Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Welcome to the National Consumer Service Buying any goods or any services??? A used car? - Paying by cash or bank transfer??? - BIG Fail!Share the love – Tell a friend about the Consumer Action Group - your National Consumer ServiceAre you buying a used car...? Protect yourself – read our used car guideESSENTIAL:: Read our Customer Services Guide!!!Twitter - Why you should open a Twitter account ESSENTIAL:: Read our Customer Services Guide!!!Have we helped you today...? Please help the CAG Had a car accident? Been offered a courtesy car?Follow @Real_CAG Parcel Delivery Insurance is Unlawful - The TimesWhy don't you change your profile picture?? Problem with utilities company or phone/broadband? Begin by sending a statutory request for your personal data. It’s free    Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.× Financial Legal Issues Complete My Profile Dismiss Next Step: Profile Photo (Profile Photo and Cover Photo) Your profile is 0% complete! Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why… The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini' Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.  You have received a Court Claim ISSUED IN ENGLAND & WALES What you need to do Rate this topic By citizenB March 4, 2014 in Financial Legal Issues style="text-align: center;">     Thread Locked because no one has posted on it for the last 3638 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   citizenB Posted March 4, 2014 #1   The questionnaires below provide important information which will allow us to help you. In order to use them, you will have to copy them into your own post and then give us the answers – preferably in red below each question. You can start by overwriting the prompt: "Give answer here" below each question – and your responses should automatically appear in red   Thank you +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++   You have received a claim form.   firstly - read all the posts in this thread FIRST...   then copy this first msg to your thread - and put your answer after each question   In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us]     Which Court have you received the claim from ? Name County Court   MCOL Northampton N1 ? Manual Claim CCMCC (Salford) ? New beta WWW.MONEYCLAIMS.SERVICE.GOV.UK ?   If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. (not the response page or AOS)     Name of the Claimant ? Give answer here   How many defendant's  joint or self ? Give answer here   Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. Give answer here   ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total   Date of issue XX + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = XX + 14 days to submit defence = XX (33 days in total)  if your defence filing date falls on a W/End, you must file by friday @4PM     Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please type out their particulars of claim in full (verbatim) less any identifiable data and round the amounts up/down. state how many digits the account number has.. Give answer here   What is the total value of the claim? Give answer here   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Give answer here   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Give answer here   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Give answer here Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Give answer here   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? Give answer here   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Give answer here   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Give answer here   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Give answer here   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Give answer here   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Give answer here   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Give answer here   Why did you cease payments? Give answer here   What was the date of your last payment? Give answer here   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Give answer here   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Give answer here   What you need to do now.   Answer the questions above   If you have not already done so – send a CCA request to the claimant for a copy of your agreement (If Applicable) (except for Overdraft/ Mobile/Telephone accounts)   Send a CPR31.14 request to the solicitor named on the claim form for copies of documents mentioned/implied within the claim form. There are two different versions - one for Loans/Credit cards the other for Current accounts   Request 1 - Loans/Credit Cards     Request 2 - Current Accounts     You may use a CPR part 18 request for any other information (not request documents) that you might require in order to defend yourself. Please note that CPR 18 is specifically for Fast Track claims and although technically the claim has yet to be allocated to a track the claimant may refuse to comply for this reason.   If you require CPR Part 18 - this will need to be drafted specifically.   If you are not planning on defending for one reason or another – then you will need to complete an Income and Expenditure form and contact the Solicitor with your proposal. The N9a is already enclosed in the claim pack for Admittance which should be sent to the solicitor named on the claim form   If you are considering making a partial admittance N9b must be completed and returned to the court. Please note in most cases a partial admittance will result in an automatic CCJ for the amount admitted.   You have received a Claim - What you need to do.pdf1.33 MB · 242 downloads     Before Printing the PDF TIP   If you DO NOT wish to print Page 1 (Cover Page) of the PDF, please ensure to do the following:   Ensure you go to your Printer Settings and set it to 'Print from Page 2' (this way Page 1 (Cover Page) should not print out).   Note: This will save you Ink & Paper     Bookmark   Report 3 weeks later...   AndyOrch Posted March 20, 2014 #2   Once you receive a Court Summons N1   As a defendant in a small claims case it is important that you act quickly and do not ignore the claim form when it arrives. Remember, the claim will proceed anyway even if you don’t respond. If the claim goes against you, it will be very difficult to make a counter claim as you didn’t respond to the initial small claim.   You may be unaware that you are the defendant in a small claims case that a Creditor has bought against you. When the small claims form arrives follow these initial steps:   1: Read the Form Carefully   The detail about the claim that is being bought against you will be in the ‘particulars of claim’ section. If this section isn't completed, or has the words ‘particulars of claim to follow’ take no action now and wait until you are sent details of the claim against you. You may want to consult a lawyer at this stage.   2: Respond in Time   It’s vitally important that you respond to the claim for you have been sent. Remember that there is a 19 day (5 +14) time limit on this to acknowledge the claim.You must submit before the 19 days are up, so post your response with plenty of time.If your intention is to defend the claim in full you get a further 14 days to submit your response ...so 33 days in total.   3: Talk to the Claimant   Just because a small claim has been bought against you and a claim form issued, this doesn’t mean you are not allowed to contact the claimant directly. In fact the court encourages you to try and settle the claim without the need for a court appearance. So, try and resolve your dispute directly with the claimant if you can.   Not Responding to a Small Claim   If you ignore the small claims form when it arrives this can have an adverse impact on your financial status. The court will continue with the small claims lawsuit that is being bought against you even in your absence as this is a legal requirement. When the small claim is processed you will be sent a bill showing the amount you owe and any additional costs. The small claims against you is a legal process that will be recorded on the Register of Judgements, Orders and Fines. This information is used to check your credit, so could have a negative impact when you next apply for any credit. To avoid damaging your credit rating reply to your small claims docket as soon as you can.   How to Respond to Your Small Claims Form   When you received your form from the court you will also have been sent a response pack. In this pack you will see the option that are open to you. These include:   • A dispute claim form. You can use this form if you do not agree that you are liable for the small claim being bought against you and wish to submit a Defence. • Details about how to pay the amount being claimed from you. • Details about how to admit to part of the small claim against you, and how you can ask the claimant for more time to pay.   There are Two Types of Small Claims:   Fixed Amounts:   If the claim against you is for a fixed amount of money your response pack will contain three forms. Form N9 (acknowledgement of Service), form N9A (admission form) and N9B (defence and counterclaim form).   Unspecified Amounts:   If the amount being claimed is unspecified you will be sent forms N9 and N9C (admission form) and N9D (defence and counterclaim form). It is vital that you read the accompanying explanatory notes before choosing which form to send back.   Paying the Small Claim   If you want to make full payment of the amount being claimed against you this amount will be shown on the claim for you have been sent, and will also have details about where to send the money. Don’t forget, this must be done within the 14 day time limit or your case will proceed to the next stage.   In some instances you would like to pay, but need more time, you can give details about the delay you would like on form N9A, which should be in your response pack. It’s also a good idea to read leaflet EX309: The Defendant Admits by claim as this gives more details on this aspect of your case when fixed amounts of money are involved. Leaflet EX308 gives details of cases when unspecified amounts are being claimed against you.   Also please read forms EX326 and EX160A   How to Defend a Claim Against You   Disputed claims are handled by filling in the appropriate form from your response pack. You have three choices: Form N9, N9B or N9D. Read the note accompanying each form carefully to ensure you completely correctly. Pay special attention to the allegations raised on the form. If you don’t respond to each the court will assume you are admitting guilt. Edited April 10, 2014 by stu007 Updated PDF added    1   Bookmark   Report 2 months later...   citizenB   Posted June 5, 2014 #3   PLEASE NOTE - WARNING   Once you have received your claim form - the Court timetable comes into force. Not that of the creditor or claimant. If you have requested information with them after the claim has been issued - or have entered into discussion with them and they say something like "We will put this on hold for a period of time". You cannot and must not ignore the timetable from the court.   This thread should serve as an example   http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?416202&p=4547677#post4547677   The OP in the case above was in communication with the CAG Vodafone rep. A claim was issued during this time. The Rep in good faith said he would ask the Claimant to put things on hold.... they did not.. the OP ignored advice from caggers to continue with the court timetable and did not submit a defence. The claimaint obtained a Judgment by default. Edited June 5, 2014 by citizenB     Bookmark   Report 3 yr AndyOrch changed the title to You have received a Court Claim ISSUED IN ENGLAND & WALES What you need to do   style="text-align: center;">     Thread Locked because no one has posted on it for the last 3638 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  This topic is now closed to further replies.  Share Follow3 Go to topic listing Next unread topic Recently Browsing   1 Cagger hugo1963 1,380 Members Viewed hugo1963 4 minutes ago   lolerz 4 hours ago   vicr76 8 hours ago   Moomoo11 Friday at 18:18   London1971 Friday at 11:26   AndyOrch Friday at 11:13   mollie5549 Thursday at 17:21   zyghom Thursday at 13:26   Magnusinfinity May 15   Newdogg06 May 14   Unique May 13   saberguy May 12   Mycathasfleas May 12   WantJustice May 9   Rain clouds May 8   MoltoModerato May 3   George2024 May 1   Badtimes123 April 30   LouLouDev79 April 29   northmonk April 29   mowbli April 29   WornOut55 April 27   paulhn757 April 24   UsedCarMan April 23   robertobaggio April 23   marksheff April 20   anotheruser0000 April 19   TT98 April 18   gatoradeqaz April 17   Murielme2 April 15   Frontera mixup April 11   BreadAndButter April 9   Karalius April 9   nurjeon03 April 9   Penglings April 8   Nick April 8   Edals April 5   thesixco April 1   lifttheveil March 30   dx100uk March 30   Stripeycat March 28   jon8214 March 27   sharkieuk March 25   HappyHolidays March 24   sandokan March 22   SimplyBeyondWords March 22   supernick90 March 20   iyam71 March 20   Nicky Boy March 18   StoryBoard March 18   Myth_007 March 15   kaze March 12   RodeMan March 8   eskimo123 March 7   JEDIKNIGHTS March 6   persha50 March 6   tobzas March 6   lancashirelad93 March 6   HappyDay2222 March 3   1penny March 3   nat8808 March 2   FTMDave March 1   lynzmeek February 25   Mike Mechanic February 25   Ethel Street February 24   Outoftoon February 23   anna may February 22   PJB5 February 22   iamgnome February 21   SweetCaroline February 20   EdinburghDude February 19   Grgw44 February 18   linbren03 February 15   whittymags February 9   flembo45 February 7   comebackjimmy February 6   MontyIsInnocent February 4   libra007 February 1   Eamonn77 January 31   xtonehari January 30   hlh49421 January 30   ceeferace January 29   catscratch January 29   Melbel January 25   Suggababe January 19   yorkshire_lufc January 17   ljrobinson69 January 16   makkyinuk January 15   yogii January 14   MadMat January 12   rocky_sharma January 4   mrskippy21 January 3   lookinforinfo December 29, 2023   europa16 December 28, 2023   MrsSl December 27, 2023   KP44UK December 23, 2023   Montego December 22, 2023   Worazz December 21, 2023   StopTheBullies December 21, 2023   hitman126 December 20, 2023   +1280 More   Have we helped you ...?                     Contact Us   Cookies Copyright Reclaim the Right Ltd - reg: 05783665Powered by Invision Community IPS spam blocked by CleanTalk.  
    • ITV News have got hold of an email and recording of a phone call between Vennells and Ron Warmington of Second Sight. People in the know are saying it's smoking gun everyone's been looking for. I love that this has come out the day before she appears at the inquiry. This should be interesting under oath. Paula Vennells' 'smoking gun' email reveals Post Office 'cover-up' | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM ITV News has acquired an email and recording of a phone call that suggests the former Post Office boss was aware of issues with the Horizon system...  
    • I think you may as well take the opportunity in your letter to tell them that if they won't take responsibility for it then you will see quotations for the repair, provide copies of the quotations to them and then proceed with your own repair and recover the money back from them in the courts if necessary. Separately, can I ask you whether this is the car that you then bought unseen and at some distance from you? Has it come with an MOT and if so what date was the MOT and who gave it the MOT? Have you read our used car guide
  • 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

Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4512 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

If the mortgages are put into a securitisation pool and the lender gets the full value which they do, because the bond holders only get some of the interest we pay ie, 7% they get say 3%,

THEN and this is the part, the ERC can NOT be any loss to the lender or the bond holder as they have NOT lost any money in the deal

 

The lenders appear to argue that you entered into a contract to pay (using the above) 7% interest, for whatever period of time (be it 2,3 or five years)

 

Therefore the amount payable by you under that contact is £xxx

However, if you redeem your mortgage early, you have only paid £xxx

 

Which means that the amount payable under the contract is reduced and represents a loss. The ability to redeem your mortgage, is a contractual right and the lenders argue that the ERC is a fee payable to exercise that right.

 

They argue that as it is a contracual right to redeem your mortgage, the ERC is therefore not a penalty for breach of contract.

 

It would appear that the High Court accepted this argument.

 

 

Now, I am not saying this is right, as I personally don't agree with ERC's. However, I have posted this answer to nip this in the bud now, so that you don't keep asking the same question over and over again.:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The lenders appear to argue that you entered into a contract to pay (using the above) 7% interest, for whatever period of time (be it 2,3 or five years)

 

Therefore the amount payable by you under that contact is £xxx

However, if you redeem your mortgage early, you have only paid £xxx

 

Which means that the amount payable under the contract is reduced and represents a loss. The ability to redeem your mortgage, is a contractual right and the lenders argue that the ERC is a fee payable to exercise that right.

 

They argue that as it is a contracual right to redeem your mortgage, the ERC is therefore not a penalty for breach of contract.

 

It would appear that the High Court accepted this argument.

 

 

Now, I am not saying this is right, as I personally don't agree with ERC's. However, I have posted this answer to nip this in the bud now, so that you don't keep asking the same question over and over again.:cool:

 

 

 

Now that you have explained quite throughly that IS IT ME..cannot reclaim his ERC...would you mind having a look at mine and seeing if I can? :D:D:D:D

 

Sorry, only kidding :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortgages are not subject to the Banking Code. In relation to the applicable rules, it would depend if it was pre or post 31 October 2004. (I need to have a quick read of them, it has been a while)

Wow, been away a while and behold, some 112 posts later, the thread continues to thrive.

 

In regard to applicable code of conduct rules, JC/Suetonius you may want to have a look at the Mortgage Conduct of Business (MCOB) rules and also the FSA handbook since they regulate the lenders.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel61/rel61mcob.pdf

and

HTML REDIRECT

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, Seutonius, Littledotty, uneverdid, Scedminc, Supersleuth et al, and me - we're just a waste of time :D

Oi, you forgot to mention moi!!!:p

What about all me dandy contributes...or should I keep 'em to meself going forward :D

 

lol

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again it states that all legal rights have been transferred though.

Where does it state this O wee diligent one?;)

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, been away a while and behold, some 112 posts later, the thread continues to thrive.

 

In regard to applicable code of conduct rules, JC/Suetonius you may want to have a look at the Mortgage Conduct of Business (MCOB) rules and also the FSA handbook since they regulate the lenders.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel61/rel61mcob.pdf

and

HTML REDIRECT

 

Hello Bustthematrix,

 

I know there is no stopping this thread :-)

 

This is post 566 (MCOB rules are part of the FSA Handbook)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to sounds like the mutual appreciation society, but I feel the comments made by JC in relation to "unfair relationships" rather than Superslueth's legal title arguments are the way to proceed.

......

However, if we look at the unfair relationship angle, there are valid points that can be made.

......

It is does, then the securitisation process would have had an adverse effect on the lender borrower relationship.

Fabulocious. Another stream develops...I think most of us on here have been of the mind that unfair relationships exist and certain 'decencies' have been breached. We were just looking for it's form.

 

It's interesting to note that in the US, they've not just been using the 'produce the note' strategy but also something called the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). See Re: Cancel your Mortgage! Discover the Power of T.I.L.A.!

 

To my knowledge (or ignorance:D) the TILA does not exist in the same format in the UK but the same principles of fairness, equity, consumer protection etc - which it addresses are echoed in various bodies of legislation over here. Pointers to some of these may be found in posts #566 and #598.

 

I think this could be a promising area for further investigation for points where lenders may have breached the rules. In the US, claimants assert that lenders regularly perpetrate 20 or more violations of TILA and it is on that basis that they bring successful claims - and usually negotiate down debts and obtain better terms. It would not suprise me to find out that outright contract cancellations have taken place and lenders have had to walk away. ;)

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bustthematrix,

 

I know there is no stopping this thread :-)

 

This is post 566 (MCOB rules are part of the FSA Handbook)

 

Haha don't think I'd read your post 566 when I posted mine...sorrreee

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry about it, I think there is something "secret" going on there :cool:

aahhh the plot thickens...

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue,

I find your post most rude and some think which belittles this site.

 

I have the RIGHT to ask questions and NOT to be made fun of or made fun of.

I said once before I think you work for one of the lenders or in the money market your posts have only strenthed this.

As you have not put any thought or answers on how people can fright repo's just make fun of them.

Well I HAVE COME UP AGAINST JUDGE KAY qc if you looked at his chambers profile it answers a question and I FOR ONE HAVE HAD ONE OF HIS DICISSIONS OVER TURNED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

There is also an appeal going though the courts at this time on his dicission as when the borrower has to redeem the mortgage because of a repo it is NOT the same as there right to redeem.

 

I just wish you would put in as much efornt into doing something to help people fright lenders as you do to being rude.:evil::evil::evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue,

I find your post most rude and some think which belittles this site.

 

I have the RIGHT to ask questions and NOT to be made fun of or made fun of.

I said once before I think you work for one of the lenders or in the money market your posts have only strenthed this.

As you have not put any thought or answers on how people can fright repo's just make fun of them.

Well I HAVE COME UP AGAINST JUDGE KAY qc if you looked at his chambers profile it answers a question and I FOR ONE HAVE HAD ONE OF HIS DICISSIONS OVER TURNED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

There is also an appeal going though the courts at this time on his dicission as when the borrower has to redeem the mortgage because of a repo it is NOT the same as there right to redeem.

 

I just wish you would put in as much efornt into doing something to help people fright lenders as you do to being rude.:evil::evil::evil:

 

I guess I won't be getting any reps points from you then ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Joncris, sorry I took a day off yesterday.

 

I was under the understanding (more likely misunderstanding) that the indemnity principle was in relation to costs.

 

Not just costs but also damages. There has to have been a genuine loss for there to be a liability

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IS IT ME if there's an appeal would it not be better to wait until it's heard?

 

& that way you could possibly then even invoke the unfair relationship angle as the OFT indicated some months ago they ain't happy with the terms of ERC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fabulocious. Another stream develops...I think most of us on here have been of the mind that unfair relationships exist and certain 'decencies' have been breached. We were just looking for it's form.

 

It's interesting to note that in the US, they've not just been using the 'produce the note' strategy but also something called the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). See Re: Cancel your Mortgage! Discover the Power of T.I.L.A.!

 

To my knowledge (or ignorance:D) the TILA does not exist in the same format in the UK but the same principles of fairness, equity, consumer protection etc - which it addresses are echoed in various bodies of legislation over here. Pointers to some of these may be found in posts #566 and #598.

 

 

I think this could be a promising area for further investigation for points where lenders may have breached the rules. In the US, claimants assert that lenders regularly perpetrate 20 or more violations of TILA and it is on that basis that they bring successful claims - and usually negotiate down debts and obtain better terms. It would not suprise me to find out that outright contract cancellations have taken place and lenders have had to walk away. ;)

 

Now I have more reading up to do :eek:

Edited by Suetonius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just costs but also damages. There has to have been a genuine loss for there to be a liability

 

Good Evening, JonCris,

 

Thanks, I thought there must have been more to it, I was only going by the Supreme Courts Costs Guide.

 

2.6 The Indemnity Principle The principle is that a successful party cannot recover from an unsuccessful party more by way of costs than the successful party is liable to pay his or her legal representatives. There are several exceptions to the principle including the statutory exceptions concerning legal aid and conditional fee agreements. There have been calls for the total abolition of the principle. Unless and until that occurs the following three propositions continue to apply: (i) A party in whose favour an order for costs has been made may not recover more than he is liable to pay his own solicitors: Harold v SmithGundry v Sainsbury [1865] H&N 381 at 385 and [1910] 1KB 645 CA. (ii) Where a party puts a statement of costs before the court for summary assessment that statement must be signed by the party or a legal representative. The form states: "The costs estimated above do not exceed the costs which the [party] is liable to pay in respect of the work which this estimate covers." (iii) The signature of a statement of costs or a bill for detailed assessment by a solicitor is in normal circumstances sufficient to enable the court to be satisfied that the indemnity principle has not been breached in respect of costs payable under a conventional bill: Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 570 CA. However, the same may not be true in respect of costs payable under a conditional fee agreement: Hollins v Russell [2003] 1 WLR 2487.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue,

I find your post most rude and some think which belittles this site.

 

I have the RIGHT to ask questions and NOT to be made fun of or made fun of. I said once before I think you work for one of the lenders or in the money market your posts have only strenthed this.

As you have not put any thought or answers on how people can fright repo's just make fun of them.

 

 

However, if we look at the unfair relationship angle, there are valid points that can be made.

 

Lets look at the information that is publically avaliable (prospectus)

 

"If, following a Product Switch of any Mortgage Loan in the Mortgage

Portfolio, such Mortgage Loan has caused the Seller, as a result of such Product Switch, to be in breach of any of the applicable representations and warranties and/or conditions contained in the Mortgage Sale Agreement, the Seller will, in accordance with and pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, be required to repurchase such Mortgage Loan from the Mortgages Trust on the immediately following Trust Determination Date."

 

This basically means that if a lender offers a fixed, tracker or discount rate etc (product / rate switch) to a consumer and that offer is accepted. The lender must buy back the equitable interest of that individual mortgage.

 

Now the question is, would this requirement make a lender less willing to offer a product switch if the mortgage had been securitised ?

 

It is does, then the securitisation process would have had an adverse effect on the lender borrower relationship.

 

Well I HAVE COME UP AGAINST JUDGE KAY qc if you looked at his chambers profile it answers a question and I FOR ONE HAVE HAD ONE OF HIS DICISSIONS OVER TURNED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. There is also an appeal going though the courts at this time on his dicission as when the borrower has to redeem the mortgage because of a repo it is NOT the same as there right to redeem.

 

As I don't know who you are that would be a little difficult. There have already been cases where the ERC has been refunded following repossession. However, as I understand it, in your own circumstances there were repossession proceedings but your home was not repossessed.

 

As you do not appear to have a thread on this topic, I have only been able to gain a limited amout of information. However, it would appear that the outcome was that you remortgaged.

 

I just wish you would put in as much efornt into doing something to help people fright lenders as you do to being rude.:evil::evil::evil:

 

Mr Capital Letters 2009, is call moi rude ????

 

I think you need to review the way you ask questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is very very important in the way you explain things to people that can make the world of a difference. This thread has become like good cop (JonCris) bad cop (Sue).

I think giving blunt answers can sometimes appear to be a bit rude even if not made intentionally,

Your everyday guy/gal does not understand the rules & regs of the finance/banking industry, or the true in's and outs of mortgages. And for this reason we have been used and abused by the finance and banking world so that they could make a gain for themselves. That's why the world is in the toilet at the moment. So if anyone can give any suggestions on how we can climb out of it great if not then please choose your words carefully because people are suffering at this preasent time and I know what it feels like to made fun of.

I think JonCris uses his words very wisely and maybe some of us can learn a few things from him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fretfull, I understand what you say, but what you have here is distinct styles. JonCris is short and to the point, but you do not see the depth of research shown by Suetonius to back up his points. I'm not taking any sides here, but both are valuable in their own way. What I see Suetonius doing is putting the positions people take to proof...whereas JonCris will come in at a different juncture.

 

I witness Supersleuth putting forward a very convincing and compassionate case with considerable merit, Suetonius on the other hand plays devils advocate and puts it to the test, and no, some people don't like being put to the test on their convictions, but what would you prefer, an intellectual challenge on Cag free of charge with a few dented ego's or feelings or to see someone take an unresearched, ill thought out legal stand in a court which might cost them tens of thousands of pounds or possibly losing their home? - Let these debates get heated, I know Seutonius and the way he works - he is one of us as is JonCris and I know all he wants to achieve is the real legal position and if that even tests Carmel Butler herself so be it as it just strengthens their own position by knowing, free of charge what might be fired at them by a real lawyer in court. We are all stronger for everyones contribution from IS IT ME to joe blogs and believe me, no-one is trying to make fun of anyone, this is not a funny subject and perhaps if it could be seen that seutonius sees how serious it is and is just making sure nobody goes in blind then I think this whole debate will move forward better.

 

Just my own thoughts. SC

Edited by Smarterchick
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...