Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Sub Prime Mortgages/loans and secret commission


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4892 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Have just read this today and cant find any further info? just wondered if anyone knows of or had any experience with this?

 

From the face of it there are a lot of people who have taken loans/mortgages through brokers and have not been informed of the commission the broker received from the deal.

 

The broker & lender have a duty to inform the client of how much commission the broker got from the deal, if however they weren't informed it would be classed as a bribe and has left them open to claims for the return of any commission and any subsequent losses if they were repossessed.

 

 

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Oct 2001 (pt 5)

Edited by the main man

Capitalism is the legitimate racket

of the ruling class.

Al Capone

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Has anyone actually put a claim to a finance company in relation to this hidden brokers fee being a bribe?

 

I paid a brokers fee of £3500 for a loan thinking that was the norm, but I wrote to the Broker to ask about this and sure enough, not only did I get charged the £3500 which they got for the introduction they also picked up a 'commission' from the loan company too. Now if you read the above linked chat in Parliament about this, it is not exactly 'proper' - anyone who took out a loan through a broker ought to ask the broker...not sure if it means the brokers fee of £3500 can be had back plus the hidden one or just the hidden one, but.....:D Oh don't you just love all this ..... poetic justice me thinks, that'll teach some of these gits to do what they do to us....:D

 

 

Sarah

 

This needs constantly ' bumping'

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I hope that she will undertake to explore them further. Claims like that by Mr. and Mrs. Rozak are outstanding against the "I" Group, which is owned by GE Capital, which bought it from the Royal Bank of Scotland, and they could be worth about £1.25 billion. Such claims are every bit as good as the Rozaks' claim, and would stand up in court against the group because of the way in which homes have been repossessed by companies that had no legal ownership of the loans outstanding and charged against those properties."

 

1.25 billion and that is just 1 company!! it does say however that the Rozacs claimed both commissions back totaling £8000

Edited by the main man

Capitalism is the legitimate racket

of the ruling class.

Al Capone

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I am really intrigued by this. We initially contacted TML(The Mortgage Lender) after seein a TV ad for a re-mortgage We thought that they would search the market and come up with a suitable lender. This cost us about £2600. They came up with Kensington and we accepted it.

 

Looking into it all now it turns out that TMl were in actual fact Kensington. Can I do anything about this then ???

 

 

olives xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

this lot of links is literally hot off the press "

 

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Second charge lending

 

 

  • Consultations

 

 

 

Second charge lending The OFT is consulting on draft guidance for businesses engaged in second charge lending.

 

 

 

  • Press releases

 

 

 

OFT consults on second charge lending guidance The OFT has today launched a consultation on draft guidance for businesses engaged in second charge lending.

 

OFT seeks initial views on review into local and regional media merger regime The OFT is today seeking views from interested stakeholders on the main scope of its review into the local and regional media sector.

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi

 

Can anyone help me with my query regarding secret commissions.

I had take out a couple of loans through I Group and GE money,a broker arranged these loans. (I currently have a remortgage arranged though a broker)

These loans have been paid and settled in full(except of course the mortgage).

Can I still ask for information on secret commissions after these loans have been settled?

Is this done via an SAR to the brokers?

 

Regards

 

Doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello I have read through this thread and find it very interesting it has also made me check through my documents it dose say that the broker will recieve a commision from the lender on completion on top of the £1,950 that I paid but it dose not give any indication of how much or how it is paid ie. is it accounted for in my repayments or is it a seperate amount paid by the lender at thier expense, also I found that the solicitor who I was allocated was also actig on behalf of the lender is this normal ? We are like many others in trouble with our mortgage and it would be good to know if we have any defense to the reposetion of our home, as we have the added burden of my wife suffering from cancer and the worry is verry stressfull for her at the moment.

another thing I have just noticed is that some of the figures are different from the original breakdown to the actual breakdown the solicitor supplied on completion.

Any advice would be welcomed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi 42man They have responded saying the underwriting sheet is not part of an SAR request as it is thier information and not mine I am aware that it can be forced out of them in a court case under the disclosure of information but not that far advanced yet, however on one of the other mortgages they do say they are paying the broker a commission but to my way of thinking it implies that they are paying ie. out of thier own pockets which we know they are not so, do we have a right to aproach the broker and request they return one of the fees they have recieved as in effect they have recieved two fees from me, one up front and the other worked into my mortgage, there must be something to protect us from paying the broker twice, just my opinion and probably wrong but thought i would ask.

Dene

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

BBC NEWS | Business | Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

 

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Capitalism is the legitimate racket

of the ruling class.

Al Capone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 42man They have responded saying the underwriting sheet is not part of an SAR request as it is thier information and not mine I am aware that it can be forced out of them in a court case under the disclosure of information but not that far advanced yet, however on one of the other mortgages they do say they are paying the broker a commission but to my way of thinking it implies that they are paying ie. out of thier own pockets which we know they are not so, do we have a right to aproach the broker and request they return one of the fees they have recieved as in effect they have recieved two fees from me, one up front and the other worked into my mortgage, there must be something to protect us from paying the broker twice, just my opinion and probably wrong but thought i would ask.

Dene

 

Hi Jdene, sorry to barge in on this but I have a similar problem ...I have sar'd GE and got back sheets with broker and commission info 'blacked out'. I have asked them to supply me with the blacked out info and they have refused saying that I am on a 'fishing expedition' (their actual words!).

I was wondering if you got anywhere with getting the underwriting sheet out of them . I have posted my problems on the last page of 'ge money and secret commissions' thread.

 

ps I can't track the broker down,he is no longer in business.The mortgage was redeemed a good few years ago.

 

I appreciate any advice you can give me,

Jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your agreement is between you and the company (not the broker)....as you have paid the fees then you should be entitled to know...using CPR31.16 is the route to go, but these companies do not like you having this sheet.... - READ THIS - Wilson v Hurstanger | OUT-LAW.COM by Pinsent Masons LLP They have, as is said here a fidiciary duty to let you know what the amount is....!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again all sorry I havent been here lately but my wifes condition has worsened so my time has been for her lately but will be moving forward with things now, we need a break and its about time these people repayed what they have wrongly taken if they have wrongly taken anything that is dont want to be acused of wronfull acusations do we lol.

regards

jdene

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to what Swift have stated in courts under oath that they do not pay commission ......now that many folk have absolute proof tht they do pay and have paid BIG commission ( commission means paid agents) and their company accounts also say they do, over £19 million worth plus the fact that it has been declared under oath that they do not....would this not be considered by the Courts as more of a "Disguised Secret Commission"? Which is even worse

 

And as per Wilson v Hurstanger and Wilson v First Counties Trust would not folks agree those peoples agreements would be considerd unenforceale.

 

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...