Swift Advances Plc?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I post this for folks to obtain proper legal opinion on with regard to Swift Group Legal Services

Recognised Bodies Regulations
means the SRA Recognised Bodies Regulations updated 2009;
recognised body
means a partnership, company or LLP for the time being recognised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and the Recognised Bodies Regulations

Swift Group Legal Services are not recognised by anyone, ...................and in my opinion any solicitor or barrister who accepts instructions from them involves themselves in a criminal offence in contravention of the Solicitors Code of Conduct and the Bar Code by which Barristers are regulated.

It is agreed that each of the solicitors employed by Swift Group Legal Services hold practicing certificates in their own right but this only covers them to act as a law firm ..........sole practitioners.................. a partnership .....................or an LLP

They are registered with the Law Socity as an "Organisation," I personally would welcome a response and view from any legal "guest" that views this thread ....please register and comment.

Sparkie

This is my personal opinion and belief and proper legal opinion shoud be sought if considering to use this in Defences of repossession proceedings

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Another aspect for folks to obtain proper legal advice on is the fact that Swift Advances plc present the case of Paragon Finance v Pender when the right to issue proceedings is challenged

My argument is this
The Paragon case dealt with securitisation
Swift Advances plc have confirmed they DO NOT securitise their loans..........so how can they rely on a case that deals with with securitisation .........my stupid mind cannot get its head around how they can rely on it, ...........they state categorically that they sell their loans by assignment..

This concerned the securitisation of a regulated agreement......Swift Advances plc keep on insisiting " as your loan is unregulated" ...................in other words the borrower has no protection under the CCA 1974.....why are they allowed to use a ruling made under the CCA..........I submit it is completely wrong and the agreement and the law is unfair unbalanced to the detriment of all their borrowers and must be set right soon...........then again it will be very soon.......but what happens to all the poor people who have lost their homes by the use of this case???

I woulld like someone to explain it to me.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hullo Peter
I realy would appreciate your views on this issue as I deeply respect your views on interpretation of these issues
Thank you for viewing this thread........I'm just a dumb retired auto electrician

Sparkie

[Angry Cat]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Paragon Group of Companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

HI Sparkie
Been reading this with great interest you have probably seen this

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...U8kmzfWsJNTc_g

Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

HI Sparkie
Been reading this with great interest you have probably seen this

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...U8kmzfWsJNTc_g

Peter

Hi peter,

Thank you for your comments...yes I was aware of this...and as it says this may not be until May 2012.......in the mean time my fight goes on.

I have just one concern over this move .........and that is every second charge borrower will lose the right of the protection of section 140 of the new CCA
amendments.

That really is a weapon that can be used at present .....but it will be lost when the transfer takes place.

In this respect I have my concerns and reservations about it. ............Some of us have developed a strong argument about sub prime lenders "unregulated loans" and how a sound argument for an unfair relationship can be mounted not been tried and tested.

I would like to send you a pm about this if I may for your opinion beforeI post it to help other sufferers

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Of course Sparkie
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Should really stop and think a bit before I comment but what the hell we are all friends here.
I hate saying in my opinion because these comments are of course my opinion I am not a glove puppet.
I think you are quite right there is no such animal as an unregulated agreement; it is just an agreement, and as such subject to common law and any statue that does not specifically say it does not apply.
Also you are correct in saying that the agreement requires a licence just because It is not covered by the act does not mean it is not a consumer credit agreement.
I noticed earlier an oblique mention of section18 in regards to fees and such, personally I would forget that particular angle, test cases which I won’t bore you with have pretty mush seen of the section 18 argument.
I do think you should look into the charge for credit angle though, if you haven’t already, yes i know that this is a CCA concept but the reason that it is included in the CCA is because it is about fairness. Basically they should not charge you interest on an amount that you have not benefited from.
It may be totally above board the only way to check is look at the figures, it depends on the ratio between the “total charge for credit” and the amount you took away with you as your loan, this should of course be your APR.
If these three does not co relate then the agreement is incorrectly executed, yes I know, a cca term, but unfair if incorrect nevertheless.
I am not altogether convinced about your argument re the naming requirements under registration, but I have not really given it enough thought.
Anyway I will constinue pondering
Best regards
Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Should really stop and think a bit before I comment but what the hell we are all friends here.
I hate saying in my opinion because these comments are of course my opinion I am not a glove puppet.
I think you are quite right there is no such animal as an unregulated agreement; it is just an agreement, and as such subject to common law and any statue that does not specifically say it does not apply.
Also you are correct in saying that the agreement requires a licence just because It is not covered by the act does not mean it is not a consumer credit agreement.
I noticed earlier an oblique mention of section18 in regards to fees and such, personally I would forget that particular angle, test cases which I won’t bore you with have pretty mush seen of the section 18 argument.
I do think you should look into the charge for credit angle though, if you haven’t already, yes i know that this is a CCA concept but the reason that it is included in the CCA is because it is about fairness. Basically they should not charge you interest on an amount that you have not benefited from.
It may be totally above board the only way to check is look at the figures, it depends on the ratio between the “total charge for credit” and the amount you took away with you as your loan, this should of course be your APR.
If these three does not co relate then the agreement is incorrectly executed, yes I know, a cca term, but unfair if incorrect nevertheless.
I am not altogether convinced about your argument re the naming requirements under registration, but I have not really given it enough thought.
Anyway I will constinue pondering
Best regards
Peter

Sorry Peter,.......
The penalty fees I refer to are the ones charged by the non existent unlicensed trading name of Eastern Counselling Department.


I was referring to Section 16 in that the Act says any loan secured on land is an exempt agreement and I argue that it is in the same manner that a First Charge mortgage is exempt and falls under the remit of the FSA......so should Swift Advances plc second charge loan/mortgage as it is secured on land


Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

HI Sparkie

I thought i saw a mention of section 18 in an earlier post. NO matter. Yes section16 does exempt loans secured by land morgage, had this debate with the oFT some years ago, they said that the key is the word mortguage, the first loan purposeis to seccure a morguage whilst the second loan is usually not and therefore not exempt.
Cant remember mentioning penalty charges

Best regards
Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

HI Sparkie

I thought i saw a mention of section 18 in an earlier post. NO matter. Yes section16 does exempt loans secured by land morgage, had this debate with the oFT some years ago, they said that the key is the word mortguage, the first loan purposeis to seccure a morguage whilst the second loan is usually not and therefore not exempt.
Cant remember mentioning penalty charges

Best regards
Peter

Thanks for that also Peter

The First Condition of Swift Advances plc conditions of the charge starts with and states this


1. You charge the property to us by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee.

Swift Advances plc wording on our title deeds is exactly the same as made by our first mortgage holder Abbey National ...now Santander

I think this qualifies and quantifies that it is an exempt agreement not "unregulated" and would/should fall under the remit of the FSA and rules laid down by the MCOL??

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Thanks for that also Peter

The First Condition of Swift Advances plc conditions of the charge starts with and states this


1. You charge the property to us by way of legal mortgage with full title guarantee.

Swift Advances plc wording on our title deeds is exactly the same as made by our first mortgage holder Abbey National ...now Santander

I think this qualifies and quantifies that it is an exempt agreement not "unregulated" and would/should fall under the remit of the FSA and rules laid down by the MCOL??

Sparkie

Well now there is a thing. Wonder if i can dig out the corresponence from the OFT. It was a few years ago, but i would bet the definition in Goode would be the same.

Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Well now there is a thing. Wonder if i can dig out the corresponence from the OFT. It was a few years ago, but i would bet the definition in Goode would be the same.

Peter

It would be wonderful if you could Peter...............The thing is Swift Advances plc do not hold an FSA licence.............that would be construed as carrying out morgage business without a licence

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

This what Swift Advances plc sent as our underwiting sheet.............this is their idea of transparency.


The commission that would have been paid is under the blocking out at the top r/h Corner
There are two certain authorities who are more than a little amazed that any lender would hope to have this accepted by anyone
The blocking out in the box on r/h side where the incomes are stated is where incomes and outgoings are stated ...the % of outgoings in relation to income
The box on the L/H side contains our house value and equity in it
It contains who our First Mortgage is with ...if there are any arrears ...the £100 packaging fee Admin fee lots of info we are legally entitled to

The £803.86 is where they manipulated my partners pension from £500 a month up to £803.86 when she had declared £6000 per annum ......they decided it wasn't enough and added the extra to make it appear we afford the loan repayments.

I post her signed income declaration later just for proof No "lies"??? are being told.......unlike some I could mention

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

My partners signed income declaration form showing £6000 per year which is £500 a month ...not what Swift Advances plc altered it to

We were 70 years old when we applied and I was still working and in good health.....so I thought but then suffered a bad heart attack.... ended up in intensive care and warned not to work again or it would kill me......so I finished work