G E Money and Secret Commissions

[jdene]

there must be someone somewhere who could help us expose all this and bring these sharks to the surface, it is like a cancer through the finance world crippling consumers

[frettful38]

Hi jdene, do you have any evidence that you paid a secret commission? How much was you loan for again, please refresh my memory.

[frettful38]

If a secret commission can be proved to have been paid by the Lender to the Broker for arranging a loan over £25k then what redress would the borrower receive.

Would the borrower just get back the secret commission paid plus interest? Or would the whole of the loan come under the Unenforceable question?

 

I have been advised that all that I would receive if I can prove that I paid a secret commission then I would only recover this payment plus interest and I would not be entitled to anything else as my loan is unregulated. Now either I have been reading too much in to this or my advisers are not advising me correctly.

Adding broker fees and acceptance fees to loans over £25k seem to be perfectly legal, and as I was an adult and over 18 it seems that the court would see that I knew exactly what I was doing and getting myself in to.

 

Anyone want to discuss any further on the above?

[HomerJSimpson]

The problem I see is that even when you find proof of your secret commission, what do you do with it? Has anyone actually taken this to court and won? Can it be done LiP or do you need a solicitor or barrister?

 

The whole idea of recission, that everybody would love to achieve, takes you straight out of small claims. Or is it a seperate issue? I can't get my head around it.

 

I've got the proof, 10% of loan paid as commission. But it's not clearly identified as to where I paid it. I know I'll have paid it in my APR, but I can't find the proof.

 

GE won't disclose anything, not even the letter they say they sent advising commission would be paid. If they sent it why isn't it included with your SAR? They didn't send it.

 

Igroups letter of instruction to BES&Co states

Would you please note Commissions £0.00 To broker Alabaster CI Ltd

 

BES&Co letters to Alabaster CI Ltd state

Loan commission at 10% in the sum of £xxxx

 

But it's not in the disbursements of the loan amount.:?

[frettful38]

Hi HJS, as you stated that you know you paid commission but its finding where. I on the other hand do have evidence and proof where it was paid and from whom and still am not in any better position than yourself.

 

As for anyone winning in courts, there are a few stories that have succeeded on secret commissions claims.

[michellej1]

If a secret commission can be proved to have been paid by the Lender to the Broker for arranging a loan over £25k then what redress would the borrower receive.

Would the borrower just get back the secret commission paid plus interest? Or would the whole of the loan come under the Unenforceable question?

 

I have been advised that all that I would receive if I can prove that I paid a secret commission then I would only recover this payment plus interest and I would not be entitled to anything else as my loan is unregulated. Now either I have been reading too much in to this or my advisers are not advising me correctly.

Adding broker fees and acceptance fees to loans over £25k seem to be perfectly legal, and as I was an adult and over 18 it seems that the court would see that I knew exactly what I was doing and getting myself in to.

 

Anyone want to discuss any further on the above?

 

Hi there again Frettful,.. I will discuss it all day long with you , I now believe that the PPI & Secret commissions are the wrong route as yes I believe judges are lender friendly , and you will recieve the amount paid plus interest ,.. but agreement still in place , and no problem lenders will recoup the said monies lost in the long run ,. you situation is very like mine , non-regulated , above £25k , and not included in new no limits credit ,.. for weeks I have looked into things and finally have the answer to all concerns ,.. and the best bit you need to be unregulated to get the benefits of this cover ,.. and it is right that APR will change to keep the commissions secret ,.. but this slyness is they undoing ,.. as if the monthly payment increases , then you must be informed at the earliest opportunity

Providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or a supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded

so each time you see a rate change you should of been informed of this change as this will effect the monthly payment , which if your payments do not change then this small amount will put your account into arrears and give the lenders the rights to charge you a monthly interest charge ,which is covered over as added onto balance end of each month ,.. and this secretly stacks up over the years and you are expected to pay this amount when last payment on agreement is due ,.. absolute [problem] , no ther words for it ,.. and all the secrets why? because they know its a [problem] to take more than what is entitled to them

[michellej1]

Re: Credit Agreement faked G E MONEY

 

My thread on G E and probably the most Shocking CCA you will ever see

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/246274-credit-agreement-faked-g-2.html#post2765885

Edited February 14, 2010 by michellej1

[enslaved]

Hi jdene and AA

 

I think/know your spot on!

 

I have found 3 entries per month on a computer printout, (SAR). That show entries all to realise;

Lenders Insurance commission

Brokers Insurance commission

Brokers Loan commission (abbriviation book supplied)

 

None of the entries affect the balance, all decrease as balance decreases, hence, the mirror account, (accountants are sticklers for balancing figures, it's their job).

 

Claimants barsteward claims these are "simple internal accounting procedures" in his witness statement.

 

I am about to reply along the lines of " As they are so simple, kindly explain, I have extensive experience useing Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures, (GAAP) from the early to late nineties. Now, I realise changes have been made, but the underlying principle is still the same. So lets talk accounting".

 

I wonder if they will retract "simple"?

 

Your not wrong, SAR, CPR31.16 and two court orders, and still no underwriting sheet.

 

Still, I got the computer printouts, (SAR). One showing Zero commissions paid and one showing 3 commisions. Plus, witness statement declaring an overrider payment, (THANK YOU).

 

Take care

[greedfighter]

Hi all, update on the underwriting sheet business:

1. FOS - unable to deal; matter has been subject to legal proceedings i.e repossession action.

2. Information Commissioner Office; falls outside remit of Personal Data i.e

information between lender and broker.

3. Broker - Not subject to Subject access Request - between lender and broker.

4. FSA - do not deal with individual complaints.

 

All in all nobody is prepared to tell me what, if any additional commission was paid. It seems impossible to obtain this information and nobody wants to give a direction for the lender to provide it. Pathetic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

All in all if I cant get the information how am I going to challenge it ?

[michellej1]

Hi all, update on the underwriting sheet business:

1. FOS - unable to deal; matter has been subject to legal proceedings i.e repossession action.

2. Information Commissioner Office; falls outside remit of Personal Data i.e

information between lender and broker.

3. Broker - Not subject to Subject access Request - between lender and broker.

4. FSA - do not deal with individual complaints.

 

All in all nobody is prepared to tell me what, if any additional commission was paid. It seems impossible to obtain this information and nobody wants to give a direction for the lender to provide it. Pathetic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

All in all if I cant get the information how am I going to challenge it ?

 

Hi , Definately know how you feel , done the same chasing about myself a few weeks back and could get no info what so ever , point blank refused the underwriters sheets plus letter in reply saying prove a secret commission , takeit up with broker , but might find if not successful that its probably as they do not trade anymore ,.. every route we took dead ends ,.. so have decided to attack and end my agreement due to breach of contract , placing my account into arrears from day one , and all charges snowballed from they ,.. can not be bothered chasing dead ends , as these are taking my mind off a great line of attack which seems the easy route , as all prepayments would be refunded due to they breach ,..

 

Void - a void contract is one that cannot be performed or completed at all. A void contract is void from the beginning (ab initio - see the Latin terms ) and the normal remedy, if possible, is to put things back to where they were before the contract. Contracts are void where one party lacks the capacity to perform the contracted task, it is based on a mistake, or it is illegal.

I lacked the capacity to perform the contracted task,(of completing on agreed date as contracted,and due to mistake at START of the agreement would have no end date insight) so either admitt to a mistake or risk the laws of the land as will be illegal

Edited February 14, 2010 by michellej1

[Sparkie1723]

Hi all, update on the underwriting sheet business:

1. FOS - unable to deal; matter has been subject to legal proceedings i.e repossession action.

2. Information Commissioner Office; falls outside remit of Personal Data i.e

information between lender and broker.

3. Broker - Not subject to Subject access Request - between lender and broker.

4. FSA - do not deal with individual complaints.

 

All in all nobody is prepared to tell me what, if any additional commission was paid. It seems impossible to obtain this information and nobody wants to give a direction for the lender to provide it. Pathetic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

All in all if I cant get the information how am I going to challenge it ?

 

 

Hi greedfighter,

 

Use section 146 of the CCA Act (amended 2006) Challenge them that they have paid secret commission ..it would then be up to them to prove they did not and that would mean to prove they did not they would have to produce the underwriting sheet to the Court.

 

IMO te reason they will not supply the underwriting sheet is that that would show that they did ...if that document hid nothing why not produce it.

 

sparkie

[frettful38]

Hi greedfighter,

 

Use section 146 of the CCA Act (amended 2006) Challenge them that they have paid secret commission ..it would then be up to them to prove they did not and that would mean to prove they did not they would have to produce the underwriting sheet to the Court.

 

IMO te reason they will not supply the underwriting sheet is that that would show that they did ...if that document hid nothing why not produce it.

 

sparkie

 

More great input from sparkie once again. Sometimes trying to find out about secret commissions and already having the evidence seem just a big a headache. There are people searching and trying to find out if they paid a secret commission, and there are people like me on the other hand who have evidence of secret commission being paid but not any better off.

 

Is it true that if it can be proven secret commission has been paid then all that would be returned is that commission plus a little interest, or will it throw the whole loan agreement in to question?

 

Some say yes some say no, what does the law say is the most important, and that we all are learning as we go along day by day.

[Sparkie1723]

More great input from sparkie once again. Sometimes trying to find out about secret commissions and already having the evidence seem just a big a headache. There are people searching and trying to find out if they paid a secret commission, and there are people like me on the other hand who have evidence of secret commission being paid but not any better off.

 

Is it true that if it can be proven secret commission has been paid then all that would be returned is that commission plus a little interest, or will it throw the whole loan agreement in to question?

 

Some say yes some say no, what does the law say is the most important, and that we all are learning as we go along day by day.

 

 

This is my view of secret commission claim.... it depends on if or not that somewhere on the documents sighned its mentions the fact in words similar to these.... that the lender will pay the broker or intermediary acommission .......most probably pay the broker or intermediary a commission.......may pay the broker or intermediary commission....then any commission paid is not a " secret commission" as such.

 

BUT if it was paid and you were not aware it was paid how much %age wise or what ever, ...you would still be entitled to the amount back plus interest at contract rate Wilson v Hurstanger.

 

If no reference to commission is mentioned in the documents and it is found commission was paid....that is "secret commission"

 

The other challenge to it is found in my case against Swift Advances,

 

Swift do state in their documents that they would most likely pay the broker commission.....BUT in Court the Witness for Swift stated under oath that Swift do not pay Commssion only a document fee of £100..................I obtained evidence that they do in fact pay £1000's in commission in my case I have a document from my brokers stating it was £3.325:00, in another case £2,690:00.

 

In fact their company accounts state that they paid £19 million in commission one year 2007 to 2008.

 

That is "secret commssion" my case is being appealed in the HIgh Court based on that fact and failure to fully comply with my subject access request.

They are still concealing certain documents I requested under that SAR 1 of them is the underwriting sheet and the other a copy of the Title indemnity Insurance policy which I paid £165.00 for..

Is this any help to folks?

 

sparkie

[frettful38]

Thanks sparkie I now have a better understanding. So I take it that my commission paid would be classed as a partial commission payment as it is stated in the terms and conditions, and I cannot fight on SECRET COMMISSION but partial disclosure.

However it is looked at I was not informed and my signed or written consent was not given, and the most I could get back is the commission paid plus interest.

You on the other hand seem to have a very stronger case and I wish you all the best, still I am a bit dissapointed in what outcome I may get out of all this. My solicitor is waiting for my lender to respond to confirm if they paid a commission to my broker. If yes then I will get that back, if they do not admit then we go to court as I have evidence commission was paid.

 

Also added to the my Total Loan Facility is the Title Insurance and Brokers Fees which my solicitor says is also stated in my loans terms and conditions to which I agreed to and signed.

 

What a bloody complicated life and mess hey, I though Brokers Fees were not subject to having interest added on, or have I been reading the laws in some other language.

 

This is what my lender had to say about commissions when I questioned them

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/SecretCommissionLetter.jpg

 

Not good enough but what can I do, First they say they will USUALLY PAY THE BROKER,(is there a difference between usually and may)and then further down the letter they say

 

AS WE HAVE CLEARLY DISCLOSED THAT COMMISSION WOULD BE PAID

 

This is getting better and better:confused:

[Sparkie1723]

HIFretful,

 

Its dissapointing I know but what they say is enough to negate "secret commission" and its correct that all you would get back is the commission plus interest........it is only when yu can prove actual real bona fide setrecy that makes an agreement unenforceable.

 

One point you can tell your solicitor is that he should Professor Goode on Consumer Law ...he states quite clearly that any insurance ..NO MATTER what it is CANNOT be included in charges for credit and that is what Blemaim has done.

 

It is an Insurance ....not a what is and has been explained in many many case law as to what is considered charges for credit and insurance is not one of them.

 

Other folks may consider this fact if they have had Title Indemnity Insurance stated as a charge for credit ...it isn't its an insurance.

 

 

 

sparkie

[frettful38]

Thank you kindly again sparkie. So we could have the Title Indemnity Insurance refunded with some interest, but then again this Insurance would have been added to the loan and interest calculated on top..........take the insurance out then the whole loan needs re-doing and calculating again?

 

What about the Broker Fees? Should there not be a separate box for that and a breakdown?

[Sparkie1723]

Thank you kindly again sparkie. So we could have the Title Indemnity Insurance refunded with some interest, but then again this Insurance would have been added to the loan and interest calculated on top..........take the insurance out then the whole loan needs re-doing and calculating again?

 

What about the Broker Fees? Should there not be a separate box for that and a breakdown?

 

 

You are quite correct about the title Indemnity Insurance....and the broker fee ....that is a charge for credit and must be shown in a separate box as a stated charge for credit and then all the charges shpuld be added together plus interest to state clearly a total charge for credit....legal arguments can be built around these points.

 

BUT please remember I'm not a legal person in any way and these are only my personal views. I only give my views as bullets for your solicitor.....and bullets can be DUFF at times:grin::grin:

 

 

sparkie

 

 

sparkie

[pt2537]

that is a charge for credit and must be shown in a separate box as a charge and the all the charges are added together plus interest to a total charge for credit....leagl arguments can be built around these points.

Only if it is under £25,000 to fall within the act

[Sparkie1723]

Only if it is under £25,000 to fall within the act

 

I agree pt2537 ........that is true up to 6th April 2008.......... after that it applies to ALL CCA credit agreements.

 

sparkie

[andrew1]

So for clairty PT,

 

Loans which are £25,000 and above need not have charges for credit specified on the Unregulated Agreements or items such as PPI insurance and Title Indemnity Fee some lenders apply (which is to insure them against dodgy Title deeds), Broker fees or any Admin fees - is that what you are saying?

 

EDIT: (Sorry Sparkie got in before I logged my post! )

[pt2537]

I agree pt2537 ........that is true up to 6th April 2008.......... after that it applies to ALL CCA credit agreements.

 

sparkie

well, that is indeed true, but, that would not grant the irredeemable unenforceability that you would seek, the court would have discretion and i think that its likely to take the view that its little prejudice caused from my experience

 

settling outta court is probably a better approach

[Sparkie1723]

This is what the OFT say about " Non Status Lending" ....and this includes unregulated agreements including those over £25000....they also state that the OFT expects all lenders to comply with these guidelines..Very interesting

sparkie

 

Documentation

 

?

All documents should be in plain English and legible. Legal and technical language should be avoided as much as possible.

 

?

 

Agreements should give a clear statement of the borrower's rights and responsibilities.

 

?

 

Name and address of the lender, together with details of any parent company, must be prominently shown on all

 

documents.

?

 

The contract should indicate clearly the APR and repayment details. It should also make clear the consequence of a failure

 

to pay on time. Lenders should avoid quoting other interest rates, but if these are regarded as essential, they should be given

less prominence than the APR. If the APR is variable, it may be helpful to show consumers the effect of a 1% change in

interest rates.

?

 

If payment protection or other insurance is compulsory, this must be made clear to the borrower at the outset. The purpose

 

of the insurance must be made clear, and its terms and cost must be included in the documentation.

?

 

Insurance must be appropriate to the borrower's needs, and should not give rise to any unnecessary expense to the

 

borrower.

?

 

Lump sum insurance premiums added to the loan are generally not in the borrower's interest.

 

?

 

The borrower should be allowed to obtain insurance from any source, subject to providing the lender with satisfactory

 

evidence of its existence and coverage.

?

 

All fees and charges payable by the borrower must be clearly laid out in the documentation, and in any booklet.

 

?

 

The borrower should be encouraged to read all documents carefully, and advised to seek independent legal or other advice

(for example from a CAB, Money Advice Centre or Law Centre).

[frettful38]

You are quite correct about the title Indemnity Insurance....and the broker fee ....that is a charge for credit and must be shown in a separate box as a stated charge for credit and then all the charges shpuld be added together plus interest to state clearly a total charge for credit....legal arguments can be built around these points.

 

BUT please remember I'm not a legal person in any way and these are only my personal views. I only give my views as bullets for your solicitor.....and bullets can be DUFF at times:grin::grin:

 

 

sparkie

 

 

sparkie

 

Thank you sparkie for your opinions and views on this matter, I thank you for your views. I have given my solicitor these points and will press them again to him tomorrow,and see if there is anything else he can build on.

 

My loan agreement was taken out after April 07 so does come under the new rules.

[frettful38]

So for clairty PT,

 

Loans which are £25,000 and above need not have charges for credit specified on the Unregulated Agreements or items such as PPI insurance and Title Indemnity Fee some lenders apply (which is to insure them against dodgy Title deeds), Broker fees or any Admin fees - is that what you are saying?

 

EDIT: (Sorry Sparkie got in before I logged my post! )

 

 

Hi andrew1, so what you are saying is that loans that are over £25k do not have to show a separate box showing Broker Fees and Title Insurance and Acceptance Fees? All these figures can be shown in one box?

[andrew1]

Hi andrew1, so what you are saying is that loans that are over £25k do not have to show a separate box showing Broker Fees and Title Insurance and Acceptance Fees? All these figures can be shown in one box?

 

I'm not saying that, I'm not qualified to do so, I was merely asking Pt to clarify for all those watching.