Swift Advances Plc?

[Dougal16T]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Worth a look at the 2003 Guidance by the OFT.
http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre...Agreements.pdf

It mentions the debtor not being able to draw more than £25,000 at a time we did not receive a cheque for £43,000. we received a cheque each for £21,500 in our separate names.

There might be an argument in that we each have a reguated loan agreement?????

The agreement says that it is joint and several.........our property is in joint names we are not married we are partners...........when we die our equal shares of the property would be split between each of our separate legal survivors......my share of 50% would be divided between my 4 children.......my partners 3 children would share 1 third each of her 50%............Could it not be argued by splitting the total loan into 2 cheques they have negated the joint and several term and made each £21,500 a sole responsibility.........again more legal arguments...i.....ts getting more and more complicated ........I think its me making it so ..... is it me making it so or has Swift advances plc???

I'll have to give it a rest my "old senile brain" can't cope with what has been unearthed today. ......I'm nearly 75 now and its tiring work

Sparkie

Morning all,

Exactly the same happened to us two SEPARATE cheques, one in my name and one in my wifes name.

I shall ponder this and post later.

Regards to all,

Dougal

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

A different slant on all this

Here is what the OFT have said ....Prior to the lifting of the limit in 2008 there was nothing preventing ANY lender from lending any of money whatsoever and it would be regulated by the CCA.

Which throws up a massive argument about breach of fiduciary duty and transparency.

It was explained in this manner.....A lender could lend you say £75.000 in one lump sum secured on your property...............exempt from regulation of the CCA.....at an interest rate of 10%

Under the CCA the lender "could" break the loan down into 3 separate secured loans of £25.000 at 10%.
The lender would not lose anything by this...........But the borrower would have the protection of the CCA on all three agreements.

Or the lender could do exactly the same and make the personal unsecured loans at an interest trate of say 20% and again the borrower would be protected by the CCA.

The borrower then has the choice of if or not to take the option and decide what agreement he/she would take.

Lenders / brokers/ financial advisors know this but never advise a borrower of this..........they conceal this from them......
It is quite legal and from the horses mouth the OFT.

This raise a lot of issues....borrowers are deliberately misled into taking the type of loans they do that have no protection and are severely disadvantaged

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

hi found this for you may help
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...B2Ovu2GhdGsQLw

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

A different slant on all this

Here is what the OFT have said ....Prior to the lifting of the limit in 2008 there was nothing preventing ANY lender from lending any of money whatsoever and it would be regulated by the CCA.

Which throws up a massive argument about breach of fiduciary duty and transparency.

It was explained in this manner.....A lender could lend you say £75.000 in one lump sum secured on your property...............exempt from regulation of the CCA.....at an interest rate of 10%

Under the CCA the lender "could" break the loan down into 3 separate secured loans of £25.000 at 10%.
The lender would not lose anything by this...........But the borrower would have the protection of the CCA on all three agreements.

Or the lender could do exactly the same and make the personal unsecured loans at an interest trate of say 20% and again the borrower would be protected by the CCA.

The borrower then has the choice of if or not to take the option and decide what agreement he/she would take.

Lenders / brokers/ financial advisors know this but never advise a borrower of this..........they conceal this from them......
It is quite legal and from the horses mouth the OFT.

This raise a lot of issues....borrowers are deliberately misled into taking the type of loans they do that have no protection and are severely disadvantaged

Sparkie

Yes they could, playing devils advocate, i suppose they would say that this would mean added costs to the lender. Three sets of arrangment fees, land registery fees?. Also i am not sure how the creditor would feel about having to enforce three sepperate agreements in the event of default. After all at the end of the day the owner of the property,and/or of the first mortgagee has to approve any arrangement.

Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

hi found this for you may help
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=63&ved=0CCYQFjACODw&url=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.2clix.com%2Fsite%2Fdownloads%2F05unit03section2.pdf&ei=Ux0cTrnJPIy2hAfAioXJBw& usg=AFQjCNGe9ek01uHJpkKtB2Ovu2GhdGsQLw

Thanks for that Peter just found this hidden away in there


"Loans for mixed purposes are usually separated into regulated and non regulated elements, because the procedures are different for each"

That is EXACTLY what we put on our application form. for 3 specific purposes we ticked 3 of the 7 boxes shown on the application form.....home improvements ....clear existing credit and .....other.

I would think that this would make our agreement partly regulated and partly exempt and the agreement should have stated it was partly regulated by the CCA Act ...would that be right??

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Yes they could, playing devils advocate, i suppose they would say that this would mean added costs to the lender. Three sets of arrangment fees, land registery fees?. Also i am not sure how the creditor would feel about having to enforce three sepperate agreements in the event of default. After all at the end of the day the owner of the property,and/or of the first mortgagee has to approve any arrangement.

Peter

THe owner is whom it is registered to on the land registry which is you/us...in any event Swift Advancs plc state quite clearly that they can lend money secured on your property even if the first charge mortgagee does not give their consent.

There would not be any added costs to the lender because the borrower allways has to pay these.......the borrower should still be given the choice if he wants to go that way and pay the extra costs.

Sparkie
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Off subject are there any other "Swift" Borrowers (I use the word "Swift" because it includes Swift 1st ltd's borrowers also) who's Broker was Promise Finance Ltd ..now gone bust...........I may have some news and info that couold make them happy

Can Questions be asked on the other forums for me ....it is of great imortance and benefit to all who they were brokers for.
they should contact me.

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

THe owner is whom it is registered to on the land registry which is you/us...in any event Swift Advancs plc state quite clearly that they can lend money secured on your property even if the first charge mortgagee does not give their consent.

There would not be any added costs to the lender because the borrower allways has to pay these.......the borrower should still be given the choice if he wants to go that way and pay the extra costs.

Sparkie
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Off subject are there any other "Swift" Borrowers (I use the word "Swift" because it includes Swift 1st ltd's borrowers also) who's Broker was Promise Finance Ltd ..now gone bust...........I may have some news and info that couold make them happy

Can Questions be asked on the other forums for me ....it is of great imortance and benefit to all who they were brokers for.
they should contact me.

Sparkie

Hmm,
Not so sure, seems to me that there was a reason why parliament decided there should be a limit on a single cca loan, even though they seem to have changed their mind.

really isnt t up to the creditor to decide how he lends his money, if he does not want to provide that option why should he have to? You can always take your business elswhere.

There is no law or regulation that says he has to split the loan in order for it to be regulated, in fact i would say that this would defeat the spirit of the statutory requirment.
Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hmm,
Not so sure, seems to me that there was a reason why parliament decided there should be a limit on a single cca loan, even though they seem to have changed their mind.

really isnt t up to the creditor to decide how he lends his money, if he does not want to provide that option why should he have to? You can always take your business elswhere.

There is no law or regulation that says he has to split the loan in order for it to be regulated, in fact i would say that this would defeat the spirit of the statutory requirment.
Peter

Hi Peter,

I think you misunderstood ....... it would not be a single loan agreement it would be two or three.........I agree totally there is no law that says a creditor must do this ....it is the fact that he "COULD" do it....that is if he wanted to be fair and transparent the option is there that allows a sum over the limit of a CCA loan.

Lets cut it down a little ......if one would like to borrow £28,000 .....it could be done many ways to suit both borrwer and lender
1 Loan for 25K over 72 months or what ever
1 loan for 3K over 36 months over what ever.
That is to say total money borrowed £28K
But proteced by regulation

Thats the view of the OFT only obtained in the last few day on this particular question and scenario of loans pre April 2008.......only passing the info on.......it was available to do it this way without contravention of any statute


Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Hi Peter,

I think you misunderstood ....... it would not be a single loan agreement it would be two or three.........I agree totally there is no law that says a creditor must do this ....it is the fact that he "COULD" do it....that is if he wanted to be fair and transparent the option is there that allows a sum over the limit of a CCA loan.

Lets cut it down a little ......if one would like to borrow £28,000 .....it could be done many ways to suit both borrwer and lender
1 Loan for 25K over 72 months or what ever
1 loan for 3K over 36 months over what ever.
That is to say total money borrowed £28K
But proteced by regulation

Thats the view of the OFT only obtained in the last few day on this particular question and scenario of loans pre April 2008.......only passing the info on.......it was available to do it this way without contravention of any statute


Sparkie

Did say i was playing devils advocatre here by the way.

The thing is the act says that a creditor cannot lend a debtor more than 25K, doesnt say in a single agreement. I am sure that they would say that all they were doing wa following the act.
If this was allowed then what would be the point of having a financial limit at all?
I am sure it is not a breach of statute but would not presenting the option be considered unfair?
Peter

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

I think the answer would be that the CCA did not set the financial limit in order to ensure that the loan given was under 25K but to ensure that the amount recoverable under the individual contract did not exceed 25K.

This restriction would be held no matter how many contracts were issued for a single purchase.
It in effect limits the liability of a single contract.
Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

You did say youwere playing devils advocate and that is what I appreciate Peter and thank you .......you have to get all angles of an argument and that is the only way.......... get someone to argue against instead of agreeing or putting up another angle.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Police came to see me again today had a good meeting /interview....a detective Sgt from the fraud squad will be contacting me very soon to arrange a time to pay me a vist with a colleague .....the officer studied the two letters I posted in the first post and took copies of them away .
It appears that in view of Mr Whites statement about commissions not being paid under oath will more than likely draw Promise Solutions Ltd into the mixing bowl.
They want to play awkward.....that's their problem now

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

It may be a good thing that Promise Solutions Ltd will not repay our now admitted undisclosed commission as it opens the door for me to summon Mr White back into Court to explain his statement under oath that they did not pay this commission that Promise Solutions Ltd say they received......( £1408.65)

This is better than them paying us our commission back………Mr Whites perjury can void our agreement title charge and Swift Advances plc will have to repay us all our money back costs, compensation in restitution …….I feel quite happy today.

The MD of “Solutions” is now caught up in the whole goings on.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Now I have the evidence I can now take action against both "SwifT and Promise" for undisclosed denied Sectret commission.
That's what the law says about this...............an action can be taken against against either the payer or the recipient..............this is the way to get Mr White, Mr Webster and Mr Walker in the same Court room...........that will be very interesting ...........letters before action are being sent to day by e-mail and recorded delivery.
Just a burst across the Bows for starters

There will also be some some sparks flying because Promise Finance Ltd held a CCA licence but did not have an ICO licence Promise Solutions did not have a CCA licence but held an ICO licence....neither were on each others as a trading name!!
a LTD company cannot be a trading name on a licence ......................each one has to hold their own separate licence.

Both the OFT and the ICO are being made aware of the Company Number that was used by Promise Solutions Ltd to buy Promise Finance Ltd from the administrator.........I'll put my reasons for this later and I firmly believe what I will post.

I have also got a full list of the inventory that Promise Solutions Ltd bought which included Dell computer monitors and base units (10) lap tops...servers ....window servers licencing packs hard drives Krahl com servers a further 9 computer base ........these would have held evry single bit of information that Promise Finance Ltd had ........and they try to tell me and ounits ne of their other customers they only have "very limited info"...........I leave you all to make your mind up if that is to believed..........remember the only way data can be deleted from a computer is that the hard drive MUST be physically destroyed.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Had a letter from "Swift Avances" servicing department no name at the bottom of the letter just a squiggle as usual...........I'll post it up later .......this is the first time that they admit that they paid this payment to "our broker"....BUT they do not name the broker ...........they also use the same terminology that the MD of Promise Solutions Ltd did .......an override commission..............and "Swift Advances" are now saying that they paid this out of their own funds ..............they haven't got their own funds never had .....they use borrowed money .......100's of millions of it......even so when our loan was set up "Swift Advances" was an unlicensed trading name that belonged to another company.

Who do they think they are kidding.......must think I came off a bannana boat. No matter where it came from its ...a bribe ....a backhander.........a bung. JUst think of the amount of money they pay and paid "out their own funds" ......they wouldn't have any left to lend.

I now have the evidence that the only loan that "Promise" arranged through any/either of the "Swift" companies in April 2007 was ...................OURS.

There is no record of our loan brokers fee commission in Promise Finances Ltd accounts ( First plus , Blemain G.mac Ge Money, Bank of Ireland, Nationwide etc etc etc ......BUt no "Swift" company.
Therefore our broker was/must have been " Solutions" and ........they did not hold a CCA licence....of course the OFT are being made aware of this

Sparkie


Here is their latest rendition



If you compare the wording of the last paragraph with the wording of the letter from the MD of Promise Solutions ltd on the the new thread I started on Promise Finance Ltd you would swear they were written by the same person.....so who has been talking to who do you think??!!