Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nav110

  1. the name is not so important at the mo, will be revealed in due course.


    Looking at the check list and the KFI sheets which the agent passed onto the underwriters all the info seems ok apart from the loan amount which was £134K.

    In the check list it states outgoing as £900 but within the underwriting sheet it is £420. From my conclusion both the agent and underwriters have both manipulated the process,

    agent- requesting higher figure

    underwriter- lessened outgoing figure.


    does any1 have any experience or thoughts, unsure how to proceed, pls help guys

  2. Hi everyone,


    Im looking for some help and advice.



    I have had issues with my sub-prime mortgage and was fortunate to stumble upon the underwriting sheet for my re-mortgage after a DSAR request.


    On inspection it has come to light their are a couple of discrepancies from the information that was provided to the broker

    and that which is contained in the underwriting sheet.


    For example,


    1- my outgoings were stated as £420 even when outgoings in loan application were stated to be much higher.

    Just my mortgage payments at the time were £650.


    2- I requested £120k in my application but was offered £134.

    The later figure was used during the underwriting process and was subsequently given more then originally requested.


    I am not aware of the underwriting process so not completely sure how i should deal with this. Can this be considered a case of fraud?

  3. Hi bhall,


    can you please explain the following in simple English, my heads spinning..


    t does however, raise the question in terms of fairness of securitisation


    "As indicated above, it is the borrowers' case that the bank treated them unfairly within the meaning of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because it did not comply with their requests for further accommodation when they were unable to keep up the repayments in circumstances where, they say, a reasonable lender would have been prepared to do so. They assert that the reason, or at least a reason, why the bank acted unfairly may have been (they do not assert that it actually was) because it was constrained to do so by the terms of its agreement for securitisation of the loan. However, when I asked Mr Pugh to identify by reference to the securitisation agreement dated 12 November 2010 referred to at [39] above the terms which gave rise to this concern, he could only refer to clause 8.4. He accepted that it was a fair summary of the borrowers' case to say that the relationship was unfair because the risk of being required to repurchase the loan under clause 8.4 might have led the bank to refuse an accommodation which they were not contractually obliged to make but which they might have been prepared to make if they had not sold the loan in the first place. I say nothing about the ultimate merits or otherwise of the borrowers' case on unfair relationship, but put in this way it seems unlikely in the extreme that the fact of securitisation will add anything to it.


    That seems even more unlikely in view of the bank's evidence that those of its employees who deal with customer relations and debt recovery would be unable to determine from the account data available to them whether a particular customer account had been securitised. I acknowledge, however, that at present this is second-hand evidence, which has not been tested.


    The borrowers contend, nevertheless, that the burden is on the bank to prove that the relationship was fair, that such an issue can only be determined at a full trial (relying on the decision of Peter Smith J in Bevin v. Datum Finance Ltd [2011] EWHC 3542 (Ch)), and that the numerous paragraphs in their Defence in which they expound the case summarised above should not be struck out.


    I accept that the burden is on the bank, once the issue is raised, to prove that the relationship is fair. That is the effect of section 140B(9) of the 1974 Act. However, it is unnecessary to consider whether the borrowers have done sufficient to raise the issue of unfair relationship generally, because (subject to the issue referred to at [10] above whether the FSMA 2000 applies) Mr Ross for the bank accepts that they have. It is unnecessary also to consider whether or in what circumstances it is ever possible to strike out an unfair relationship defence, because that is not what Mr Ross is seeking to do. He accepts that it will be open to the borrowers at trial to argue that they have been treated unfairly because of the bank's refusal to comply with their requests and that the bank will need to produce disclosure and witness evidence to discharge the burden of proving that its treatment of the borrowers was fair. He accepts further that if such disclosure or evidence were (contrary to the bank's stated position) to suggest that constraints arising as a result of securitisation of the loan had played a relevant part in the bank's decision-making, or that customers whose loans had been securitised were treated differently from those whose loans had not been, it will be open to the borrowers to rely on that fact and to seek appropriate specific disclosure even if the judge's order striking out the relevant paragraphs of the borrowers' pleading stands.In these circumstances I regard the judge's order striking out those paragraphs, which are both speculative and unnecessary and are part of a pleading which is already inordinately prolix, as a sensible case management decision. The judge was right to regard them as "no more than an attempt to unearth some fresh material, which might in some way assist" the borrowers. If they were allowed to remain, they would no doubt be used as a launching pad for speculative disclosure requests, which would further delay these already delayed proceedings. I refuse permission to appeal on this issue."

  4. Finally received the much anticipated letter from kensington, 6 months late thou..


    Anyways, kensington confirmed mortgage to be securistised but will not disclose any further information on the subject as the information is irrelevant to me :|


    They say:


    We may sell or transfer our rights and obligations under your mortgage to anyone at any time. If we do sell or transfer your rights and obligations will remain exactly the same, save that reference to the variable rate will be to the rate of interest determined from time to time by the transferee.


    They also sent me the deeds which are only signed by me and witness, so i understand that they still have legal title and have given the SPV equitable title. If they are no longer the lender and the alleged debt has been cleared by the selling of the mortgage note then should it not be that any charge be removed? Is it not a condition of the deed that once the loan amount is settled that deeds could be released? I would be open to suggestions on how this could be achieved.


    The securitisation exposes the whole concealment of the true nature and intent of lending. Is this not a case for unfair relationship and unfair terms as my lender is:


    a: no longer a lender but acting as an administrator/service provider for all parties involved, and to collect monthly payments from myself to pay for the securitisation process rather than to settle any alleged debt

    b: When kensington sold/trasnfered their rights, any finance received in return would have settled any debt, with this being the case, then what contractual agreement did i ever have to fund and finance further investments?

    c: with kensington no longer acting as lender, has any party taken the position of a lender to provide further funds or assistance rather than to repossess in the interest of its investors

    d:The whole setup of securitisation is in the interest of the investors, note/bond holders rather than the borrower. As a borrower im the most vulnerable and the one with the biggest loss


    If I and others were made aware of this process from the onset then many of us would have been reluctant to sign up to such deceiving mortgage agreements. Im wondering if this could substitute to deception and fraud, as im an undisclosed party to the investments made. Also is their not a duty on the lender to be fair, clear and transparent? If these crooks dont have anything to hide then why dont they disclose the full scale of whats going on so we the public can make a proper informed decision, and to give a thumbs up where its all aboveboard and transparent and to get redress where its due.


    Also ive come to the understanding that these crooks have our power of attorney and hence can carry out such investments under our mortgage without us realising or being informed. This can constitute to a breach of trust.





    you will be interested to learn that a case has been heard this year whereby the Court ordered Kensington to disclose that it was the appropriate party to the court by the end of January. Surprise: Kensington has not responded to the Court.


    you will alse be interested to learn that I have been pressing Kensington on this point since November of last year and Kensington squeals like a piggy (have you seen Deliverance?).


    Your arguments are being tested in and out of the courtroom as we speak!


    Hi nomorecrooks, did u find any relief on the matter?

    I think its time we took class action as many of us are effected with kensingcrooks!



    @Apple, ive been checking the thread about the deed being void if no lender sig etc, and would like to say that its has been informative and quite the tennis game between u and bhall. Great stuff.

    Wanted to ask if their have been any cases where this may have been used etc.

  5. Hi WP3, all the best for the new year and stay strong.


    Your idea is good as it will bring all the releveant information together making it easier for newbies. The research you and many others have done will be easy on hand rather than to be hidden away in many pages.


    I wanted to know the process on how to set aside the suspended possession order and how blemains conduct in obtaining the otder was incorrect. Ive done a sar but they sent basic info. I have requested for the commission sheet which they are refusing to send and say its not considered as 'personal data' under the SAR request. I will send them a final letter before action under the provisions of Data protection Act,CCA 1974 and OFT guidance for brokers and lenders. Any advice before i send them the letter would be appreciated as i feel commission was paid to the broker and not disclosed to me.


    I have added my agreement minus my personal information for others to view and help with my concerns which are as follows:


    1- I have PPI added to the loan and was self employed at the time and was led to believe by having the PPI would increase my chances of obtaining the credit even when no benefit to my self employed status. The PPI was added to the sum of the loan and monthly interest charged. I believe this was missold and I can claim this back but would i also claim the interest incurred? loan amount was £10000 and ppi £1512 total loan £11512 at a variable interest rate of 9.8% which is curently at 10.4%.


    2- Within the key financial information the

    (a) interest rate is not documented and only the APR, which is different for the main loan 10.9% ppi loan 10.3% and total loan 10.8%?

    (b) Does the interest rate also need to be within the key financial information or is it sufficient to be within the agreement but under other financial information?

    © the interest rate is stated as variable to reflect the changes in the market and had changed once from 9.8% to 10.8% in 2007. If this is variable should it not also go down when the interest rate its offset against goes down be it libor/boe? It seems, as the libor/boe rates have gone down blemain have upped their rates to maintain the 10.8% which they have been charging me since 2007.


    3- under other financial information it states the brokers fee as £0, i think a secret commission may have been paid here as the broker was a third party.


    4- under other financial information it states loan processing fee of £250

    (a) This amount was added to the loan but is not stated within the total loan amount in key financial information

    (b) with the addition of this amount to the loan i have incurred interest which is not stipulated within the agreement bearing in mind interest for the main loan and ppi are stipulated.


    5- I have been charged over £5000 buildings insurance since start of the loan in 2006 which is not stated in this agreement as this is a secured loan. I was charged buildings insurance approx after six months of the agreement till date. How would i argue these charges against these bandits. I undersand they have some t/c's for the buildings insurance but how can they be enforced if they are not within the main agreement?


    6- I also have unfair extortionate charges for late and missed payment ranging from £30-£46 and plus agent visits of £100 which never happened. I would be looking to claim these back,


    7- Under the heading your rights, Its says i should have recieved a copy of this atleast seven days prior to this agreement which i did not. I recieved a copy of this at the same time of the agreement.


    The list can go on but would be keeping it brief for the time being. I believe their are many of us in the same boat and we should get our heads together to fight the financial crimes they are subjecting to us and to maybe even start campaigns to warn others of their actions. I would appreciate every little help on the matters and for those with a sharp eye is their anything within the agreement that ive missed?



  6. Except for your comments about the advisor, how is KMreally any different with regard to securitisation to every other lender ?


    Virtually all lenders securitise debts, be it mortgage debt, credit card,hire purchase etc. Even the Bank of England is involved in securitisation,there are also now numerous legal cases involving consumers, questioningsecuritisation - most recently two Northern Irish cases.


    In every case, it has been concluded that legally there is nothing wrongwith securitisation.


    Hi again bhall, I understand your missing my point and cant see the elephant in the room, let me explain with an analogy..


    (a) Driving a car is legal


    (b) Driving a car DANGEROUSLY is illegal


    © Driving a car WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION will also get one in trouble.


    I hope you understand the differences of the matter and the concerns I bring. I would like to raise further points to clarify the matter:


    (1) you seem to have generalised securitisation with all that which is connected to fractional reserve banking where as my concerns are specifically with mortgage securitisation which is a modern art. Not all securitisation of instruments have the same long term commitments and effects on borrowers so this needs to be distinguished to individual markets


    (2) if it can be identified that many organisations are generally involved in securitisation, does not automatically conclude that their acts are correct regardless of who is the brand (look at Barclays and HSBC riddled with fraud and corruption while everyone including the Bank of England where complacent)


    (3) the concerns raised here are not with mortgage securitisation or the way its completed but concerns with how a borrower is left more vulnerable as the discretion and responsibilities of the original lender have changed. No disclosure or due care is given to the borrower whilst all interest is with investors. What was contracted was equality and fairness with both parties in a mutual relationship but securitisation creates a one sided contract.


    I hope you see the effects of mortgage securitisation, what a borrow erexpected and what they got were two different things. Its really that simple.


    I’ve not come across the Northern Irish cases, would be interested inlooking at the concerns raised and how they were addressed.


    Part of me says: "and so what"; it is a cruel and unfair worldpopulated by

    many unattractive individuals and organisations.



    We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the tyranny and oppression, as by being contempt to what’s going on is acknowledging their actions as they continue to oppress borrowers.


    Check out the panorama's Britains Hiddien Housing Crisis http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pc1qbas this is just the tip of the iceberg.



    That said I believe that if it could be proven that KMC will strenouslyavoid

    any variation to the mortgage terms & conditions irrespective of its

    obligations under statute as a result of its contractual position with the

    investors then one might be able to argue that KMC is in breach of its

    requirements under MCOB.



    Breach of MCOB is a secondary matter which i think are useless provisions as they only regulate mortgages from 31 Oct 2004 onwards and not prior to the date even when it was identified prior to the date the misconduct of lenders. So unregulated mortgages are left out with the wolves which were the very foundation for the MCOB to be implemented.


    Breach of duties/responsibilities do not necessary require MCOB provisionsas a breach in contract is a primary matter which can be easily identified by assessing the terms and intent before and after the contract and the performance of either party. Contracts go back a long time and remain the principal for any agreement to be in effect. The general provisions of a contract dictate the fairness and equality of the parties involved. A disclosure is a pinnacle factor for a contract to be in force with many other factors and without proper disclosure, important matters are left in the dark which could be critical effecting how either party performs under the contract.This non disclosure creates unfairness and an imbalance leaving either party vulnerablet o the elements. Im not a professional in the field of contracts/law but alotis common sense as that is how law originally developed.


    Its not difficult to understand or prove the lack of ownership/duties/responsibilitiesfrom the originating lender to the borrower in the case of KML. KML is restricted within the group and bound to the other agreements which took effecton securitisation. Duties/responsibilities are therefore sent through the various channels at the discretion of those whom remain owners or in charge of the loans/Notes.


    I hope you see why im asking for the information to help me with my journey. Ive managed to get my securities document where my mortgage is located part of the pool. Its quite an interesting read, now I need to find the mortgage sales agreement and some pointers in the right direction.


    By the way where are all the experts on securitisation what happened to them? I know im late in this game as some of the securitisation threads go way back, have they signed non disclosure agreements, to not let others know what they managed to find out?

  8. Lets start of by saying KML have not made it easy as their whole lending/setup and commitments are very complex. It is difficult to distinguish if any real commitment/understanding remains between KML and borrowers. Its a one way system with no real intent to provided a positive solution for borrowers but rather to penalise struggling borrowers to further put them in arrears whilst they profit from their sales and earn interest for themselves/investors.


    Let me break it down to demonstrate how the machine is working (myunderstanding)


    1- Joe is looking for a mortgage and through a broker is offered KML as the lender. KML do not provide direct to borrowers.


    (In my case which i did not know the broker 'TML' where also owned by KMC whom i paid a lot of money to find me the best deal suited for me. As TML were owned by KMC it was in their best interest to provide me with a KML product rather then to work in my best interest by finding the best deal. TML also did not provide advice or breakdown of the product offered but only helped with submitting the application for underwriting purposes (they may have underwritten the loan themselves).


    2- What the broker/lender do not tell the borrower is:


    a) the many levels/variations of interest rates applied eg libor/KVR/additional margin, how they relate and how calculated etc


    b) the loan was created for the purpose to be securitised and sold as shares to investors. This is a crucial understanding as KML never intended to keep a traditional style or relationship for lending, but were more interested in making huge profits. So KML’s interest was not to provide lending nor any real interest to the borrower as this was the first process to further their real goals. Through the sale process KML would get paid for the loan they lent but would remain as legal title holders whilst investors would have equitable interest. The payments borrowers make are split and paid to the various parties involved in the scheme.


    c) KML’s role and responsibilities change after securisation. KML were the loan originators but after securitisation are no longer owners of the loan. They instead become ‘the special servicer/Cash Bond Administrator which over look the processes and agreements executed for the securitisation to take place. Their main objective is meeting the mortgage sale agreement and that which is set outin the securities document rather than to serve and support the interest oftheir borrowers.


    d) Administration of borrower accounts is carried out by third party companies whom have no interest in the original loan or to the borrowers. They act under the provisions of the KMC name but execute administrative duties for thousands of other mortgage lenders whom are also in the securitisation boat. This creates a major communication breakdown as well as shortfall in responsibilities. These third parties are unable to provide alternatives/support/assistance and plans to move forward as the balance and interest of lender/borrower is changed.


    e) as the relationship between the lender and borrower is deteriorated, the lenders interest now favours its investors, as the balance shifts, this then creates unwarranted and excessive pressure on borrowers to perform on contracts which arguably are unfair from the onset.(ive not gone into the terms of these contracts but many contain unfair t/c’s, I know mine does).


    f) the borrower is unable to change the product with KML even when other products are available. This is due to the performance of the product the borrower has and its effects on the investors who bought the loans. If KML complied and helped their borrowers change products then they would have upset investors who are not receiving the returns expected/promised.


    g) as and when the mortgage become difficult to perform, pressure is applied to the borrower in the interest of the investors. Under the KML model, the more favourable and likely outcome for when a borrower is not properly performing is re-possession. Re-po is not the last resort for KML.


    As you can see from the above there is no fairness or balance between KML and the borrower. As the borrower is already the weaker party entering into a mortgage agreement, little does he know what to expect, as when the mortgage is securitised the borrower is not left just weak but also vulnerable. KMLdisposes of any real, relationship/help/support/responsibilities/further lending/change of product etc in favour of its investors creating an unbalanced and unfair relationship. How many borrowers would commit to such companies if they knew what they were getting in to. I think that’s why the securitisation is kept quiet as well as other questionable acts within the whole setup and process.


    The process has created unfair and unbalanced relationship and KML have negotiated and sold our rights and their responsibilities to third parties.

    • Like 1
  9. Transfer includes a mortgage, agreement to sell, legal or

    equitable assignment, transfer, charge or other disposition of some or all of

    our rights under the mortgage.

    Ive seen arguments made regards to "legal or equitable assighnment" and if equitable assighnment for a charge is correct. To be honest this is way beyond me. What i'd like to know is, should the terms include "legal or equitable assighnment" within the mortgage conditions or is that at the lenders discreation?



    I understand that Kensington do not sell mortgages directly to consumers and

    that applications are made through Independant Financial Advisors (IFA'S). When

    a IFA submits an application to a lender, it would be for a specific product -

    being one of a number of different products offered, such as fixed, discount or

    offset etc. The borrower and the IFA would agree which product to apply for

    before an application had reached the underwriting process.


    As i now understand, the products which IFA advise on are created by the lender for the IFA to sell. These products are created by the lender for the purposes of securitisation (in kensington's case).

    The application (borrowers details and product) is submitted to lender for it to be underwriten. This underwritten process determines the applications success and in essence starts the securitisation process. please correct if wrong.


    How would one obtain the relevant mortgage sale agreement?

  10. If you applied for a mortgage with Kensington Mortgages (a subsidary of Investec) after 2009, when it recommenced lending and your mortgage was securitised it would be GEMGARTO 2012-1 PLC.


    If you applied for a mortgage prior to 2009 and it was securitied then it would be one of the 'Residential Mortgage Securities xx' (with xx denoting a different number, as an example Residential Mortgage Securities 8 plc) companies, currently running from 8 plc to 26 plc.


    In response to your question, it is likely that within the terms and conditions of your mortgage agreement there is a specific term that states that Kensington Mortgage may assign its rights and duties etc.


    Specific disclosure is not required and may not even be ordered as a result of any legal proceedings, as evidenced by case law. Notice of securitisation will not be provided to you, until the sale is completed by a 'perfection event' resulting in substitution of your lenders name with that of the applicable Residential Mortgage Securities / Gemgarto company (which ever is the case) on the legal charge you gave to your lender that is registered with the land registry.


    A SAR would not provide the information you have requested as a SAR would only result in the provision of 'Personal Data' and not details of contractual agreements between your lender and a 3rd party, of which you are not a party too.


    Thanks bhall for the informative post.


    Would like further clarification as in my T&C's is it states "kensington may transfer" and the word assign not used. The context of the statement gives impression for the sale of the mortgage to a third party whom then assume all responsibility and as a borrower my dealings would be with the new party whom the mortgage has been transfered to.


    From my understanding the securitisation process starts from the initial process of application. During underwriting applicable product are matched for the borrowers. These products are manufactured for securitisation purposes.

    Firstly it would be intresting to find out how individual details are used to determine the kind of product offered.


    What is the 'perfection event' ? is that the sale of the securities?

  11. Conniff why do i get the feeling you want to take me around in circles. I can only conclude you repeating for my understanding of securitisation without taking pervious post into consideration is to derail my query. Apologies if this is not the case but i will quench your need for asking with the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitization.


    Back to my question in contract law is lender exempt from disclosing securitisation?

  12. You will find that what you seek to get details on would be classed as commercially sensitive and nothing to do with you.

    No shop will tell you how much they buy things for.


    "Commercially sensitive" maybe "nothing to do with me" i disagree as demonstrated in my previous post. The securitisation of the notes and the performance for them to pay the investors are dependant on my performance. They are very much linked and connected.


    I'd like to know from someone versed in contract law if securitisation is exempt from disclosure.

  13. Because it's to do with the interest they pay someother bank or finance house.


    I think its more than just paying interest to investors...


    There is a radical change of the loan as its administered behind the scenes as their are Agency Agreement, Cash/BondAdministration Agreement, Standby Cash/Bond Administration Agreement, MortgageAdministration Agreement, Special Servicer Agreement, Standby ServicerAgreement,Liquidity Facility Agreement, Post Enforcement Call OptionAgreement, Bank Agreement and the Guaranteed Investment Contract.


    These agreements administer both the original loan and the notes given to investors. This directly impacts the borrower whilst equality is compromised. I believe this process favours the lenders/investors interests whilst over looking its responsibilities to the borrower .Through securitisation the relationship between lender/borrower is broken down as everything becomes outsourced to third parties. Third party companies deal with all dealings the borrower may have with the original lender from taking payment to litigation. One major disadvantage is the inability to make a change or change the product as this becomes impossible on the basis that investors are dependant on that product. The performance of securitisation agreements are all dependant on the borrower to make his monthly payments and when a borrower is unable to perform, it not just effects the original lender but whole bunch of other interested parties whom the borrower never intended to get in bed with. In such circumstances the pressures on the borrower are more intense and responsibilities are over looked and resolution is never in benefit of borrower but in favour of investors. It is really a sick game and as you can see its not just“interest they pay some other bank orfinance house” and this is just the tip of the iceberg.


    Back to my original question, in contract law full disclosure is a requirement, is securitisation exempt from the disclosure requirement? Bear in mind the lender had full intent to sell to investors from the onset.

  14. and why would the latter be kept away from my inspection?


    Is it not that the underwriting sheet contained my personal data including commissions paid etc which the lender has a duty to disclose?


    Also you seem to be making a link between securitisation and the underwriting sheet, is their any link between the two? and according to your understanding what right or why would the lender refuse to disclose that data, unless their is something to hide.

  15. thanks connif for taking the time out.


    with what you have stated i come to the conclusion that i dont have the right to know if my loan/debt with kensington has been sold on to third party investors even when the role/duties of the lender have changed from a lender to an administrator?


    From what i understand my application with kensington originated the loan and the charge on the property. Once the loan was originated only then it was securitised and sold on. I feel this was the duty of the lender to inform me.


    I would like to know does the securitisation of my loan effect the performance of the loan in the interest of the investors or with market changes?

  16. I'm having a similar issue with platform funding and believe i was over valued to reflect the market before the housing crash. Im currently in talks to obtain all valuations reports from them. The issues i have is with the re-instate valuation aswell as the property purchase value. The re-instate value is over by £40000 to justify the purchase value at the time. They have asked me to carry out an independant valuation at my own expense.

  17. Hi all,


    The securitisation of mortgages seems to be the most confusing subject evenwith the information and discussion on the forum. I spoke to Kensington on thematter, they told me they are unable to give me the information as its is notrelevant to me and securitisation does not effect me or my mortgage obligations. I asked if i SAR for the info to which i was told even then they will notdisclose to whom my mortgage is securitised with. I thought under SAR theinformation i would ask for would be given but Kensington are refusing. Any onesuccessfully get securitisation info from their lenders and what should i do toget the info i am requesting?

  18. hay dx100uk, u ever sleep?:-D


    Thanks for the info will look into the building insurance through the forum.


    just two little questions to help me understand.


    1- whats compund interest? and is this the only interest that i can charge on to the fees im claiming for or can i charge a further 8% as i have read somewhere?


    2- "3-legal fees etc - £1581 Can i claim these fees back? they include all sorts like, issue of possessions proceeding, default notice,collections instructions, court hearing fee, court preparation fee, collection visit etc

    and i'd say YES to all these.


    as the COURT CASE costs you, and those costs are on your judgement."

    Can i claim for the fee's which you have highlighted in red or can i claim for all the fee's, sorry that i didnt understand your full statement and ask for you to clarify this further. I been living as a dumbass for far too long and before i proceed to take any actions i want to fully understand the process and my rights.

  19. Hi guys, managed to get my sar today and what a disappointment.


    I was looking forward shovelling through the mountain of data they hold, but all they sent were account statements and the original loan application. Iwanted a whole wealth of additional data which they are reluctant to give.


    I called to find out why they sent me the limited data. The agent after speaking to her manager said all other data was seen as excessive and not bound to my sar request.?!?!


    After a polite grilling the agent is to look into it further and will updateme with my request. Fingers crossed.


    I know unfair arrear/letter/telephone fees and ppi are claimable but was wondering if i can claim the following also:


    1- Building insurance - I have been charged £3579 over a 7 year period for building insurance which i dont need. The loans are second secured loans and i already have building insurance with my mortgage provider. The interesting thing I found was the inconsistency and excessiveness with the charges since it’s a block policy only for the interest of blemain. The following charges occurred:




    Building insurance £896

    Building insurance £130

    Building insurance block policy £130




    Building insurance £513

    Building insurance £130

    Building insurance block policy £130




    Building insurance £490

    Building insurance £22.00

    Building insurance block policy £130




    Building insurance £513

    Building insurance block policy £195




    Building insurance £140

    Building insurance block policy £116




    Building insurance £128

    Building insurance block policy £116


    2- Broker Fee- £1275


    3- legal fees etc - £1581 Can i claim these fees back? they include all sorts like, issue of possessions proceeding, default notice,collections instructions, court hearing fee, court preparation fee, collectionvisit etc.


    Finally is there any spread sheets/formula’s to help me work out the different charges im entitled to claim for and should I add a further 8% to the final figure?

  • Create New...