Two interesting facts about Brunel Franklin. Brunel Franklin and Company Limited have just (end March) surrended voluntarily their MOJ licence. Brunel Franklin the trading name of Flairford securities, sounds very odd ??? Do not trust Ultimate Law a CMC based lawyer (husband and wife team) and an ex director of (yes you have guessed) Brunel Franklin/Flairford Securities

Ultimatelaw, credit wise and all others are for some reason miss leading the market and general public. CMC's are throwing brick bats at each other, all in some way conning the general public out of large front end fees and large back end fees. Then along comes a very sensible judge HHJ Halbert who hears a case in Chester County Court against Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited who had in the first instance a repossession order against the borrower. The case is eventually listed before him and he finds for the borrower. The decision in the case is based on a miss statement of the amount of credit. Interest was charged by the lender on an item that was included wrongly in the AOC, a mandatory fee which should have been a cost of credit. Very good straight forward decision. Well reasoned and easy to follow. HHJ Halbert for some reason then went of the rails and referred to Moore-Bic LJ and other Judges an idea he had to stay claims under the CCA 74 for some test cases to be heard in the commercial court in London before HHJ Andrew Smith. The position to me seems ill thought out. This is settled law it has been through the House of Lords and in the CA in 2007 Tuckey LJ was well able to see what was and was not a case for unenforceability. He decided in Wilson v Hurstanger that the agreement was enforceable. The courts have made it very clear. However some CMC's are determined to ruin the chances of these cases, the real cases, being successful by bringing large numbers of these cases on very spurious grounds. Where unenforceability is alleged for coppers, or a few pounds on a loan of £15,000/£20,000. Bearing in mind there is a plus1% and minus 0.1% tolerance on the APR minor discrepancies are bound to arise. The rules where designed to prevent the lenders failing to disclose the true COST of credit to borrowers. These claims which are lodged in Chester are largely based on a very expensive computer programme which is untested non legal and suggests that minor errors result in unenforceability. Other problems are also arising through a gross over statement of the incidence of loans that are unenforceable. Claims of 80% are a huge over statement and I have direct experience of 1000's of these loan agreements. So yet again the lenders, courts and CMC's are muddying the waters and the losers are.............yes the poor bl........y borrowers.