Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Gmac -i Want My Life + Money Back


judi3
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5168 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

The fees and charges impacted are:-

  • Charges for non-payment of the monthly mortgage payment by direct debit when the account was in arrears and no monthly mortgage payment was being made.
  • A portion of the solicitor’s instruction fee (£39) that exceeded the actual cost.
  • Early Repayment Charges applied to, arrears fees and charges.
  • A flat rate of interest of 8% will be added to the amounts due to customers.
  • No other fees or charges that may have been applied to your account are affected by this and no further refunds are due.

Upon reading the fsa publication i believe i have been affected by

 

failed to ensure that mortgage servicing staff had an adequate understanding of and implemented the requirement to treat customers fairly in handling its mortgage arrears and repossessions

 

focussed on the collection of payment of arrears over a short period of time within fixed mandates, rather than always establishing a suitable arrangement based on the customer’s individual circumstances

 

sometimes issued proceedings for repossession before all alternatives to repossession had been considered and accordingly, did not always use litigation only as a last resort

 

Field counsellors were engaged by GMAC to visit customers to discuss their mortgage arrears and to consider available options. GMAC regularly reviewed mortgage account servicing, but outcomes in arrears and repossessions focussed on quantitative measurements, such as the average number of days to get to court order, and did not provide any qualitative assessments of performance or TCF.

 

However, the guidance concentrated on information provision and establishing the reason for arrears in dealings with customers rather than a consideration of all appropriate arrears rehabilitation tools.

 

Options available to GMAC included alterations to the payment date, repayment type, extension to the term of the mortgage, capitalisation of arrears or a switch to a different mortgage product. These were considered if requested by the customer, but would not be routinely offered as an option by GMAC. A review of training programmes for mortgage servicing staff indicated that, prior to changes introduced in November 2008, arrears resolution centred on collecting payments via an ATP, with insufficient assessment of the viability of the ATP or whether there were other options to resolve the arrears situation that would produce a better outcome for the customer.

 

Applications for immediate repossession orders were frequently made by GMAC without evidence that all other viable options had been considered and that repossession was being used only as a last resort.

 

 

calculation and imposition of the Early Repayment Charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance; and

 

The above charges were unfair because they did not accurately reflect the additional administration work to the mortgage account caused by the fact that the customer was in arrears.

 

9

This led to a risk that the firm’s systems and controls were insufficient in relation to the handling and oversight of mortgage arrears to ensure the fair treatment of customers, and accordingly, the firm was in breach of Principle 3.

5.3.

 

Principle 6 requires that a firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. In doing so, firms should ensure that customers are treated fairly if they are in arrears with their mortgage by being flexible in considering a customer’s individual circumstances to ensure that the firm uses court action for repossession of a customer’s home only as a last resort

 

In focussing mainly on the collection of payment of arrears rather than always considering what may be a more suitable arrangement based on the customer’s circumstances and in issuing proceedings for repossession before all alternatives to repossession had been considered, the firm failed to pay due regard to the interests of some of its customers

 

In addition, GMAC did not treat its customers fairly as a result of applying certain charges and fees to customers’ accounts that were unfair as they did not accurately reflect the additional cost of administering an account in arrears in breach of MCOB 12.4.1R and 13.3.1

 

This resulted in some customers incurring excessive and unfair charges (i.e. charges that were not a reasonable estimate of the costs of the additional administration required as a result of the customer being in arrears) and accruing additional costs that could have been avoided had GMAC adopted a more flexible and fairer approach to arrears management tailored to the customer’s individual circumstances.

 

In determining the appropriate sanction, the FSA has had regard to the seriousness of the contraventions, including the nature of the requirements breached, the number and duration of the breaches, and the number of customers who suffered financial loss

 

the failings persisted over a significant period of time and impacted a large number of customers some of whom already had an adverse credit status;

(2) a portion of GMAC’s lending was to the sub-prime sector and arrears rates in this sector are higher than those in the rest of the mortgage market; and

 

I sold my home for £19k less than it was worth after i received a repossesion hearing . I Repaid 1 month before the erc was to be waived £3600 .

 

I would like help to fight for my money back any help advice would be so much appreciatedhttp://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

I am one of the customers

 

The FSA said a number of serious failings by GMAC-RFC were identified in relation to its dealings with customers experiencing arrears and repossessions. The investigation covered the period between October 31 2004 and November 30 2008.

The failings included excessive and unfair charges for customers that did not reflect administration costs; proposing repayment plans that did not always consider a customer’s individual circumstances; and starting repossession proceedings before fully considering all the alternatives.

 

I understand that i will be receiving

 

Our regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) have identified that certain mortgage arrears fees and charges paid by current and previous mortgage account holders should be refunded because the fee or charge exceeded the actual cost to us.

Certain mortgage arrears fees and charges will be refunded in full and others in part. Refunds will also include 8% interest.

Edited by judi3
erc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you add compounded interest at 8% then it will be more....you should really get back contractual interest, that to me would be fair...but to give you an example a £50 charge on 1st January 2006 would now be worth £65 - Have a look here and work them out - Bank Charges Reclaiming: They’re unlawful! Inc. free letters ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks letter sent off asking for the charges and erc with a note that if i go to court i will also go for substantial damages , standard reply fri thank you wait four weeks will keep you posted :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Just Rang Them Asked For A Total Breakdown How They Dreamed Of This Offer And Advised That I Am Not Accepting It . Acknowledged That My Letter Dated 03 Nov Was With Them .

 

Just Emailed And Will Send Recorded Tommorrow Confirmation That I Do Not Accept And Also Letter Before Action Sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

spoke with them this morning and told them from 2002 to 2008 i could not pay be direct debit because i had no current account only a building society cheque book

because od defaults and ccj also i was paying into a debt managemt program

i told them £65 pounds a month over 5 years

and having arrears of £2700 and taken to court was unfair as i had tp represent myself

i tld the juge i was able to get for a while 4 hours extra in work to help clear the defecit

wish everyone luck with gmac as the highly polished dont frget they will ave on in house training courses for this amd

had we scripted sheets

i am claiming hardship

will call them friday

see what they say then

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Advised i did not accept the offer i have waited 7 weeks for a reply to my complaint .

 

part of reply

 

To this end in an attempt to bring about a speedy and amicble resolution of your commitment to your mortgage whilst you experienced difficulties i feel a refund of £359.70 (plus the £119.88 first offer ) is a more than fair and reasonable . full and final settlement

 

this letter concludes stage1 of our internal complaints if you are dissatisfied contact again

 

I Have rung to advice that i remain dissatisfied the complaint handler wants his senior manager to telephone me to try and not go into second stage complaint .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...