Sorry to do it this way but I thought it best to post now so that others can also add to it etc, just in case I don't get time over the next couple of weeks.... Good luck Slgsue

I am currently working on implementing the FSA notices in relation to GMAC etc into this letter, combined with · Amount of Charges FSA Handbook “MCOB 12.4 Arrears charges: regulated mortgage contract MCOB 12.4.1 A firm must ensure that any regulated mortgage contract that it enters into does not impose, and cannot be used to impose, a charge for arrears on a customer except where that charge is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the additional administration required as a result of the customer being in arrears. MCOB 12.5 Excessive charges: regulated mortgage contracts, home reversion plans and regulated sale and rent back agreements MCOB 12.5.1 A firm must ensure that any regulated mortgage contract, home reversion plan or regulated sale and rent back agreement that it enters into does not impose, and cannot be used to impose, excessive charges upon a customer. MCOB 12.5.3 When determining whether a charge is excessive, a firm should consider: o the amount of its charges for the services or products in question compared with charges for similar products or services on the market; o the degree to which the charges are an abuse of the trust that the customer has placed in the firm; and o the nature and extent of the disclosure of the charges to the customer.” When I get a little more time, I will try and get something put together for you...

· Distress and Inconvenience I consider that the way in which SPML initially dealt with my complaint and the way in which SPML has failed to respond to the view issued by (Adjudicators Name), is in breach of its obligations under DISP 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 of the FSA Handbook which states: “DISP 1.4.3 The respondent should aim to resolve complaints at the earliest possible opportunity, minimising the number of unresolved complaints which need to be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service. DISP 1.4.4 Where a complaint against a respondent is referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the respondent must cooperate fully with the Financial Ombudsman Service and comply promptly with any settlements or awards made by it.” I consider that the delays caused by the way in which SPML have dealt with this matter has caused me undue distress and inconvenience. Summary It is my understanding that (Adjudicators Name), has determined that SPML should refund arrears charges totalling £925.00. However, it has determined that SPML should not refund legal fees applied to my account or additional interest incurred as a result of the arrears charges and legal fees applied to my account. As I understand it, the Financial Ombudsman Service would look to see that I am placed in the same financial position I would have been in had an act or omission not occurred. I consider that the additional contractual interest applied to my account as a result of the arrears charges being applied to my account should also be refunded. I say this because had the charges not been applied, the additional interest would not have been incurred.

Application of Arrears Charges and Legal Fees As clearly evidenced by the frequency of the charges applied to my account, SPML was unambiguously aware that I was experiencing financial difficulties. I consider that there are a number of steps SPML could have taken to avoid continued charges being applied to my account. However, SPML failed to enter into meaning full dialogue to comply with its obligations under MCOB 13.3.2A. “2A firm must, when dealing with any customer in payment difficulties: make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with a customer over the method of repaying any payment shortfall or sale shortfall, in the case of the former having regard to the desirability of agreeing with the customer an alternative to taking possession of the property; liaise, if the customer makes arrangements for this, with a third party source of advice regarding the payment shortfall or sale shortfall; allow a reasonable time over which the payment shortfall or sale shortfall should be repaid, having particular regard to the need to establish, where feasible, a payment plan which is practical in terms of the circumstances of the customer; grant, unless it has good reason not to do so, a customer's request for a change to: the date on which the payment is due (providing it is within the same payment period); or the method by which payment is made;” Regretfully, despite the above steps SPML could have taken to assist me, no assistance was provided. By failing to suggest or discuss the above steps, whilst being fully aware of my continued financial difficulties, I consider that SPML failed in its duty to treat me fairly.

In case you wish to proceed with the FOS, I have started writing a final submission to the Ombudsman that you could use.... I don't have much free time at the moment, so I will post bits and pieces as and when I can. (Date) (Adjudicators Name) The Financial Ombudsman Service South Quay Plaza 183 Marsh Wall London E14 9SR Re: (Your Complaint Reference Number) Dear (Adjudicators Name) Thank you for your letter of (date of letter). Whilst I welcome the conclusion of your investigation, I was disappointed to learn that Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited (SPML) did not respond to your correspondence. As I understand it, as SPML did not respond to your correspondence, an Ombudsman will now independently assess the merits of my complaint and following this assessment issue a ‘final decision’ – being the final word of the Financial Ombudsman Service about my complaint. It is my understanding that once a ‘final decision’ has been issued, I have the opportunity to accept it or reject it. Therefore, given the importance of the ‘final decision’, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the details of my complaint. I would also like to explain why whilst I am grateful for your investigation of my complaint, I consider that the final financial award by the Financial Ombudsman Service should not be limited to arrears charges applied to my account. Complaint I have a regulated mortgage with SPML. I consider that the amounts including but not limited to arrears charges, legal fees and additional interest have been unfairly applied to my account. To resolve my complaint, I would like SPML to refund all of the additional amounts applied to my account. Conclusion It is my understanding that a complaint is to be determined by reference to what is, in the opinion of the ombudsman, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, as I understand it, in considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman will take into account relevant law and regulations; regulators' rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and (where appropriate) what he considers to have been good industry practice at the relevant time.

Here you go peter http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Policy/Policy/2010/10_09.shtml http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_09.pdf

Has Acenden provided either you or your Solicitor with a redemption statement ?

Hello intheblack A thread has been created for you http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?305900-unregulated-loan-getting-confused It is impossible to answer your questions in relation to CCA requests and the OFT comments in regard to enforceability without further details, as the CCA might have nothing to do with your loan......

Hello Slgsue Congratulations on getting this far... Good to see that the Adjudicator considers the arrears charges applied by Acenden (in these circumstances) to be unfair and that he/she considers that they should be refunded. In deciding your next move, do you know how much approximately all of the charges including interest and legal fees add up too ? Sorry if you have said this before but is this for a first charge or a second charge loan? If it is a first charge did you apply for it after 31 October 2004 ?

Hello intheblack Do you have your own thread ? Just a few questions.... Who is your lender? Was it a first charge or second charge loan? When did you apply for the loan? Different rules apply to different types of loans and these rules vary depending upon dates and amounts...

Hello Celtic There is another option, which Acenden did not mention in the letter sent to you. That option being that as Acenden incorrectly calculated your payments and that you subsequently made the payments in good faith, Acedenden is wholly responsible for the mistake and therefore it should writeoff the shortfall balance, in this instance £1,155.51... Now this may sound too good to be true. However, as published in the Financial Ombudsman Service News publication (issue 88 ) in August/September 2010: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/88/88-mortgage-underfunding.htm You should make a complaint to Acenden, making reference to the view of the Financial Ombudsman Service. If after 8 weeks Acenden has not agreed to write off the short fall balance or has not responded to your complaint, you should then make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, providing a copy of your letter and again making reference to issue 88 of the Financial Ombudsman News. You might find these articles very interesting: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/article.html?in_article_id=509826&in_page_id=8 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1363051/Banks-pay-mortgage-internal-error-ask-consumers-it.html

Hello Sue Ask the Adjudicator for a copy of the letter that he/she has sent to them ? They can email it to you... You need to know what it is the FOS have asked them to do, so that you can make an informed choice about your next step..

I would save your money, you don't need a contract law solicitor. The answer can be found via google. Of course none of this helps with your problem in obtaining details of your transactions.... You could make an official complaint to the ICO and once the ICO write to them requesting information relating to your complaint, it may give them a kick up the backside and a wake up call to send you the information you have requested

Hello Mrz Have you spoken with the ICO ? Might be worthwhile giving them a quick call and see what they have to say. http://www.ico.gov.uk/ Helpline Call us on 0303 123 1113. Our helpline is open from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. If you would prefer not to call an ‘03’ number, call us on 01625 545745.

The FSMA only applies to new first charge mortgages after 31 October 2004. Your mortgage as I understand it was for £56,000 and you applied for it in 2000. The reason that your agreement is not regulated by the CCA is because of the date of the agreement and the amount you borrowed. Before the implementation of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 and its amendments to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, credit agreement in excess of £25,000 were exempt from regulation. However, following the implementation of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, this financial limit was removed (except in limited circumstances) The lifting of the financial limit only applies to new agreements made on or after 6 April 2008. This means that existing agreements over £25,000 will remain unregulated unless altered. The transitional arrangement provides that previously unregulated agreements (by virtue of the £25,000 financial limit) will remain unregulated where the variation either does not involve the provision of further credit (in the form of a cash loan), or is itself an exempt agreement. However, having said the above the balance of your mortgage is significantly higher than it was originally. Have you increased the amount borrowed after 31 October 2004 ?

You could use the words (slightly amended) of Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime in your complaint with the FOS. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml With an amended version stating: Many of Ascenden's customers were and are in a vulnerable position, having fallen into arrears on their mortgage payments and it should not charge such customers excessive and unfair fees. This is not how the FSA expects lenders to treat customers in arrears. Rather than assessing each customer’s personal and financial circumstances on an individual basis, Ascenden appear to apply a one size fits all approach by aiming to reduce arrears. The FSA is committed to clamping down on mortgage lenders who fail to adhere to treating customers fairly rules. It is crystal clear about the standards it expects and it states it will take tough actions against firms who breach these rules. The above is just a quick rewrite but I am sure you get my drift. Use the words of the FSA to support and strengthen your complaint.

After speaking to my friend I think the extensions are the lesser of two evils. If Ascenden don't respond to the adjudicator, all he or she can do is pass it onto an Ombudsman which means you could be waiting months for an outcome. If your lucky they will respond and you will have an answer in a matter of weeks failing that it could be several months for an Ombudsman. You might be better off depending on your circumstances, following the advice in the email from CAG and subsequently posted by PeterJM and start a claim in court. You will find lots of advice and support here on CAG.

The short answer is no it is not regulated by the CCA. However, the fairness test is applicable to your unregulated mortgage contract.

Sounds like a fantastic piece of software. As it can determine if someone has a claim against a lender, claim management companies must be falling over themselves to get their hands on it. Do you have any further info... Does the solicitor have to provide the new lender with any form of indemnity, just in case the case isn't as sound as considered by the solicitor ? I wonder how this would work in practice given the vast number of different outcomes.. I wonder how this would impact upon a lenders decision to lend. I also wonder if this lender(s) charges some form of higher administration / product fee for accepting the solicitors judgement on a possible claim.

Hello Saverjustice, What type of claim is the computer software package able to determine ? Is this a high street or a "specialist lender" ?

Always remember you can take ascenden to Court at anytime... You don't have to wait for the FOS

Good Morning Slgsue I spoke to a friend this morning who used to work there and she said. They usually give a two week deadline to respond. If no response is received they write again giving a further two weeks. If after that extension the FOS still don't receive a response they write one final time stating that they will allow a futher two weeks and if no response the complaint will be passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision

Hello What is the interest rate and term of the loan ? Does your argreement say anything about repayment charges

Hello Sue As I understand it the FOS write to the losing party first, so this could be good news.... However, the losing party be it a consumer or a bank always has referal rights to an Ombudsman if they don't agree or accept the adjudicators conclusions.. Hopefully the adjudicator has asked for a full rather than a partial refund... I will keep my fingers crossed for you... Good Luck

Hello, sorry I didn't explain myself very well... I would use the particulars of claim as a basis which you can amend to fit your own circumstances, and the information from the OFT to challenge the lenders position in relation to signing an agreement. Yes you signed it, but it does not give them a right to charge anything they like. Whilst it could be said that there is a general legal principle that when you sign an agreement, you do so to say that you have read and understood the terms and conditions, even if you haven't, the agreement is not a blank cheque for the lender.... Towards the end of last year the FSA were looking to reduce the emphasis on the signing of agreements. I am not sure if this ever bore fruit or not. I will do some digging over the weekend.