Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. Update: It's been a hard year or so getting thought he reluctance of my wife to allow any kind of input to this problem given the trauma we went through selling up under pressure. But, I got the invoices and costs breakdowns from the banks solicitors with regards to their costs relating to my challenges. Penny for penny, since 2007 the bank have applied ALL of the solicitors invoices to our mtg account (since redeemed in 2013) all £47,400 worth. On these invoices are some telling notes corresponding to the solicitors actions and the cost applied ie: ABC solicitor 21.01.2014 letter to client 0,30 minutes - £x ABC solicitor 23.01.2014 letter to Spot 0.20 -£x and so on from 2007 to 2013 Now in 2010 I applied to the bank with my 10 quid for my DSAR which in their wisdom felt they needed to pass by the solicitor to redact the hell out of before I received it. Total charge on their invoice for doing so and reading through it - £630 +vat in Oct 2010 So not only did I pay my 10 quid, the bank put the £630 onto my mortgage as part of 'prolonged litigation' and began chagring interest at contractural mtg interest rate. In 2012 when they took me to court and acquired their Money Judgement it included this additional £630 +VAT +Interest which makes the Judgement sum wrong. Also on these notes from the solicitor were a partners notes against his input time and one of those notes stated ' Agreeing a Stonewall Strategy with ABC (solicitor in his team looking after my account). My questions to the bank which I was having considerable troube getting answers to were regulatory questions the bank should answer for free. Another comment (and charge) was from the same partner and it basically said: Why should we tell him the answers when he will throw them back at our client, it is not for our client to fuel the fire to have it thrown back at them. I can't show you the full details here, it would take too long, but this is a Partner of a seriously large firm of solicitors admitting they had agreed, not just discussed, but agreed a stonewall strategy to stop me getting the regulatory information I was entitled to get from their client the bank as a matter of course - via Transparency and TCF's So, out of the 47k I can identify at least 40k which should have been the banks costs and not mine, yet they were sytematically posted to our account. I have the proof, written in their own hand, not something I am assuming or made up - it's there for the world to see written by them and probably sent out by some pleb in the bank without passing it by the redactors first. But hey ho, I got them. 2 questions now, 1) What difference does it make if the Money Judgement sum/figure is wrong? 2) does this sound to anyone like fraud by the Partner and his team in denying me information which I am legally entitled to know like 'who regulated a further advance we tookand what do you think of this 'agreeing a stonewall strategy' to stop me receiving any answer so that I would sell my home and get their client paid off......? Be interested in hearing the legal buffs on here opinion. Thanks Spot
  2. Well in March 2012 I had the Order, and then entered into serious negotiations over another issue of the mortgage set-up which continued for some time, including a meeting in Sept 2012 with their solicitor and a member of the lenders legal team. I already had the property on the market, but hoped to sort this issue out and thereafter have resolved the issues of balances...this went on until they pulled a fast one at the end by not answering any questions or considering my proposals which they'd asked me to provide - rejecting out of hand each and every one of them without making any representation themselves, other than threatening me with eviction..so we sold in Jan 2013 as my Wife could stand it no longer. Had they been transparent and honest and negotiated as I was doing then the arrears would have gone away as would most of the mortgage altogether, but they closed ranks, refused to engage in anything much as Bankfodder described in his final paragraph above and the lender and their solicitors had me in a corner - deep pocket litigation and intimidation tactic...I had little choice, given my wife's condition, to sell up and come back to the issue. They thought I'd go away. We sold, bought a new place which she is very unhappy in, and I have been almost banned from getting involved by her in even sitting at my PC, but I have slowly rebuilt the situation. I even had to sacrifice my half of the new house due to the losses incurred by me over the fights I had with these lenders- that's hard given I had built a business which paid for the house and she'd had no paid job (apart from raising the family). It was never going to be easy, I can take that, she couldn't, but now I am going back over every last detail but it has taken me a year of sheer hell bringing the temperature down so that divorce was not the next option as it was back in January 2013 when we moved. There are a lot of questions still to be answered including their lying to the court (allegedly) and it'll take some time to unravel, but I played their legal game last time and ended up paying for it in spectacular fashion, but now the fight is on my terms and I am a street fighter. I will not rely on a judge because I have been shafted by 2 thus far one of whom made judgement even though admitting she had not read my witness statement and I have little faith in solicitors and no money left to pay them until I have 100% detail to support what I allege like an answer to the question I opened this thread with. I'll need my wife's permission out of respect for her and my promises not to do anything without telling her and that is something she will only give once I'm ready to present it to her in detail and at the right time - it's delicate, as she is. So whilst this may look simple enough as to why it takes time, human emotion and states of mind are not easily put into black and white as you are perhaps implying a court may respond. Piece by piece I am putting this together and then we'll let the right people decide what needs to be done either the FCA or even the raising of a fraud investigation as fraud I believe has been committed (I have the proof - it's just getting it into the right hands and finding someone to do something constructive with it, I'll only have one shot). Does that make more sense now? Thanks Brigadier.. Spot
  3. Thanks Bankfodder. Why didn't I raise this before the hearing? - because It has taken more than just a raised eyebrow to extract the details of the costs from the company concerned. The hearing was in March, I saw these charges on the annual mortgage statement without breakdown, without any mention of them 10 months after the event. That's why. Many of these charges were just dumped onto my mortgage balance by the lender as the solicitors invoices were raised to them - not a word to me and these, I might add, are not just costs involved in a repossession action, these cover many charges raised for communications between solicitor and company which had nothing to do with the repo action, but 'other' negotiations' which I had been involved in which ended in a Tomlin Order which stated my costs would and had to be met. As I didn't know about 'their' charges, I submitted my own costs which they paid, yet the lender added 5 or 6 times the amount of my own to cover their own costs and told me nothing about them. So it's not just a disgruntled debtor. Would it have made any difference to the action? - well possibly yes, but knowing the judiciary and the way it works from experience, they will probably say it wouldn't, but the balances from 2008 would have been less, the interest charged would have been less so the arrears they chased would have been less and possibly managable - who knows when the pressure is on how you might get through it? I had over £600k in free equity over and above any and all charges on my property, so there was no risk to them whatsoever. I sold-up because my wife nearly had a breakdown and couldn't handle the pressure and threats any longer. Once sold, it's respite time for their evil, but this time I'm in control, not them. That makes a wonderful difference to the sparring methods. I just wondered about this Money Judgement sum as I know little about them, but with area's such as CCA and default notices, things have to be done to the letter as with Agreement documents and I was interested to know what exactly happened IF a Money Judgement (as opposed to just a repossession order) was incorrect. Get adefault sum wrong and the consequences are dire, so what about the Money Judgement? See where I'm coming from? Thanks for your input. I'm sure one of the legally knowledgeable will steer me in the right direction as the devil in these things is in the detail. Spot
  4. I had action taken against me by a bank for mortgage arrears and they took me to court and obtained a money judgement on a sum of money. They won and were given a Possession Order and MJ on the outstanding balance of the mortgage.. Included in that figure were a lot of legal costs many of which I do not feel I owe. Rather than be evicted I sold up and had to pay the whole lot so the Possession Order was never effectively enforced. However, the pressure they put upon us was very traumatising and that in itself forced us into selling our home of 15 yrs. My Question please: If I prove these legal costs were added to my mortgage wrongly as I assert does that make the money judgement incorrect and what are the consequences of a lender getting the money Judgement wrong, ie..what are my remedies? This involves a lot of money as I fought them so I am not talking pennies here, but they have manipulated the figures and just dumped them on my mortgage balance without advising me, I have obtained a breakdown of them and they were clearly wrong. I am not wanting to either go back into court or use solicitors as I trust no one after what we went through and as this is a self help forum wondered if anyone could advise me on how a)I can tackle this, b) what legally is the position with a wrongly stated money judgement after the property has been sold and the relevance of the court repossession order now dead in the water? Thanks Spot
  5. I have a 1st Mtg with a high st bank which I have ended up having to redeem by selling my house as they have a repossession order obtained which I have good reason to dispute and have done so for some time without conclusion. I have a 2nd charge loan with a dubious 2nd charge lender which also obtained a repossession order and eviction order which I managed to stop due to paying the arrears off, but I also have considerable issues of dispute over. That said, I have now sold my house and due to exchange contracts and complete and by so doing will obviously have to pay both in full to get the title released for the buyer. What would be the situation if I asked my solicitor to pay both companies full balances demanded including any disputed amounts (I have ample equity to do so and buy myself a new home) into court rather than to the companies direct using the Claim numbers of their repossession Claims thereby satisfying the balances required to settle these in full to release title deeds, but putting them on notice they are going to have to satisfy the court that these full sums are warranted? Would it hold up the completion of the sale and would anyone know what complications I might incur by doing so?
  6. We should start up a firm of our own - (in-house so to speak!) and take these cowards on.
  7. Hi D.J.F and welcome to the forum. You have a bit of a mixed bag here and you'll need to break these down a little into whether they are pesonal debt or business related. Bit difficult to tell at first glance. some of these need breaking down into their component parts such as your mortgages, the empty house - was that a 1st home mortgage or what? Also when breaking this down, can you say whether there were any further advances on the mortgage, what date they were and what amounts they were? Have you kept all the documentation for all this too? If you can take each debt and break them down into component parts then we may be able to give you more valueable and consturctive opinions. It might also be better to break each laon into a separate thread then add the links into your signature at the bottom of you posts to all threads you begin. With all you've had going on I am confident there are areas which could benefit you, but the devil's in the details in these things and you'll need patience too. You seen pretty switched on to events so that's always a good start. Good luck anyway.
  8. You have to ask them for a copy of the Actuarial Accrual Account Summary Sheet and you want it in A3 format as you cannot read the A4 it is too small. If they resist sending that as they are wise to us now, then you need a proper statement showing all the debits and credits applied to the account. They do not supply one as a matter of course with this breakdown so you need to be specific in asking for what you need and don't give up until you have it.
  9. Ell-enn is the best Cag's got on these things, sweetjane has given some good advice too, I've been to court with these people and you must do as both Ell-enn and Sweetjane says and not be afraid of this meeting. That's all this is - a meeting and with the figures and paperwork Ell-enn has given you Swift will probably get a suspended order which means they win the case but you keep your home as long as you can pay something towards the arrears. There are case laws which state that you can have the arrears spread over the term of the loan. It's late now, but even if worst case scenario the judge gives possession and you lose your home you can ask for an appeal and then we can all get to work on helping you save this situation. Your day in court might be theworst thing to live through in your own mind, but there's a much bigger operation going on behind the scenes to stop Swift altogether so you are not alone and those others who have already been repossessed can sit back in the knowledge that their loss may not turn into the loss they thought. Can't say much more, but as they have said - be brave, see the day out and come back here for the next chapter no matter what the result is. We are all thinkng of you. spot
  10. Keep this in mind when looking at s.140 claims and Swift's interest rates which only ever go up. Compare them with bank base rates, Libor and any other rates then apply this from the FSA Unfair relationships cases: Case 12 Upendra Rasiklal Patel v Vithalbhai Bikabhai Patel 10 December 2009 (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division) Case No: [2009] EWHC 3264 (QB) Claim: The creditor, Mr Upendra Patel, advanced sums to the borrower, Mr V B Patel (no relation), between 1979 and 1983. The borrower challenged whether the agreements were legally binding, and if so, whether the court should make an order under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act to discharge or reduce the sum payable on the ground that the relationship was unfair to the borrower. Type of agreement: Unsecured loans totalling £56,450 made between 1979 and 1983. All the agreements made were oral. Between 1979 and 2001 the borrower made repayments totalling £72,336. According to the creditor, it was agreed that interest would accrue at 20% per annum, compounded monthly. By the time of the hearing the amount claimed totalled over £6 million. Judgment: The judge found that:  There were legally binding loan agreements made at each stage of the relevant history on the terms alleged by the creditor.  The borrower’s claim for relief under section 140B was not time-barred. In order to make the determination required by section 140A, the judge was entitled, and obliged, to have regard to all the matters referred to in section 140A whenever they occurred.  The loans agreed were initially made on fair terms to the borrower. It was unlikely that the borrower could have arranged an unsecured loan from a bank on better terms. The amount of money advanced was substantial, the business was a new venture and the loan was unsecured. The borrower was capable of making a realistic estimate of the potential turnover and profits of the business and of calculating whether the terms on which the creditor was offering finance made the business viable.  By 1992 however the amount of the debt had reached critical proportions. At that juncture, fairness to the borrower would have involved attempting to formulate a realistic schedule of payments which would have enabled him to reduce and ultimately to pay off the debt, with a reasonable rate of interest charged in the meantime. However, that was not what happened.  Instead, terms were agreed orally in 1992 which were unfair to the borrower and which became progressively more unfair to him thereafter. The judge found the repayment terms to be unfair because:  The 1992 agreement was no longer in any sense a joint venture in which the creditor’s return was linked to the profitability of the business. It was a straightforward loan agreement under which a fixed rate of interest was payable irrespective of how the borrower’s businesses fared.  By 1992, the business was no longer a risky start-up for which the creditor could be regarded as providing ‘seed capital’. It was an established business, trading profitably, and the risk to a lender was correspondingly less.  The creditor had adduced no evidence to show that an interest rate of 20% per annum, compounded monthly, was a reasonable commercial rate to charge a borrower in the circumstances. In the absence of such evidence, the judge concluded that it was an unreasonable rate to charge. At that time the Barclays Bank base rate was 7%. To charge an interest rate almost three times greater than the base rate and 13% above it was completely out of line with the terms of the original loans and in the circumstances seemed exorbitant.  As interest rates fell, the rate of 20% charged by the creditor had become more and more exorbitant. In January 1993, the Barclays Bank base rate fell to 6%; at the time when the 2003 document was signed, it was 3.75%; and it was currently 0.5%. The judge also found that the creditor’s subsequent conduct and the way in which he exercised his rights under the agreement very substantially increased the unfairness of the relationship. In particular:  The creditor did not make any written record of the terms of the 1992 agreement until 2003. The absence of any written record made it easier for the borrower to believe, as the years went by and no steps were taken to request repayment, that the agreed terms might not be enforced.  Although in 2003 the creditor did record the terms of the 1992 agreement in a document which the borrower signed, he did not provide the borrower with a copy of that document. Fairness to the borrower would at the very least have involved giving him a copy of the document.  Not once in the 15 years after July 1992 did the creditor provide the borrower with any calculation of the amount outstanding. In circumstances where interest was being charged at a very high rate and was being compounded monthly, it was a matter of basic fairness that the creditor should provide the borrower periodically with calculations of the amount claimed to be owing. Not to do so once during such a long period over which the debt grew to a colossal size was grossly unfair to the borrower.  Of equal or greater significance was the fact that outstanding sums were to be repaid only as and when requested by the creditor and that after January 1993, only once during the next 14 years did the creditor request any money to be paid to him. This request was for a sum of £20,000, by then tiny in comparison with the size of the debt. The effect of this approach, in circumstances where no reminders or calculations of the amount outstanding were being sent, was to encourage the borrower not to pay the interest accruing on the loan and also to foster a not unreasonable hope, which would have gathered strength as time went on, that the creditor was not going to insist on payment in accordance with the terms agreed in 1992.  The creditor did not keep a proper record of payments received. The creditor owed it to the borrower as a matter of elementary fairness to keep a proper record of such payments and not to depend on the borrower to provide this information and try to reconstruct it from bank statements and other old documents many years after the payments were made.  Even when the creditor met the borrower in October 2007 to discuss repayment of the debt, he did not provide the borrower with any calculation of the amount said to be due, either before or after the meeting. Instead, he discussed the rate of interest only in abstract terms, without informing the borrower of the practical consequences. This was a deliberate strategy on the creditor’s part, and was not a transparent approach. The judge concluded therefore that the relationship arising out of the 1992 agreement was unfair to the borrower – because of the terms of the agreement, because of the way in which the creditor had exercised his rights under the agreement, and because of the other acts and omissions of the creditor referred to. Result: Unfair relationship under section 140A. The judge ordered a reduction in the sum payable by the borrower to £207,465. This was the sum payable in July 1992, before the interest charges which were found to be unfair were added. It all helps build up a case.... Good luck Spot
  11. Well it's in the loft and I rarely if ever go up there. I've been clearing things out and went up to see what was up there and that's when I saw it, but it looks like one of those gradual things TBH as it must have been leaking a while, every time it rained I guess. I'm not qualified to know how long it's been leaking, but does one suggest, like the bank charges Limitation Act scenario, that the time begins from when you discover it, not from when the 'offence' (damage) began? It's not like a burst tank which happens in a one-off disaster, this has happened over time I'm sure. But I doubt there's any more damage now than a month or so ago or even three, there just a little more boarding damaged, but that'll need replacing anyway. Would you believe these kinds of issues would not be covered in an all risks policy? All because of a failed DD - drives me nuts. We have these policies for years, it's just when something like this happens to raise its head it coincides with a blip in the finance system..
  12. I know that, but I have nothing to hide about that. I've made no claim or mentioned it to the old insurer anyway, that's why I was trying to decide what the best course of action would be. The honesty is this should be covered by the old policy, but being honest doesn't always get you anywhere. A taxman once asked me how often I used my car for my business and how much personal use and I said apart from the time it spends in my garage at night I used the car about 80% for business that was the honest answer. She said she couldn't accept that for some reason so I said would she prefer I lied? I like telling the truth, but as I say, it doesn't always get you anywhere so you have to play the system the way they want it. Thanks for your contributions Brigadier and CitizenB, I think I know what I have to do now.
  13. So if I take out a new policy I'd have to make a claim from that one would I and say nothing about it? I try to be honest about things generally and if I'm honest then the problem occurred when the other policy was in place. By not saying anything I'm being deceiteful am I not if I claim on a new policy? This will cost thousands to fix as it's up very high and the boards under all the tanks.
  • Create New...