also asked for the continued record of payments that are being accounted for on the Kestrel computer system ( the ICO has a copy of the first years payments 2007 to 2008, I asked for the following years, these have been refused to be supplied. The ICO has made it clear that this key must be supplied but again Swift Advances plc flout the DPA and the ICO.

We have been supplied with only some of the information that was passed on to Olympian Finance Ltd, even after the ICO had informed Swift Advances plc they had to supply all of it, our History notes states that other information was supplied but that does not contain the full details of what was supplied.

I attach a copy of the letter received from the Managing Director of Promise Solutions Ltd Exhibit 6 confirming that a commission of £1408.65 was paid to our broker, that again Mr Webster their CEO stated that no commission was paid on our loan again showing how the senior management continue to make false misleading statements.

The record of said payment will be contained in our underwriting sheet that “Swift” have deliberately blocked out, disclosure of such secret commission would render our agreement void and “Swift” would be forced to return all monies paid by us, for reason further steps have been taken to cover up the payment of said commission, and that is further concealment and deception in anyone’s language.
That in itself is also a breach of the Second Principal of the DPA.

I would accept the word of a convicted thief over the word of these white collar professional people any day.

This time I hope the ICO will take firm action against this company and the Kestrel Loans companies, as they are not holding companies, and they do process data, there are only two holding companies Kestrel Acquisitions Ltd, and Kestrel Holdings Ltd.

All is needed is a check with Companies House to confirm all I say is correct and all “Swift” have said is false

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I added a little bit more to the letter to the ICO and it was this'.. To further prove that when they told the ICO Kestrel companies were just holding companies and they deliberately misled the ICO, to get out of a possible criminal action by the ICO

Extracts from Kestrel Loans No 1 First set of audited accounts by KPMG

Principal activities and business review

The principal activity of the company is the provision of finance to individuals, secured on domestic, semi commercial or assured short-hold, freehold and long leasehold properties.

Regulation

The market in which the company operates has been subject to recent changes in regulation of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.These came into effect on 31st May 2005 and affected the form and content of all new loan agreements entered into by the company which are regulated by the 1974 Act.
The Consumer Credit Bill will also bring about other changes in the credit laws and this is in the early stages of making its way through Parliament. The provisions of the bill are not expected to take effect until Autumn 2007 at the earliest.

Fees and commissions paid £666,389



Not in letter but for all to read....because the Kestrel companies bought all your loan agreements ....Swift no longer leld them...and when I made such a issue of it they bought them back....of course on borrowed money again.
They say they had to change the form on content of their CCA regulated consumer credit agreements........ that is stating clearly that they carry on regulated consumer credit business.
BUT they have never held a CCA licence issued by the OFT and still don't
Carrying consumer credit business without a licence is deemed a criminal offence

They also state that they pay commission so we have it that they carry on a lending business just like Blemain, Gmac First plus and others.........yet they have no licences at all.
The Directors of Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd are the same Directors as Swift Advances plc.............They will all know the consequences of this very soon.

By the way Swift Advances plc have labelled me in Court as a difficult borrower from the offset who has challenged every aspect of their agreements and practices.


Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Just had an early morning brainstorm

I have just realised after posting the previous post, Promise Solutions Ltd say that Swift Advances Ltd paid Promise Finance Ltd a packaging fee of £100 on completion of our loan and a commission of £1408.65 approximately one month into the loan.
Total £1508.65

But we know that our loan was transferred to Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd at 8.56 a.m. on 18th April 2007, 14 days after we had signed our agreement.

Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd’s accounts state that they paid £666,389 in fees and commission in 2007 to 2008.

So who really paid this commission? Swift or Kestrel?

This is a question I am going to ask the police to find out the answer to because I’m pretty sure that neither Swift or Promise are going to tell me.
Swift would have paid the packaging fee.
Kestrel just might have paid this extra commission and the reason why Swift say that they did not pay any commission except the £100.
Which ever way that is good news for us.

If SWift Advances plc did pay it then Mr White committed perjury he has no excuse.

If Kestrel Loans No 1 Ltd paid it it proves our loan is with them and all of Swift Advances plc court proceedings and applications were unlawful and void in my opinion

Getting someone else to pay the secret commission/bribe/bung on their behalf, Could this be construed as further deliberate deception to cover up deliberate fraud?

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

If the News of the World Issue is about bribes............what class does it place on the payment of the "bribes/commissions" paid by Swift in 2007 and all the attempts to cover that payment up which succeeded until now..??
They paid commission on all their loans right from the beginning.
And as MR White stated that Swift do not pay commission full stop...........it means that everyone who has a loan with them can claim Secret Commission.

Mr Whites statement under oath negates any such other statement such as ....that they may/more than likely pay commission.

Also the FISA leaflet I have found on the net ...(because we never received one from our
Broker or Swift Advances plc) ....states that all the lenders who are members of that organisation MUST show their interest rate on all their loans as an APR% rate. Another mistake they make.

Sparkie