SAR would be better as this would include the T & C's.From this you could work out unlawful charges etc which MAY invalidate the D/N

The comments in post 1 are more common than you may wish...We do see this particularly with the sub prime market and their agents.(not suggesting Gilly is in this cat..but I am)And in my case the whole process was done via phone and post....However RON you have put a good argument forward.(Q).would these fee's be included ON the mortgage offer doc.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?335553-starting-a-claim-with-Birmingham-Midshires-for-excessive-arrears-charges. link to bankfodders advice.

My opinion is this.... Your mortgage is as per your original T & C's. However to remortgage through Engage would be under a new contract with their T&C's,their charges and fee's etc

DO NOT phone.the reason being they record everything. All it takes is a sly devious person who tricks you into saying something (anything)that could be regarded as an agreement etc. Insist on paper copies both for YOU and them.This is also your proof so its important.....

""Now clearly these people dont use common sense either that or I have gotten eveything wrong"" this quote is unfortunately all to common.You are talking to people who can not see past a computer screen. My problem is similar in that I pay 4Weekly(thats how I get paid)So when I get paid ,I pay the mortgage plus £50 off my arrears with my debit card .Now this simple and convenient way of paying is beyond them....I spoke to the tossers who passed me to the clowns who passed me to the muppets who passed me to the head of collections....NO joy he passed me back to the tossers & so on........SO my advice is pay on or before the due date and keep a record...IF Accord have a problem with accounts its for them to sort out..

I suspect the reason for refusal is down to kensingtons policy.[[ the policy is arrears should be paid off within 2 yrs.]] Now in my case..the judge ruled against this and applied norgen rule .You will probebly find kensington refuse all offers...BUT eversheds if you go through them will "advise" kensington to accept or risk a lesser payment via the court. ""i had allready made 3 proposals to the lender and they told me there was no point to sending another,""This quote sums up kensington litigation dept.. In my case I got more sense and info etc.dealing with eversheds diect.....You have good advice and help in these previous posts Luck 2 U

"" I was also told that they are still going ahead with an eviction date untill they see our payment reach them on the 28/11/2011 of £1200.00....that is 929 mortgage payment/150.00 original order and a additional £121.00.."" Have you spoke to CAB...seems to me their is a lot of options here. Arrears could have been added to outstanding total mortgage prior to transfer.(new eyes I think you said) well new start!! Also not sure how long a suspended repo is for...ie is there a time limit on it or is it valid until arrears cleared??again should be sorted before transfer. CAB can get reasonable payment plans accepted in court to match affordability to you.Or have it adjourned on the grounds you have given ie the court requires those docs. There is a shed load of info on here from a lot of us in the same boat... Luck2u

What might constitute a mis-sold mortgage arranged for you? The following are just examples: - The broker placed the mortgage with a lender that paid him the best commission (this is called a procuration fee) when a more suitable product was available elsewhere and probably at a cheaper rate Borrowers who are advised to self-certify their incomes, possibly to ‘fast track’ their mortgage application when they qualify for a (cheaper) full status product The broker failed to give over an Initial Disclosure Document at the start of the mortgage interview. This details the sort of mortgage advice they can give and whether they can recommend products from all lenders or from just a limited ‘panel’ The broker failed to supply a copy of the Key Facts Illustration that must include the financial details of the recommended mortgage so the borrower can make an ‘informed choice’. This will include the initial and future (anticipated) interest rates, the current and future (anticipated) repayments, fees charged, early repayment penalties (if any) etc No available records are available of the sale/advice process The broker has failed to take due care in assessing the borrower’s future ability to pay the mortgage after the initial rate expires. This is referred to as ‘payment shock’ Self-employed applicants who were advised to take a mortgage term beyond retirement with no ‘real’ means to repay Inclusion of State Benefits currently received that might not be guaranteed in the long-term Omitting some debts when assessing the borrower’s ability to pay the mortgage. These are usually unsecured debts i.e. loans, credit cards etc Lack of clear advice on having a repayment plan in place to repay the mortgage at the end of the term. An interest only mortgage will not, by definition, repay the original capital debt, so what is the repayment method? Coercion into buying a mortgage product that was inappropriate for the borrower’s needs Inappropriately combining other financial products with mortgages in a way that makes them seem compulsory e.g. buildings & contents insurance, Accident Sickness and Unemployment cover or Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance Not offering products from other lenders when a borrower’s true credit rating is established. This is called ‘cascading’ and should include product offerings from several lenders and not a more expensive one from the original one Offering mortgage products where the initial rating period (i.e. fixed, discount etc) does not suit the borrower’s individual circumstances Failure to offer borrowers a selection of mortgage products and not assisting in the decision process The broker charging excessive fees. The guidelines suggest that the broker should be remunerated in proportion to the amount of work needed to finally place the mortgage Failure to fully explain early repayment penalties (if applicable) when borrowers leave their current lender The broker recommending a full remortgage with a new lender when a further advance from the borrower’s current lender would have been more appropriate (and probably cheaper) Any suggestion on the part of the broker to omit details that might seem irrelevant but are important to the lender e.g. omitting to disclose other occupants over the age of 17 living in the property which is to be mortgaged There are many more breaches that constitute a mis-sold mortgage. The fundamental question that you need to ask yourself is “was I treated fairly by my mortgage adviser”? Remember that TCF does not mean the same as brokers being ‘nice’ to customers or creating satisfied customers, it is a breach where there is failure by ‘a firm (to) pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly’. NOW consider the outcome...It will probably result in rescission and its very hard to prove.It won't solve the repo problem. I would suggest looking at other area's like fee's & charges etc NOT on the original contract T & C's.Plus have mortgage express got the correct paperwork/authority

""a few years ago we had a suspended order placed which we cleared and i am worried the judge will not let us keep our home this time"" This as far as a judge is conserned is in your favour...YOU complied with the order.therefor NORGEN agreement could be used. Now they have refused your offer made with THEIR advisor..how GOOD will that look in court... You might also queery your mort rate and how its calculated...they have no standard rate as a fellow cagger has shown in court..These people hide behind the law but avoid compliance of it...STICK with ell-en's advice (post 2)

First charge is NR...Kensington i believe need agreement from NR for repo of property.And with house prices well down that is not likely..Kensington MUST consider your offer as per mcob and pre-action protocols etc... There is NO neg equity so their money is still safe...Judge would prob laugh at this and throw it out..Looks to me that you,ve done everything OK to resolve this temp money issue...BALL is in their court (pardon the pun)

been trying to PM you for a while....m/t your mailbox...

The Land Registration Act 2002 (c 9) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which repealed and replaced previous legislation governing land registration, in particular the Land Registration Act 1925, which governed an earlier, though similar, system. As of 2008, the Act, together with the Land Registration Rules,[3][4][5] regulates the role and practice of HM Land Registry. Still unsure !!!

I have conflicting dates as to when the Land Registry Act 2002 ACTUALLY came into force....(1) Oct 2002 & (2) 2008.The correct date is req'd for my defence...Any help please

((and said that the judge had no jurisdiction to grant a suspension as the loan went out of term last year.)) and (I have an order to repay £600 per month) This is strange...IMO if the payments are by court order ( I assume CCJ ) then they can't refuse payments..Secondly IF this is a CCJ then the money owed is a Judgement Debt...NOT cca /LRA or LPA This view I think needs clarifying more

One more point in ref to esg......expect lengthy test cases with a massive back log off claims pending??? My opinion is.... Iif this is done for the wrong reasons ie.just to get compen!!..and the claims companies take over then it could end like the Manchester cases. This should NOT be about getting out of something(a debt) BUThow to put an injustice right in your favour.. Or as best you can!!!

Good point Lea and to reiterate the win/loose 50/50 the odds are not very good,so I stand by ""Bear in mind here that you are taking on a mortgage Co. with a large litigation dept,and large resources to finance litigation. My initial thought is official complaint via OFT and FSA.. One more thing to consider IF you take them to court YOU have to prove it...they just have to defend their actions."" Saying is one thing PROVING it is the major problem..

Hi jasperpad..This worries me a bit.......... .""I tick around 60% of the criteria but want to do the suing myself as I don't like the idea of paying a company about 25% of what I may win."" A bit close to the 50/50 win lose.Bear in mind here that you are taking on a mortgage Co. with a large litigation dept,and large resources to finance litigation. My initial thought is official complaint via OFT and FSA...One more thing to consider IF you take them to court YOU have to prove it...they just have to defend their actions. I will post info up for you..their is a shed load to think about ie,hidden commission,Misrepresentation,Coercion, Financial services act MCOB etc.etc

Agreed a full and final would be req'd.......as this (( They've said a 'satisfaction letter would be issued once payment is cleared )) would or could just apply to your credit file..

Good question....So why not just accept your next £15 payment as full and final? I DON'T to be honest know the answer but am very interested just the same.

In building your complaint,you should download and read the OFT 1266.pdf and OFT 1272.pdf to get a broader picture of what you can and can't do..AND more importantly what they can't do. ONE BIG thing to remember is....IF you take them to court a recon agreement will do !! IF they take you to court the SIGNED agreement MUST be produced

This may also interest you... Many specialist lenders used mortgage packagers to originate applications via mortgage intermediaries. These acted as agents of the lender. Your CRA information should not be passed to a third party for use in selecting a mortgage. Mortgage Packagers often used the CRA data to advise the mortgage intermediary on products available from lenders based upon the results of the CRA search. They were arguably giving advice to the mortgage intermediary on the suitability of products without knowing the borrowers full circumstances. This is contrary to the Mortgage Code of Business

Dug this up from my saved files.... How can I tell if I have a mis-sold mortgage? Did one or more of the following happen to you when you were being advised about your mortgage during the sale process? Was it suggested that you applied to a specific lender for “speed”? Did the correct process for the mortgage sale take place? Were you provided with an Initial Disclosure Document by your mortgage adviser? Were you provided with a copy of the mortgage Fact Find Document by your adviser? Were you provided with a copy of the Key Facts Illustration by your mortgage adviser? Was regular overtime, commission or bonus payments stated as being guaranteed? If you were self employed, did the stated income figure match those notified to HMRC or was it suggested that a different figure be noted? Were you advised to go down the self-certification route when there was proof of sufficient income to qualify for the mortgage? If you were remortgaging to consolidate debts, were you advised of the additional costs as a result of this by extending your repayment period? Were you advised to change the purpose of the remortgage application to fit a lender’s criteria? Did any minor adverse credit that you might have prevent you going with a ‘High Street’ type lender or were you recommended to a so-called ‘sub-prime’ lender? If you were advised to take an interest-only mortgage, were you made aware of the need to have a repayment vehicle in place to repay the capital debt at the end of the mortgage term? Were you contacted to change your mortgage by telephone by a company ‘out of the blue’ or by and adviser you already knew? If you were contacted, had you given them your permission to call? This is not an exhaustive list it is merely some examples of possible mis-sold mortgage situations. There are many more. The monitoring of mis-sold mortgage currently lies with the Financial Services Authority. It has the power to fine, suspend and even ban brokers that do not have tight controls in place, or didn’t treat customers fairly under the very strict rules of legislation called the Mortgage Code of Business (MCOB) and could not ensure the suitability or affordability of a new mortgage to its customers. What constitutes a mis-sold mortgage? Mortgage advice given to consumers by advisers must comply with the statutory principles of Treating Customers Fairly (TCF). This aims to help customers fully understand the features, benefits, risks and costs of the financial products they buy. It also aims to minimise the sale of unsuitable products by encouraging best practice before, during and after the sale. The legislation makes the following very important statement – “A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and ‘treat them fairly’”. What might constitute a mis-sold mortgage arranged for you? The following are just examples: - The broker placed the mortgage with a lender that paid him the best commission (this is called a procuration fee) when a more suitable product was available elsewhere and probably at a cheaper rate Borrowers who are advised to self-certify their incomes, possibly to ‘fast track’ their mortgage application when they qualify for a (cheaper) full status product The broker failed to give over an Initial Disclosure Document at the start of the mortgage interview. This details the sort of mortgage advice they can give and whether they can recommend products from all lenders or from just a limited ‘panel’ The broker failed to supply a copy of the Key Facts Illustration that must include the financial details of the recommended mortgage so the borrower can make an ‘informed choice’. This will include the initial and future (anticipated) interest rates, the current and future (anticipated) repayments, fees charged, early repayment penalties (if any) etc No available records are available of the sale/advice process The broker has failed to take due care in assessing the borrower’s future ability to pay the mortgage after the initial rate expires. This is referred to as ‘payment shock’ Self-employed applicants who were advised to take a mortgage term beyond retirement with no ‘real’ means to repay Inclusion of State Benefits currently received that might not be guaranteed in the long-term Omitting some debts when assessing the borrower’s ability to pay the mortgage. These are usually unsecured debts i.e. loans, credit cards etc Lack of clear advice on having a repayment plan in place to repay the mortgage at the end of the term. An interest only mortgage will not, by definition, repay the original capital debt, so what is the repayment method? Coercion into buying a mortgage product that was inappropriate for the borrower’s needs Inappropriately combining other financial products with mortgages in a way that makes them seem compulsory e.g. buildings & contents insurance, Accident Sickness and Unemployment cover or Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance Not offering products from other lenders when a borrower’s true credit rating is established. This is called ‘cascading’ and should include product offerings from several lenders and not a more expensive one from the original one Offering mortgage products where the initial rating period (i.e. fixed, discount etc) does not suit the borrower’s individual circumstances Failure to offer borrowers a selection of mortgage products and not assisting in the decision process The broker charging excessive fees. The guidelines suggest that the broker should be remunerated in proportion to the amount of work needed to finally place the mortgage Failure to fully explain early repayment penalties (if applicable) when borrowers leave their current lender The broker recommending a full remortgage with a new lender when a further advance from the borrower’s current lender would have been more appropriate (and probably cheaper) Any suggestion on the part of the broker to omit details that might seem irrelevant but are important to the lender e.g. omitting to disclose other occupants over the age of 17 living in the property which is to be mortgaged There are many more breaches that constitute a mis-sold mortgage. The fundamental question that you need to ask yourself is “was I treated fairly by my mortgage adviser”? Remember that TCF does not mean the same as brokers being ‘nice’ to customers or creating satisfied customers, it is a breach where there is failure by ‘a firm (to) pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly’.

The more common option here is that they may exercise their right to a payment review each year...As post 8 says...WHY would they bother especially if they know they have no cca !!

The past reschedule is also covered in the Norgan case.... consider the precedental case of Cheltenham & Gloucester v Norgan.. re spreading the whole amount of the arrears (once the true figure has been established ie.less fee's) over the entire remainder of the loan. reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Household Mortgage Corporation v Pringle (1998) 30 HLR 250,CA The offer you are making is as Ell-enn says OK