G E Money and Secret Commissions

[Sparkie1723]

It may be helpful if you read these guideines issued by the OFT 1997 with regard to non satus second chatge lendingr

 

Brokers and lenders

31 The actions of brokers and other intermediaries involved in marketing a lender’s products can jeopardise the lender’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, as well as that of the broker. Section 25(2) of the Consumer Credit Act makes clear that the fitness of a licensee can be brought into question by the actions of any of its employees, agents or associates (whether past or present), and section 25(3) defines

‘associate’ for these purposes as including a business associate. A broker may be a business associate of a lender if the broker is tied to the lender (for example, through a right of first refusal agreement), or has an ongoing relationship with the lender, or frequently does business with the lender. This is a matter of fact and degree. It is not necessary for the purposes of determining that an association exists that any formal agency relationship should exist between the lender and the broker.

 

32 Lenders should take all reasonable steps within their control to ensure that brokers and other intermediaries marketing their products comply with all relevant statutory requirements, and with these guidelines, and do not engage in business practices which are deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not). This applies particularly where the broker may be regarded as a business

associate of the lender.

 

33 If a lender accepts business from a broker or other intermediary on a frequent basis, in return for payment of a fee or commission, the lender should take steps to satisfy itself that the business is being procured in an acceptable manner and that the broker’s procedures are in compliance with the law and with these guidelines. The lender should investigate thoroughly any allegation or evidence of malpractice on the part of the broker. If a lender chooses to do business with a broker which it has reason to know or believe engages in business practices which are deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper, to the detriment of consumers, its choice may beconsidered a circumstance relevant to fitness even if the lender has no formal control over the broker and no informal means of influencing the broker.

 

34 The Office would encourage lenders to bring to its attention any evidence of brokers or other intermediaries who engage in unfair business practices or act unlawfully.

 

35 Lenders should consider putting in place procedures for asking borrowers direct as to how the broker has conducted business with them, and whether the borrower is satisfied with the service provided. Where the broker has filled in any part of the loan application on behalf of the borrower, the borrower might be asked to confirm that the details have been entered correctly, and in full, and correspond with the information provided by the borrower.

 

36 Lenders should ensure that their commission structure does not encourage brokers to offer any particular product from the lender over any other product from that lender.

If the rates of commission payable by the lender vary between products, or according to the status of the borrower or for other reasons, this should be made clear to the borrower. Any such difference in commission rates should reflect the differential costs incurred by the broker in arranging the loan, to the extent that such costs are

ascertainable by the lender. The broker should not be able to influence the rate of commission payable, for example by securing a larger loan or higher interest rate from the borrower. The Office would discourage the use of ‘volume overriders’, whereby the amount of commission payable to the broker in respect of a loan may depend upon the total volume of business brought to the lender over a given period, but where such volume overriders exist they should be clearly disclosed to the borrower by the lender and the broker. Any other payments or non-cash benefits should be provided in such a way as not to encourage undue lender or product bias on the part of the broker.

 

37 Lenders should not disburse brokerage fees on behalf of the borrower without the latter’s prior written request, confirming that the fact and amount (or likely amount) of the fee were disclosed by the broker before the loan application was forwarded to the lender, and that the fee is to be paid from the amount advanced.

 

 

sparkie

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[frettful38]

Hi sparkie, nice to see you have dropped in even though you must be up to your eyeballs with your own personel case at present against Swift.

The information that you have given is very very important and I am sure anyone reading it will be looking at things in a different light. It's like cracking our Dininci Code, the public are now much more aware of what Lenders, Banks, Brokers and everyone else relating to the Financial Industries really do behind closed doors at the expense of the average consumer.

 

I will be copying the info you have given above and placing it in my file as I am gathering as much as info on secret commissons as possible and evry little helps. I have been doing alot of my own research to, and I am very interested in uncovering whatever I can and from wherever I can. Sometimes not even solicitors know this sort of information that we can find just by researching or through others.

 

So it is a fact that the borrower must be informed prior to signing the loan agreement about any commissons paid or received. It is also a fact that the borrowers signed/permission also needs to be sought too.

 

Well lets see how the Lenders/Brokers dig themselves out of this hole, hopefully it will not be like the Bank Charges case as we all know what a load of garbage that turned out to be after all that time.

[michellej]

well done Sparkie & antiestablishment ,... excellent info ,.. something to sink my teeth into ,.. thanks

[antiestablishment]

 

So it is a fact that the borrower must be informed prior to signing the loan agreement about any commissons paid or received. It is also a fact that the borrowers signed/permission also needs to be sought too.

 

 

I have been doing a lot research into this as I had a loan out with Blemain through a broker (turns out the Broker actually belongs to Blemain) and paid a large broker fee, which I now want to recover.

 

Using the arguments and legal cases already mentioned, I and a number of others now interpret from the law that any fees that are added to the loan and form an interest bearing part of (i.e. if you add it to the total loan it accrues interest at the same rate as the capital) are subject to the terms of law mentioned above, that is the lender and or broker must obtain your SPECIFIC WRITTEN consent in order to add the broker fees to the loan; you are also legally entitled to pay those fees up front should they form an interest bearing part of the loan.

 

A lot of main stream lenders add the fees to the loan, but do not charge interest on it. A good example of how this is supposed to be done can be seen on Chelsea Building society website; when searching for products quotes it SPECIFICALLY states the arrangement fee and what it will cost over the term of the loan. This same legislation applies to the broker fee's.

 

In my case this did not happen, and the broker had breached its duty to me by not allowing this. Further to this, my case also constitutes an unfair term in the contract, as if I did not have the fee added to the loan, I would not have received the loan, as such the broker obtained pecuniary advantage.

 

I intend to go after both the broker house and the lender under the Fraud act 2006, "Fraud by abuse of position" is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case where a person (in this case the Broker) occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.

 

The cost is going to be pretty high to pursue this, double what the fee was but I think its worth it.

[summerbreeze]

[quote=andrew1;

Edit:

 

Just picked this up from another thread too which might come in handy:

 

31 The actions of brokers and other intermediaries involved in marketing a lender’s

products can jeopardise the lender’s fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, as well as that of the broker. Section 25(2) of the Consumer Credit Act makes clear that the fitness of a licensee can be brought into question by the actions of any of its employees, agents or associates (whether past or present), and section 25(3) defines ‘associate’ for these purposes as including a business associate. A broker may be a business associate of a lender if the broker is tied to the lender (for example, through a right of first refusal agreement), or has an ongoing relationship with the lender, or frequently does business with the lender. This is a matter of fact and degree. It is not necessary for the purposes of determining that an association exists that any formal agency relationship should exist between the lender and the broker.

 

Hi Andrew

 

Where is this quote from please .

 

It may help my case

 

Thanks

 

SB

[summerbreeze]

oops ...read a few more postings and found it ...thanks:p

[pt2537]

Image view vs Kelvin Jack is very helpful for those wishing to challenge a secret comms

 

it makes it very clear what is required, much more than Wilson does

[andrew1]

Thanks pt, had that on file:

 

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63; [2009] WLR (D) 56

 

CA: Mummery, Dyson, Jacob LJJ: 13 February 2009

________________________________________

An agent when negotiating with another person on behalf of his principal breached the fiduciary duty which he owed to his principal if at the same time he made with the other person an undisclosed side deal for his own benefit and there were a real possibility of conflict of interest. In such a case the agent was required to account to the principal in respect of the secret commission so received and was not entitled to receive any agency fees from the principal.

 

The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Imageview Management Ltd, from the judgment of Underhill J who on 23 May 2008 had allowed the appeal of the defendant, Kelvin Jack, a professional footballer, and dismissed the claimant’s cross-appeal from the decision of Mr Recorder Walker in the Central London County Court on 2 January 2008 to allow the claim for unpaid agency fees due under a contract whereby the claimant had agreed to act as the defendant’s agent in negotiating a contract for him to play for Dundee United Football Club. The defendant denied liability on the ground that, in negotiating a secret side commission for itself from the club in connexion with obtaining a work permit for principal, the claimant had breached its fiduciary duty to him, and counterclaimed repayment of the agency fees already paid and an account of the secret fee.

 

JACOB LJ said that if the agent had told his client that when negotiating for his client he was also going to make a deal with the club for himself about getting a work permit for the client, and if the client had had no objection, there would have been no problem. Instead, the agent had made a secret deal. Despite long-standing authority as to an agent’s duty of fidelity where there was a realistic possibility of a conflict of interest, such as Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansell (1888) 39 Ch D 339, the claimant submitted that Hippisley v Knee Bros [1905] 1 KB 1 demonstrated that an agent could legitimately try to make a profit “on the side” which was not regarded as so serious that his entire commission became repayable, provided that the agent/third party arrangement were “not sufficiently connected” with the principal/agent relationship or were “purely incidental” to it. The better way to look at it would be to ask whether the agent was faced with a realistic possibility of a conflict of interest, rather than whether there was a “secret profit … directly impacting on the moneys payable to the principal” as David Steel QC had done in The Peppy [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 722, 729. It was the conflict of interest which ought to bring his conscience into play. There could be cases of harmless collaterality, or where there was just an honest breach of contract such as Keppel v Wheeler [1927] 1 KB 577. But this was simply not such a case. This was a case of a secret profit obtained because the claimant was defendant's agent. And there was a breach of a fiduciary duty because of a real conflict of interest. That in itself would be enough, but there was more: the profit was not only greater than the work done but was related to the very contract which was being negotiated for the defendant. Once a conflict of interest was shown the right to remuneration went in its entirety. That strict rule was there as a real deterrent to betrayal. So the defendant was not liable to pay the claimant and more agency fees and was entitled both to recover all the fees he had already paid and to an account of the whole of the secret profit made by the claimant.

 

DYSON LJ agreed.

 

MUMMERY LJ gave a concurring judgment.

=======================================================================

Court of Appeal

Published March 24, 2009

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack

Before Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Jacob

Judgment February 13, 2009

An agent who made a secret deal with his principal’s employer breached his fiduciary duty to his principal, forfeited his agency fee and had to account for the secret profit.

The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Imageview Management Ltd, from Mr Justice Underhill in Leeds District Registry ([2008] EWHC 1421 (QB)) who allowed the appeal of the defendant, Kelvin Jack, a professional footballer, and dismissed Imageview’s cross-appeal from Mr Recorder Walker who, in Central London County Court on January 2, 2008, allowed its claim for unpaid agency fees due under a contract whereby Imageview had agreed to act as Mr Jack’s agent in negotiating a contract for him to play for Dundee United Football Club.

Mr Jack denied liability on the ground that, in negotiating a secret side commission for itself from the club in connexion with obtaining a work permit for him, Imageview had breached its fiduciary duty to him; Mr Jack counterclaimed. Mr Jonathan Lopian and Mr Seb Oram for Imageview; Mr Steven Turner for Mr Jack.

LORD JUSTICE JACOB said that if the agent had told his client that when negotiating for the client, he was also going to make a deal with the club for himself about getting a work permit for the client, and if the client had had no objection, there would have been no problem. Instead, the agent had made a secret deal.

Despite long-standing authority as to an agent’s duty of fidelity where there was a realistic possibility of a conflict of interest, such as Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansell ((1888) 39 ChD 339), the claimant submitted that Hippisley v Knee Bros ([1905] 1 KB 1) demonstrated that an agent could legitimately try to make a profit on the side which was not regarded as so serious that his entire commission became repayable, provided that the agent/third party arrangement were not sufficiently connected with the principal/agent relationship or were purely incidental to it.

The better way to look at it would be to ask whether the agent was faced with a realistic possibility of a conflict of interest, rather than whether there was a secret profit directly impacting on the moneys payable to the principal as the judge had done in The Peppy ([1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 722, 729).

It was the conflict of interest which ought to bring the agent’s conscience into play. There could be cases of harmless collaterality, or where there was just an honest breach of contract such as Keppel v Wheeler([1927] 1 KB 577).

But this was simply not such a case. This was a case of a secret profit obtained because the claimant was the defendant’s agent. And there was a breach of a fiduciary duty because of a real conflict of interest.

That in itself would be enough, but there was more: the profit was not only greater than the work done but was related to the very contract which was being negotiated for the defendant. Once a conflict of interest was shown, the right to remuneration went in its entirety.

That strict rule was there as a real deterrent to betrayal. The defendant was not liable to pay the claimant any more agency fees and was entitled both to recover all the fees he had already paid and to an account of the whole of the secret profit.

Lord Justice Dyson agreed and Lord Justice Mummery gave a concurring judgment.

Solicitors: Hill Dickinson, Liverpool; Bates Wells & Braithwaite.

[beachcomber60]

PT,

 

I understand that you have knowledge of the problem of 'tipexing out' commissions, I have found this with GE - when the sheet is held up to the light it shows two commissions paid 1) PPI & 2) Loan.

 

However on the same sheet supplied by the dca under CPR rules the same sheet shows three commissions 1) PPI, 2) Loan & 3) Additional, this sheet also has the dca's name on it.

 

You were immense help to me over my Woodchester problem & I hope you could enlighten me on this one.

 

I am at the stage of the court ordering a one month stay so both sides can try to reach a settlement, this was only requested by the Claimant & speaking to the court they confirmed that the wrong paperwork was sent out to me.

 

Beachy

 

(aka Jim)

[frettful38]

Excellent piece of information there from pt2537 & andrew1. The word about secret commissions is really coming out now and a lot more information is being discussed.

 

This story is a very good reading for those who want to find out more about secret commissions, and what the consequences are for those paying and receiving it.

 

Great work guys:D!

[andrew1]

Taking this into a perspective of loan agreements pt, what remedies are afforded the borrower so we know where we are heading with this?

 

a) Is it just the repayment to the borrower of the commission the broker received

 

and

 

b) what impact does it have on the loan agreement / relationship between lender and borrower itself? To coin a phrase of many a mind - does this make an agreement unenforceable/void/contentious in any other way?

 

Here's another case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1159.html bit of a read but worth it. Payne vs Watchtower Invt'mts

Edited January 21, 2010 by andrew1
add relevant case

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

I just received the following reply to a CPR 31.16 request for the underwriting sheet from Swift Advances -

 

'We confirm that a payment was made by us to the introducer. This included an element of commission although a substantial part of the payment comprises a fee for the work carried out by the introducer in packaging the case.

 

We do not agree that the commission was undisclosed. We are attaching a copy of the signed declaration form and also an extract from the FISA booklet given to you where we have marked the relevant areas referring to the payment of commission. As you may be aware, recent case law has held that generic disclosure of this nature is sufficient to negate secrecy.'

 

I have responded asking exactly how much the 'substantial part of the payment' was that comprised the 'fee for the work carried out by the introducer in packaging the case' and am awaiting a reply.

 

Landy x

[frettful38]

Hi landy alert, I had a similar response like yours from my Lender too when I questioned them about secret commission, I posted it up here and I was advised that this is not a good enough excuse or reason.

 

I will try and find out exactly what I was advised and will post it up. That's good that you are determined and not backing down, I wish you luck and its great how we can all help and support each other on here, take care for now be back in a bit with response

[greedfighter]

Hi guys, still on the case. Some interesting info/guidance from antiestab.

So far have written to broker again, MP, OFT and FOS see if this turns up details of commissions paid. if not have spoken to a Solicitor who is fairly confident he can obtain details and have the repossession reversed. Will post again when I have something to add, otherwise I am still paying attention !

[phrang888]

Hi everyone:)

 

I just received the following reply to a CPR 31.16 request for the underwriting sheet from Swift Advances -

 

'We confirm that a payment was made by us to the introducer. This included an element of commission although a substantial part of the payment comprises a fee for the work carried out by the introducer in packaging the case.

 

We do not agree that the commission was undisclosed. We are attaching a copy of the signed declaration form and also an extract from the FISA booklet given to you where we have marked the relevant areas referring to the payment of commission. As you may be aware, recent case law has held that generic disclosure of this nature is sufficient to negate secrecy.'

 

I have responded asking exactly how much the 'substantial part of the payment' was that comprised the 'fee for the work carried out by the introducer in packaging the case' and am awaiting a reply.

 

Landy x

 

Hi Landy

 

Be obliged if you would clarify what recent case law Swift lawyers are refering to in this regard.

 

Kind Regards

 

PH

[landy_alert]

Hi Landy

 

Be obliged if you would clarify what recent case law Swift lawyers are refering to in this regard.

 

Kind Regards

 

PH

 

Hi PH:)

 

To be honest I don't know myself I'm afraid - hopefully someone else may have a better idea than us!

 

Very sorry I couldn't be of more help,

 

Landy x

[42man]

Usual rubbish....of course it is secret, if it wasn't you would know how much had been paid, the fact they won't tell you without a court order means they want to keep it a secret too !! - Imageview vs Kelvin Jack case from 2009

[frettful38]

Usual rubbish....of course it is secret, if it wasn't you would know how much had been paid, the fact they won't tell you without a court order means they want to keep it a secret too !! - Imageview vs Kelvin Jack case from 2009

 

 

Excellent piece of information there 42man, lets see if we can build on this argument and hopefully see some more successes like this but in the financial industry business:D

[andrew1]

Excellent piece of information there 42man, lets see if we can build on this argument and hopefully see some more successes like this but in the financial industry business:D

 

A certain individual employee told a Judge under oath at a case of a friend of mine that the fee they (Swift) pay to 'agents' is £100 and is a 'packaging charge' for all the paperwork - he said they don't pay commission. Judge said - " Agents???!! ....goes hand in hand with 'commission' "! err? Sorry Mr Employee, your company accounts show you paid £19million to brokers...that's a lot of £100's

[frettful38]

A certain individual employee told a Judge under oath at a case of a friend of mine that the fee they (Swift) pay to 'agents' is £100 and is a 'packaging charge' for all the paperwork - he said they don't pay commission. Judge said - " Agents???!! ....goes hand in hand with 'commission' "! err? Sorry Mr Employee, your company accounts show you paid £19million to brokers...that's a lot of £100's

 

truly said!

[phrang888]

Hi everyone:)

 

I just received the following reply to a CPR 31.16 request for the underwriting sheet from Swift Advances -

 

'We confirm that a payment was made by us to the introducer. This included an element of commission although a substantial part of the payment comprises a fee for the work carried out by the introducer in packaging the case.

 

We do not agree that the commission was undisclosed. We are attaching a copy of the signed declaration form and also an extract from the FISA booklet given to you where we have marked the relevant areas referring to the payment of commission. As you may be aware, recent case law has held that generic disclosure of this nature is sufficient to negate secrecy.'

 

I have responded asking exactly how much the 'substantial part of the payment' was that comprised the 'fee for the work carried out by the introducer in packaging the case' and am awaiting a reply.

 

Landy x

 

Hi again Landy

 

It looks to me that you have got them by the 'nuts' mate.

 

They admit that a substantial part of the commission ellement was a fee, therefore a charge for credit, and as other more knowlegable caggers will confirm to include a charge for credit, in total credit, is a no no.

 

Hope this is of help

 

PH

[michellej1]

Hi Folks well back online finally ,.. lost my password to login ,was clicked to remember me , well finally asked for password on login , did not have a clue ,.. so re-registered but added 1 on the end , hoping for admin to rest for me so can use original name , any help anyone ,..

 

Well thought I would explain the inclussion of the 1 ,.. Anyway some action since earlier posts ,.. We now have 2 signed agreements and how very different they both are ,.. the second one sent is the killer ,..and someone will be losing some sleep over this mistake and job ,.. they would not comply to CPR request for underwriters sheet ,.. and more or less said prove secret commissions ,.. I did get a copy of agreement from G E , ...as soon as i seen the agreement i knew it was a fake and definately fraud of some kind even though it had my signature on it,.. it looked spot on , but the give away was that my brokers fee (which i pointed out to them was added to the loan and been subject to interest charge for 7 years,) had changed to a PPI ?????? and after scratching my head noticed that my broker had changed also, it was no longer Ocean Finance , it was some company called "Central Marketing Limited" CML,.... I am thinking this is pure FRAUD ,.. they is no other way to put it ,... So i continue to read the lies in the agreement & letter attached,.. they say i need to take secret commissions up with broker ,.. (what a broker i never used?????) and if you are unseccessful in your quest you might find the reason is because these brokers do not trade anymore ,.. smart a*se's

 

you know what i did next , yes i googled this company , guess what nothing comes back !!!, I check to see if hold or held a credit license , yes you guessed nothing !!! I google the address supplied , Bingo we have a hit , But not quite they yet ,.. as this company is "Central Trust Limited"

CTL /well I am thinking straight away , these have same address same office numbers , CTL / CML must be a match ,.. I call them and ask about CML "Central Marketing Limited" the guy says never heard of them!! i explianed they use the same address as yourselves and names very alike starting and ending the same,.. the guy state he has worked for CTL for a number of years and that address as always been they place of business ,.. I said i must have my wires crossed , it must be "Central Trust Limited" he offered to check the records Bingo I knew they could not have anything on me , as i have never done business with either company period ,.. the guy comes back and kindly states that they do not have any records under my name , we had a further conversation and he says was it secured loan or mortgage ? I say mortgage second charge ,.. after 10 minutes he comes back and says Mrs Smiley face I have checked all our records under Mrs Smiley face and under your postcode , thats loans/secured loans / & mortgages and you are not in our record sorry ,.. Sorry you just give me a late xmas present , and the last part was taped for future evidence ,... next job Ocean Finance ,.. so we need to play clever with these ,.. I could remember the underwriters name and colour of his team ,.. so i asked for him (just to prove it was not me going simple), told it was his day off can i help ,.. I asked for £30k loan !!! said i was a previous customer asked for postcode , details appear "Hello Mrs Smiley face can i put you through to underwriters , said no i am happy to talk with you , put on hold for 15 minutes , she came back and said you cancelled your agreement with us , asked who lender would of been if i completed ? First National (now G E MONEY) , and date cancelled was exactly 14 days before i signed agreement , so in 14 days since i cancelled with Ocean Finance , i contacted another broker , he done his checks and searches , found me the best loan to suit my needs ,forwarded me a copy get my signature in place and me send it back , give me 7 days cooling of period without contacting me , further docs to sign then suppose to be another 7 days if i remember rightly ,.. impossible as also 2 weekends within them 14 days , and the best bit is my lenders were the same First National /G E MONEY,... why would i change brokers then?? I try to get the girl on the phone to put our conversation into writing , which she refused point blank , I asked her for her name as not happy with her responces , she refused point blank ,.. I asked her why after 7 years , if i cancelled my agreement so in reality just an application (as never seen it through) would you know my name and details just from the postcode i give you , surely you do not keep all aplication , especially 7 years later ,... at this point pretty annoyed

 

I called G E MONEY to ask for my details on the broker as the address supplied was wrong as CTL ,.. I was given another address and directors name as point of contact !!!! I called OFT with address supplied they checked out Central Marketing Limited , I am saying they do not exsist , the OFT point out they run under CTL Central Trust Limited ,.. that explains the same address ,.. Well this starts getting better ,..as we have these on tape saying that this company does not have any dealing with me ,.. OFT pointed out some other companies running under CTL , Central Broker Limited / Central Mortgage Limited ,.. and the brokers could only work & supply leads to Central Mortgages Limited ,.. so how could the broker side step they sister company who they are tied to to offer the application to First National ? and if they never done this , then why would a mortgage provider pass customers to other lenders? especially as someone must be paying brokers wages!! wouldthis point to SECRET COMMISSIONS PAID,.. it has to in reality as it certainly does not make sense , to say both Central Companies never recieved nothing in return ,... as my agreement appears if i never paid a brokers fee ,... and it certainaly does not show the lender paid , so who did ? and after reading all the T's & C's , no mention of the broker might recieve a commission !!!

totally consealed ,...

I was that amazed at the agreement i call ramdomly to request another as every thing was white in the agreement , no background , as would be they if a close copy ,... well the second agreement arrived , it is a close copy alright and background grey as imaging the colour in the original agreement , were as first agreement was copied with brightness high to conceal marks visible to the eye,... the latest one was dynomite ,.. in the signature part held to the light you can see my signature crossing each other one is about 2mm off linning up ,.. from the front on all looks normal ,.. until you look at the box with signature from FN employee , it has a line running corner to corner , other box at the side of this also a line through (this box had nothing within , would this line placed imply that the box had no signature within before it was an void section due to placement of line?????? so from no agreement , to 2 agreements ,.. and one showing Fraud , double signature is fraud ,.. but without the second agreement would of been snookered , as the 1st agreement had the lines removed and showed no double signature ,

 

what are peoples thoughts on this ,.. and i was thinking of contacting the fraud squad ,.. as if my agreement is displaying this made up company they want me to believe ,.. well thats fraud and whilst they show this as my agreement I feel i should not continue to pay it ,

Edited February 6, 2010 by michellej1

[frettful38]

Hi michellej1, I have just read through what you have found, but I have to clean the shed out. If I don't do it now I never will. I will be back to comment later today, because if I do it now then I will probably end up sitting on my pc till midnight ,

 

It is fantastic what you have found out, and I am sure many will pop in and give their opinions before I do. See you soon, as I really gotta get off this computer NOW!!!!!!!!!!

[michellej1]

Hi Frettful ,... Yes are very pleased with my Detective work and the new evidence I have collected which includes full statement of account , this itself is quite interesting also , How would one stand if it can be proven that this account was put into arrears from day one and continued throughout the 7 years to collect a monthly interest charge which was around £220 at the start raising to £450 per month at this present day ,.. my monthly payments only £260 month ,.. I was contracted to make my 1st payment 4 weeks after advance recieved , 1 week before 1st payment due we were kindly charged interest , 1 week later we pay our payment at the beginning of the month (not knowing about the interest charge) as this interest charge was added to our balance our account would continue to be in arreas ,.. as this will explian , at the end of this month 1 week before our second payment due we get hit with a interest charge £221 , again we pay our payment not realising infact our balance is increasing !!! and that was the tone set , the interest charges continue to increase as the months and years pass ,..

Also I have come to a conclussion that they use another trick to get the account into arrears (they love this way of operating as interest is charged on total balance £30k +,..) As soon as you have paid the 1st payment interest rate will increase ,,,my first payment £260 @ 8% before the 2nd payment is due the interest rate is 8.4 , so inreality your monthly payment of £260 will not cover this , and these tiny little amounts are enough to put you in arrears and justify the month interest charges of £220+ my interest would finally reach 12.9 % which would be around £345 per month to pay , so if my monthly payment stays the same then were does the extra £85 per month go? well its added to balance every month !! then we have the interest charge end of each month £230

so our monthly payment does not touch the balance and never will , our payment is eaten up and £315 per month kindly added to balance , a balance which continues to grow with no light at the end of the tunnel , no finish date

 

This is definately not right , so we read and re read the conditions on the rear of our agreement ,.. and we got the answer to our concerns of no end date insight ,..

 

"Unless FN choose to increase the number of monthly repayment instalments payable under this agreement, the remaining amount due on the loan will be payable in full at the time that the last monthly repayment falls due"

 

so as the balance is £14k higher then start of agreement , and we have 18 years left of a 25 year agreement , so averaging £2k per year ,looking on bright side that another £36k + £14k = £50k

 

so I struggle along for the next 18 years to get rid of these sharks ,.. by the time its paid I am a (tired)frail old lady ,.. ready for a rest ,.. but no these sharks will request £50k payment

£50k that they secrectly have been saving up , ... how would one cover this debt owed ???????? well if it never finished you off , suppose you could remortgage with them lol ,..

 

and all started with a unlawful £220 interest charge which was obviously a mistake ,.. a costly mistake at that for me , but definately to they advantage ,.. £50k at least advantage ,.. you would never believe £220 could cause so much damage

[frettful38]

Hi michellej1, that was a lot of info to digest. Is there any chance that you could scan up your agreements deleting any personal details so that they could be checked by some of our experts?