Swift Advances Plc?

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

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Of course Sparkie
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

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

[Angry Cat]

Re: Swift Advances Plc?

Paragon Group of Companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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

[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?

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?

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

[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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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