update on Swift

[brian77]

Re: update on Swift

Could someone from Admin please remove my latest post above please,it is very important.
Cheers Brian

[Celestine]

Re: update on Swift

Done xx

[pt2537]

Re: update on Swift

I am still fighting with Swift and I have found some errors on the agreement also made out by Norton the apr is 13 times the monthly interest instead of twelve also the date at the bottom of the agreement has been changed and not initialed by myself or my wife, just wondering if these technicalities would make the agreement unenforcable.

Cheers Brian

APR isnt a prescribed term sadly, nor is the date issue, the APR could lead to redeemable unenforceability, that is to say that the Court has to make an order before the agreement can be enforced, however neither of these help here.

You say you borrowed £7k in the first post but the loan agree says £6.5k , if the credit is misstated in the slightest then it would render the agreement unenforceable forevermore.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: update on Swift

Regina -v- Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 320 4 Apr 2000 Admn Schiemann LJ, Douglas Brown J Consumer, Crime, Financial Services A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract: "The total amount payable under the contract which can properly be described as the price, should be arrived at by reference to the APR. The APR given was very substantially below the true APR and Mr Pulford Junior was given a totally false indication as to how the aggregate of the sums required to be paid would be determined. In those circumstances clearly a misleading indication as to price was given. The question as to the enforceability of the agreement is quite irrelevant." As to the effect of the section: "Section 170(1) is not an obstacle to a prosecution under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where the provisions of Section 20 are apt to cover a factual situation such as that which arose in this case." Sparkie

[pt2537]

Re: update on Swift

Regina -v- Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 320 4 Apr 2000 Admn Schiemann LJ, Douglas Brown J Consumer, Crime, Financial Services A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract: "The total amount payable under the contract which can properly be described as the price, should be arrived at by reference to the APR. The APR given was very substantially below the true APR and Mr Pulford Junior was given a totally false indication as to how the aggregate of the sums required to be paid would be determined. In those circumstances clearly a misleading indication as to price was given. The question as to the enforceability of the agreement is quite irrelevant." As to the effect of the section: "Section 170(1) is not an obstacle to a prosecution under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where the provisions of Section 20 are apt to cover a factual situation such as that which arose in this case." Sparkie

Sorry that is totally irrelevant to the question of enforceability.

APR is a schedule 1 term required for compliance with s60 CCA 1974. while the agreement may be unenforceable save for an order under s65(1) & 127(1)&(2) CCA, it is not an irredeemable breach.

The Kettering case was not about enforceability it was about enforcement by the OFT

[Sparkie1723]

Re: update on Swift

No-one seems to understand what I am talking about .........I never said anything about enforecability ....I post this to demonstrate and put forward the view of using the criminal aspect of a misrepresentation and the fact that no-one can try to enforce an agreement (or other action) by way of Court Proceedngs because it is based on a criminal activity ...........The Illegal Defence.........becomes the Illegal Claim.

I'm not a lawyer just operate on logic.

Sparkei

[pt2537]

Re: update on Swift

No-one seems to understand what I am talking about .........I never said anything about enforecability ....I post this to demonstrate and put forward the view of using the criminal aspect of a misrepresentation and the fact that no-one can try to enforce an agreement (or other action) by way of Court Proceedngs because it is based on a criminal activity ...........The Illegal Defence.........becomes the Illegal Claim.

I'm not a lawyer just operate on logic.

Sparkei

I didnt understand because you didnt make any point, you posted a report of a case without making any supporting post.

If i posted the header from R vs R 1992 and said nothing then i would expect others to be as confused as i was at the previous post.

[lordsa]

Re: update on Swift

I'm having a very similar problem with swift advances I took out a loan with them in September 2006 for 10,500 over 72 months at 200.72 per month my husband is a self employed plumber and we got into difficulty early in the loan and went to court in 2007 at which point we agreed to pay 250 per month. After the term of the loan had finished we were told that we had incurred charges of 7,000 plus interest on these charges of over 7,000 we are going back to court with regards these charges next week. Can anyone offer any advise?

[CleverClogs]

Re: update on Swift

How much was the Judgement Debt and for how many months did you pay £250 per month?

[brian77]

Re: update on Swift

Hi Lordsa. Sorry I can't really give you advise but I do wish you luck and please let us know how you got on. I did get a very satisfactory result from Swift but for legal reasons I can't discuss it on here.
Cheers Brian

[john 1963]

Re: update on Swift

can you pm them us brian?