Swift Advances/Ocean finance

[meellis]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

If you look at the agreement closely it states that it will take the brokers fee and admin costs from the loan facility clause 3 I believe, hard to say with a poor copy. The only way you would know how much you paid would be from what was left over from the loan and given to you, seems strange to me but Andy seems to know how the agreement should read.

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

Have yo checked the land registry just to make sure that the charge is registered, you can do it on line, costs £3.

Yes the agreement regulations changed in May 2005 just be after this agreement was signed, after this date they have to itemize default charges on the executed agreement, before they just had to state that they would charge them.
It does not mean however that the default charges cannot be challenged, they are still subject to the normal rules of common law, in that they must be representative of costs incurred by the breach, otherwise they would be considered a penalty and not enforceable.

[eire13]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

Yes it does mention brokers fees and admin fees but it is 0.00 in clause 6 (brokers fee) and clause 7 0.00 legal and document fees. Thing is if Ocean Finance reject any complaint the FOS will probably not deal with it as it was taken out in 2004.

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

If you look at the agreement closely it states that it will take the brokers fee and admin costs from the loan facility clause 3 I believe, hard to say with a poor copy. The only way you would know how much you paid would be from what was left over from the loan and given to you, seems strange to me but Andy seems to know how the agreement should read.

Yes your eyes mus be better than mine, so eire did you not revive the full amount of credit stated on the agreement, was there sums paid to the broker out of you advance, if so this is incorrect,

[eire13]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

No I meant that they may have paid the broker a fee but not charged or told us. Seems strange they would just pass business along without being paid for it. They used just over £3,000 to pay off a charge I already had on the house they said I had to do this or would not get the loan. So we got just under £5,000 from the loan. And yes this has been registered with the land registry as I remember seeing something about it in a SAR pack from GMAC (the 1st mortgage crowd). Just can't believe the total amount we will end up paying on this it's so unfair.

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

Sorry for being a bit slow, is this now the only (first) charge on your property now ?

The issue with the broker would have been one of stating the fees on the agreement, if they had come out of you advances, also there would have been the implied fiduciary duty owed to you rather than the creditor if this was the case, if the fee came out of the creditors charge for credit he would owe you no such duty.

[eire13]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

No don't think you are being slow I probably have not explained things so well. There is also a charging order on the property also which came about in 2010 which happened when Nationwide obtained a ccj for a credit card debt which I could not pay. As regards the broker fees there is nothing stated on the agreement so I don't know any more than that really. Appreciate your help.

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

Hmm
The point is that the swift loan is now the first mortgage on the property, if I have you right. Since they used the borrowing on this to repay your initial first charge, the legal charge(debt on credit card) on the loan should not qualify as a charge by mortgage in the same way, as it was not to purchase land.

In other words they took over as the first charge lender ?

[eire13]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

I'm not sure I think so. I have an original mortgage with GMAC now Paratus. Then this secured loan with Swift which is secured on the house. And the charging order from Nationwide. I am a bit confuzzled sorry.

[meellis]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

Even though I like to believe the good in people, my major problem, I cannot believe that ocean had nothing for setting this up and arranging for the charge to be entered. Even if swift paid this they would look to get these costs back so I would imagine there is something they haven't disclosed that they should have done.

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

Yes it dose seem odd I am still unsure about the structure of the lending here(and I am sure it is my fault) the original lender the first mortgage is GMAC swift remortgaged another existing second mortgage and paid the OP the surplices as a cash loan is this correct ?

So currently the OP has a fist montage a secured loan with swift and a charge(from the CCJ) on their deed ?

[meellis]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

I think that sounds right Andy. Ok from my understanding the APR indicates the true cost of the loan including additional costs, there aren't any costs shown. 1.31% monthly is a nominal rate of 15.72% a year so to achieve an APR of 16.91% there has to be around about £359 worth of costs added to the loan facility. The monthly payments work out correct for 15.72% nominal, charged and compounded monthly over 120 months but with no additional costs the APR would be 15.72% as well. If you add £359 of costs to the loan you get an apr of 16.91% but the payments would be higher. To keep the payments the same there would have been a shortfall of about £340 in the amount paid out from the £8000 which would have paid these costs but that should have been indicated on the agreement. All calculations were carried out roughly on efunda advanced calculators.

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

Hi

Yes you may well be right

Bit of background for others.

As far as enforceability of the agreement is concerned in this period we are really just looking at the prescribed terms. (interest rate,total credit, repayment details) Any minor mathematical errors would not usually have any influence on a courts decision to issue an enforcement order.

The APR is important(although not itself a prescribed term) mainly because it indicates the ratio between the total charge for credit and the credit itself.

There is therefore a problem about using the APR to question an incorrectly quoted interest rate. There was a court case on this very issue regarding the calculation on a credit card, the debtor claimed that the APR when reverse calculated proved the interest rate to be incorrect and therefore triggered a prescribed term violation and thus uneorceability under section 127(3).

The judge rejected the claim on the grounds that the debtor was looking"down the wrong end of the telescope", in other words as long as this was the actual interest that is being charged it is only a minor breach not to mention any other associated charges which may influence the TCC and thus the APR.(as long as the APR reflects these extra charges).
A court when issuing an enforcement order under section 127(1) will consider the amount of prejudice caused by the breach, it was considered that this would be minimal so the agreement was enforced.

So where as think you are right in that they have hidden charges within the contract, the fact that these did not come out of the total credit, and did not effect the interest being charged means that in this respect anyway the agreement would be enforceable.

[meellis]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

The thing is they don't know what the total charge for credit is because the apr is indicating either a higher amount or the costs were taken off of the £8000 which should be indicated on the agreement.

[Guest]

Re: Swift Advances/Ocean finance

The thing is they don't know what the total charge for credit is because the apr is indicating either a higher amount or the costs were taken off of the £8000 which should be indicated on the agreement.

There is no requirement for the debtor to be aware of the TCC under the act unfortunately