Correct on both counts Wrigley,seems the claimants argued Paragon couldnt call it in because they were not a full 3 months in arrears judge ruled otherwise.

I see Paragon have again won in court this time this time calling in 6.9 million buy to let business.

My apologies for the lack of clarity Airwolf,and the mistakes numerous glasses of white wine on a Saturday evening does little for my legal reasoning on points of law,however i do believe that s140 has little to offer and is at best weak,i know i wouldnt use it if i were defending myself but thats my opinion and would be my choice,for me that defence has lost its credebility.

I was wondering when this case would get posted on the thread,thanks Airwolf a very intresting case it was and well explained,its good to see some in depth detail now and again.Peter Bentleys case centered around s140 cca 1974 ,the case has been well outlined by Airwolf so i wont repeat what has already been written.At the time it was seen as both a warning to lenders and a victory for the borrower,to many there had in fact been an unfair relationship between the lender,Blenheim Finance and the borrower Peter Bentley.However once the dust had settled and a closer was taken at this case it was not the victory for Joe Public that folk first thought. First off this case was rather singular in that it involved the death of both Peter,s parents,indeed as he was the primary carer this was the contributing factor for his arrears,thus there was a sympathy element which many could not bring to a court. Second,all Blenheim have to do is play the waiting game.The loan is still outstanding,its gone up 7k (which he still has to pay) ok the judge impemented some punitive measures but you could not say Blenheim did that badly out of this indeed with the lower contractual payments they have an even better chance of recieving what they are owed. Its the third point which really blows this out of the water,s140 c.c.a was never tested because Peter Bentley withdrew his action in favour of agreeing to Blenheims offer outlined in Airwolfs post,the above agreement was made outside the courtroom,no precedent was made by the judge,thus no judgement that others could refer to in support of any future cases.Now Bentley didnt do badly out of this,the threat of repo gone,reduced payments and no added intrest,but the unfair relationship between lender and borrower under s140 was never tested.This brings me to the 13th and 14th of October this year when the unfair relationship between borrower and lender was used as a defence in two cases ,both cases involved the use of s140 and both appeals failed and in the former a precedent was set. For reference read Harisson and Harisson v Blackhorse and Jones v Northern Rock In the former,Lord Tomlinson stated this," under s140 cca 1974 the test requires the relationship to be unfair between lender and borrower not the contractual agreement between them.Secondly it is not an economic test,therefore a viable unfair relationship claim would be difficult to bring" Borrowers often alledge that cost is a relevent concern when looking at the unfair relationship test,as the master of the rolls wryly observed during the oral arguments in this case " well they would do wouldnt they"You cannot shut the door on this defence more firmly than that.It would be brave person who would risk loosing upwards of 20k on using s140 as a defence after that judgement and thats what Jones lost after his appeal failed,again using s140 as a defence. You could never use Bently as support because in reality it ended when he withdrew,there was never really a case however i for one can certainly feel which way the wind is blowing at the moment and as usual its not with the borrower.

Good question,of course if the new owners try it on with arrears charges,late payment fees,intrest charges an so on you can take your case to the financial ombudsman where an adjudicator will look at all the paperwork and make a decision,they are not consistant but people have had decisions go their way.Then of course there is the F.S.A,however they are not much use unless they recieve complaints on mass.Finally there is the option of going to court to fight any future financial battles,however the only people who get justice in a civil court are those that can afford it.S to answer your question Wrigley if your looking for some act that covers this type of loan from sharp practice,then the above is about it im afraid.

Do you remember years ago when building societies were begging their savers to vote for change with regard to turning themselves into banks,why do you think they wanted to change to banks so badly?For a start building societies were heavily regulated,they could only lend out what savers put in,think about it,if the B.S lent out 20k it would need 20k of new savers.The reason why they wanted change so badly was that it allowed them ( as a bank) to borrow money from outside sources and not just the savers,it also meant shareholders owned them seperate from savers,plus they would raise millions from selling the shares.This led to a ma ssive change in the mortgage and loan market . Self cert,fixed term together,plus consolidation and any purpose loans sprang up from nowhere along with countless other products sold by the banks through brokers,thousands of em flogging the banks products and taking a hefty fee from each customer tying them into deals and contracts that they knew in the long term were not suitable. Of course as the banks lending increased,so did the risk that some would default on loans and mortgages,the more people who borrow,the more chance of defaults thus the greater the risk.What selling loans on does (securitisation) is pass the risks on to someone else while making a profit, usually at the borrowers expense. For example say a loan company has 10 customers owing 10 k each,that company is owed 100k from its customers,what it does is register a new company and the new company is sold to an outside investor and the new company contains those 10 loans,thus in this threads case Picture becomes Picture Jersey p.l.c or whatever and they sell to Paragon who pay over the odds for the loan book,in other words instead of paying the 100k they would pay 130k.F the original lender theres a quick profit on the sale,the risk of defaults has been passed on so how do the new owners get back that extra they paid,and make a profit ? The answer is they squeeze the borrower dry,increasing intrest rates,implementing charges and repo,s,and once you have milked the borrowers for as much as you can,you simply create another company and sell the 10 loans on again as they are liquid assetts.

Up to 25k taken out after may 98 and before april 2008 will be covered,before may 98 loans up to 15k are covered.

Thats the company that escaped my mind at the time.

Scannan.pdf

Im afraid not,was reading a judgement only this morning where Webb were granted a P.O due to arrears,judge sited lack of communication from the borrowers as the reason for the judgement,also stated the very act of this couple defending Webbs action was almost an abuse of process.

Got em,yes loans for self employed.Right,they have not gone bust but have sold your secured loan on to G.E Money which they are entitled to do ,first off stop worrying you are not going to loose your home over 3k arrears of that im as sure as i can be.However you need to start the ball rolling now,first off i would be wanting the credit agreement and a breakdown of all charges,dont talk to them on the phone,everything in writing from now on.Also do a S.A.R request you wont get it back for a court hearing but will come in usefull for claiming back those charges.

This wouldnt be Jigsaw finance in Hamilton would it?

ps just type webb resoloutions into the small browser at the top of this page,its an intresting read.

Well back in January of this year a number of cag members posted their concerns after Picture sold a large part of its loan portfolio to a company called Crown Mortgages whose collection arm was Webb Resoloutions.Crown Mortgages specialise in buying up distressed loans and mortgages which are in default,now Crown are part of an even bigger outfit the name of which escapes me at the moment.I commented back then of trouble ahead,you can read the thread for yourselves,but the point im making is,not all customers of Picture will be dealing with the same company,ie Paragon/Idem there,s more than one company in the picture here and you can bet they are talking.

Somethings been nagging at me relating to this thread and i now know what it is,has anyone had any dealings with a company called Webb Resoloutions with regard to their Picture loan ?

Please do,any problems and we will be able to assist.

If i had a loan from Picture i would begin with a S.A.R request,i would also be looking to request the original credit agreement and anual statements which are required under CCA 1974 2006 amended.I would also set about reclaiming any P.P.I and any arrears charges.Furthermore i would be taking a close look at the intrest they were charging.

They would loose out if everyone did it but for example 1 in 30 ? ,hardly making a dent in the profits is it?.

Yes,very wary indeed,you see this sort of financial purchasing and selling of loans seems a million miles away from the average loans that you or i pay off on a monthly basis.For the likes of Joe public,these financial transactions (for us) exist in a world we know very little of,however,we can bring much of the goings on at Picture Financial,and it,s relevance to present day customers very easily. Picture was formed in 2004/05 originally designed as a consolidation loan company,you know how all the adds went " turn your credit cards and loans into one easy fixed payment".Im not sure but i think they had 4 directors at that time,the main man being Neville Allport.Picture,s funds to lend came from 3 sources Apax equity,Merrill Lynch investment bank and thirdly Deutsche Bank,that is where all of Pictures money came from,and borrowed at a very low rate of intrest.Does anyone recall Labours work and pensions secretary,Peter Hain resigning over a 5k "political donation" which he failed to disclose? Well that money was paid by,(yes you guessed it)P icture Financial,Peter Hain at the time was endorsing Pictures products.By that time Pictures waters were becoming increasingly murky. Untill the collapse they were doing very nicely thank you out of us mugs,i mean customers,paying vastly increased rates of intrest,and dont forget all those charges added to accounts,customers were being robbed.After the crunch of course Pictures funds dried up,the big three were unwilling to lend,so Picture looked for a buyer and instructed boutique advisory service (yes your reading this right) Kinmont to find a buyer.In order to effect a sale the big three wrote off millions,to the new owners it must have felt like they had been given Picture for a song,this where Target servicing first appear on the scene.A few people made a fortune out of this and Paragon still are !

Let me explain,if you are a company moreover a loan origination company (Paragon) and you purchase a number of loans with money usually funded through an investment bank at a knock down price to shorten that companies liabilities and you also own a company that can service those loans ( Idem) and much of the loan book is secured on property then you would own the keys to the font doors every bit as much as the people living behind them.

So the local housing association purchased the property outright from the lender and it sounds to me like your on a shorthold tenancy which becomes renewable every couple of years or so.The lender agreed to the buy out as long as you signed that form because they knew full well there would be a shortfall,what you signed was a deed of aknowledgement. Let me explain,a D.O.A really just means what is says,it doesn,t mean that the shortfall is secured against anthing you own,what it means is you aknowledge the debt and in doing so the lender can not only chase you for this debt but i have a nasty feeling that there will be a clause which excludes the shortfall from any bankcruptcy proceedings.Put simply you should never sign a D.O.A,although i understand your reasons for doing so.Thus if your not carefull this shortfall will follow you to the grave.Now, having established that you have dropped an almighty clanger by putting your name to that form,whats to do about it? Firstly your right to be considering bankcrupcy,in my opinion its the only way forward,stop paying anything off your debts,get your 700 quid together and file for bankcruptcy,above all dont pay another penny off that shortfall,the O.R may be able to help with that but i doubt it,although they should be off your back untill you are discharged. Another point to consider is that the lender could not attatch payment to earnings if there were no earnings!.

Shortfalls are a real kick in the teeth for those who have been repossessed.After selling peoples homes for a pittance at auction the lender will bide their time untill they think you are back on your feet then deliver the final insult,demanding payment for a shortfall you have not got a hope in hell of ever paying off.My advice would be to go bancrupt ,you would be discharged after 12 months and this shortfall would be history.

Under the consummer credit act 1974 all lenders of unsecured or secured loans must by law provide a anual statement to their customers,if no statement is forthcoming all obligation to repay monles and intrest owed can be stopped untill the customer recieves the statement the lender is obligated to provide.

sorry Wrigley my laptop is currently under half a cup of coffee so im having some technical difficulty at the moment lol.

ok