• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

update on Swift

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: update on Swift

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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: update on Swift

      Done xx
      "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

      I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

      If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

      If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: update on Swift

        Originally posted by brian77 View Post
        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.
        I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

        If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

        I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

        You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

        Comment


        • #19
          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

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: update on Swift

            Originally posted by Sparkie1723 View Post
            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
            I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

            If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

            I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

            You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

            Comment


            • #21
              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

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: update on Swift

                Originally posted by Sparkie1723 View Post
                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.
                I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

                If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

                I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

                You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: update on Swift

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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: update on Swift

                        can you pm them us brian?

                        Comment

                        View our Terms and Conditions

                        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                        Working...
                        X