Carmel Butler / House of Commons

[Redfish]

Hi all,

 

I thought it would be a good idea to revisit our old friend the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). I think there is even wider scope than there was in the bank charges cases which relied almost exclusively on 2 (e). Some of these may even apply, very obliquely I concede, to the CB arguments, not centrally on securitisation but on the logic that develops from securitisation in the way we, as consumers of these god-awful products, are treated.

 

 

 

(i) binding the consumer by terms that he could not readily have known when the contract was made;

 

Enoughisenough - I have started thinking along these lines too now that I have given up taking securitisation head-on. I do think there should be some mileage in this...particularly I am looking at how mortgage lenders have Standard Variable Rates that no one can fathom, they keep them obscure and when your fixed rate runs out you are totally vulnerable ... I really think this should fall in the unfair terms remit ... and the fact that behind it lurks securitisation as the likely reason for this lack of disclosure, it kind of gives it a bit of meat for an argument.

 

But it troubles me that to test any of this out we might get ourselves into a sticky situation where the lender might retaliate by repossession proceedings ... so I am considering a letter to my MP to sound this out, haven't still got the wording worked out on that yet though. Don't know how else to proceed to be honest. I have an existing complaint to the FOS about my current mortage rate not tracking the BoE rate - I hope if there is a positive outcome to this complaint it might shed some light on the unfair terms legislation (which sadly I didn't know about when I complained)...but then I won't hold my breath, as seeing posts elsewhere on various consumer forums show that the FOS adjudication isn't what it should be.

 

Anyway, I do think to link securitisation in with the motivation behind unfair terms might be a way forward.

[JonCris]

I know I keep banging on about it but everyone should take serious a look at fighting these bums by using the UCCR - The best argument would be IMHO that the contract you entered into at the beginning has no relation to the one that exists when your mortgage is securitized without your knowledge or 'informed' consent - the protections & the codes under which you thought & where led to believe they operated for your protection went when your mortgage was sold & you only discovered this at a time of financial crisis

[enoughisenough]

Hi Jc

 

keep on banging on by all means. You won't be upsetting me anytime soon with this line of argument. The actual performance of the contracts is at such variance with our reasonable expectations that I am closely looking into the law of misrepresentation and voidability of contracts and will report back soon. A fine supper clearly works wonders for a gentlemen's clarity of argument!

 

Redfish.

 

With respect securitisation has not been pronounced dead yet. So don't be holding any wakes yet. Not on this thread leastways.

[andrew1]

I know I keep banging on about it but everyone should take serious a look at fighting these bums by using the UCCR - The best argument would be IMHO that the contract you entered into at the beginning has no relation to the one that exists when your mortgage is securitized without your knowledge or 'informed' consent - the protections & the codes under which you thought & where led to believe they operated for your protection went when your mortgage was sold & you only discovered this at a time of financial crisis

 

JC, would you still use the same enthusiasm when distinguishing between Suetonious's argument of ' Equitable assignment' (which most of the High St lenders purport to be using) and the ' Legal Assignment ' which those chasing SPML/Preferred ?

 

Redfish, you are trying to convert the converted, imparting knowledge from what ever source is what I and this forum is about, I'm not knocking that, I'm just saying be careful in not passing things on in a public forum which someone might have passed on in Private Messages or on Private threads from other forum set up to keep the trolls at bay and I think you know exactly what I mean there. Anyway, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet, I'm not getting at you, far from it, I've learn't all my tricks from the forum so I have no complaints there. I'm as interested in your take on things as much as anyone else's-I can learn from you too! sorry I'll keep to the thread theme now...

[JonCris]

Hi Jc

 

keep on banging on by all means. You won't be upsetting me anytime soon with this line of argument. The actual performance of the contracts is at such variance with our reasonable expectations that I am closely looking into the law of misrepresentation and voidability of contracts and will report back soon. A fine supper clearly works wonders for a gentlemen's clarity of argument!

 

Redfish.

 

With respect securitisation has not been pronounced dead yet. So don't be holding any wakes yet. Not on this thread leastways.

 

I agree not by a long way - I mention the UCCT because, & not wanting to sound condescending, but it's easier for the LiP to grasp whereas the securitization argument is a much harder needle to thread in that the courts simply accept the lenders interpretation of their own worded contracts without considering that by doing so the lenders have effectively opted out of the law & until we get a court of significance to recognise this simple fact I fear it will remain an uphill struggle

 

Nevertheless in some cases we do appear to be giving them cause for concern & even the occasional bloody nose - so as young Mr Grace would say keep up the good work won't you

[enoughisenough]

Hi JC

 

point of clarification. The securitisation comment was aimed at Redfish who has suggested if is dead in water I beg to differ. Got your pm and agree. However I have 2 reservations I will post you about later.

 

EIE.

[JonCris]

I know I was supporting you "it ain't yet dead"

[enoughisenough]

[enoughisenough]

SUB PRIME MORTGAGES

 

 

HOUSE OF COMMONS TREASURY SELECT COMMITTEE CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Hi all,

 

This represents a very important opportunity to raise the public profile of what has been happening to you since you took out one of these mortgages. Whilst our political class has never been held in such low esteem the Treasury select committee is chaired by someone who doesn't pull any punches and wants to get to the bottom of this.

 

Part of the problem and therefore the cynicism about Westminster is their remoteness from the real world.

 

This is YOUR opportunity to give it to them. Remember that the bankers will be busy gathering their stuff in order to whitewash the whole inquiry. They will have been faxed with this press release before you and I even knew that the TSC were looking into this. CB did her stuff alone in Feb and look at the impact that had. We can't rely on individual pressure alone and hope that someone can pull it altogether for us.

 

Massive collective consumer response is the only way to bring these vultures to account.

 

 

WE HAVE TO WORK COLLECTIVELY

 

 

If you care, not only about yourself, but the state of the world you find yourself in, and the world your kids will grow up in, you should, with all due urgency make your submission.

 

There are strict rules about how to do so but nonetheless I'd rather submit before the high court of parliament who want to hear what we have to say than the local county court which may or may not give a toss despite the fact that EU law mandates they do.

 

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING

 

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COVER THE WHOLE REMIT JUST THE PARTS THAT APPLY TO YOU

 

MAINLY I PRESUME THE MIDDLE ONE ON SUB PRIME

 

DO NOT BE AFRAID OF GIVING YOUR NAME OR ADDRESS

 

THE BANKS ARE COMING AFTER US ALL ANYWAY AND IN ANY CASE THE SUBMISSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

 

If you want to do ths but have any concerns please post on open. Do not PM as if there is a massive take up on this I will not be able to cope and respond adequately or in a timely fashion.

 

I am putting this together after an exhausting day at work. If there are any errors I will try to correct them at some point tomorrow.

 

OK Peeps. Here's the link. They want to know from YOU! Just write as you would on open post and list 12345 what they have done. Just one last thing. Nothing, and I mean nothing, that could identify you should be posted on open.

 

UK Parliament - TC0809PN47

[Redfish]

With respect securitisation has not been pronounced dead yet. So don't be holding any wakes yet. Not on this thread leastways.

 

I really hope you are right EIE and we can get something out of this, it did my head in reading up on the stuff ... glad you are digging

[enoughisenough]

In making your submission the following format should be observed

 

 

1. Give your Name

2. Give your Address

3. Give your Phone Number

4. HEAD THE SUBMISSION - something like

 

 

SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS DEPARTMENTAL SELECT COMMITTEE FOR THE TREASURY

 

INQUIRY INTO MORTGAGE ARREARS AND ACCESS TO MORTGAGE FINANCE

 

CHAIRED BY THE RIGHT HONOROUBLE JOHN MCFALL, M.P.

 

Next page:

 

Indicate whether you are willing to be called as a witness before the Treasury Select Committee. This will main making yourself available to go to parliament and you won't get any expenses. I'm guessing that for most of you the answer will be no.

 

Next page

 

If your case is currently subject to court proceedings - most of us are - then you MUST make a statement to this effect. THis will not and cannot effect your case but you must let the TSC know.

 

something like this:

 

The facts submitted before the treasury select committee in this submission are currently subject to a possession claim (Number) in XXX County Court. The current status of this claim is that a suspended possession order has been made by the District Judge in this case.

 

Main body should go something like this.

 

Executive Summary

 

This should be 200-250 words max summarising the main arguments, maybe something along the lines of: (THIS IS NOT PERFECT AND SHOULD NOT BE COPIED AND PASTED. YOU SHOULD PROVIDE YOUR OWN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)

 

The following submission, in response to the Treasury Select Committee's call for submissions, made 17th June, 2009 lays before the committee evidence of widespread consumer detriment experienced as a result of practices in the 'sub-prime' mortgage market which are systemic, and more often than not, unlawful. The overall consequence of these widespread practices is that consumers are being harrassed, serially and unlawfully overcharged, treated with contempt and subject to reprisals when making complaint and are then ultimately and often unlawfully repossessed, in addition to which the equity is then stripped from their homes with hugely disproportionate early redemption charges, following on from repossession. Evidence will also be brought forward to show that The FSA has failed in its duty to regulate effectively these firms, that the FOS is too slow to act on consumer complaints and enforce the regulations in this area, and that the courts themselves consistently fail in their duty to examine the fairness of standard terms in this contracts as they are mandated by virtue of ECJ ruling whatever the number is! (I'll edit this later!)

 

Next page.

 

1. Who you are what you do when you took the sub prime garbage out who with, any subsequent closures and transfers and that fact that it is now administered by Crapstone. This is most of us on these threads.

 

2. Then lay out your paragraphs in numbered fashion. GO for it!

 

3. Go for it Some More

 

4. Put in all their charges

 

5. Put in all their lies

 

6. Put in all their harrassment

 

7. Put in their woeful compliance record with SARS

 

8. Put in what they charge you in interest.

 

9. Put in all their 'FEES' garbage

 

10. Put in all their unreasonable and bullying.

 

11. JUST THROW THE BLOODY KITCHEN SINK AT THEM WHILE YOU'VE STILL GOT A HOUSE WITH A KITCHEN.

 

If they want our houses they are going to have to work for them and that means putting them under intense public and official scrutiny to justify what they are doing. And what they do is not only a little bit unsavoury it is unlawful across the board

 

MAKE SURE THE TSC IS AWARE OF THIS

 

Finally don't worry if you are not confident about how to express yourself. Others can help and ultimately the point is not whether its beautifully written. The point is that you write it at all. Let the TSC what they are doing to you and your family. Make the government ministers squirm when all this is put to them. We don't have second homes and we no longer even enjoy the protection of the courts.

 

Keep the faith.

 

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH (EIE)

[JonCris]

Don't forget to remark that you read all the time about the 'assurances' these companies give to the various regulators to behave or be sympathetic to borrowers in difficulty yet none appears to apply to your situation as your creditor continues on regardless of said public assurances

[Crapstone]

If you have a suspended repo. then throw in that it should not have been allowed under the terms that Capstone accepted it under or what the court allowed, when they knew that their fees would outweigh the gain of the mortgagee. You've been misled if you think that £50 on top of your normal payments is going to reduce your 'arrears' if they continue to apply fees and your arrears consisted of fees in the first place.

 

That £1000 in arrears is going to take 20 months to pay off at a basic rate of £50 per month but then you add on the legal fees, fees applied to the account and interest. Then you add on the fees that they charge you later.. instead of enforcing the repo. order they add on management fees of £115, so your £50 doesn't count for nowt other than your arrears going up by £65 per month plus interest. If you are lucky they add it on to the balance owing but where will that leave you when the time comes to settle the mortgage?

 

The courts clearly state an amount to be paid on top of the regular payments when a suspended repo is given. They allow for interest and legal costs. They DO NOT allow for fees to be added as the claimant has the option to enforce the order should the mortgagee fall behind with payments.

 

It's unfair in anyones book if a payment falls short of their 1 month or 1/3 criteria and they apply a fee of £115. How can they? The court didn't allow it. It's a pay up or else you could lose your home, not a pay up or else SPML can keep adding on charges until they eat away all your equity and then go for the kill.

 

The court orders you to pay X on top of your regular payments. The contract has been breached and is now subject to the court order. Any variation needs to go before the court.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Crapstone

[JonCris]

Something to include in your argument

 

" I intend to invoke the argument of 'force majeure' namely that the terms that existed at the beginning when the contract was agreed no longer apply having been considerably altered without my consent or indeed knowledge"

[enoughisenough]

Good afternoon.

 

This might well be of use in respect of the charges line of attack. Yet further evidence that the county court judges are way out of their depth or are wilfully ignoring binding high court decisions. To my untrained legal eye this appears to be ratio NOT obiter although they can be difficult to distinguish in practice.

 

Halliday vs Hbos 2006 (Mr. Justice Underhill)

 

"authorities do not give comfort in the case of banker customer relations to insert implied terms. It remains the case that the courts will only imply what is necessary to do so. ... The particular term must be necessary. I can find no necessity in the term the appellant seeks to imply. The custmer has a right to the charges any interest deducted qnda right to claim for stutory interest provided he brings proceedings to recover them"

Edited June 22, 2009 by enoughisenough

[Crapstone]

It seems to me too that it's ratio as they infer that 'they' can find no reason rather than following on as you would expect in obiter.

 

Judges are so far removed for the land of the living it's unbelievable that such medieval practices take place, but of course they are self-ruling. It's a pity the 'man on the omnibus' can't set his own wages or pension.

 

The courts are supposed to be 'user friendly' but it's just not happening or at least not for us.

 

Keep smiling folks.

[enoughisenough]

hi crapstone,

 

We'll find out how consumer friendly or otherwise the house of lords is in about three hours. This is a very big day for all consumers. If the banks lose this they are considering going to the eu. How ironic is that?

 

The ecj will flippin maul them. There's also the wider fall out on unfair terms and the fact that the fsa knows its little 'gentlemans agreement' days are numbered.

[enoughisenough]

Check out andrew 1's post on the spml / London thread concerning the fsa's newly acquired gnashers. Anyone know who the four firms being investgated are? Not that it matters so much, just curious!

[Suetonius]

Check out andrew 1's post on the spml / London thread concerning the fsa's newly acquired gnashers. Anyone know who the four firms being investgated are? Not that it matters so much, just curious!

 

One has many hats and is known to many;)

[Suetonius]

We'll find out how consumer friendly or otherwise the house of lords is in about three hours.

 

Isn't it a three day hearing EIE, with judgement to be made at a later date ?

[enoughisenough]

TBH I don't know, but if that's the timetable all well and good. I have seen the lords simply say yea or nay and the others say agree or disagree but I accept your account of what the procedure is. The point is then not so much the when but the what.

[scedminc]

Yes it is a 3 day hearing with the banks speaking today and half tomorrow to start.

[Lloyds Defender]

I think Supersleuth is taking a sabbatical..all will unfold in due course.

 

Lloyds D..thanks for that, can I take it that the DD has to still be in operation? This wouldn't be able to be done on DD's that have since lapsed?

 

Sorry for the delay replying on here, been busy.

To answer your question Andrew, it does not matter, even if the account has been closed you can request that the account be fully reinstated as a friend of mine did only last week, he then put his claim in and has received over £5,500.

[enoughisenough]

Apparently the FSA will not say which firms are being investigated while they are being investigated. But I think we can all hazard a guess that they could be the ones identifies in the mail on sunday article here.

 

Haunted by the ghost lenders behind string of repossessions | Mail Online

 

The following is also a good read:

 

Banks are still a bunch of parasites

[Lloyds Defender]

Just a thought but has anyone actually found a firm of Solicitors who will actually take these cretins on yet?

And an observation based on my personal experience, I wish everyone the very best of luck who are trying to deal with these matters as a litigant in person, as touched on above in this thread “Judges” will and regularly do ignore the law. My defence, which referred to The Bill of Rights Act 1689 the Human Rights Act critical facts in my case and much much more was struck out WITHOUT THE JUDGE READING IT!!!!! So please please please don’t think you are going into court to have your case looked at by a fair judge, they are part of the system that is designed to shaft us all.

The “Judge” actually declared more than 5 times that he had not had chance to read my defence but chose to strike it out. Now when I try to get a “solicitor” or barrister to look at my case (even a barrister who was recommended to my by someone on this thread!) they are not interested.

Consider and think about this philosophy “when someone has got you by the ball your in a perfect position to pee on them”.

If anyone does know of a firm of Solicitors who have a back bone then please post their details on here.

One final example you should all consider very carefully, the law has been set by parliament for benefits, the amounts that benefits agencies all over the country (over 460) are set out very clearly and they are “supposed” to abide by the LAW. However, I have discovered recently that every single one of them use a guide book, this guide book has different figures to the LAW passed by parliament. The net result is that hundreds of thousands of people are not getting the correct benefit. However, upon pointing this out to a tribunal Judge recently the Judge and representative from the benefits agency were more concerned about having to reprint the guide books that the £billions they have been shafting the very people who need it most. And of course found in favour of them!!!