Not upheld: loan administration, debt collection, interest charging, legal action, vulnerability assessment, Equality Act compliance complaint against Swift 1st Limited (trading as Swift Advances)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms K and Mr S complained about a secured loan originally taken from Swift Advances plc in 2008 for approximately £11,000, now administered by Swift 1st Limited with an outstanding balance exceeding £30,000. Their complaints covered the original lending decision, accumulated interest and charges, continued charging during breathing space moratoriums, pursuit of legal action for repossession, and alleged failures regarding vulnerability and Equality Act compliance. The ombudsman found most complaints fell outside jurisdiction as they related to the original lender or were raised outside the six-month referral window. For matters within scope, the ombudsman found Swift 1st had acted fairly in continuing to charge interest on the long-overdue balance, pursuing legal remedies, and removing interest during breathing spaces, while acknowledging the need for reasonable communication adjustments given the complainants' recently diagnosed neurodivergent conditions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied strict jurisdictional limitations, finding that only matters covered by final responses issued within six months of referral could be considered, and that Swift Advances plc's original lending decision was outside the scope as it occurred before Swift 1st became administrator in 2016. For matters within scope, the ombudsman found Swift 1st's actions reasonable: continuing to charge interest on an overdue balance was appropriate; removing interest during breathing spaces went beyond regulatory requirements; not pausing legal action during complaints was justified given the series of repeated complaints and the deteriorating financial position; and legal fees were recoverable under the loan terms. The ombudsman rejected allegations of fraud regarding court documents, finding the hand-written amendment was a normal judicial practice. Regarding vulnerability and Equality Act obligations, the ombudsman acknowledged the need for reasonable adjustments in communication but rejected the argument that fundamental changes to repayment obligations could be required.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website