Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Another thing, they say they have photographic evidence of the entry and exit times, but have not included it in the SAR. If they have photos shouldn't they provide them in the SAR? And if they don't have them now, how can they prove anything?    Should I ask OBS to produce the photos?
    • Is this any better?  I've resigned myself to losing. Admittedly, I don't quite know what I'm doing. I just hope I get a remote hearing, that should save me some embarrassment.      1) The Claimants pleaded case is that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Provident subsequently assigned to Vanquis Bank Limited under account reference xxx.    2) It is admitted I have had financial dealings with Provident in the past. However, have no recollection of the alleged reference number the claimant refers to.   3) In February 2019 I made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.    4) On the 21 June 2019 the Claimant sent a response which enclosed a reconstituted copy of an agreement, default notice, notice of assignment Provident to Vanquis, notice of assignment Vanquis to Lowell. [EXHIBIT x, x & x].   5) On 30/07/19, I received a claims form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £369.84. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £369.84 in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no xxxx  pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).   6) Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Provident to Vanquis. The claimant states a further assignment to them occurred on 12/06/2017 with notice given.    7) It is denied notice of assignment from Provident to Vanquis and subsequently Vanquis to Lowell were ever received.    😎 The claimant states documents were received at both addresses. The claimant doesn’t appear able to confirm my address and therefore cannot say with certainty said documents were received. Furthermore, the client did not issue said documents and therefore cannot prove delivery.     9) It is denied any communication took place with myself and Vanquis Bank Limited. Any alleged legal assignment to part of the “Fresh Start” initiative had not been informed. I have no previous knowledge.   10) Under the consumer credit act 2006, until debts have been repaid, there is an obligation to send statements and notices to the debtor at prescribed intervals at no more than 12 months. The statement should explain the money borrowed, money paid, interest in all cases and the outstanding amount. Consequences of failing to make repayments and the opportunity of making minimum payments should be informed. The Claimant has submitted a statement of accounts dated March 2019. This having followed my request for a credit consumer agreement. It is denied this document and any such required statement of accounts required under section 77A during the alleged agreement were ever received.   11) The claimant states that a default notice was issued on 18thJanuary 2017. The payment date requested by Vanquis Bank Limited on said document is  28thFebruary 2017. The formal Notice of Default that was accompanying this letter displays a requested payment date, 28thFebruary 2019. (Exhibit x, x)   12) I argue that this is not in fact a COPY of an original default notice, that they state was issued during February 2017, but that this is a fabricated version of a default notice created by Lowell. Either way the default notice was not issued by the assigned creditor (Vanquis).   13) It is therefore contended that the original creditor failed to serve a valid Default Notice pursuant to section 87(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement.   14) The Claimant states a default notice was not required. If there is a default in payments during the fixed term a default notice must be issued. The Claimant states they were informed a default notice was sent on 18thJanuary. The Claimants case relies upon being informed and does not constitute fact.   15) It is denied a default notice was ever received.    16) It is admitted I responded to the Claimant’s pre-action protocol letter addressed in my name. I indicated I did not know if I owed the debt. I indicated as such having no recollection of affiliation with Vanquis nor Lowell. A default for the allege debt appearing on my credit file only November 2019.    17) I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income.   As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   18) Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
    • Ok I’m still thinking about this PayPal but only because ive been reading other forums and them saying that PayPal sells the debt to other companies and then they chase you for it .   Here are the other debts I have below and I’m still paying them all but now really struggling with it as I’m now full carer and no tidy income. None of these have I failed to pay yet to date and ive never been to court or anything and no criminal record ive always been clean & tidy and always paid things without fail but due to circumstances already said about ive now got deeper in owing more and just really struggling now and cant afford all the payments I’m paying plus then all the interest that keeps going back on them.   Nationwide building society credit card  £4,400 Nationwide building society overdraft £345 Capital 1  £2,594 Argos credit/store card £1,904   the wife also has   Nationwide credit card £1,600 Argos credit/store card  £1,875 Capital 1  £1,280   Its the Nationwide bank I’m really wanting to keep sweet as ive been with them since I was like 17 and I’m 50 now plus I use it for all direct debits and car insurance / life insurance etc etc plus I rely on the overdraft from month to month.   
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 6 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
micko19

repo date 21/09/2009

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3934 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

I have a mortgage agreement with very nasty firm. In the special conditions it states that I must contemporaneously settle 3 unsecured loans with the release of funds.

I am one year into the mortgage and have discovered that none of the loans were mine. They must have pulled them of someone elses credit file by mistake.

I have appointment with CAB friday and have been constantly under threat of repo since being more than one month in arrears. I believe it will come very soon.

 

So i am looking for straws to cling to...

Could I argue that the loan was void because i did not have the authority to sign up to repaying someone elses loans..

 

Also this paying off of unsecured loans was insisted on .... I think to stop them having to do a CCA REGULATED bit for the extra unrestricted use credit...

 

any help hugely appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok have you issued a SAR thats the first step

 

Bona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was this a re-mortgage? did you have unsecured loans at the time?

 

Dont quite understand how your funds could be used in this way?


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes issued sar last week but am worried house could be gone before i receive. Thinking about using surfaceagents brill cpr34 stuff when they file..this may buy me some time....

 

micko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was this a re-mortgage? did you have unsecured loans at the time?

 

Dont quite understand how your funds could be used in this way?

 

I had unsecured stuff but it was all under the control of payplan

When the IFA asked me I told him this..

Then when i seen the offer i sent him an email query as i did not recognise the loans he said don,t worry just sign up and whatever is left you can keep..I have these emails on record..

 

I originally asked for 5000 extra funds after the remortgage ...you know with christmas and stuff....by the time my GE money had added all their charges i only got £700 extra...

 

In the special conditions the loans were listed like this

Tesco(12786548)

Northern rock(45552390)

Sainsbury(89774321)

 

and i can tell you 100%... none of them belong to us. Originally i thought that they might belong to my stepdaughter as she stayed with us when on outs with her hubby. ..ie might have come up on my credit file..but no i can confirm none of them are ours or any relation of ours

 

thanks for looking

 

mick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The company can not take re-possession unless they have been to court. Has that happened yet?

 

The most important thing is that while you are waiting for the information keep paying as much as you can on the Monthly payments as the court will take that into account.


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok have you issued a Subject Access Request thats the first step

 

Bona

 

yes last week....

 

There is a lot of emphasis about the Special Conditions both on the signed deeds and the signed offer ...

 

Also don't mean to diverge too much but read stuff by taffyr midweek and you ...amazing stuff..I am also a redstone victim....I tried to pm you about taffyr just to see if he was alive and well but your box was full....

 

micko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also have you contacted the original IFA to ask them to relase all their records as you may need them for court case - I assume you can SAR them as well?


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes last week....

 

There is a lot of emphasis about the Special Conditions both on the signed deeds and the signed offer ...

 

Also don't mean to diverge too much but read stuff by taffyr midweek and you ...amazing stuff..I am also a redstone victim....I tried to pm you about taffyr just to see if he was alive and well but your box was full....

 

micko

 

 

try a pm to see if supersleuth will look at your thread.


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The company can not take re-possession unless they have been to court. Has that happened yet?

 

The most important thing is that while you are waiting for the information keep paying as much as you can on the Monthly payments as the court will take that into account.

 

thing is i am presently unemployed I am confident of getting some work soon but have nothing at moment..I have an excellant 24year wok history as self employed...and never missed a day during last recession.

 

I have applied for benefits and still waiting for the money after 8 weeks since applied...

 

thanks micko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok - not sure when the new help kicks in with interest payments - but chase the benefits office and explain your house is at risk - Ell-enn can help with any legal forms when it gets that far. Have you contacted the lender to explain your current position with regards to payments?


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also have you contacted the original IFA to ask them to relase all their records as you may need them for court case - I assume you can Subject Access Request them as well?

 

good point.... first money i get next week i will SAR IFA

 

I really feel i was missold a subprime mortgage as i had no ccj nothing really bad when i applied i was told verbally the monthly payment would be 1500 by the time i signed up it was 1680 it was 100 more than i was paying to Northern rock and ge before the consolidation so it was pan to the fire and i needed to stop the repo GE had at the time which they didnt cease until the day of full settlement on the new remortgage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sort of asking a question there as I am not sure if you can SAR an IFA - I am sure someone will let us know.

 

You have a few main objectives - first find out what help you can get with your MP

secondly investigate what happened to the monies you borrowed - where did the monies go?

 

find out if you were given the correct advice by your IFA.

 

Also the lender has obligtions to you under the new protocol during your time of unemployment. But you must also "play ball" by letting them know in writing your full current situation and ask for their assistance. But keep it in writing and keep records of every call and letter in a file.

 

Have you had any letters about court hearings at all?


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was sort of asking a question there as I am not sure if you can Subject Access Request an IFA - I am sure someone will let us know.

 

You have a few main objectives - first find out what help you can get with your MP

secondly investigate what happened to the monies you borrowed - where did the monies go?

 

find out if you were given the correct advice by your IFA.

 

Also the lender has obligtions to you under the new protocol during your time of unemployment. But you must also "play ball" by letting them know in writing your full current situation and ask for their assistance. But keep it in writing and keep records of every call and letter in a file.

 

Have you had any letters about court hearings at all?

 

again thank you i am posting my cab interview letter to them on monday..

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
try a pm to see if supersleuth will look at your thread.

thank you will do asap

 

thanks

 

micko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Janus/Micko

 

Re the query relating to a SAR to the IFA - under the data protection act you can SAR any Data Controller. Virtually all private companies who control your data will be a datacontroller so generally you can SAR all private companies who hold data on you. In this case, the IFA most definitely is a data controller and should be SAR'd.

 

Also, Micko, the email you referred to in your early posts is extremely strong evidence print off loads of copies - don't loose it.

 

Micko

 

Have you found out whose loans you paid off? I'd SAR tesco/sainsbury/northern rock to establish how those loans came to be on your agreement such that you paid them but don't tell them the objective of your letter.

 

You write to can ask for copies of the actual agreements that you paid. But when you write to them be absolutely careful not to write anything that may be construed as you acknowledging that you were liable to pay the loans. Write the letter as a query e.g. you are writing because it has become apparent that you paid off these loans, that you don't recognise or remember having taken out the loans and therefore would like copies of the loan agreements and also (then, the SAR bit) that you would like all other information that they hold on you etc.

 

With respect to any hearings that may be imminent - you must attend any and all hearings that are listed (especially if the bank tell you that it's been "cancelled"). When a bank tells you a hearing is "cancelled" it is never "cancelled" in terms that lay people understand the word cancelled.

 

Go the to hearing and tell the judge that there are some serious discrepancies with the account. There are two possible grounds on which you can ask for the adjournment:

 

FIRST GROUND

Tell the judge that the account is wrong and that you do not acknowledge the arrears figure that they assert due to the fact that you did not receive the advance that the bank had contracted to provide and in fact, the bank has used your money to pay off a stranger's debt.

 

Tell the judge that you have taken steps to ascertain the evidence/information and in view of the serious discrepancies, you would like the court to adjourn until the two weeks after the SAR dates. Eg. say the SAR date on which you should receive the infomation is 1 March, you want to adjourn until 14 March.

 

SECOND (possible) GROUND

Also remember that the banks must now seek alternatives to repossession and they must give evidence to the court that they have taken steps to avoid repossession. If the bank has done nothing to assist you or avoid the litigation, that is another ground on which you can assert your request for the adjournment. Which is, that the bank need the time to see if this matter can be settled without litigating in order that the bank can comply with its legal duty to avoid litigation.

 

 

 

In the meantime, also write to the bank and tell them that you do not agree their figures because the IFA did not correct the mortgage offer to reflect that the loans in the Special Conditions were not your loans and therefore you did not receive the advance (of mortgage money) which means that the bank have not "performed" its part of the contract. Consequently, the figures on the account are incorrect and accordingly, the arrears they are claiming is also incorrect. Also state that when the corrections to the account have been made, it will show that in fact, you are not in arrears (remember micko, I suggest this because of the limited informaiton you have given and assuming that I have correctly understood your position thus, only write this if it is true and accurate).

 

 

Question: when you did this remortgage, did you have a solicitor acting for you? If you did have a solicitor - who chose the solicitor? was it you or the IFA who chose the solicitor?

 

Also, if you had a solicitor - did you tell the solicitor about the error of these loans appearing on the loan agreement?

 

Did your IFA disclose to you the amount of commission he would receive for the deal - and/or did you pay him any money for his services?

 

On the very limited information you have given, it seems that you may have a claim against your IFA as he seems to have acted against your interests - doubling your monthly commitments was not in your interests and therefore he/she may have fallen foul of the FSA rules on "best advise". Check out the FSA website for the rules on IFA's. Also, the IFA was negligent in his advise to you to sign a document without following up on your telling him that the loans were not yours (maybe they were his!!!..tounge in cheek joke).

 

You also may have many defences under the CCA because this was a loan paying off other loans - ask the CAB to look at the loan agreement and advise you as to whether or not the agreement is CCA compliant.

 

As for the Special Conditions that you say the bank keep asserting to you - what are they? What is the Special Conditions are they asserting.

 

To conclude, At this stage, your main objectives must be (1) to acquire and amass all the documents and information that you can; and (2) prepare yourself to defend against repossession at any hearings that are listed. You must tell the court that you have a defence and that you intend to defend and tell the court that you need time to prepare your defence.

 

 

You've got your work cut out on this one, but once you get all the information together it will become more clear as to how to fight it. Good luck.

 

Finally Micko, I'm not a solicitor so the guidance I've given here is telling you how I would approach the situtation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Janus/Micko

 

Re the query relating to a Subject Access Request to the IFA - under the data protection act you can Subject Access Request any Data Controller. Virtually all private companies who control your data will be a datacontroller so generally you can Subject Access Request all private companies who hold data on you. In this case, the IFA most definitely is a data controller and should be Subject Access Request'd.

 

Also, Micko, the email you referred to in your early posts is extremely strong evidence print off loads of copies - don't loose it.

 

Micko

 

Have you found out whose loans you paid off? I'd Subject Access Request tesco/sainsbury/northern rock to establish how those loans came to be on your agreement such that you paid them but don't tell them the objective of your letter.

 

You write to can ask for copies of the actual agreements that you paid. But when you write to them be absolutely careful not to write anything that may be construed as you acknowledging that you were liable to pay the loans. Write the letter as a query e.g. you are writing because it has become apparent that you paid off these loans, that you don't recognise or remember having taken out the loans and therefore would like copies of the loan agreements and also (then, the Subject Access Request bit) that you would like all other information that they hold on you etc.

 

With respect to any hearings that may be imminent - you must attend any and all hearings that are listed (especially if the bank tell you that it's been "cancelled"). When a bank tells you a hearing is "cancelled" it is never "cancelled" in terms that lay people understand the word cancelled.

 

Go the to hearing and tell the judge that there are some serious discrepancies with the account. There are two possible grounds on which you can ask for the adjournment:

 

FIRST GROUND

Tell the judge that the account is wrong and that you do not acknowledge the arrears figure that they assert due to the fact that you did not receive the advance that the bank had contracted to provide and in fact, the bank has used your money to pay off a stranger's debt.

 

Tell the judge that you have taken steps to ascertain the evidence/information and in view of the serious discrepancies, you would like the court to adjourn until the two weeks after the Subject Access Request dates. Eg. say the Subject Access Request date on which you should receive the infomation is 1 March, you want to adjourn until 14 March.

 

SECOND (possible) GROUND

Also remember that the banks must now seek alternatives to repossession and they must give evidence to the court that they have taken steps to avoid repossession. If the bank has done nothing to assist you or avoid the litigation, that is another ground on which you can assert your request for the adjournment. Which is, that the bank need the time to see if this matter can be settled without litigating in order that the bank can comply with its legal duty to avoid litigation.

 

 

 

In the meantime, also write to the bank and tell them that you do not agree their figures because the IFA did not correct the mortgage offer to reflect that the loans in the Special Conditions were not your loans and therefore you did not receive the advance (of mortgage money) which means that the bank have not "performed" its part of the contract. Consequently, the figures on the account are incorrect and accordingly, the arrears they are claiming is also incorrect. Also state that when the corrections to the account have been made, it will show that in fact, you are not in arrears (remember micko, I suggest this because of the limited informaiton you have given and assuming that I have correctly understood your position thus, only write this if it is true and accurate).

 

 

Question: when you did this remortgage, did you have a solicitor acting for you? If you did have a solicitor - who chose the solicitor? was it you or the IFA who chose the solicitor?

 

Also, if you had a solicitor - did you tell the solicitor about the error of these loans appearing on the loan agreement?

 

Did your IFA disclose to you the amount of commission he would receive for the deal - and/or did you pay him any money for his services?

 

On the very limited information you have given, it seems that you may have a claim against your IFA as he seems to have acted against your interests - doubling your monthly commitments was not in your interests and therefore he/she may have fallen foul of the FSA rules on "best advise". Check out the FSA website for the rules on IFA's. Also, the IFA was negligent in his advise to you to sign a document without following up on your telling him that the loans were not yours (maybe they were his!!!..tounge in cheek joke).

 

You also may have many defences under the CCA because this was a loan paying off other loans - ask the CAB to look at the loan agreement and advise you as to whether or not the agreement is CCA compliant.

 

As for the Special Conditions that you say the bank keep asserting to you - what are they? What is the Special Conditions are they asserting.

 

To conclude, At this stage, your main objectives must be (1) to acquire and amass all the documents and information that you can; and (2) prepare yourself to defend against repossession at any hearings that are listed. You must tell the court that you have a defence and that you intend to defend and tell the court that you need time to prepare your defence.

 

 

You've got your work cut out on this one, but once you get all the information together it will become more clear as to how to fight it. Good luck.

 

Finally Micko, I'm not a solicitor so the guidance I've given here is telling you how I would approach the situtation.

 

 

many thanks for that...

sorry for not coming back sooner as the phone company cut my internet off on sunday. I should be back up and running wed..Have borrowed my nephews.

 

First of all i should apologise as I don't believe i clarified things correcty before. The special conditions stated that I pay off 3 unsecured loans contemporaneously with the release of funds ie lender gives me left over funds I pay off loans..

 

my email to the ifa queried the loans as i did not recognise them. He said ignore them and just keep whatever is left over.

 

Only £700 after ge had robbed me blind on their settlement figures. So no unsecured loans paid off and £700 cash for us...... since well and truly blown.

The ifa sorted out country wide as the conveyancer/solicitor.

 

The ifa got 3,500 for the deal which is clearly stated on the mortgage offer...

ERC £17,500 for 3 years ????

 

I will print loads of copies of the emails thank you.

 

THe new loan payment was £80 per month more than what i paid for the same loans unconsolidated ...

 

the loan refinanced two secured loans with GE ONE WAS CCA the other was outside cca but legally should have been CCA IT WAS A CLEAR SECTION 18 BREACH..could not prove it at the time because ge refused to provide a copy of the agreement under 2x SAR. eventually got it with a court order under section 15(2) DPA. THANKS TO GREAT HELP FROM THIS SITE

 

MANY THANKS HOPING YOU WILL READ

 

CHEERS

 

MICK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Micko,

 

It has occurred to me that you may find it more profitable to seek the recovery of the £17K ERC - you could also query the settlement figures on the two secured loans.

 

See this link for some discussion points on the topic

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/174886-kensington-mortgages-2.html

 

Also, with respect to "Countrywide" being your "solicitor" - I don't think Countrywide are solicitors. They are either the "countrywide" estate agents in the UK or they could be "Countrywide" that are (or were) a major US securitisation company. Find out the name of the person who acted for you and check with the Law Society to see if they were a solicitor. Seems to me that you did not receive any legal independent legal advice as that 'solicitor' was probably for the lender to in any case, which is common.

 

Back to the ERC issue. If you do the leg work on the legality of the ERC payment (which I believe may be an unlawful charge), you could use potentially use that law in two ways. Firstly, you could approach the old secured lenders to recover the ERC's on the grounds that you were not contractually required to pay those charges because the ERC was unlawfully charged and/or

 

secondly, because "countrywide" solicitors were acting for you - they had a duty to both you and the new lender to ensure YOUR/the lender's money was disbursed lawfully. Therefore, it may be possible to make a legal argument before the court in a repossession defence that the payment of the ERC £17K was unlawfully demanded and paid and therefore, you did not receive the full advance that was due to you under the mortgage contract. Remember, you had NO control over the money because the lender insisted on the mortgage monies being given to those companies. Therefore, that part of the advance was a restricted loan and they controlled where your money went and how it was to be used.

 

Ask the CAB person about the law on the ERCs and check out with the CAB whether the early settlement figures for the two secured loans were calculated according to law.

 

Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Micky,

 

One further thought - you can ask the Countrywide solicitors for your file. It is your right to have the file as you have paid them their legal fees. You don't have to do an SAR and you don't have to pay them any further fees or charges for them to send you your file. You just have to write a formal request that they send you your file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Micky,

 

One further thought - you can ask the Countrywide solicitors for your file. It is your right to have the file as you have paid them their legal fees. You don't have to do an Subject Access Request and you don't have to pay them any further fees or charges for them to send you your file. You just have to write a formal request that they send you your file.

 

Thanks again

 

Already done this,, only thing i found was the copy of the mortgage offer they had was unsigned, also found that the copy Redstones sent to me was unsigned....

 

The aspect of the special conditions asking me to pay off unsecured loans is an avoidance of anti avoidance(Section 18 CCA) and a very poor one. If you read Francis Bennions website he completely covers this with respect to top up loans. It was parliaments intention that as many loans as possible benefit from the rigorous application of CCA RULES. Francis states that when a lender gives borrower money on condition to pay off loans this does not constitute "Restricted Use Credit". Francis covered this form of avoidance.

 

The bottom line is any amount of funds over and above the refinancing element means your whole loan is a multiple agreement even though the largest part is exempt the whole loan is entitled to the documentation required by the CCA.

Read more about Redstone(SPV) and how they change interest and loan term when they feel like it. FSA regulation invites abuses and con tricks and the CCA does not i.e. that is why Redstone artificially remove their CCA obligations in this way..

 

As I see it.... i have a strong case to argue that the loan was improperly documented and would do even if the loans did belong to me...

However the fact that they dont,.. would further indicate that I signed under the advice of an IFA,.. a contract of conditions which are tied to the mortgage deeds which i did not have the authority to sign as it is impossible to pay someone elses loans.....

 

As it transpires one of the loans redeemed in the deal 41000 was also unenforceable and voidable due again to section 18, hidden commissions and missold PPI. The loans were settled by mistake as GE Money continually refused to comply with the DPA SAR's refusing to produce the agreements required to declare unenforceability and forcing us out of the agreements through reposession.

 

Sorry to bore you all with the ramblings of a one time compulsive borrower and his relationship with several compulsive law breaking lenders.

 

cheers mick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Micko

 

Very interesting that you say that your Mortgage Agreement was unsigned. That is one of the arguments that I have against my mortgage company. This issue is governed by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) 1989 which essentially states that a mortgage loan agreement must be EXPRESSLY AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES.

 

I have case law that states that when the mandatory formal requirements of section 2 are not met, the contract is VOID. That is, not just unenforceable but void.

 

I have a trial listed for hearing on this legal argument (and other legal arguments) in April.

 

 

Have also looked into the CCA issue myself and will also, as you suggest, look into the Frances Bennions website. But in the meantime, would recommend you read Wilson v First County Trust (Court of Appeal case).

You can find the case (and loads of others) on British and Irish Legal Information Institute In that case the lady not only got her security back she also got back every penny that she paid under the contract including the capital sum that she borrowed!!

 

The cases that I've read regarding restricted loans does not come to the same conclusion as Bennions so I'll double check it before making any further comment on this issue.

 

Hope the s.2 argument will help you too...

Supersleuth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Micko

 

Very interesting that you say that your Mortgage Agreement was unsigned. That is one of the arguments that I have against my mortgage company. This issue is governed by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) 1989 which essentially states that a mortgage loan agreement must be EXPRESSLY AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES.

 

I have case law that states that when the mandatory formal requirements of section 2 are not met, the contract is VOID. That is, not just unenforceable but void.

 

I have a trial listed for hearing on this legal argument (and other legal arguments) in April.

 

 

Have also looked into the CCA issue myself and will also, as you suggest, look into the Frances Bennions website. But in the meantime, would recommend you read Wilson v First County Trust (Court of Appeal case).

You can find the case (and loads of others) on British and Irish Legal Information Institute In that case the lady not only got her security back she also got back every penny that she paid under the contract including the capital sum that she borrowed!!

 

The cases that I've read regarding restricted loans does not come to the same conclusion as Bennions so I'll double check it before making any further comment on this issue.

 

Hope the s.2 argument will help you too...

Supersleuth

 

respect

 

In my case there was an offer and deeds,,, i signed both but believe the offer was only signed by me. The deeds give specific mention to my obligations in fulfilling the special conditions....

 

S.2 sounds very interesting

 

according to bennion no one can say how the court will go.... but his arguments are very convincing and he did write the act for parliament.

Current climate means it could loosen the wallets of many a nervous Lender just thinking about the costs of defending such an action.

 

New laxative for the constipated greedy basket sub prime lender SECTION 18 CCA..

 

It is quite ironic that they are almost flagging section 18 up for attention by using such silly special conditions to try and avoid...??/

 

cheers

 

mick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Micko,

 

Thanks for the tip on the Bennion web-site. Excellent resource. I have made a legal argument (that has never been litigated) regarding the interpretation and construction of CCA s.8. Section 8 is currently interpreted very simply as "under 25K" within the act and "over 25K" outside the act. I have made a CCA argument in my case that my (purported) mortgage is regulated under the act even though it is over £25K. When you read s.8 there are three sub-sections. The simplistic interpretation that has been applied only concerns s.8(b), but if you read that section as a whole, then my argument is that there are some mortgages that are regulated under the CCA even though the mortgage is over £25K (i.e. mortgages that do not fall within the CCA s.16 exemption) . I am going to see if I can send Bennion my legal argument to get his opinion on it. Will let you know what happens.

 

With respect to the mortgage contract and the mortgage deed: here's the essesence of the argument.

 

There are two fundamental documents that create a mortgage, first there is the mortgage contract and second there is the deed. At law the mortgage contract is a "simple" contract and the deed is a "specialty" contract.

 

When you sign the mortgage contract (i.e. the document you refer to as the "offer") you are signing to say that they will give you a sum of money and that in return, you will sign a mortgage deed against your property until the money is paid back. The mortgage contract is therefore, a contract that is a: "disposition in land" as per s.2 of the LPA 1989 (because the contract provides that you will "dispose" to them a security interest in your land). You are contracting that you WILL sign the deed and it is the deed alone that conveys the security interest in your property.

 

When you sign the deed, the deed is: the actual conveyance of the security interest you agreed to grant under the mortgage contract. The mortgage contract then "merges" with the mortgage deed (under the "doctrine of merger").

 

The formal requirements of the LPA 1989 section 2 is not applicable to the deed - it is only applicable to the mortgage contract (i.e. the document that you refer to as the offer).

 

Thus, my legal argument is: If the mortgage contract is not validly executed in accordance with the mandatory formal requirement of s.2, then the mortgage deed contains a VOID mortgage contract, the terms of which are not enforceable at law. Thus, the lender is attempting to enforce contractual terms that were merged in the deed which Parliament has declared as unenforceable at law. Therefore, the lender has no valid contractual terms that can be enforced under the deed and the court cannot enforce those terms because Parliament has declared them VOID.

 

The genealogy of s.2 goes back to the Statute of Frauds 1677. It is not new law, it's been around for centuries and s.2 is the mordern day re-enactment of that 1677 law.

 

The mortgage deed is merely the document that conveys the security interest. The mortgage deed itself does not give any contractual rights other than the contractual rights that result from the mortgage contract that has merged into the deed. It is the merging of the mortgage contract into the deed that makes the mortgage deed the "specialty" contract.

 

Moreover, under a contract, both the lender and the borrowers have duties and obligations under the contract. The lenders claim to have "rights, powers and benefits" under the contract (but lenders never ever mention any of their contractual obligations). Under contract law, both parties have to sign to agree to be bound by the terms and accept that they will perform and take their respective obligations and benefits.

 

If the lender has not signed to be bound to perform any obligations under the contract, then strictly speaking he has not signed to accept the benefits under the contract either! The lender has not signed the mortgage contract (under which it could claim the contractual rights) nor has the lender signed the deed.

 

Have to say that I am not a qualified solicitor, but I do have law degrees and have done some serious legal research into this topic. For example Fisher and Lightfoot is a seminal and authoratative text on the Law of Mortgages and McGarry & Wade is a seminal and authoratiative text on the Law of Property.

 

If the law is faithfully applied, the s.2 argument should prevail however, I am aware of the fact that some judges and most lawyers do not faithfully apply the law. The judge, when choosing between a joe-soap litigant in person and a powerful banker with his so-called "respectable" lawyers, the practical reality is, that the judge will just usually will rubberstamp what the powerful lenders want. It's quicker, easier and less work for them and the Judge knows that the chances are that the joe-soap will not even know how to appeal and will just flake away whereas the banker would appeal. Thus, it's more likely than not, that a litigant-inperson will only prevail at an appeal hearing. So if you really want to prevail, it's wise to clue yourself up on the appeals process too.

 

I am also aware of one Deputy District Judge who sits on repossession hearings (and no doubt gives repossession) when that DDJ is also a solicitor in private practice acting for the lenders!!! Serious conflict of interests and that particular Judge should never sit on repossession cases at all. But hey ho, it seems that for us mere mortals, in the exact words of that particular DDJ, we should just get "thrown out on the street"!!

 

So whilst there is an overriding principle of the "rule of law" it has become apparent to me that we also have to consider that we are dealing with mere people who happen to be Judges and who have their own private agendas (see e.g. the DDJ above) who may also have their own personal agendas, snobberies/prejudices/false presumptions etc., against defendants. Therefore, when going to court, it really is a luck of the draw as to whether you get an independent, impartial and objective Judge that will faithfully apply the law.

 

Nonetheless, the s.2 argument (like the Bennion argument) is very powerful. Therefore, you could have two powerful lines to attack the lawfulness of your contracts. Both the s.2 against themortgage itself and the CCA against the unlawful disbursement of the funds to the other loans.

 

Let me know how it pans out for you.

Supersleuth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Micko,

 

Thanks for the tip on the Bennion web-site. Excellent resource. I have made a legal argument (that has never been litigated) regarding the interpretation and construction of CCA s.8. Section 8 is currently interpreted very simply as "under 25K" within the act and "over 25K" outside the act. I have made a CCA argument in my case that my (purported) mortgage is regulated under the act even though it is over £25K. When you read s.8 there are three sub-sections. The simplistic interpretation that has been applied only concerns s.8(b), but if you read that section as a whole, then my argument is that there are some mortgages that are regulated under the CCA even though the mortgage is over £25K (i.e. mortgages that do not fall within the CCA s.16 exemption) . I am going to see if I can send Bennion my legal argument to get his opinion on it. Will let you know what happens.

 

With respect to the mortgage contract and the mortgage deed: here's the essesence of the argument.

 

There are two fundamental documents that create a mortgage, first there is the mortgage contract and second there is the deed. At law the mortgage contract is a "simple" contract and the deed is a "specialty" contract.

 

When you sign the mortgage contract (i.e. the document you refer to as the "offer") you are signing to say that they will give you a sum of money and that in return, you will sign a mortgage deed against your property until the money is paid back. The mortgage contract is therefore, a contract that is a: "disposition in land" as per s.2 of the LPA 1989 (because the contract provides that you will "dispose" to them a security interest in your land). You are contracting that you WILL sign the deed and it is the deed alone that conveys the security interest in your property.

 

When you sign the deed, the deed is: the actual conveyance of the security interest you agreed to grant under the mortgage contract. The mortgage contract then "merges" with the mortgage deed (under the "doctrine of merger").

 

The formal requirements of the LPA 1989 section 2 is not applicable to the deed - it is only applicable to the mortgage contract (i.e. the document that you refer to as the offer).

 

Thus, my legal argument is: If the mortgage contract is not validly executed in accordance with the mandatory formal requirement of s.2, then the mortgage deed contains a VOID mortgage contract, the terms of which are not enforceable at law. Thus, the lender is attempting to enforce contractual terms that were merged in the deed which Parliament has declared as unenforceable at law. Therefore, the lender has no valid contractual terms that can be enforced under the deed and the court cannot enforce those terms because Parliament has declared them VOID.

 

The genealogy of s.2 goes back to the Statute of Frauds 1677. It is not new law, it's been around for centuries and s.2 is the mordern day re-enactment of that 1677 law.

 

The mortgage deed is merely the document that conveys the security interest. The mortgage deed itself does not give any contractual rights other than the contractual rights that result from the mortgage contract that has merged into the deed. It is the merging of the mortgage contract into the deed that makes the mortgage deed the "specialty" contract.

 

Moreover, under a contract, both the lender and the borrowers have duties and obligations under the contract. The lenders claim to have "rights, powers and benefits" under the contract (but lenders never ever mention any of their contractual obligations). Under contract law, both parties have to sign to agree to be bound by the terms and accept that they will perform and take their respective obligations and benefits.

 

If the lender has not signed to be bound to perform any obligations under the contract, then strictly speaking he has not signed to accept the benefits under the contract either! The lender has not signed the mortgage contract (under which it could claim the contractual rights) nor has the lender signed the deed.

 

Have to say that I am not a qualified solicitor, but I do have law degrees and have done some serious legal research into this topic. For example Fisher and Lightfoot is a seminal and authoratative text on the Law of Mortgages and McGarry & Wade is a seminal and authoratiative text on the Law of Property.

 

If the law is faithfully applied, the s.2 argument should prevail however, I am aware of the fact that some judges and most lawyers do not faithfully apply the law. The judge, when choosing between a joe-soap litigant in person and a powerful banker with his so-called "respectable" lawyers, the practical reality is, that the judge will just usually will rubberstamp what the powerful lenders want. It's quicker, easier and less work for them and the Judge knows that the chances are that the joe-soap will not even know how to appeal and will just flake away whereas the banker would appeal. Thus, it's more likely than not, that a litigant-inperson will only prevail at an appeal hearing. So if you really want to prevail, it's wise to clue yourself up on the appeals process too.

 

I am also aware of one Deputy District Judge who sits on repossession hearings (and no doubt gives repossession) when that DDJ is also a solicitor in private practice acting for the lenders!!! Serious conflict of interests and that particular Judge should never sit on repossession cases at all. But hey ho, it seems that for us mere mortals, in the exact words of that particular DDJ, we should just get "thrown out on the street"!!

 

So whilst there is an overriding principle of the "rule of law" it has become apparent to me that we also have to consider that we are dealing with mere people who happen to be Judges and who have their own private agendas (see e.g. the DDJ above) who may also have their own personal agendas, snobberies/prejudices/false presumptions etc., against defendants. Therefore, when going to court, it really is a luck of the draw as to whether you get an independent, impartial and objective Judge that will faithfully apply the law.

 

Nonetheless, the s.2 argument (like the Bennion argument) is very powerful. Therefore, you could have two powerful lines to attack the lawfulness of your contracts. Both the s.2 against themortgage itself and the CCA against the unlawful disbursement of the funds to the other loans.

 

Let me know how it pans out for you.

Supersleuth

 

many thanks again SS I will certainly promote the s2 argument in my case CAB are stiil trying to get leagal aid for me.

 

Francis Bennion is very old now well into his eighties and i have heard he answers very few emails..Also on his site you will have read about the john story case..Francis went to the courts in defence of john story and to try and get his case appealed. I think it is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our time. Check out ruinedbynatwest - Home here again you will discover judges of the type you are clearly well aware....John is very knowledgable nice guy and lives in france now he likes to get emails...

 

Also hope you don't think i am being over nosey but are the cases you are dealing with repossessions..

 

Also did you read taffyr stuff on these spv mortgage deals as i think the answer to why they don't sign the offer might be something to do with the 3 card trick they operate when the mortgage goes through the company changes from beacon to redstone...something to do with securitization...strange smoke and mirrors????

 

And good luck to you also keep the top tips coming....

 

:grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Micko,

 

Thanks again for your web-site tips. Will look into it. I have emailed Mr Bennion and will let you know if he responds. TaffyR is excellent on the securitisation and also Janus has written some great stuff. They both are spot on. With respect to securitisations, I too have some relevant experience in securitisations as I have worked on some the transactions.

 

My case is a repossession case and thus, because of my knowledge on securitisations (and how the process shafts the borrowers), I also know that the company that purports to be the lender - is not the lender in fact and law and therefore does not have the legal standing to bring the action against me in the first place! That is why I know that Janus was right when she says in her posts that the lender is an SPV and not the lender that is named as the Claimant. All repossession claims should fail for this reason alone if the rule of law is reeally being applied. Hence, this again is another of my legal arguments that the Claimant does not have a cause in action against me because they sold the mortgage with "full title guarantee" two years before the claim was commenced!

 

Yes I'm really going to test whether there is a Rule of Law and whether there is Equality before the Law; or whether the court will just rubberstamp what the court's favoured "little darlings" want (i.e. the powerful banks).

 

With respect to choosing a solicitor (when you get legal aid), remember that most solicitors will have no idea about the securitisation legal issues and therefore, try to find and choose one that knows about securitisations which will be much better value for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...