Noted, thanks re-draft it is then If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based CCA sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement 87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea.

Morning I am sorry for this unacceptable delay on my behalf, I never thought a simple complaint letter would cause me so much stress along with anger towards this company I only have this weekend to get things rolling. I should be back at hospital Monday (as long as they don't cancel on me again) and won't be upto much for a while from then on So please bare with me, I need to condense my letter as it's totally long winded and off in points, I'm taking the advice given for prin 6 and 7, but was also considering prin 9, Trust is also a major part for me here: yes I did trust they had my interests and I totally relied on their advice and judgement, which I now know was all given with their own interest in mind not mine and for their own benefit and gains, no to assist me in any way.

No the info on comms log isn't quite right, I hadn't worked since Xmas due to bereavement but I wasn't staying in Somerset since the Xmas. The comms log is very deceitful indeed and after I had finished evaluating it fully I came to the conclusion MB are very manipulative, they lie, cheat and twist the truth, but it only takes the slightest slip up and everything crumbles. You see in order for MB to have taken any further steps they have to be entitled to take them. So when they lie and try to deceive the truth prevails , so to send a copy of a Default Sums Notice dated 15/1/17 that doesn't exist on the log anywhere and Ive never had the original and then fail to include one in the SAR that is listed on the log as generated on 18/1/17 (not had this one either) doesn't the consequence of that 1 act prevent them from any further action until the notices are served 86 (e) Notice of default sums (5)If the creditor or owner fails to give the debtor or hirer the notice under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (2), he shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement until the notice is given to the debtor or hirer. But I am reducing the complaint and sticking to basics

Good evening, Sorry I have not been active online for numerous weeks unfortunately I have been seriously ill not fully recovered, but well enough now to continue on with my fight against MB. Will update my thread in full tomorrow along with my prepared letter

I thought I couldnt VT as its already terminated.

Ok thanks, I wont bother replying. Should I leave the car on the roadside to be collected, post keys off and amend the V5, or hangfire until everything is resolved one way or another?

Update, advice please; Im receiving messages from Burlington (I believe are part of Marstons) (Emails, text messages, phone calls) They are asking me to urgently contact them regarding Moneybarn and to do so within 24hrs Not sure if I should email them back or what would anyone suggest? Thanks

Ok, I thought it may of helped as their DN stated 2 installments in arrears when it was issued on 10/2/17, but it would infact only have been 1 installment overdue 17/01/17. I will keep to what I already know and stop over thinking further issues.

Ive amended my draft complaint again and again dont want it to be an essay, as suggested, im keeping them guessing as much as possible. It has dawned on me I dont think I ever asked this question, as this does throw a big spanner at MB. The agreement started 17/11/16 for 60 mths, but only payable over 59 mths. The end date stated 17/12/2021. MB informed me the consent order payment date of 16th of every month was to keep in line with the agreement payment dates!! So am I correct in assuming the actual first payment date was 17/1/17 then a further 58 payments are required to take it to end payment date 17/11/2021. In effect month 1 is deferred (17/12/16) although they dont actually tell you that but the figures and dates on the paperwork infer that to be the case. Otherwise the agreement would be over paid by one month if 60 payments were made.

Just an update; I have been receiving emails from Sinclair Taylor requesting payments to commence at a rate of £10 per week as they feel thats a justified amount! They stick to their story the Data has been destroyed and state my requests are vexatious to delay payment, if payments dont continue with in 7 days they will have no other option but to apply to court for enforcement. I have told Sinclair Taylor to go ahead and apply to the court as their not getting any further money from me, at least it will save me the job of initiating a claim against them to reclaim the £1700 plus in funds they obtained by deception, the documents I have prove my case. I have now complained to ICO about the data they allege has been destroyed. Still no compliance from the Estate Agents funny how they wont comply and send my data, while Sinclair Taylor claim the data for that same period that will no doubt show correspondence between the two parties has been destroyed.

I was wondering if anyone is aware of the information that is required to add a charge on a property? (By information im referring to the accuracy of what is provided and then stated on the land registry against the property). Im concerned (although this may have no impact) that the company stated for the 1st charge matches the name on the legal mortgage and agreement, but stated next to the name isnt that companies registration number. They have used one of their many other subsiduary companys registration number. When searched at companies house the information is not for the one that refers to the agreement. Could that in any way make the 1st charge not enforceable? If so, would they be required to make a further or new application? A deed of trust was drawn up between the buyer and his partner to hold the property as tenants in common, but I think the negative pledge within the 1st charge overides this. However if the 1st charge was void, then they would be in a better situation to fight on, without the added threat of the receivers and mounting pressure to settle on their terms for £195,000.

Oh dear I am having issues, not sure of the best opening paragraph to start off my letter of complaint. Its harer than I thought it would be There are so many issues that need addressing, however I dont know if I should be summarising the issues im raising with directions to the relevant points; i.e Comms log page number, CCA, Documentation received (Letters etc), or going for full indept complaint. Any direction appreciated.

Thanks SAR request it is then And yes will make sure advice is sought from fos.

Would it be worth sending a Sar request? If the settlement isnt completed on or before 30/6/20 Roma's agreement allows them to add another facility fee (my opinion its a penalty charge) £4600.00 to the balance plus another full month interest at 2%, theres no reduction for part of a month, just the full month is applied regardless.

Their trading name is Roma Finance

No they are not FCA registered The concern over trying to pursue after settlement is that they will only settle on the basis of full and final agreement, which the solicitor informs them it will be likely drawn up and worded to their advantage with the outcome upon settling no litigation could follow. Yes the sum involved couldnt be regulated, however couldnt it be deemed or ruled it is in fact an interest only mortgage so in effect has protection under legislation on the basis; 1. The borrower is an individual, not a company, so not commercial borrowing. 2. The redemption statement refers to the account being an interest only mortgage. 3. The borrowers partner resides on the land currently in a caravan, due to the house requiring renovation (although the funds set aside for this may now have to be used to settle). 4. Upon completion of the purchase a legal mortgage was then signed enabling the lender to gain the 1st charge over the property for security on the loan. Another worry (although may be legal and ok) is the loan was taken out with one of their registered companies (6 companies registered at companies house but all trading as under the same name) but the charge at the land registry lists the company name correctly but the company registration stated is for another one their registered companies and not the same name on stated on the legal mortgage or loan facility agreement. Do really feel they are well and truly trapped!! Forgot to add they did use a broker however this company conveniently dissolved in 2019.

Yes they do manage debts for their clients, in this incident their clients were Mark Gilbertson Estate Agents. However in December 2018 they alleged that they purchased the debt direct from the landlord for £10 (not the estate agents -Mark Gilbertson) and produced a document (deed of assignment) with terms of the sale, the signatures on this are forged, so they were substituted as claimants at the courts (this kept the actual claimant (estate agents) out of the limelight, as they were merley using the landlord as the front to initiate proceedings). Total deception.

Ive been asked to help a family member with an awful mess they are in over trying to settle an unregulated loan that was taken out to buy property (I believe the loan could be deemed as regulated or should be and then its protected) The lender has a 1st legal mortgage charge on the property. They borrowed 385,000 and with fees the gross loan was 400,000. The total to redeem should have been in the region of 454,000 (interest rolled up and compounded monthly @ 1%). Upon selling their current property they repaid in the region of 381,000 in March 20 to the loan and made numerous requests for a redemption statement to finalise the money due. Upon finally receiving this statement in May 20 the balance to redeem loan and to remove the charge on the property is £299,000 and furthermore increasing. The statement balance has £110,000 worth of default facility fees (£4600.00 per month charged from the first month in which the agreement began) plus rolled up interest compounded monthly. It includes £48,000 worth of other charges plus interest (for things such as drive by property - charge £480.00, introducer fees £4,600 that were actually paid direct) a charge has been applied for £9,200 which is stated as the loan extension fees. Due to this extension fee the interest rate then increases to 2%. All these extra charges aside the end balance would be in the region of £137,000 still excessive (major lessons learned). The agreement itself is totally one sided and leaves the borrower with no protection or way out unless payment is made in full and in line with the facility terms of agreement. I feel this type of bridge lending should not be available to the general consumer (loan sharks come to mind). They do have a solicitor dealing with the lender, however he isnt willing to pursue this through the court or even look if this lending is illegal as the lender has no credit license, or see if it could be classed as a regulated loan. As its not something he generally specialises in, he is all about settling. So his recent negotiations have had no success, but today the lender has stated they would accept £200,000 in full and final settlement and remove the charge on the property. If its not accepted however the receivers will take over the property (again all terms in their favour). As this has added enormous pressure to the family as a whole the only solution to end their nightmare is settle, get the charge removed and then pursue through courts, for penalty fees unlawfully added monthly etc etc etc. However their solicitor has told them that wont be possible as the lender will only agree to a full and final settlement. Would that be it, if they settled, no proceedings can be brought against them? Can a settlement agreement not be overturned in the event future findings, that were not apparent at the time of settlement? For the lender to be willing to drop £99,000 of the balance, is a cause for concern, what, if anything could they or are they covering up? Any advice appreciated.

Debt Management Company Company name Sinclair Taylor

The payments had to be made by weekly standing order or direct payment from my bank. The initial deposit was paid out to them from the deposit protection. The first judgement order gained by default ensured they received the money as it was written on the order gained from the court, although this was set aside when I became aware. I do not want the parties involved to get away with decieving the court, altering a court sealed document (judgement order) to obtain funds by deception, created false documents (a deed of assignment) and inserted signatures on the docs that are not even a legitimate signature of the person they allege it to be, all to enable the courts to transfer rights of a judgement for a debt they claim to have purchased in order for them to obtain funds. Not sure what action if any I could pursue against them, any thoughts?

@BankFodder Im sorry, I will ensure I do this. I wasnt aware my posts had to be restructed and would not inentionally take up valued time of a member of the site team, so again I apologise.

Just wanted to see if anyone has any advice on this; Heard from the ICO who informed me they were contacting the estate agents over their non compliance and requesting that they do comply with my request; not heard anything further as yet, not hopeful either, However the DMC have given me false information in informing me that all the missing data they retained has already been destroyed in line with GDPR. This isn’t possible as some of the data they have already sent is from that period I pointed out to them they had omitted to send plus in their own terms this contradicts this statement that it has already been destroyed (they actually retained documents and data for a certain period after the account closes in case of queries etc.). They also have sent paperwork that differs from the original ones I already have. Their detailed logs isn’t in the correct order of dates and events along with screen shots from the debtors account have no reference to myself or entries to show payments transferred to landlord as their logs state this has been done in the earlier stages prior to them taking control of the judgement using a fabricated document. I believe as they conspired with the agents on this matter from day one, lied to a court judge on multiple occasions over the whereabouts of the landlord, altered court documents to enable them to receive the refund of my initial deposit, they also instructed Marston’s on 2 separate occasions to enforce the original judgement gained in default successfully set aside. So if the agent and the DMC provide me with the data they are currently holding it would probably give 100% proof of their joint involvement and deceit, but I am unsure what should I do now, in total both parties have deceitfully obtained approx. 1500 from me. In January 2020 I told them im not paying another penny to them. I am so confused as the second judgement isn’t even registered. I should not have a problem setting aside the judgement and requesting a refund of any monies I was forced to pay because any info they could rely on or even fabricate has already been destroyed due to GDPR from that time (so im informed), but how do I set aside a judgement that doesn’t exists on the registry?

Thank you, I understand and full appreciate your help and time given t on this matter.

Well now we all seem to be getting slight normality back in our lives (although a long way to still to go) I feel its time to finish what I started with MB and tackle the first hurdle!! Complaint Time! Would a complaint have to be sent to MB initially? I am finishing compiling my detailed list and if someone has some spare time I will upload the list as I feel im gonna need some assistance in actually compliling this detailed complaint, im sure DX will have some valid useful notes already

Thanks for the advice, finally received my refund, however the cheeky sods refunded through echeck with paypal, so its still pending, but im hopeful it will clear