On what basis is only part of the charge reclaimable? Maybe the FOS would award partial refunds of charges but in my experience if the lender cannot prove the charge is fair and reasonable (which they cannot), then the County Court will award you the full charge plus interest either statutory 8% or at a restitutionary rate.

It seems that this issue is rearing it's ugly head again. "Dave" - "We are all in it together", our unelected leader maybe giving directives for Councils to collect the Poll Tax that was ultimately Maggies downfall. Liverpool City Councill are chasing Poll Tax debts in a bid to balance their books. (Yes I know Liverpool Council are Labour). Liverpool City Council have today told the BBC Radio Merseyide that they can persue unpaid Poll Tax bills because they obtained liabity orders on them all. If you believe that they didn't then you must provide proof that you paid your poll tax. Who has bank statements or receipts from 20 odd years ago? I was dumbstruck listening to the radio programme that the Council are doing this, but I wonder if it is at all legal? Obviously a valid County County Court Judgment is enforcable, but a Magistrates Liability Order that the Council has made no attempt to enforce for donkeys years? It doesn't seem right to me. Anyway I wonder how long before all councils see this as a potential revenue generator and send demands for alleged unpaid poll tax to millions of people. How many people would just pay up? Here's the BBC iplayer linky for the radio broadcast...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00f8q7c 1.01.50 into the programme. HJS

It seems that this issue is rearing it's ugly head again. "Dave" - "We are all in it together", our unelected leader maybe giving directives for Councils to collect the Poll Tax that was ultimately Maggies downfall. Liverpool City Councill are chasing Poll Tax debts in a bid to balance their books. (Yes I know Liverpool Council are Labour). Liverpool City Council have today told the BBC Radio Merseyide that they can persue unpaid Poll Tax bills because they obtained liabity orders on them all. If you believe that they didn't then you must provide proof that you paid your poll tax. Who has bank statements or receipts from 20 odd years ago? I was dumbstruck listening to the radio programme that the Council are doing this, but I wonder if it is at all legal? Obviously a valid County County Court Judgment is enforcable, but a Magistrates Liability Order that the Council has made no attempt to enforce for donkeys years? It doesn't seem right to me. Anyway I wonder how long before all councils see this as a potential revenue generator and send demands for alleged unpaid poll tax to millions of people. How many people would just pay up? Here's the BBC iplayer linky for the radio broadcast...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00f8q7c 1.01.50 into the programme. HJS

It is almost certain that an adjudicator will not give you the decision you want - ie side with the mortgage company. You can appeal to an actual Ombudsman but again this is somewhat dodgy ground. The FOS are at best hopeless, and at worst completely useless, but they do mean very well. Thankfully the Courts are more reliable. As long as you prepare your case properly the issuing of a Court claim should give a good kick. They aren't bothered about you going to the FOS, they know they're hopeless too. But they aren't so keen to go to Court, least not as Defendants. Best of luck and keep the faith. You are in the right unless they can prove otherwise. HJS

Imagine her delight when she received the following letter from Northern Rock........ Dear Mrs Simpson, Thankyou for your complaint about your PPI. I understand you believe we mis-sold you this cover when you applied for an unsecured loan with us. I am sorry you feel you have cause for complaint. In line with our Internal Complaints procedure, I have reviewed your complaint and looked thoroughly at all aspects of your sales file. Included in your file is a copy of your Credit Agreement which forms the basis of the contract you have with us. It is clear, from looking at the Agreement, you signed and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan including PPI. I have also looked at how you applied for your loan when we recommended cover so you could protect your loan if you could not meet the monthly repayments. I am not satisfied that our sale of PPI met all our standards of service, and I agree to uphold your complaint and refund your PPI premiums. You settled the loan before it ran its full term and made your first repayment on xx Nov 200x and the last on xx Nov xx respectively. The refund of premiums and interest is therefore not equal to the monthly premium paid (£54.28) multiplied by the number of months the loan has been in force (25). This is because we apportion more of the premium in the early part of the policy term when we bear more of the risk. We have already given you an insurance rebate of £1,072.61, which was applied to your account on xx Nov 200x, and you are now due a refund of premiums and interest of £2,247.99. In addition we will pay 8% interest calculated from the date you made each payment, totalling £593.00. Please sign and return the enclosed Acceptance Declaration within the next ten days. Blah Blah............. Northern Rock. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us It seems Northern Rock are really keen to cough up.

When the missus and I got together, we both had a mortgage and a house each. We decided that the missus would sell her house and we would keep mine. After she sold her house we SAR'd Northern Rock to see how much they had ripped her off. Although we found she had indeed been ripped off, we were getting married last September and she wouldn't let me take any action against Northern Rock at that time. However after the wedding and honeymoon etc I dug out the SAR from Northern Rock and wrote them the following letter (on behalf of the missus of course).............. Northern Rock Request001.pdf Mr and Mrs Simpson's place Springfield USA 26th November 2010 Dear Sir/Madam, On reviewing the documents you sent in response to my Data Protection Act SAR I have a number of queries. I apologise for the delay in my review of your documentation and this subsequent request, but I have had my wedding to organise, a time-consuming and expensive occasion. I am now able to give this matter my undivided attention. You have failed to supply me with the underwriting sheets/disbursement sheets for my mortgages and personal loans. I ask you again to supply this information that is part of my SAR request. You have failed to supply me with details of the commissions you received for the procurement of the Payment Protection Insurance policies you sold to me. I ask you again to supply this information that is part of my SAR request. You have failed to supply me with all documentation relating to the discharge of my mortgage at Land Registry and the actual work involved by your staff. I ask you again to supply this information that is part of my SAR request. You have failed to supply me with transcripts of telephone conversations or documents relating to my enquiries about transferring my mortgage to another property. This occurred shortly before the redemption of my mortgage. Please provide these documents and an explanation as to why they were not included in my original request. Loan Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your documentation states... “As a responsible lender, we recommend that you seek independent financial advice to arrange payment protection cover for this loan, should this be appropriate for your circumstances.” There does not appear to be any PPI affixed to this loan. Can you please explain further. Loan Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your documentation states... “Following a review of your personal circumstances during your unsecured personal loan application we have identified that you have a need for our Loanprotect insurance for the reasons stated below, if due to unforeseen circumstances you are unable to meet your loans repayments. For simple peace of mind that your repayments are being made You are the sole/main income earner You have limited sick pay You have no unemployment cover You have no easily accessible savings Following our recommendation you have selected to protect your loan with Loanprotect Gold.” There was a PPI premium of £2280.80 plus £701.68 interest payable on this policy. Upon redemption I received a rebate of £1072.61 for PPI and £1168.64 for interest on the loan. Unfortunately there is no breakdown of how these calculations were derived, and whether the interest element refers to the loan itself or the interest charged on the PPI. As I do not have access to the systems you use to calculate these figures I would be grateful if you supply the actual documents used to calculate these figures. I also require a detailed and fully audited breakdown of how you arrived at these figures, and confirmation as to whether this PPI was a single premium preloaded at the start of the loan account, or was charged on a monthly basis. It appears to me that the rebate I received is grossly disproportionate to the premium charged. Your staff recommended that my application would be considered much more favourably if I were to take Payment Protection Insurance. Your staff were aware that I was (and still am) employed by the NHS and enjoy the best pay guarantees available, were I unable to work through sickness, accident etc. My chances of unemployment are negligible unless the NHS were to cease caring for the health of the British population. I therefore believe that I was unfairly coerced into taking out Insurance that I did not need, nor would have benefited from in any way. I believe this policy was sold to me for the benefit of your staff and the commissions or bonuses that they would receive for its sale. Mortgage Account Number xxxxxx-xxxxx Your documentation indicates that Payment Protection Insurance was being charged on my mortgage. I am unable to locate the actual documents relating to my mortgage account and the related PPI within your Data Protection Act SAR response. Please confirm as to whether you actually have a signed and dated document relating to this insurance. If you do have such a copy, please forward it to me asap. If you do not, please explain why not. Your staff recommended that my application would be considered much more favourably if I were to take Payment Protection Insurance. Your staff were aware that I was (and still am) employed by the NHS and enjoy the best pay guarantees available, were I unable to work through sickness, accident etc. My chances of unemployment are negligible unless the NHS were to cease caring for the health of the British population. I therefore believe that I was unfairly coerced into taking out Insurance that I did not need, nor would have benefited from in any way. I believe this policy was sold to me for the benefit of your staff and the commissions or bonuses that they would receive for its sale. General concerns regarding Payment Protection Insurance In summary I am severely concerned regarding the sale of the Payment Protection Insurance policies by Northern Rock to myself. I re-confirm that I was at all material times, and continue to be, employed by the NHS. This employment affords me a comprehensive pay and conditions package that covers my salary to be paid for sickness, hospitilisation, accident leave, illness including critical illness cover, and minimal chance of losing my employment. This was made clear at all times to Northern Rock staff, but it was suggested and inferred by said staff that my chances of obtaining my mortgage, and subsequent loans, were greatly increased by adding Payment Protection Insurance policies to my applications. Such policies afforded me no actual benefit as I was already protected by my employment contract with the NHS. Furthermore I am concerned that your staff that mis-sold these policies may not have any formal training or qualifications in the sale of such Insurance policies. Please provide proof that your staff were indeed qualified or authorised by a recognised regulatory body to sell such policies. Please provide to me the proof that these policies were sold in my best interests. Please provide me with full and complete details of the commissions that you received from the sale of these policies. Please demonstrate to me that the discharge of my mortgage actually cost Northern Rock £250 to process. I am aware that there is no charge at Land Registry, and am somewhat confused as to your charge of £250. I shall accept a detailed audited costings analysis that shows your actual costs to be £250. My targets to resolve this matter I would like you to provide all requested documentation and explanations. If you are unable to provide suitable documentation or explanations, then I expect a full refund of.... All Payment Protection Insurance premiums that were not sold correctly. All interest charges Northern Rock applied to said premiums. Discharge of Mortgage fee £250 8% statutory interest that a Court would award me for being deprived of my money, applied to all above charges. I shall expect a reply from yourselves within fourteen days, as an organisation of your size has access to sufficient resources to accommodate such a request. I am well aware of my right to take my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, however my preferred course of redress is the County Courts. Yours Faithfully Mrs Marge Simpson (Nee Bouvier)

Hahaha, you are the funniest poster I have seen for ages. Pepipoo has outed you as a muppet, but you are still here. Do you really think anyone believes you? Muppet... HJS

Counsellor visits should indeed be made via timed appointments. After all it is fair and reasonable to let you know when a counsellor is going to call at your front door. Unfortunately some lenders don't see it that way, instead believing that they must merely inform you of their intention to instruct a counsellor. They can then go ahead and charge you for this visit (the timing of which is unknown to you) even if no contact is made, or perhaps no actual visit takes place at all. My current lender is in receipt of my strict instructions refusing any such visits they may wish to make. The instructions are in a recorded telephone conversation, in writing and via email. They ignore my instructions and continue to threaten me with counsellor visits at £79.90 per visit. They then add these counsellor visit charges to the mortgage balance as arrears, thereby falsifying the actual arrears position. I believe this may be a common practice. On one occasion I was home when a counsellor called. I found a short sharp "p1s5 o$f" sent him packing, but I was still charged for this "visit". On other occassions I have not met with any counsellor but have still been charged regardless. I have a counsellor visit report in my posession that admits I refused counselling, and then appears to value my property with a view to repossession. Again I was charged for their valuation visit (they called it a counsellor visit) and this was added to my account as "arrears". The FSA fined Redstone £630,000 for unfair treatment of customers......... http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml Charging for field counsellor visits in full to some customers who had not been properly informed of the timing of the visit and/or of their right to refuse or cancel the visit; or who should have been charged a reduced rate cancellation fee If it is unfair for Redstone to charge for visits when customers are unaware of the timing of such visits, surely it is unfair for any lender to do this. I currently have two lenders in court, both claims include counsellor visit charges. Both lenders are desperate to pay my claims in full thus avoiding these matters going before a Judge. I believe that speaks volumes about the unlawful nature of the charging for these counsellor visits.

Hi all, I can't get my head round the rules and regulations brought in by the FSA's regulation of mortgages from 31 Oct 2004. Looking around CAG and some other places, it seems that any first charge mortgage taken out before 31 Oct 2004 may have lost many of their consumer rights. That cannot be fair by any stretch of the imagination. If the FSA gained regulatory powers for mortgages on this date, surely that regulatory power is in respect of the mis-selling of a mortgage after their regulatory status was introduced, rather than the administration of a pre-existing mortgage contract that was in force prior to their regulatory status. If a mortgage was in force before the FSA were regulating mortgages, the mortgage was subject to the Mortgage Code conditions that lenders subscribed to. As the Mortgage Code became obselete in 2004 when MCOBS replaced it, surely it is both fair and reasonable to expect that MCOBS would apply to that previous mortgage. Does anybody know one way or the other? HJS

So are they not bound by any of the fairness aspects of the FSA regulations contained in MCOBS? If not then surely they should be. The Mortgage Code is now obsolete, so does it follow that any first charge mortgages incepted prior to 31 October 2004 now have no course of redress? The ConDem coallition are proposing FSA regulation for all second charge mortgages and secured loans. It seems unbelievable that there may be loads of first charge mortgages pre Oct 2004 that have no rights to regulation or restitution. Confused... HJS

Take the **** that are GE Money to court and get all their arrears charges, counsellor visit charges and failed direct debit charges back.8-) It's easy to do and Eversheds (GE's solicitors) are hopeless.

Hi BAE, I haven't had my success yet. GE and Eversheds are now offering me all the money on the claim form and no confidentiality clause. They are still being and refusing to clear up the mess they left on my credit file, so I still haven't accepted their offer. They now want to give mediation a try. I want to see them attempt to reach some common ground in agreeing the unlawfulness of the charges. We'll see. I think Eversheds are a little confused....... HJS

What is one of these then? http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/5409/underwritingsheetsafe.jpg Obviously I took the liberty of removing my personal data. I would be happy to pm you a copy of the original if it would help your case. HJS

I believe that post 23 is seriously mis-advised. S140a and b of the CCA will definately help claimants, as long as these sections of CCA are relevant to the dates of the mortgage. (Are S140a and b of CCA applied retrospectively?), as will MCOBS regulations. Not sure what the date of taking out the mortgage out has to do with anything. Surely the dates the mortgage was in force are more relevant. However UTCCR Regs will still help a claimant as charges are challengeable per Regs 5,6 and 8. Charges may also have been misrepresented, and the penalties aspect of these charges could well still be open to determination.

What guarantee did the OP get with the R519? I'm asking because I bought one from argos with a 3 year Samsung warranty.

Have you searched online for a downloadable windows 7 recovery disc? Many sites that provide such downloads are dubious to say the least, but if you have access to another laptop/pc then you can download and scan for viruses/malware etc before trying on you samsung lappy.

You won't get a straight answer out of GE Money. You will end up dealing with the @rses in the contigous litigation department. (great department) Find out which solicitors dealt with the inception of your loan. May be Bernard Eliston Sandler & Co in the same building as GE. SAR BES&Co (or any other solicitors that GE used for your loan) and they should eventually roll over and give you all the details GE Money don't want you to have. It's the underwriting sheet, underwriters notes and correspondence relating to the disbursement of your loan that you want. Best of luck, HJS

If you want a POC to use against GE Money you just adapt a good bank charges claim. Then you can add a few more spanners into the works with breaches of FSA guidelines etc. The consumer credit act unfair relationship angle would also be a good one to add, but I found this POC was long enough already. This was written in a hurry, and could have been re-worded so as to flow a little better. But it got GE spooked, I'm the person on here who was offered the money to go away. I still haven't taken GE up on their very kind offer. That's got them a bit confused, Eversheds offered me 50% initially which I declined. I was then offered 75% which I again declined. They then went on to offer me 100% of the amount claimed, including 8% statutory interest and the court fees. Unfortunately they want to gag me so that I can't tell anybody about it. I don't like being told what to do, especially by muppets like GE Money - So we are still at court. This isn't my first claim so I'm not jumping and agreeing to what they want me to do. I had a 100% certainty of succeeding with this claim but I am rather annoyed to find people taking perfectly valid claims/complaints to the FOS and being knocked back. That's the main reason for refusing confidentiallity - I want people to know these scumbags roll over and pay up. Unless they want to meet in court and prove otherwise. Anyway the first and most important thing when dealing with GE Money is to find all identities they have used whilst dealing with your account. GE Money Home Lending Limited, GE Money Mortgages Limited, GE Money Secured Loans Limited, GE Money Home Finance Limited, GE Money Servicing Limited, GE Money Consumer Lending Limited, GE Money Financial Services Limited, are all names GE use to confuse you. If you sue against one entity of GE they will tell you and the court "It's not us Guv, we never had an account or a legal relationship with the claimant." So name each and every possible entity of GE that have ever contacted you for any reason as Defendants in your claim. You may need to print of a dozen or so claim forms, but it shouldn't cost you any more. You'll soon find out which name to sue. This is my biggest obstacle at the moment, and the basis for GE and Eversheds sham defence. They say I'm suing the wrong GE - but still want me to be a good Homer and take their gesture of goodwill offering me the full amount I'm claiming, then sign their confidentiality agreement. No chance! I knew of this tactic but had thought after many strike-out attempts failing, they would have ceased using such a worn out argument. It seems they haven't. So I've let the court know all about it of course. Anyway, if it is of any use to you, here is the Particulars of Claim that I used. It has got them keen to pay up. Feel free to adapt to suit. Any suggestions/modifications also welcomed. Excluding suggestions/modifications by Tom at Eversheds of course. He may suggest I remove it for the sake of confidentiallity. Particulars of Claim Part 1 Introduction This is a Secured Loan Charges claim not a Bank Charges claim. The Charges which are the subject to this claim have nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling against the Personal Current Account providers - Eight British banks and others. ( OFT v Abbey etc.) Because this claim is not affected by the Supreme Court decision, all parts of this claim remain open for determination by the Court, Penalties, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999(UTCCR), misrepresentation and breach of statutory duty. This claim is brought as the Claimant believes that the charges levied by the Defendants are in fact penalties applied for breach of contract on the part of the Claimant. This claim is brought for the refund of money paid under a mistake and for restitutionary damages and/or interest under s.69 County Court Act 1984. This claim is brought under reg.6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) and alternatively under reg.5 UTCCR. Alternatively this claim is brought on the basis of a contractual misrepresentation by the Defendants. This claim is also brought for the Defendants breach of Statutory Duty. The Claimant's position is that either the Monthly Arrears charges, failed Direct Debit Charge Fees, Default notice charges and Counsellor Visit Fees that the Defendants impose on its customers are not part of their core business and are so excessively high that they are wholly disproportionate to their costs and are therefore unfair under reg.6 UTCCR, or That the Defendants occupy a dominant position in relation to the Claimant and have operated their dominant position contrary to the requirements of good faith by misrepresenting the true nature of its charges per reg.5 UTCCR, or That the Defendants have made contractual misrepresentations. Part 2 The Parties The Defendants are a sub-prime secured loan provider offering loans secured on clients property. The Defendants were formerly known as iGroup. They are now part of GE Money. The Defendants are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and are subject to the obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook and Mortgage Conduct Of Business Sourcebook, implemented under the Financial Services And Markets Act 2000. The Claimant arranged his secured loan through a broker, xxxxxx Finance, that offered the Defendants as a secured loan provider which would lend a sum of £xxxxxx to the Claimant. This loan was secured by a legal mortgage on the Claimant's home. The Claimant entered into a secured loan agreement Account number xxxxxxxx with the Defendant on or around xxth xxber xxxx.The secured loan was provided under the Defendants’ own standard Terms and Conditions. A copy of the loan agreement and terms and conditions are attached. Between xxxx xxxx and xxxx xxxx the Claimant incurred failed direct debit fees, default notice charges and monthly arrears fee charges totalling £xxx.00. The Claimant has asked the Defendants for a detailed breakdown or costings analysis of these charges but the Defendants have failed to prove them. On the xxth xxxxxx xxxx the Claimant was also charged £47.00 for a Debt Counsellor visit that the Claimant neither wanted nor benefited from in any way. In fact no meeting actually took place, yet the Defendants charged for this visit. The Claimant has asked the Defendants for a detailed breakdown or costings analysis for this charge. The Claimant has asked the Defendants in the alternative to provide an invoice or receipt detailing such payment to the Debt Counsellor. The Defendants have failed to supply this information to the Claimant. The Defendants charges are expressed by them to be their costs for dealing with an account whilst in arrears, and their administration costs in representing failed direct debit payments. The Defendants will not supply any detailed breakdown of the charges proving their actual costs. Part 3 The Defendants’ dominant position. The Defendants are a sub-prime secured loan company and part of the GE Money group. The Defendants operate on their own standard terms and conditions which are imposed upon the customer. There is no opportunity for the customer to object to, or to renegotiate any aspect of the mortgage contract. There is no element of mutuality or reciprocity within the contract. The Defendant sub-prime secured loan company occupies a dominant and superior position to the Claimant because they are fully informed as to the true nature and level of the operations (or activities), and also the true cost of dealing with Customer Late Payment episodes, and yet refuse to reveal or disclose in any way the mechanisms involved or the true costs associated with Customer Late Payment episodes. The Defendants reserve to itself the right to levy charges it describes as “Direct Debit recall charges”,“Administrative Charges”, “default notice charges” and “Monthly Arrears Charges” and will not disclose the level they are calculated to either, instead relying on them being stated in the Terms and Conditions of the secured loan contract. However the Defendants levy these Charges against its Customers without any proper explanation as to how the costs are derived and so that the Customer is obliged to accept the Defendants generalised explanation of their charges at face value. The Customer is therefore obliged to repose faith in the integrity and straight dealing of the Defendants because of the Defendants superior position in the contract. The Defendant secured loan company have also largely ignored the Claimants Letter Before Action sent by recorded delivery, received by the Defendants on xxth xxxx xxxx. The Defendants admit that their Default Notice is an automated letter. The remaining points raised in my Letter Before Action are not addressed, the Defendants stating “Having looked at our records I can see that your concerns have been previously addressed and we have issued our final response to you regarding the fees.”, and “Our position remains the same on the points you have raised. I am unable to consider your complaint further and must once again refer you to the Financial Ombudsman Service should you remain dissatisfied.” No further response has been received by the Claimant in respect of the Letter Before Action. (Adapt his to suit your own correspondence with GE scumbags.) The Defendant secured loan company reserves to itself the right to levy Charges it describes as “Monthly Arrears Charge ”, “Administration fee”, “Direct Debit recall charge”, “default notice charge”, “Debt Counsellor Visits”. Part 4 The Defendants’ misrepresentation. The Defendants refer to their Terms and Conditions of the Claimants secured loan account. They refer to Monthly Arrears Fees of £40, Direct Debit recall charge fees of £20, Default notice charges of £35. They refer to Counsellors visit charges of £47 when no visit actually took place. The original guide to fees that the Defendants charged in 2004 details Monthly arrears administration charge £40, Default notice £7, Unpaid direct debit charge £2, Counsellors visit £88.13 (Check all Terms and Conditions in force during the life of your loan/mortgage.) The Defendants have failed to provide any detailed audited costings analysis for any of these charges, nor provided any invoices or receipts for payments of fees to their debt counsellor. The Defendants continue to state that these charges represent a true estimate of the actual costs involved in dealing with the Claimants late payment episodes. The Claimant is confused as to how his account has been charged these fees, and this actual work conducted, at the weekends when most businesses are closed. The Claimant believes that these charges are automatically applied by the Defendants computer system, thus disproving the Defendants claims. A study commissioned by the BBC in 2006 found that the episodes of the type for which the Defendant imposes default fees typically cost a maximum of £4.50 per episode. The OFT conducted a study into the fairness of the level and application of unauthorised charges in April 2007. The subsequent OFT July 2008 report found a number of concerns they believed needed addressing: Low levels of transparency over charges and costs, coupled with a high proportion of banks’ total revenues made on charges and costs. The complexity of the charges makes it harder for consumers to control the costs they incur. A significant group of consumers underestimate the level and frequency of banks’ charges, and A general perception among consumers, not completely unfounded, that switching is complex and risky, contributing to low levels of switching between banks. (Although this study applied particularly to banks, it is submitted that the principles of the study and the results are applicable to other companies within the finance industry which operate excessive charging regimes.) The Financial Services Authority has imposed large fines on other sub-prime lenders with similar charging regimes to the Defendants. GMAC were fined £2.8 Million in October 2009 for not treating customers fairly. Kensington were fined £1.23 Million in April 2010 for similar unfair treatment. The Claimant believes that if the FSA found GMAC's and Kensington's charges for customers whilst in arrears to be unfair, it follows that the Defendants similar charging regime is unfair. (Many other companies have also been fined - Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited SPML, and others. Do some research and add more examples to your claim.) Claim that the Defendants charges are actually concealed penalties for breaches of contract. The Defendants have charged varying amounts for the same breaches of contract. Yet they are unable or unwilling to substantiate these charges by way of detailed costings analysis. The Claimant believes that the Defendants apply these charges as penalties for breach of contract. The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to determine whether the Defendants charges are penalties. The Claimant believes that the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. Claim under regulation 6 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999. The Defendants Charges are not part of their core business. They are incidental or remedial Charges and are unfairly high. They are therefore invalid under UTCCR. Claim under regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999. The Defendants have abused their dominant position by misrepresenting the nature of their charges. This is contrary to the requirement of good faith, and as a result of this the Claimant has suffered detriment. Therefore it is submitted that the Defendants charging regime is invalid. Contractual Misrepresentation. The Defendants have misrepresented the nature of their Charges, the Claimant relied upon the Defendants representations because he believed that he had caused losses to the Defendants, and that he had an obligation to indemnify the Defendants for those losses. If the Claimant had appreciated the excessive nature of the Defendants Charges, he would have investigated making his mortgage arrangements elsewhere. Breach of Statutory Duty. The Defendants are regulated by the Financial Services Authority under The Financial Services And Markets Act 2000 and are subject to obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook. Under Regulation 4.2 of the Sourcebook the Defendants are required to ensure that they communicate with their clients fairly, clearly and in a way which is not misleading. The Claimant believes that the Defendants specialist Contentious Litigation Department, designed to obstruct customers access to information that they seek, is a clear breach of their obligations. Under Regulation 12.4.1R of the Mortgage Conduct Of Business Sourcebook the Defendants are required to ensure that any arrears charges they apply should only cover their actual costs of dealing with an account whilst in arrears. The Defendants have failed to comply with their obligations. By misrepresenting the nature of it’s charges both in it’s Terms and Conditions, and in it’s correspondence to the Claimant, the Defendants have breached their statutory obligations. The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to order standard disclosure when issuing this claim as the Defendants have continually refused to supply any requested information. The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to order the Defendants to lodge in court full and detailed financial vouching for the Defendants actual losses sustained by the Claimants mortgage arrears, together with their full financial accounts revealing how much income the Defendants generate from their monthly secured loan Arrears Charges, compared to their actual costs of administering the Claimants missed monthly secured loan payments. The Claimant would be most grateful to the Court if the disclosure extended to all charges including legal and litigation fees charged by the Defendants. The Claimant respectfully asks permission of the Court to amend his claim once in receipt of all information from the Defendants. The Claimant claims: The return of all charges paid in the sum of £xxxx.00 , Court costs, Restitutionary damages to be determined by the Court, or Interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum to the date of issue, which is £xxx.xx and continuing until the date of judgment at a daily rate of xxp. A declaration that the Defendants have breached their obligations contained in the FSA Sourcebooks. Removal of any and all incorrect and defamatory information submitted to Credit Reference Agencies by the Defendants regarding the Claimants alleged arrears on the secured loan. Statement of Truth. I, Homer J Simpson, of Springfield, believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief. ___________________________ Homer J Simpson Claimant xx xxxxxber 2010

Thought it may be a common occurence, GE charging for nothing. I'm putting something together at the moment about GE and some examples of them charging others could be very useful. Have you claimed any of their charges back? HJS

Hi guys, long time no post, but had a wedding and honeymoon to organise. Anyway the lba was ignored by GE Money, and the wife wouldn't let me spend any of the wedding budget on isuing a court claim. So I issued it on the 7th December, and Eversheds, acting on behalf of GE Money, are rather keen to pay me off. I got an initial offer of 50% of my claim (which I politely refused), a subsequent offer of 75% of my claim (again politely refused), and now have an offer on the table for the full amount claimed £1,134.27. I'm wondering why they are so keen to pay up and avoid court? They are trying the tactic that I'm claiming from the wrong GE, that old chestnut, but still offering the full amount claimed (as a gesture of goodwill etc....) It certainly seems that these companies are more agreeable at court, then they are at the Financial Ombudsman Service. HJS

Hi guys, Has anybody been charged for Field Counsellor visits by GE Money that never actually took place? If you have been and are prepared to provide details by PM either to me or the sitre team, it may prove useful in giving GE a spanking. HJS

Arrears and charges should be seperate amounts, not sure about the fraud act though. If you raise a court claim against GE Money for their charges, Eversheds solicitors really want to give you some hush money. They are currently offering me my full amount claimed, even though they will defend and expect to win. HJS

Hi guys, long time no post, but had a wedding and honeymoon to organise. Jamaica is lovely in September. Anyway the LBA was ignored by GE Money, and the wife wouldn't let me spend any of the wedding budget on isuing a court claim. So I issued it on the 7th December, and Eversheds, acting on behalf of GE Money, are rather keen to pay me off. I got an initial offer of 50% of my claim (which I politely refused), a subsequent offer of 75% of my claim (again politely refused), and now have an offer on the table for the full amount claimed £1,134.27. I'm wondering why they are so keen to pay up and avoid court? They are trying the tactic that I'm claiming from the wrong GE, that old chestnut, but still offering the full amount claimed (as a gesture of goodwill etc....) It certainly seems that these companies are more agreeable at court, then they are at the Financial Ombudsman Service. HJS

I did find find the 1991 Water Industry Act, but could not find any cases of consumers being fined. The act outlaws washing your car and watering your lawn and garden with a hosepipe. But if you have an allotment you can water that all day with a hosepipe. And you can clean your patio and/or driveway with a hosepipe. It's a great law. Also, if you use a garden tap to fill a bucket (allowed), and then leave the end of your hosepipe in said bucket (not connected to a tap), your thirsty power washer will suck it's required water supply from a bucket of water. I didn't find any restriction on constantly filling the bucket with water, that must be allowed. But you haven't connected your power washer to a tap via a hosepipe. Makes you wonder......... HJS

Hi bustthematrix, I'm only looking in the region of a few hundred quid. But thats not the point;). If it is unfair, as I believe it is, then it should be reclaimable. I'm a great believer in the principle outweighing the costs/time spent in bringing these b@rstew@rd$ to book. I fail to see how they can justify this being a fair contractual term. Just hoping others may agree, and wondering if anyone has tried and succeeded. HJS