Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Mark Wilson

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About Mark Wilson

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Today I have had a letter regarding my ongoing dispute. I have a copy of what I signed and on it the agreement makes no reference to the cca and is completely unenforceable as it stands. Having spent 3 yrs holding them off today they have responded: They have no evidence that an agreement exists but as I used the "credit card" I am deemed to have accepted the ts and cs that accompany it!!!!!!!!!! Oh really... They say the account can only be in dispute if the transactions were not made by me, ir fraudulent They have provided wescots number and told me to get on and be paying! To think the taxpayer bailed this lot out!!!! Thoughts anyone.
  2. The attached agreement is subject to chasing by a DCA. I have stated that it is unenforceable, they have asked me to prove it!! Am I still correct in saying it is unenforceable and if so, why? They say Sainsburys solicitors say it is fine as it is, of course they would! Since the McGuffick case, what is the current stance on the validity and enforceability of debts like this? sainsburyfinanceformblank001.pdf
  3. Thought I would provide a further update. What concerns me here is that my emotional rollercoaster is being driven by an organisation that saw fit to lose £24bn, took our taxes to bail it out and then feel it has the right to advise us on how we deal with adversity!!!!! Things have moved along a bit since my first post... My mortgage tracker ended and went to SVR so my payment shot up by over £400. When resolving part of the arrears the Risk Unit told me I could do nothing about my mortgage "Product" unless my account was up to date. I said, finding £472 pm instead of £88 was in itself going to be difficult and that swithcing to a cheaper product was in their interests as well as mine.....nah, don't be daft. Undeterred I decided to speak with Mortgage Services myself and they switched me there and then, knocking £120 from my outgoings and making the situation far easier. I reported this back to the Risk Unit who went "Oh"!!! I agreed a date to pay the April payment and it was agreed they would allow me to run the mortgage one month in arrears until I could bring it up to date. When calling to make the agreed payment, my contact was away and I was told it could wait until the following Tuesday...guess what...they passed it over to Recovery Unit on the day I had phoned to pay!!! The confusion though does not end there. It took me 4 different departments to be passed through to make payment and I was told I would be "written to". This was a month ago and I finally got a letter on Monday, however in the last week I have been called TWICE a day by NW Collections and each time I have gone thru ID they have said, "sorry rung in error" and put the phone down. Yesterday I called the number on the letter and was told, "you are not with Collections but with Recoveries, I will get them to call you". I said that I didn't understand as Collections have only just written to me and whilst doing so were passing me over to Recoveries...no answer. They told me Recoveries would be in touch. Last night the phone went...."Recoveries" I thought so I answered. Nope, Collections and I demanded the guy stay on the phone and answer questions. We made the due mortgage payment to keep that in check and I took him through what had happened. He empathised, noted my comments and gave me a number for Recoveries. This morning I called the Recoveries number, it is Triton, guess what...."your accounts are not with us, they are still being held by Collections". I have to say that this is now a complete and utter farce, no wonder they lost so much money!!!!
  4. When you fall outside the protection of the CCA then you are at a lenders whim as to their ts and cs, which is why every signature box contains the words "I have read and understood" etc, when many are simply rushed through down to the bottom line. Aside from any of the individual vagueries one company may have over another, no-one would expect a detail that is contained within a leading lenders document to expose the customer to a huge potential threat to their home where the balance of control over payments, rates and so forth is not set out in a mechanical manner but one which gives the lender free reign to do as it pleases. Thankfully they all produced supporting literature yrs ago that contradicts what they say today, they all have rate change letters with wording conveniently changed to suit their own agenda. In the case of FP we have their accounts that label their actions "guilty as charged", whereas I cannot comment on others in the market. With others, the securitization angle comes in to play and if you are now in the hands of what are essentially hedge funds, then their agenda is not for the long term, it is purely about return. A default and an ability to get out quick suits them down to the ground and rushin people through court before they realise they have grounds to challenge makes much of what we face unfair.
  5. With my current agreements, they are posted in and around the site on various threads.... In summary: NW and RBS have failed to provide agreements and those accounts are in formal dispute HBOS - Sainsburys Visa - missing prescribed terms, unenforceable HBOS - Sterling - an old agreement and seems fine but no-one is chasing!!!! MBNA - they accepted an offer of £1300 against a balance of £5400 before I came across this place and that was a fair result in my opinion! As is rightly pointed out, this is all stuff we can undertake ourselves if a lender is clearly breaching the terms of the CCA, it is just knowing about how to go about it. I will revisit the ts and cs I have about increasing limits and credit searches.
  6. I have been called a number of times by Claims Cos asking about credit cards and claiming they could be unenforceable. Aside from the traditional paths many of us have trodden they have quoted instances that are new to me and wondered if anyone else could shed any light. Their primary claim is that if each time the lender has raised the limit on the card and not provided you with a new agreement to sign then this would render the agreement unenforceable. The rationale included in this is the process through which the lender has gone to ascertain your suitability for further credit (ie a credit search for which they would need permission, an understanding of your other outgoings and income position). They then also make reference to the same procedure needing to have applied when interest rates changed but i doubted that one. Clearly the stance is to get you to commit to a "fee" for review and go from there, waiting for the claim to be upheld and a compensation requested. The too good to be true analogy clearly fits but is there any validity in the first point re changing credit limits, as card providers did this annually on my agreements.
  7. Fundamentally you have regulators running scared about the impact of deciding against the "second charge lenders". The interest rate clause is not just FP specific but is mirrored across the board from my knowledge. AS long as FP can say they are acting "efficiently, prudently" or trying to be "competitive" then they can do as they please to their interest rates. Going forward, we are at the bottom of the interest rate cycle. They will produce their accounts for last year shortly which should show them returning to profit due to the gap they created between interest income and expense. Now they have retrieved their position at OUR expense, they will maintain their position by mirroring interest rate increases and passing them on to US.
  8. The key points that we all refer to are the same. The reason we are able to justify UTCCR is also based on their trading performance. I will copy relevant info below. The charts that many have put together show that upto the a couple of years ago, their rate movements mirrored movements in base rates, their letters indicated "changes in base rate" etc whereas now they have simply used the wording "changes in our costs"....their accounts show that their £3.5bn loan facility with Barclays is linked to BBR and thus their greatest cost, ie their own interest bill has plummeted. Linking this to UTCCR and the accounts is the key point that,for me, makes it impossible for them to escape UTCCR. The stance of First Plus currently seems clear. They are adamant that their interest rate policy follows no rate trend and that their decisions are based purely upon their “commercial judgment”. I have attached a chart that plots interest rate movements since the inception of my loan and the trends are clearly apparent. The accounts provide an insight into their commercial judgment and some salient points need raising: 1 the notes to the accounts reference the fact that the business is now noted as a GOING CONCERN and that the auditors have requested written support from Barclays for the business 2 Page 31 of the accounts state that Barclays own funding is linked to Bank of England base rate, thus its own interest charge during 2008 decreased in line with downward movement. Interest expense dropped from £200m in 2007 to £174m in 2008. Note also the significant falls in base rate did not occur until early 2009 which will make even bigger savings to their interest expense. 3 Interest income for the business, as no new loans are now being taken on, increased from £254m to £268m but is now only likely to change with movements in their customer interest rates. 4 Additional income from the sales of PPI, went from £132m in 2006, to £101m in 2007 down to £27m in 2008. This is a huge fall in income and one that is having to be compensated for in other areas. The only other area of income they have any control over is the interest income determined by the rates they charge current customers. 5 The drop in their own costs and the avoidance of passing these savings on to customers has seen them increase the gap between interest income and expense from £54m to £93m. The gap for 2009 will be even bigger with base rate at 0.5%. This gap has been created to enable the business to survive knowing the market conditions dictate that few customers are able to settle their contracts by cash, remortgage or other resources, thus we are, in essence, captive. 6 The change in status of the accounts to GOING CONCERN has meant they have had to note previously “denied” events, such as the fiduciary duties regarding the payment and receipt of commissions for the sale of PPI. They are also being heavily targeted for the misselling of PPI and have had to put aside £8m as a provision for the year. Barclays have had to put £9m liquidity into the balance sheet and the losses posted for the year to 2008 would have been well in excess of £20m had they not manipulated £40m of additional income through the non-passing on of interest rate falls. All of the above has massive implications when reference is made to Unfair Contract Clause Terms. First Plus clearly state they can do as they please in the application of their commercial judgment and will not disclose to anyone the nature of their interest rate clause that would enable customers to plan and budget for the future ( as their literature alludes to also). Action has already been taken against Barclays Investments and Woolwich for clauses within their products (one investment, one mortgage) where the argument for “reasonableness” in the justification of action is simply too vague. The FSA acted against Woolwich over a mortgage term that stated that they could vary rates for any valid reason (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/barclays.pdf ). The ruling was that the term gave the firm excessive discretion in varying interest rates. First Plus behaviour and term is no different. The investment product scenario was very similar.
  9. Finally made some resolution with NW They insisted they had never had my notifications of payment. One I can understand but 5!!! Anyhow monies were trf to mortgage and the account is no longer subject to termination (as long as I pay it!) The joint account - I have been and removed my name so that it is in wife name only and this means they can de list it from me. She has no NW debt, mortgage only in my name so there is no threat now to that account from setting off. LOan and my personal account - been passed on to collection. Agreed it was the best way as I was never going to accept their charges on the current account and the loan is not serviceable as things stand. I will now enter into months of dialogue over what they charged to the loan account and why and will not agree to acknowledge anything until they give me answers to the questions I have posed for months. If the account is placed back under its limit, which it was until they went silly, then I see no reason why it cannot be returned to normal banking. If they insist on collection then Income and Expenditure will show a minimum available allowance over a rather long period of time. The loan will have the same I/E applied so the £300 pm outlay should come down to £50 or so when all is said and done, which suits me at the moment.
  10. My feeling on all of this will centre around the ability of the customer to exit the contract. A loan agreement has a cancellation clause, you are allowed to settle at any time and thus if you do not like the "price" then take your business elsewhere. That is easier said than done and 2nd charge loans are situated in the subprime definitions of the market. Rule of 78 makes settling penal, the mass withdrawal from lenders and changes in house prices also makes the ability to escape nigh on impossible thus they have a captive audience and they know it. Legally they will argue that the contract "allows" you to escape, factually and realistically the truth is different. For me, this is where a central part of the argument will sit. Having been through UTCCR, FP fail on numerous levels, their actions are indefensible. Also the OFT guidelines about not increasing rates when your own costs have not increased have also been breached. What if FP are found to be wrong - a £3.5bn Barclays owned loan book couild be in peril. I am sure the regulators would ensure that does not happen. The damage to an already fragile banking system would be serious. What if nothing happens - many people will be paying double the monthly payments they did 6 years ago and either muddle through or default in houses worth little more than they were all those years ago. Here is a sobering thought....at the start I was contracted to 300 x £350pm that is a total amount payable of £105000. My payments are already £450 pm and my estimate is that by yr 10 of my loan, repayments will reach £700 if bank base returns to 5%. At that point I will have 15 yrs left at £700 minimum, ie 180 x 700 - that is £126000 STILL to pay as a minimum. "Variable rate" means your loan works like a mortgage - hmm really....misleading? "We can change our rates to reflect any change that has occurred or that we can expect to occur in interest rates or to ensure our business is run efficiently, prudently and competitively" - no longer lending so no competition, over £100m in losses (prudent?), efficiently (redundancies, staff cuts, £9m in bailout from Barclays and now a "going concern") Their term is so vague it technically allows them to do as they please and it shoved rates up when markets went that way then did nothing when markets went down. No-one in their right mind would commit to a loan knowing that but no-one was told that would happen day one, you were just told it works like a mortgage - a mortgage none of us have ever seen unfortunately. I deem this UNFAIR and I am desperate to see how anyone in this position can have a lender say they are fair. I did an interview for Moneybox and they were adamant the loan agreement and FP actions meant the loan was unenforceable, FP insisted "they were doing nothing wrong"!!!!!! The day of reckoning will draw closer.....
  11. I am fully onboard with the rationale put forward in this thread. As a First Plus customer, I have complained to the FLA, FSA, OFT and FOS with regards to their actions: Putting repayments UP when base rates have plummeted Clearly breaching UTCCR regs by maintaining high rates as their own costs have lowered, in an attempt to add gain to their bottom line. This is clearly forbidden in regs with contracted customers. Refusing to answer clearly how their interest policy works in order to gain an understanding for the remaining time period of the loan Completely dismiising links to any base rate when advertising literature preached it 5+ years ago and their trends at that time meant ALL changes UPWARDS in BOE rate were mirrored by increases in loan rates. They only stopped mirroring base when it FELL!! The FLA have allowed FP to not answer questions about calculation of interest rate when their own guide states they must do so. The FSA say FP are not regulated for teh sale of loans by them, only PPI, so they will not comment on UTCCR, passed me to the OFT The OFT will not deal with individual complaints re UTCCR The FOS will only deal with FP acting within the meaning of their terms (which are vague and say they can do as they please) and will not judge on fairness There are those condencending sorts out there that will say "you signed it" etc but this lender has acted out of line with the literature it used to sell its loans. They know it is not a "mortgage" and falls under a grey area of regulation, well a black hole actually. This is not just about now but about the future.The trading performance of FP means that they had to create a gap in excess of £150m between their interest cost and interest income to stop shipping massive losses and cover the loss of £100m that PPI used to give them. Manipulation of their interset rate clause has allowed this and they have used the reduction in base rate (that their own lending is tagged to) to create the gap without putting rates up massively to cover it, which was the only option. As the gap is now created, they cannot reduce it so when base rate goes up, they have no choice but to pass rates on. As we can see, regulators are apathetic in essence and the future is bleak for many. If rates return to 4%, which is where they were at the start of my loan, my repayment will be over £700 pm compared to £350 at the start of the loan when all underlying costs will be the same..... Unfairness, you bet and I am trying to find somoeone prepared to listen or take on the case. The disadvantage is the lack of current case law but the sheer weight of eveidnece makes me think also that they would never want to set foot in court on the off chance they may lose, which will not help the masses but sooner or later this matter has to come to a formal head and the increases in base rates that may happen later this year could be the trigger!!!!
  12. To add insult to injury I have called the bank today and demanded a call back, to be told "Sorry we are a bit busy with month end and bank holiday so no idea when you will be called back". The tone with which I was spoken to was so condecending it is untrue, is this the way our government owned bank is happy to deal with our emotions?
  13. I arrived home yesterday to find a letter from NW terminating my current account, reserve account, loan account and demanding repayment of the mortgage, default notes sent on all. I have been experiencing difficulties for a long time now being self employed and was placed in the hands of their "special measures" people late last year. My current account was a Private Banking account, though when I was last in special measures the bank returned me to "Call Centre" banking. In May they started to charge me £30 pm for the privelege of Private Banking and with income tight, one month, their charges and interest took the account over its limit and then added another £152 for DDs they would not pay. Suddenly I was way over so the loan could not be paid and the mortgage started to fall behind. I used the reserve account to keep feeding the family and pay some DDs. I raised at the time the fact that I did not have in excess of £250 to bring the account below its limit, nor should I have to, they were charging me for a service they were not providing and if they were providing that service then my previous arrangement of having someone call me when a DD was to be presented and cancelling it if no funds were due ( thus avoiding charges) should apply. This way, they were wanting both their cake and eat it. Subsequently I then incurred £28 pm charges and £30plus in interest along with the £30 for PB and NW told me they would continue to take it until December. I told them this was not satisfactory and wanted resolution. The balance has now risen to £5200 o/d over my limit of £4k and this is purely a balance of their own creation. Had they seen sense at the start the account would be used and within its facility. The loan account has not been paid now for 10 months and I have requested some offer of resolution to help but they have never responded. The reserve account has my wifes name on it, it is her only access to banking facilities, her small wage and family allowance goes in and we pay DDs from it. There are no issues with this account nor its operation. The mortgage has been in arrears and as I am in the "special measures" unit, I have email dialogue with one of their team. I insturcted them to take £270 in December to clear a chunk of the arrears and then in Apr instructed another £180 to bring the account all bar one month in arrears. Income has been really sparse but funds have remained in the account. Everytime I email for acknowledgement I am ignored and I noted from my account that payment had not been taken towards the mortgage. Now I have a letter demanding repayment of the mortgage and defaulting all the other accounts stating a "breakdown" in relationship. They have not replied to emails ( I want all dialogue in writing not phone) and have only phoned once this year and that was last Wednesday when I was away. The message said "it is a while since we spoke, can we have an update". Before I have chance to do this I am now facing this additional mess. They have also terminated the reserve account which has the morgage funds in that they have not collected yet, it has my wifes DDs and stuff going through it and if they remove this privelege then it creates endless hassle for her also. All accounts bar this one are just in my name, the reserve is in joint names so she is being punished for my problems. Can they do all of this and demand repayment of the mortgage, even if it is only technically 1 month down (6 in their eyes but with 5 payments sat in the joint account that they have failed to transfer) and I will get family help to bring it up to date anyhow. Can they get a possession order or force redemption / sale on this basis? The current account is a problem they need to try and resolve with me, I will stand my ground. The loan I have no desire to avoid, but it is not affordable currently. At the end of the day I am an ex member of staff and feel very badly let down here by their failure to take payments when they hve email requests to do so, thus making a problem appear that in truth should exist. Very stressful for all concerned here at a time when we simply want to get back on our feet. Anyone got any advice?
  14. After nearly 2 years of chasing and "account in dispute" stuff, a DCA sent me over some pre printed ts and cs for the Sainsburys VISA account. When I said I wanted to see the form that I signed, I was sent the attached. Can anyone that is well informed, let me know if the document they sent is enforceable or not? sainsburyfinanceformblank001.pdf
  15. One of my DCAs, Hillesden (DLC) has taken on my Sainsburys Visa debt that is in dispute following a failure to supply copy enforceable agreement. They did supply a copy application form that is missing many required elements but nothing more. The DCA does not know that I have this form. When they started to chase I told them "account in dispute" etc and they promised to send the info from their clients. 2 motnhs later a letter arrives and in it is a credit agreement, that is not announced as reconstituted but nor is it anything I have ever seen before and is essentially just ts and cs with my personal details noted at the start. I have gone back and asked what on earth they think they have sent, why they are trying to make me believe what they have sent bears any resemblance to what I may originally have signed and whether I need to deem this as an act of fraud and take further action. They have replied saying they "now have the original documentation" and will forward it to me....why was it not done in the first place I ask!! I have not yet admitted to holding copy of the application form as I would like them to dig a deeper hole before admitting such. What strikes me about all of this is the arrogance and dismissive nature shown by lenders to regulation in search of their own objective. I say this as I work as a business consultant who arranges lease finance for corporate customers. This means I am paid commissions by banks for introducing business to them and have been in dispute with one lender for over a year who owes over £20k in commissions from introductions made and is refusing to pay citing the absence of a written contract between me and them stating it would pay commission as their defence!! Is there some irony in this!! I took the step of issuing them with a Stat Demand as I see no dispute and the corporate lies I have been witness to in covering their tracks, along with the bullying nature of their legal reps who bullied me into a corner and made me withdraw my action and state I would not attend court, only to attend court themselves and get £4k of costs awarded in my absence!! My point in this is that in the battle of big against small, big has access to far greater resources to manipulate any grey areas to its own advantage. When it suits the banks, they will create an agreement to try and enforce a debt against you, but when they owe you and you chase them, they demand an agreement signed by them was needed to deem commission was due when as far as the FSA and NACFB are concerned, none was needed. It can seem lose lose but we must adhere to the beliefs and truth contained within the thread and ensure that where a lender has not made a customer sign an enforceable agreement then that debt must be deemed unenforceable.
×
×
  • Create New...