Sub Prime Mortgages Call For Evidence Before The Treasury Select Committee

[enoughisenough]

They hate the internet by the way. And I mean really hate it.

 

People spend more time on line now than they do watching mind crushing car crash I'm a celebrity gardener cook, talent xfactor, millionaire pet rescue.

 

They don't like that fact very much either.

[ChargeBiter]

Thanks EiE

 

As I said im enquiring about a few thing, Cant say as ill get everything together in time before the deadline, as we all know real life problems keep us so busy!!!.

 

All we need is for more to step forward and do what we have all done here - its just getting enough people to visit this site (imparticular this page).

 

Ill post what I can wherever I can in the meantime and see if it helps.

 

As to the article - if we all make it as hard as possible for these people to get away with then that all we can do for now. Until the time comes that someone drops on them. I know from my enquiries and experiences that most of these types of organisations have multiple fronts.

 

Keep on with the fight ppl, whichever way it goes.

[JonCris]

re: Repossession (or anywhere else this could apply;))

 

I wonder has anyone thought of arguing 'FORCE MAJEURE’ in that because of loan securitization the terms & safeguards such as an adherence to the various codes of practice that existed at the beginning when the original contract was agreed no longer apply - that the contract has altered considerably to the borrowers utter detriment entirely without their knowledge or informed consent

 

It may be argued that the terms allow the lender to sell/off load the account or even alter the terms but contrary to any natural justice there is absolutely no mention that it will be to the entire detriment of the borrower. IMHO a borrower lay person would rightly expect that any transfer/sale would at least offer the same protections as the previous one whereas in these cases it's anything but

[JonCris]

I'm afraid the problem with the press is that when you begin to explain the machinations of the lenders, even in the simplest of terms, you can see their eyes cloud over after about 2 minutes the reason they doubt there's much sympathy amongst their readers for the feckless dispossessed & there's no sound bite such as " home owner commits suicide" etc without explaining the reason why which is not the 'missed' payments & repo but that all to often the 'missed' payments are manufactured - yet despite all that has happened in the world of finance they (& their lawyers) still refuse to believe that lenders could be so dishonest as to forge the evidence even I might add when it's put in front of them

 

The MP's expenses whilst a scandal is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these shenanigans

 

Any that are now showing some interest are those who realize that this situation can now befall almost anyone & not just the poor

Edited July 3, 2009 by JonCris

[enoughisenough]

Hi joncris

 

re your force majeure post I totally agree. This is why I keep using the term operation of the contract. The operation is so at variance with the reasonable expectations of the average consumer and so detrimental to the cocept of fairness that there must be grounds for rescission. I'm not sure however that the district judges are going to be overly sympathetic to the argument preferring the old skool line of how much are the arrears and what can you afford. Perhaps as a last blast I might just say I can't afford it as I'm being held to ransom. Could this qualify as duress?

[JonCris]

I doubt it - however I suggest this not in the hope of rescinding the contract but in the hope that, at this stage anyway, the court will take into account not only the disparity between the parties but also the unfairness of the present contract & therefore be much more sympathetic to the borrower & exercised into finding more ways that allow them to keep their homes

[enoughisenough]

A very fair point. Keep up the good work.

[Trudy B]

BBC Parliament (Sky 504) are broadcasting 2 hours of the TSC Mortgage Arrears Committee at 6pm today

T

[JonCris]

BBC Parliament (Sky 504) are broadcasting 2 hours of the TSC Mortgage Arrears Committee at 6pm today

 

T

 

 

Yup watching it now load of guff:mad:

[enoughisenough]

Hi JonCris

 

could you possibly draw up a list of the enemy's spin and the committee's approach and pm it to me. I have a strong feeling I may get called but have unfortunately suffered an unexpected bereavment which is going to put me out of the loop for about a week.

[Crapstone]

Hi joncris

 

re your force majeure post I totally agree. This is why I keep using the term operation of the contract. The operation is so at variance with the reasonable expectations of the average consumer and so detrimental to the cocept of fairness that there must be grounds for rescission. I'm not sure however that the district judges are going to be overly sympathetic to the argument preferring the old skool line of how much are the arrears and what can you afford. Perhaps as a last blast I might just say I can't afford it as I'm being held to ransom. Could this qualify as duress?

 

I believe that to use 'duress' it has to be a major issue and under direct threat, usually physical violence. As you are free to seek legal help I doubt that would work. But I do know what you mean about being blackmailed into paying the arrears at the cost of all else.

[Crapstone]

Hi - my understanding (following valuable info from Carmel) is that breaching the court order applies to both sides. My lender is doing same thing, but, as the breach involves adding more charges I also believe that no-one can get a repo order based on fees and charges, only what is owed in actual payments - which has always had me wondering whether interest is being calculated with these erroneous sums included? (hope that makes sense)....

 

 

I used this in my original defence against my lender:

Residential Mortgage Repossessions and The Administration of Justice Acts, 1970 and 1973 – A case for Reform. L. M Clements, B.A., LL.M, Lecturer in Law, University of Hull.

 

“It is widely recognised that mortgage finance is extremely important to our economy and that it should continue to be freely available to persons having a broad spectrum of incomes. In order to ensure that this continues to be the case, Banks, Building Societies and other secured lenders clearly need assurances that their security is relatively safe. Nevertheless, the trend towards owner-occupation and the economic misfortunes of the past raise the issue whether increased protection should be given to mortgagors of residential property. Mortgagors do need protection not only against lenders who use their commercial weight to advantage, but also against external factors such as the consequences of economic recession. This article examines the current problems with mortgage repossessions and argue that reform is needed which will guarantee to mortgagors the protection of a court order in line with the protection afforded to residential tenants, whilst at the same time giving increased powers to the court in possession proceedings”…”There is no doubt that the State has played an important role in encouraging home ownership; but, having been encouraged to enter into home ownership by the State, mortgagors are then reasonably entitled to expect some degree of legal protection from the State. This is particularly the case when outside factors over which individuals have no control lead to wide-spread hardship and homelessness”.

The rights in the tenancy area being different.

Clements, 'Residential Mortgage Repossessions and The Administration of Justice Acts, 1970 and 1973 - A case for Reform.'

 

Hi Campari2,

 

Interest will have been added to the fees charged and once removed the whole sum has to be recalculated again.

[Crapstone]

Thanks Suetonius,

 

It was worth a look and considering the wider implications avenue.

 

I'd like to ask your thoughts on court orders and waivers of the terms by the claimant. Would a non-waiver clause still be effective or would they have to apply for a variation?

 

As an example; If a claimant was granted a suspended repossession order and the defendent was required to meet the terms imposed by the judge. If the defendent or claimant vary those terms without court consent is it a breach of the order? Particularly in the case of the claimant. Would they still be able to rely on the court order and any previous or post contract non-waivers if they initiated the varied terms either written, orally or via their conduct?

 

I think I know half the answer but would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Hopefully you'll be able to understand what I've written as it's not always easy to convey what you mean, (when it's sweltering hot despite the fan on max!)

 

I should explain this a bit more and my reasons....

 

Parties to written contracts often include non-waivers which mean that if they agree to overlook a breach of it or vary the terms they still reserve their rights to enforce the contract. Your mortgage lender may do this when they allow you to pay off arrears over an extended period of time, change the date you pay or its terms although it isn't in line with the original contract.

 

Contract law states that you should enforce the agreement as soon as you are aware of the breach and if you vary the contract by agreement, either orally, in writing or by your action you lose your rights to enforce it.

 

Hence the non-waivers that are put into contracts as a condition that says they still reserve the right to enforce whatever they say or do to vary it (which could be by their mistake or agreement).

 

Non-waivers may not be as valid as the parties seem to think as a point of law. It's questionable if the innocent party doesn't act to enforce it as soon as is reasonable.

 

I'll post a bit more about this once you've managed to get your heads around it but you'll probably see what I'm getting at.

[ChargeBiter]

Im hurt....

 

When my mother called me to deal with another call from u know who, they had put the phone down before i got there!!!

 

Was it something I said - lol

[enoughisenough]

Hi JonCris

 

I hope you are well.

 

Regards your force majeure argument do you have any thoughts on how Diplock's ratio could apply. The real test is, as I see it, does breach destroy the purpose of the contract and is the force majeure line a way of demonstrating that as consumers we took on these loans either to have 'full enjoyment' or to clear debts, neither of which has been possible without the latter impinging upon the former or the former being made impossible.

 

I believe also that there is a common law principle of impossibility but this may be too difficult to sustain given that these barstewards don't even abide by laws subject to criminal prosecution. Anyway, for what it's worth, here it is.

 

In Hong Kong Fir Shipping Case (1962)

 

Diplock LJ said:

 

'The test whether an event has this effect or not has been stated in a number of metaphors all of which I think amount to the same thing: does the occurrence of the event deprive the party who has further undertakings still to perform of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract that he should obtain as the consideration for performing those undertakings?'

[Crapstone]

The courts are only interested in if the contract can still be performed and to put you back in the position you were in before the breach.

 

The inital contract is sound on the grounds that they secure the mortgage loan against your property and you will pay it off. It's the implied terms that are questionable as unfair and the conditions, which are additional and not vital to the performance of the contract.

 

By taking out the loans have we received any beneficial interest? This will be taken into account.

 

Compensation is certainly due as we have been subject to mis-selling and the companies may have breached the contract first or imposed unfair terms and conditions.

 

The Diplock case isn't valid in our arguement. The contracts can be performed, although not as we expected.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Crapstone

[Lloyds Defender]

Has anyone found a firm of Solicitors that will take these cases on a fight? Every time I contact a firm they all appear to be enthusiastic until I send them the file and then they want £25,000 deposit

 

We need a good firm that does Public Funding in cases like these.

 

Any recommendations?

[ChargeBiter]

There must be some legal firm interested, its not just contractual stuff theyre playing games with.

 

How many people have left one branch of this firm and ended up back in their laps after paying ridiculous fees just to try and leave them? My parents did this and were completely unaware until they started having difficulties.

 

its fraudulent - it must be a good opportunity for someone!

[sweetjane]

Re Publicity: Has anyone thought of applying for a place on the Gormley Plinth in TRafalgar Square to highlight the plight of victims of sub-prime mortgages?

[JonCris]

I don't wish to give any false hopes but I understand that their are some lawyers who are taking an interest in matters not dissimilar to these & it may be that assuming a successful outcome their arguments could transfer to those here

[Lloyds Defender]

I don't wish to give any false hopes but I understand that their are some lawyers who are taking an interest in matters not dissimilar to these & it may be that assuming a successful outcome their arguments could transfer to those here

 

Do you have the name of the firm?

[enoughisenough]

LAST CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

 

The book gets closed tomorrow!

[JonCris]

LD no What I know I know from the litigant

[agatha c]

Mail on line today (money) 'Foolish' mortgage charges forcing borrowers further into arrears, warns Lord Myners

 

Sorry can't do link

 

 

Agatha c

[midge61]

There was this in the Guardian

 

Myners urges crackdown on mortgage arrears fees | Business | guardian.co.uk