Jump to content

spot

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spot

  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.
  14. Bit of an odd one and I don't know enough about insurance companies other than they usually try and get out of paying. My problem maybe someone could help with please before I approach them? I was paying monthly for a House insurance buildings and contents policy. I ran short of cash and the DD bounced. they wrote a couple of times, but I didn't have the money to restart it. The policy expired in April. I eventually phoned this month to restart and they said they could not re start the older policy, but could provide a new one, but because the DD bounced I'd have to pay the whole year at once for the policy. Now that's not the problem as such, the problem is that I just went up in the loft and found that a leak has been coming through the roof and onto the boarding up there and it looks like it's been there for months. Can I make a claim against an expired policy as this must have happened whilst the policy was live? Be handy to know this before I phone them. Thank you SPot
  15. Well well, people in Santander must be very loyal or nobody must know the nitty gritty workings in there....I thought I'd at least have had a sniffle from employees. Come on folks whistleblowing time....
  16. Thanks Freakyleaky - (love the name) I have the official Transaction Code Analysis sheet in with the SAR. and I'd been more interested in the CST and CSF until you just mentioned that. Upon looking again at the Anaysis codes there are a number with SEC in the description such as: Code - Description AIS - SEC - Delayed Insurance to date of SEC AIT - SEC - Delayed Interest to date of SEC AOI - SEC - Delayed OVI to date of SEC (OVI is shown as Interest on Overdue balance) DRF - SEC - Drawdown Transfer from DRT - SEC - Drawdown Transfer to RTF - SEC - Retention Transfer from RTT - SEC - Retention Transfer to TIS - SEC - Delayed INS/AIS to Receivable TIT - SEC - Delayed INT/AIT to Receivable TOI -SEC - Delayed OVI/AOI to Arrears TRT - SEC - Transfer from New Lender So, all these have the prefix of SEC along with those CSF & CST COdes - What is this and has it got anything to do with Securitisation perhaps? Thanks...I need a mole!
  17. Come on all you Santander employees and ex employees, surely someone can tell me what this is about? There must be lots of you come on CAG to see what's going on. If I tell you this could be the difference between me keeping my family in my house or losing it maybe you'll nod the wink to me? 1) CSF - SEC - Capital Transfer to Old Lender 2) CST - SEC - Capital Transfer to New Lender What do they mean exactly?
  18. I have a statement I received in my Subject Access Request which shows an ANMF Transaction code against the full balance of my mortgage loan slap bang in the middle of all my other debits and credits to the account. It is a statement/listing of all transactions on the loan account. I need to know EXACTLY what these transaction codes mean and what happened in the accounting system or to this loan which triggered this. I have the ANMF Transaction Code Analysis Sheet. On it are two codes with adjoining descriptions thus: 1) CSF - SEC - Capital Transfer to Old Lender 2) CST - SEC - Capital Transfer to New Lender These transactions happened on: 04/01/2007 and again on: 30/03/2007 I need to know what they did on those dates and exactly what those transactions are? Can anyone tell me? PM if it's too risky on open forum. Be nice to me, this is very important to me. Thank you. Spot
  19. In my opinion, the very word 'Variable' seen in the context of interest rates by the layperson would quite rightly be seen as a rate which would rise as well as lower as bank rates changed (no matter how the company finds its funds). The Bank rate is the barometer of interest rates to the majority of people in this country (and to many more I'd imagine) and to say that rates could ONLY go up is a one sided contract. A person taking a loan or mortgage especially from a non High Street lender is a somewhat vulnerable punter anyway. Seeking the best option with a limited amount of financial savvy. Especially where business models of companies are concerned. No broker would be supplying the detail of a finance company's business model (from where these interest rates derive). No broker would spell out the basis of how the interest rates are determined and No broker would be in a position to supply comparitive business models for different suppliers to give you an informed choice - which is what they were meant to do. So, as a customer/consumer in the absence of all these factors the word 'Variable' used without supporting analysis of said business models immediately puts you in a disadvantage position. I am aware of sub-prime lenders sending out letters to customers when the Bank of England rates went up stating " in view of the interest rate changes your interest rate will be increasing by .25% from xx/xx/xxxx." When in fact they admit to others when pressed that their rates were in fact linked to the Libor rates which hadn't changed at that time. In court, they argue that rates are determined by 'investor pressure' and when you actually dig deep enough and really find out where they get their funding and the arrangement they entered into with the body supplying said funding you see that the return promised to said 'investors' is some 20% thus proving that whatever excuse they used, the variable rate interest could never have been reduced due to their business arrangement with their funders. As a consumer you would have never have known that, so I'd suggest you do a little bit of digging through their accounts and annual reports, see who their main shareholders are and see who lent them the funds and what the return is - then you might get to the bottom of how your 'variable' rate is a one way ticket - the details of which you will invariably (scuse the pun) swing a judge to your way of thinking.
  20. That's very kind of you, thank you Lea-HTH In your learned opinion then, given I accept all the terms of the consent order of 2009 and the schedule, in that a sum, albeit a questionable sum, has been documented in that schedule as what I am allegedly accepting to pay and I take it all on the chin, does it mean that I no longer have any rights to question aspects of any of the loan terms and conditions or who ought to regulate any part of that collection of consolidated loans of which there are 3 added at various times since 1989 which form the 2006 earlier agreement upon which this Tomlin now sits? I guess it's a bit chicken and egg because if I am effectively accepting (reluctantly or otherwise) that the Tomlin figure is what I agreed to repay, then any remedy I seek on older loans will matter not a hoot as I still have that Tomlin figure to repay? So, let us take a somewhat extreme, but possible argument. What if I now find that one of these loans taken long ago, but which still formed part of these consolidated loans in 2006 kicked the whole loan into a CCA loan territory rather than an RMC and effectively under the CCA the loan should be written off, in full - where do I stand seeking a remedy? The solicitors for the bank are now refusing to supply any of the terms and conditions relating to any of the consolidated loans as it would be 'irrelevant' - is that right? Sorry to split hairs, but this is important. Thanks spot
  21. By quoting the before and after balances they are saying that the money I owe has crystalised the balance after the deal secured in the Tomlin. I'm sturggling with a number of things here. The conversion package as they call it set up in 2004 is made up of those 5 loans, all documented as separate loans which were further advances since '89 on the 1st mtg loan. The Tomlin deal reduced it to 3 in 2009. I spent a long time negotiating a counterclaim on those 2 loans now gone and at least one of the remaining 3 should/could be cca regulated. That said, nothing in any of my paperwork tells me what or who regulates my loans. It certainly doesn't say the loan is secured by the 1st mtg deed in any 'express' way. If, in 2009 when the consent order was constructed by the banks solicitor they happened to word it in such a way to imply that I was freezing all previous questions, which I might add had been raised before this deal was struck, then they would have not included that paragraph: " we enclose a revised Tomlin order which has been amended to confirm that our client's offer is made in Full and final settlement of our clients claim and your counterclaim. Notwithstanding this, our client concedes that the Tomlin Order is not in full and final settlement of all claims arising between the parties" What am I to think? 1) Is the balance they deemed to be the crystalised (now reduced) balance create a new loan with it's own set of terms and conditions? 2) Does the balance just represent a reduced amount of the previous 2004 conversion package with a line drawn under all the RMC/ CCA statutes or rules and regs protections for the consumer for which I cannot rely upon any longer? 3) Should I have had a new set of terms and conditions? This new figure and the crystalisation of it surely cannot cut off from the statute protections and offer me no protections, recourse on Unfair Terms, nothing and if they are applying for repossession then under what terms are they using? - the 2004 terms or just that I defaulted on the consent order agreement? Enforcing using terms I cannot rely upon myself? I can't imagine they can just say " Mrs you have now agreed you owe us £x's because that was the balance shown on the consent order after we removed the write off deal and you have no protections under the law on any of those previous loans, no recourse on any unlawful aspects of those loans or their construction unless that is now being treated like some new consolidation loan which has brand new t & c's? This is all a little untidy for my liking, the solicitors who constructed this Tomlin/consent order are pulling a fast one if that is what they have done and let's assume that this crystalisation is hard and fast - how does that effect the loan t & c's? Should it expressly state this is secured upon the mtg deed/title in the Consent Order? It's like an unfinished agreement somehow with a totally one sided set of rules and regs in favour of the lender who seem to be able to do as they like.
  22. Andy, Been to court. I have a mtg going back to 89. Had various f/adv's and capitialisations of arrears. In 2004 I had a conversion mtg of 5 separately documented loans accumilated over a long peirod into a discounted rate mtg. All this seems to be secured by the one title deed from the off. In 2006 I did a deal with the bank and they wrote of 2 of the loans over a counterclaim I made. Settled by way of a Tomlin order. The counterclaim I made was against those 2 loans. I won. In the Tomlin they showed the current balance and in their schedule of the deal broke down what the deal related to. "The sum represents the further adv amount of £x's plus interest less payments" and then showed the mtg balance as a figure representing the recorded balance before deal and the balance remaining after deal. I received a letter attached to the Tomlin stating: we enclose a revised Tomlin order which has been amended to confirm that our client's offer is made in full and final settlement of our clients claim and your counterclaim. Notwithstanding this, our client concedes that the Tomlin Order is not in full and final settlement of all claims arising between the parties" Now, in court they tried to say that the balance both before and after the deal had been crystalised and the judge bought it. Stating that I cannot 'go behind the amount I had agreed to pay back. That was not the deal, my counterclaim was against 2 of the 5 listed loans. Given the issues I have relate to one of the initial loans being a CCA regulated loan rather than a 1st mtg I find that a little annoying. My question is: Does a Tomlin Order overrule Statute?, because according to this and the judge I cannot go back and exercise any rights I might have found to be questionable over the administration of the loans back when they were established. I have to be held to account under their 2004 t & c's and the 2009 so called conversion package (to a discounted rate) but I cannot go back myself. I am trying to establish exactly who regulates this account now as I have nothing expressly advising me this has been secured or who regulates it/them (They are always listed on statements as 5 loans (now 3) all on the one document... They will not supply me with the T & C's of the older loans either and they have just secured their application to reinstate an old suspended order that had been superceded by a Stay which I got when I did this previous deal in 2009. Since defaulted and they are calling in their loan/mtg. I can get out of it I expect, but the tricks these people get up to (allegedly) knows no bounds. Tomlin over rule Statute? Thanks.. spot
  23. I have already spoken to Ell-enn thanks Rorschach and I know exactly what you are saying and I am totally focussed on the reality worry not. I thank you for pointing it out so vehemently and it is not falling on deaf ears believe me. The message you relate is an extremely important one and I totally accept what you are saying and will act accordingly. But Errors do matter and there are many of them as well as the issue of money and affordability. I have been here before so this is not uncommon ground for me. I'll keep you posted on events as they unfold. Gonna be an interesting one and I may well have the shortfall to pay on the day, so all is not lost yet. Thanks for your support and for pointing out these things, your thoughts are very valuable in taking on board all scenarios. spot.
×
×
  • Create New...