Monthly charges after suspended repossession

[scedminc]

Hi all,

 

In January this year I obtained a suspended repossession order. I have been paying my monthly payments plus £150 since, Although not on the correct date but still within the calender month. Since the repossession order i have been charged £45 each month by the mortgage company. It would appear that they are charging me this for the arrears that are on account which I am repaying under the order. What I would like to know is whether they can do this as It would seem i am only actually paying £105 off my arrears surely the court would not be happy with this? Saying that i believe the charges are for this as that is all i can see on there tarrif of charges for £45 which refer to arrears of more than one month on an account. The account is due to be paid on the 1st of each month however i pay more towards the end so it does not fall into arrears and remains within the same calender month. I have in the past received the odd letter saying i am being charged £45 for no sticking to a court order which also does not make sense?

 

I am asking this as i have a change of circumstance in which my partner is now on maternity leave so we have a reduced income and would like to try and get the remaining arrears capitalised to the back of the mortgage as i am also due for remortgage and told i will find it almost impossible to get one.

[Karen W]

I also have this same situation - my charges are £54.00 each month which is being added to the mortgage and therefore also having interest charged on it. So far I have had the suspended order since June 2007 and it will take until June 2010 for my arrears to be below the 1 month target where no charge is paid so in total another £1944 added to the mortgage.

 

Does anyone know if this is legal to do especially as the judge only ordered an additional £50.00 per month onto the mortgage payment??

[Markiemark1]

Technically your mortgage payment is due on the contractual date - not at some point during the month. The court cannot alter contractual matters, whether it be the due date or the arrears charge as you agreed to this in the terms when you took the mortgage. I do believe they might be challenged after the bank charges result comes out tho, as whether they are fair may be another matter entirely.

[Paulyx]

Are these charges under the same umberella as the normal Bank Charges? I would have thought like the Credit Card Charges they are not included in the Cases for Bank charges?

Advice please?

[jansus]

It maybe worth looking at posts by Goldlady as I think she said she reclaimed these charges I will see if I can find thread.

[jansus]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/114750-ge-money-secured-loans.html

 

 

sorry have not read thread so not sure if applicable but saw gold lady refer to it on another thread

[nevos]

I hear GE have paid up on most of the claims at the last minute.

[johnny11]

Hi

Unfortunately can't be any help. But I am going through similar.Just thought I would lend moral support and wish you luck. Got a nasty feeling we are going to need it

[Markiemark1]

Personally I think that once the issue regarding bank charges are cleared up these will be the next thing that people look it. The charges are contractual and thus Courts are reluctant to interfere, unless it can be shown they are unfair under the UCTA.

 

But, to help yourselves I really would recommend paying on the due date, rather than at some point in the month.

 

Kind regards

 

RM

[supersleuth]

Hi scedminc

 

Re your post where you state:

 

"received the odd letter saying i am being charged £45 for no sticking to a court order which also does not make sense?"

 

Quite right! It does not make sense and it is illegal. A private institution has NO RIGHT to "fine" you for an alleged failure to comply with a court order. Only the court can fine you for failure to comply with a court order and only when the court is satisfied that you wilfully and contemptously failed to comply.

 

In your case, there is no contempt, as you did all you could reasonably do to comply with the order, i.e. pay it, the only fault was to not pay it on a specific date. Unless the court order states that you HAD to pay it on a specific date, then you cannot have failed to comply with the court order.

 

The bank itself is in contempt of court and in contempt of the court order because the bank has contemptously usurped the court's authority and assume for itself and exercised, powers that only the court can exercise. The bank has NO RIGHT to fine you for an alleged failure to comply with a court order.

 

When you write to them to get a refund, it may be worth mentioning that you reserve the right to use their letters showing that they have fined you for an alleged failure to comply with a court order and that you intend to ask the judge about these points of law.

 

With respect to the excessive charges generally, it is crystal clear from all of the successful CAGGERS who recovered bank charges, that the charges that mortgagors are charged are also unlawful. This is because the excessive charges are PENALTIES. At law, only the court can force people to pay penalties. The law does allow a contractual terms to provide a remedy for the payment of damages (for damages, read charges), however, the contractual payment of damages must be a reasonable estimate of the actual damage suffered (i.e. the cost that the bank actually incurrs). Any charge that is made that is over an above a reasonable estimate of the costs (i.e. the damage suffered by the banks), would be deemed (at law) to be a penalty. Any contractual provision that is a penalty is not valid and not enforceable.

 

The bank charges case law was essentially fought on the grounds that the real cost to the bank (i.e. the reasonable estimate of the damage incurred) of e.g. a returned direct debit was £2 whereas the bank charged the customer £30. Thus the extra £28 was a penalty. Essentially the upshot was that the courts decided that charges could not be more than £12. Hence, most bank charges are now around £12.

 

Therefore, the case law already exists and the legal principles are just as applicable to the "penalty" charges that mortgage lenders apply to its customers in the same vein as it applied to bank customers. Thus, it would seem appropriate that overcharged mortgage borrowers use the same tried and tested arguments and letter proceedures that the overcharged bank customers used.

 

Hope this suggestion helps

Supersleuth

Edited January 10, 2009 by supersleuth
clarification of comments