Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That's their problem. They said account was £89 in credit when it was closed. Sent the cheque after about 3-4 weeks. They can't get it back from dead people. Unless they hold a seance.
    • Yes it was in her name at her address.  She used my address as a care of address when she moved into a care home.  I was managing her affairs from my address while she was in the care home.  Eon was made aware of this and agreed to it.  She/we used the Royal Mail redirection service from her old address to my address. 
    • @maroondevo52 what appears to be happening, is that the companies arranging vaccinations have been provided with bulk supplies of both flu and covid boosters. So the staff doing the vaccinations have trays with both ready to go into arms.                       
    • EON may have paid £89 refund in error and now they want it back.   Up to you really. But once you have sent the copy death cert that should stop any further communications.  You can of course look to take this further, but whether you would easily gain any compensation, is the question that you need to ask yourself.  They may dig their heels in and you then get into months of ping pong communications.
    • Great thanks, will leave 2 in then, replace 3 and I think its good to go.    This is exactly what I have in my word file ready to send, I think im happy with it and can send to mcol monday morning. Any further thoughts or things to update please let me know.   Again thank you both for your help, really is priceless.         Defence:   1.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.    2.     The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   3.     Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with New Day LTD RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details or agreement nor the claimant either having failed to plead an agreement/account number within its particulars of claim and have therefore sought verification from the claimant.   4.     Paragraph 2 is noted but until such time the claimant can clarify the agreement account number any breach has yet to be proven.      5.     I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or New Day LTD RE Aqua pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   6.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14, and will shortly be in default of my section 78 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a)   show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; (b)   show and evidence the breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974 on which the Termination referred to relies upon. (c)   show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d)   show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7.     As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8.     On the 17th of November I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfil my CPR 31:14 request.   9.     On the 16th of November I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of of 06/12/21 failed to comply.   10.  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Secret/undisclosed commissions...


42man
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2242 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Taken from Decembers Ruling by High Court ( Judge Waksman)

 

Secret Commissions

 

Ordinarily, the introducer or broker will be treated as an agent of the borrower. As such they owe a fiduciary duty to their client including the duty not to make a secret profit.

 

 

Provided that it is disclosed to the client, there is nothing wrong in principle in an intermediary charging a broker’s fee. However, the commission must be disclosed and a general statement that “a commission may be paid in certain circumstances” is not adequate.

 

 

The receipt of a secret commission by a broker is a species of fraud and is actionable both against the broker or introducer and the lender who paid the secret commission.

 

 

In the Court of Appeal case of Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299, Lord Justice Tuckey commented as follows:

 

 

  1. Obviously if there has been no disclosure the agent will have received a secret commission. This is a blatant breach of fiduciary duty but additionally the payment or receipt of a secret commission is considered to be a form of bribe and is treated in the authorities as a special category of fraud in which it is unnecessary to prove motive, inducement or loss up to the amount of the bribe. The principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for the money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe or for the damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given (Mahesan v Malaya’s Housing Society [1979] AC 374, 383). Furthermore the transaction is voidable at the election of the principal who can rescind it . . . (Panama & South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percher and Telegraph Co [1875] 9 Ch App 515, 527, 532-3).”

Mr Mark White stated quite clearly and categorially under oath in my court case that Swift DO NOT pay commission as such. What can be more secret than that, when I can prove they do pay commission and BIG commission payments.

 

This means that anyone who's broker has gone bust can sue Swift direct

 

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent Sparkie...thank you for this, I hadn't read that (from Judge Waksman).....

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Taken from Decembers Ruling by High Court ( Judge Waksman)

 

Secret Commissions

 

Ordinarily, the introducer or broker will be treated as an agent of the borrower. As such they owe a fiduciary duty to their client including the duty not to make a secret profit.

 

 

Provided that it is disclosed to the client, there is nothing wrong in principle in an intermediary charging a broker’s fee. However, the commission must be disclosed and a general statement that “a commission may be paid in certain circumstances” is not adequate.

 

 

The receipt of a secret commission by a broker is a species of fraud and is actionable both against the broker or introducer and the lender who paid the secret commission.

 

 

HI 42 man

 

I think quite a few did miss this ...it was in his ruling Carey v HSBC Bank.

 

sparkie

 

Afternoon sparkie I am helping a friend with a secret commission claim. I have read the carey case a couple of times now and couldn't find any reference to commission.

 

Can you help me out and point me in the direction of the above ?

 

Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009)

 

Very much appreciated,

Edited by mrsiphone
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Mrs iphone,

If you Google the quote you will find it's just blurb from a claims company's website, Emmetts Solicitors aka www.financialmisselling.co.uk. They happen to mention Carey on their page about Consumer Credit Claims and this seems to be where some confusion has arisen.

The quote comes wholesale from their section about secret commissions:-

  • If a “secret commission” has been paid by a lender to a broker, how will this affect any claim?

Ordinarily, the introducer or broker will be treated as an agent of the borrower. As such they owe a fiduciary duty to their client including the duty not to make a secret profit.

Provided that it is disclosed to the client, there is nothing wrong in principle in an intermediary charging a broker’s fee. However, the commission must be disclosed and a general statement that “a commission may be paid in certain circumstances” is not adequate.

The receipt of a secret commission by a broker is a species of fraud and is actionable both against the broker or introducer and the lender who paid the secret commission.

In the Court of Appeal case of Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299, Lord Justice Tuckey commented as follows:

  1. Obviously if there has been no disclosure the agent will have received a secret commission. This is a blatant breach of fiduciary duty but additionally the payment or receipt of a secret commission is considered to be a form of bribe and is treated in the authorities as a special category of fraud in which it is unnecessary to prove motive, inducement or loss up to the amount of the bribe. The principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for the money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe or for the damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given (Mahesan v Malaya’s Housing Society [1979] AC 374, 383). Furthermore the transaction is voidable at the election of the principal who can rescind it . . . (Panama & South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percher and Telegraph Co [1875] 9 Ch App 515, 527, 532-3).”

Just to confirm none of this is referred to in Carey although the latter bit is taken from Hurstanger v Wilson. It's paragraph 39 of the full judgment which you can find here (among other places):-

http://www.creditlaw.co.uk/Cases/Full%20case%20-%20Wilson%20v%20Hurstanger%202007.doc

 

Hope this clarifies the position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swift advances wrote to us recently saying: "You will note that within section 6 (of the signed Additional Information, Authorities and Declarations Form) it clearly states: If your loan was introduced to Swift by a broker then it is likely Swift will pay the broker commission." The letter goes on "As you may be aware, recent case law has held that generic disclosure of this nature is sufficient to negate secrecy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening,

 

I just suggest that you write back to Swift and quote the following case:

 

In the recent case of Nicholas G Jones v (1) Environcom Limited (2) Environcom England Limited and MS PLC t/a Miles Smith Insurance Brokers [2010] EWHC 759 (Comm) Mr Justice David Steel restated the broker's duty to inform its client of its disclosure obligations:

 

Broker's duty

David Steel J began his analysis by affirming (by reference to ICOB 4) the usual position that a broker has a duty to:

 

  • advise their client of the duty to disclose all material circumstances (facts);
  • explain the consequences of failing to do so;
  • indicate the sort of matters which ought to be disclosed as being material or arguably material;
  • take reasonable care to elicit matters which ought to be disclosed but which the client might not think it necessary to mention.

The Judge emphasised that if a new person became responsible for insurance matters in the client's organisation (as was the case at Environcom), the broker had a duty to ensure that the new person had the requisite understanding of the duty of disclosure.

The use of written advice

Miles Smith argued that it had fulfilled its duty by sending various documents to Environcom which explained its disclosure obligations. Miles Smith relied on several documents, including a letter dated November 2004 enclosing a “Summary of Insurance”, Miles Smith's revised terms of business dated January 2005, various invoices for premium and Proposal Forms. All of these documents contained some advice on the insured's disclosure obligations.

However, David Steel J concluded that none of these documents was sufficient to satisfy Miles Smith's duty to Environcom because they failed to adequately explain the obligation to disclose material facts, the nature of material facts, and the consequences of failing to disclose material facts, nor did they assist in determining at what stage disclosure was required.

The Judge emphasised that brokers could not rely on standard documents alone:

"I am not persuaded that it is sufficient simply to rely upon written standard form explanations and warnings annexed to proposals or policy documents…The broker must satisfy himself that the position is in fact understood by his client and this will usually require a specific oral or written exchange on the topic, both at the time of the original placement and at renewal (particularly if a new person has become that client's representative)."

In summary, David Steel J concluded that Miles Smith had failed to give adequate advice to Environcom on its disclosure obligations.

 

Now then whilst this relates to Insurance, in my view the same is true for all brokers - a generic letter regarding fees and commissions is NOT good enough - it must be specific and detail those amounts involved.

 

All comments thoughts etc welcomed....!

 

As always best wishes to all

 

Dougal

Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dougal16T, although I agree with what you have written above my lender on the other hand have quite a different view about the disclosure of commissions. My solicitors wrote to my lender requesting information about the commission they paid to my broker [Ocean Finance]. I have the Underwriting Sheet which I believe came accidentally in my Data Request from Ocean. In the US it clearly states that Ocean Finance were paid a case commission fee by my Lender [blemain Finance Ltd].

 

When I questioned Blemain about this they referred me to Term 11 in my loans terms and conditions which reads :

 

"The Lender will usually pay the Broker a commission and this will will normally be calculated as a percentage of the loan amount"

 

My lender believes that this is enough information to have made me aware that they would pay my broker a commission. Here is the response from Blemain to my ex-solicitors about the commission.

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/barristers%20advice/downloads/blemainresponsetosolicitor.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is still a 'secret' commission as it was undisclosed (i.e. you didn't know what the amount was)

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

True 42man, but that still does not stop Blemain from covering their backs by referring me to Term 11 in my terms and conditions.

 

 

Well they didn't have to disclose the secret commission because I received the Underwriting Sheet that cam with my Data Request from them so ha bloody ha!

Edited by frettful38
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening,

 

This is to Blemain:

 

In Wilson & Another v Hurstanger Ltd[2007] EWCA Civ 299 it was held that :The broker had not made a secret commission because the borrowers knew about the commission. But, in failing to disclose the amount, the broker had, nevertheless, acted in breach of his fiduciary duty because he had not obtained his clients' informed consent to the potential conflict of interest.

 

Significantly, the lender, (who in this case is Blemain) who had paid the commission knowing that the broker was acting as the agent of the borrowers, was found liable as an accessory to that breach. This meant that the borrowers were entitled to claim equitable compensation directly against Hurstanger.

 

 

I note that this is not the first occassion that Blemain have failed to act in accordance with the appropriate legislation, and I fully intend to take this matter as far as is neccessary in order to obtain compensation.

 

 

You have 14 days to comply with my request for details as to the actual amount of commissioin paid in my case.

 

 

Regards

 

I say that you must send this by first class recorded post - otherwise Blemain will not act and will claim ignorance.....

 

 

All the best to all

 

Dougal

Edited by Dougal16T
More emphasis needed......!!!

Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening,

 

This is to Blemain:

 

In Wilson & Another v Hurstanger Ltd[2007] EWCA Civ 299 it was held that :The broker had not made a secret commission because the borrowers knew about the commission. But, in failing to disclose the amount, the broker had, nevertheless, acted in breach of his fiduciary duty because he had not obtained his clients' informed consent to the potential conflict of interest.

 

Significantly, the lender, (who in this case is Blemain) who had paid the commission knowing that the broker was acting as the agent of the borrowers, was found liable as an accessory to that breach. This meant that the borrowers were entitled to claim equitable compensation directly against Hurstanger.

 

 

I note that this is not the first occassion that Blemain have failed to act in accordance with the appropriate legislation, and I fully intend to take this matter as far as is neccessary in order to obtain compensation.

 

 

You have 14 days to comply with my request for details as to the actual amount of commissioin paid in my case.

 

 

Regards

 

I say that you must send this by first class recorded post - otherwise Blemain will not act and will claim ignorance.....

 

 

All the best to all

 

Dougal

 

Thanks for that Dougal16T I will do what you have advised above along with much more. I don't know if you have read my thread that I have frettful-v-lender, there are many things that Blemain need to answer fro and the secret commission is only a drop in the ocean.

 

I am preparing a s140 against them and going to use the unfair relationship act. It will be long and difficult, nevertheless I am determined. I mean just look how far sparkie1723 has got with swift. We have to fight if we think we have been caused injustice. Only problem is that your average consumer don't know jack crap about the in's and out's of the law and finance industry, making it much harder and longer to get where we want.

 

Not only do we have to study the right act and apply the correct law to any breaches we have experienced, and on top of that you have these lenders and financial industries pulling every rabbit out of their hats to run us in to the ground. Fighting these companies is like pushing a car with the handbrake on :D

 

Thanks I will add what you have written to my long list of complaints against these warlocks.

 

Dougal16T, I don't know if you have seen this letter from Blemain which was sent to my solicitors who wrote to them requesting information about the secret commission. These solicitors are no longer acting for me. This response from Blemain is to the secret commission payment paid to my broker. My solicitor sent me this letter on the 26 April 10, even though he received Blemains response on 10 March 10.

 

Blemains response to my ex-solicitors regarding secret commission.

Edited by frettful38
Link to post
Share on other sites

:D thanks postggj, so you reckon Blemains response should not put me off writing to them? Blemain claim that we were not vulnerable and lacking in sophistication. Now that is another point that I should question them under the unfair relationship act s140. They would have to prove that we were not vulnerable and prove that we were sophisticated.

 

My OH for is not fluent in English as it is not his first language, and I on the other hand was being treated for depression and low mood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take out a secured loan, unsecured loan or mortgage through a broker or agent then they have a duty under agency law to act in good faith among other things. This duty requires that they act in the best interests of the client at all times and do not allow their personal interests to conflict with the clients’ best interests.

 

Additionally, where a commission is paid to the broker by the lender, the broker should disclose this to the client. A broker is not entitled to profit from carrying out the instructions of its client unless all the relevant facts have been disclosed to the client and the broker has received the client's permission to do so. Depending upon the circumstances surrounding the commissions paid, it may be possible to bring a claim to recover the undisclosed commission.

 

If it is established that the commissions were secret and amount to a secret profit then, in certain situations, this can become considered a bribe if the money is paid to the broker or agent without the client’s knowledge. This is because the payment could influence the broker to act in a way which may not be in the best interests of the client which is not allowed and would give rise to a potential claim.

 

The same may apply to car loans. If the commission is undisclosed and is hidden in the amount of credit, the agreement may be rendered unenforceable as a result.

 

It is impossible to judge a case without having all the details available as each case is dealt with on its own merits.

 

The legal background to financial mis selling & unenforceable agreements ::

 

pic2.jpg

Financial Service Regulation

 

The Financial Services Authority governs and regulates providers of Payment Protection Insurance. This includes Loan companies and Insurance companies.

 

The FSA have over recent years carried out a campaign against PPI mis-selling and have publicly pledged to stamp it out !!

The Legal Background

 

Companies providing credit to the public in the form of secured and unsecured loans have to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

This act applies to all loans under the current limit of £25,000 until 2006 when the upper limit was removed.

 

(1) Section 60 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 empowers the secretary of state to make regulations as to the form and contents of documents embodying Regulation Agreements. A breach of the regulation can render the agreement invalid.

 

(2) Section 1 of schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit Act (Agreements) Regulations 1983 states that there must be an accurate statement of the amount of credit being provided in a fixed sum credit agreement. If there are any mistakes in this document for example an item of cost in obtaining the credit being included in the loan, the loan is irredeemably unenforceable.

 

Legal Precedents

 

- Dimond V Lovell (200) RTR 243

- Wilson V First County Trusts Ltd., (2001) QB07

- Wilson V First County Trust 2 (2001) ENCA CV633

 

(3) Paragraph 4 & 5 of the schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit Act states that a fixed sum credit agreement must correctly state the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and must also contain a term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments. Details of the agreement should include

 

  1. The amount of the repayment
  2. The frequency and timing of the repayments
  3. The dates of the repayments
  4. The number of repayments

Any breach of the stipulation of the Act render the agreement irredeemably unenforceable.

 

(4) Schedule 7 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 dictates the tolerance allowed in the disclosure of the APR.

 

The Law of Agency

 

  1. The Law of Agency governs the relationship between agent and principal.
  2. One important underlying principle of the Law of Agency is the fiduciary duty of the agent to the principal. The agent has an overriding obligation to act in his clients best interest at all times.

Legal Precedents

 

Bristol & West Building Society V Mathews (1998) CH1 Lord Justice Millett

 

3. The Broker as agent has a duty Not to make a secret profit. The agent is entitled to receive a fee as remuneration for his service or/and a commission which is the ordinary amount which agents are in the habit of charging. The implications of this is if there is no indication or reference to a payment of commission, there is a strong argument to support the contention that a secret commission has been paid.

 

Legal Precedents

 

Great Eastern Insurance Company V Cunliffe (1874) chApp525

 

4. The consequences of receiving/gifting secret commission are serious. "Section 1 of the Prevention of corruption Act 1906" deems it a criminal offence punishable by a fine and or a prison sentence.

 

5. The Civil Remedy in a case that can be proven is complex and not in any way shape or form an automatic right. The current spate of activity in the legal profession for alleged cases of PPI mis-selling will be based on the legal precedents in particular a recent case heard in the appeal court in spring last year.

 

Legal Precedents

 

Wilson & another V Hurstanger Ltd., (2007) EWCA CIR 299

In this recent case Lord Justice Tuckey deals extensively with issues of the secret commission. In this judgement of the 4th April 2007 the judge states;

 

"Certain things are clear - The defendants retained the broker to act as their agent for a substantial fee. The contract of Retainer contained the usual implied terms, but the relationship created was obviously a fiduciary one."

 

"As a fiduciary the agent was required to act loyally for the defendants and not put himself in a position where he had a conflict of interest"

 

"Whether there has been sufficient disclosure must depend on the facts of each individual case, given that the requirement is for the principles informed consent."

Edited by frettful38
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although there have been precedent's set regarding the payment of secret commissions [Hurstanger & Wilson], but those were for loans under £25k therefore regulated.

 

Would the secret commission precedent also be applied for un-regulated loans also? I know that we can refer to these legal precedents but for people who have un-regulated loans, can they take advantage of these too?

 

Maybe someone can clarify please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D thanks postggj, so you reckon Blemains response should not put me off writing to them? Blemain claim that we were not vulnerable and lacking in sophistication. Now that is another point that I should question them under the unfair relationship act s140. They would have to prove that we were not vulnerable and prove that we were sophisticated.

 

My OH for is not fluent in English as it is not his first language, and I on the other hand was being treated for depression and low mood.

 

 

I have seen previous threads in a similar vein - I think the answer for anyone attending court/solicitors offices is to talk like Forrest Gump and start licking the windows.........

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen previous threads in a similar vein - I think the answer for anyone attending court/solicitors offices is to talk like Forrest Gump and start licking the windows.........

 

m

 

If that helps win our cases then I for one will lick more than windows :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Legal Background

 

Companies providing credit to the public in the form of secured and unsecured loans have to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

This act applies to all loans under the current limit of £25,000 until 2006 when the upper limit was removed.

 

(1) Section 60 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 empowers the secretary of state to make regulations as to the form and contents of documents embodying Regulation Agreements. A breach of the regulation can render the agreement invalid.

 

(2) Section 1 of schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit Act (Agreements) Regulations 1983 states that there must be an accurate statement of the amount of credit being provided in a fixed sum credit agreement. If there are any mistakes in this document for example an item of cost in obtaining the credit being included in the loan, the loan is irredeemably unenforceable.

------------------------

 

I am still not clear on which agreements are regulated - please can someone clarify this for me?

 

Is a secured (2nd charge) loan taken out in sep 2007 a regulated agreement under cca1974?

 

i am sorry to ask if the answer should be apparent.

 

thanks, atom

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Legal Background

 

Companies providing credit to the public in the form of secured and unsecured loans have to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

This act applies to all loans under the current limit of £25,000 until 2006 when the upper limit was removed.

 

(1) Section 60 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 empowers the secretary of state to make regulations as to the form and contents of documents embodying Regulation Agreements. A breach of the regulation can render the agreement invalid.

 

(2) Section 1 of schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit Act (Agreements) Regulations 1983 states that there must be an accurate statement of the amount of credit being provided in a fixed sum credit agreement. If there are any mistakes in this document for example an item of cost in obtaining the credit being included in the loan, the loan is irredeemably unenforceable.

------------------------

 

I am still not clear on which agreements are regulated - please can someone clarify this for me?

 

Is a secured (2nd charge) loan taken out in sep 2007 a regulated agreement under cca1974?

 

i am sorry to ask if the answer should be apparent.

 

thanks, atom

 

 

Depends on if the amount is £25k or over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand it depends on each individual case with regard to recission of the contract however you would be at least entitled to the secret commission + interest from the date it was paid - Wilson v Hurstanger | OUT-LAW.COM by Pinsent Masons LLP

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...