Jump to content


Can We All Do Something Meaningful About Starting A 'class Action' Against Lenders ?


rocket1
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1949 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

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Could someone more knowledgeable than me tell me if someone being evicted due to repossession by a lender is regarded as that person making themselves intentionally homeless? This seems to be the crux and origin of the Ops problem.

 

Why not look it up?

 

There's hardly a shortage of advice and comment about this as an issue, to be found online.

 

According to the rules and guidelines there are no default assumptions; what was intended is very much a matter for the discretion of the council, a call for them to make. If the Council gave a reason, the Council did not deny they had any legal obligations. A council is at least obliged to give a reason.

 

In order to prove that the authority acted illegally & wrongly a good deal more is in order than the raw opinion that this or that was obvious.

 

What is not so likely to convince is to say, on the one hand that "There was no warning whatever", only then to follow up with "They had announced about three years ago they intended to do this".

 

In view of that I am thinking that there is not so much that a lawyer could do. The problem is more to do with attitude and outlook, the more effective strategy being to come to an understanding of what is obvious to the council.

 

As with anybody else, the willingness of an authority to listen is going to be more or less proportional to the willingness of the subject, to reciprocate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

COUNCIL SAYS I AM 'INTENTIONALLY' HOMELESS' AS I WAS EVICTED FROM THE HOUSE I HAD

 

BOUGHT WITH A MORTGAGE I COULD NOT PAY OWING TO FRAUDULENT MIS-SELLING & EQUALLY

 

FRAUDULENT MIS-INFORMATION FROM THE BENEFITS IDIOTS GIVING ME ENDLESSLY WRONG

 

INFORMATION.

 

Can anyone give me advice on this ? The council sent me a letter pointing out they had a legal obligation to house my child & me, and then added a paragraph saying but actually they don't really have to as I am intentionally homeless because I had bought the house about nine years previously and I should have realise 'I would never find work again as I was a single parent'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you should contact shelter or your local citizens advice who may be able to assist you in requesting a review of the decision

 

you may find useful information on their websites

 

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/help_from_the_council/what_the_council_will_check/intentional_homelessness

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_family/home_and_neighbourhood_index_ew/finding_a_place_to_live_index_ew/finding_accommodation.htm

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post a copy of the letter here deleting any pesonal information as I am very very suprised that you are being told that you would never find work as a single parent as most single parents I know do work and if claiming JSA are obliged to seek work or lose their benefits.

 

Where are you living now and what benefits do you get?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the concern & my apologies for disappearing. I have been having a slightly difficult time and have not had much access to the internet.

 

I did contact Shelter & they have been instrumental in persuading social services to continue paying fo r the B&B. I was contacted at 4.45pm by social services, just when I had removed the last of my possessions from the B&B and told I could go back as funding had been approved as a result of a Shelter solicitor making threatening noises at the SS.

 

The crux of all this is exactly as one of the posters here says, that the council are deliberately and maliciously classing people who get repossessed from sub-prime mortgages are 'at fault' and are therefore 'intentionally homeless' which means they will be on the streets and not get council housing.

 

Shelter organised an internal council procedure 'review' of this decision which they have now done and NOT changed their decision.

 

BUT I have the legal arguments which I will post here together with my shredding of them when I do it. Here is a slightly edited letter from me to Shelter which helps explain a bit as I have no more time to post anything intelligably at present & will come back to this.

 

 

 

Dear Shelter

 

Many thanks for sending the Council Review of September th, which I have read carefully.

 

It makes me incandescent with anger as it mendaciously clutches at straws of law in it's desperate determination to carp and spin the facts into a package of drivel that merely appears to sound legally correct and sufficiently logical to arrive at the conclusion of intentionality. A less carping mind could equally use exactly the same points of law to determine a finding of acceptance of housing liability instead of this refusal.

 

 

There are a number of issues quoted which are simply subjective wishful thinking on behalf of the council & it's solicitor who have skill-fully edited the information I provided into a parody of the truth. Both the concept of 'dishonesty' and ' wishful thinking' concerning employment, being the most obvious.

 

On the critical question of me 'dishonestly' stating I had an income of £40K; that is totally incorrect because I never, at any stage, claimed or said anything of the sort and in actual fact that sum was written on the application form by the broker ( & could be proved) at his offices during the course of a telephone call from me to him after the application form had been sent to him. So, I did absolutely not write that figure on the form. I only ever told the broker and the lender that 'when I commenced working I expected to earn' about a minimum of £40k pa for the first year as it would take time to establish myself and that I might reasonably be expected to earn considerably more than that in time.

 

 

At all times the only discussions with the broker concerning income were that I clearly said I had absolutely no income other than benefits when taking out the mortgage.

 

In terms of me actually finding work,the council & their solicitor's opinions are mere absurd fiction dreamed up out of a stubborn determination to bend the facts to suit themselves and spout a tissue of nonsense which is pure subjective invention on their part. I will address this issue properly in more detail later.

 

I will read the various case law the council refer to and comment on the various defects apparent in this review and send these notes to you. This email is just an immediate outburst of visceral disgust at the astonishingly weasel-like attempts of the council to be so abusive and penalise me or anyone else in similar circumstances. I consider it nasty, brutish & wicked, and I have absolutely no time at all for people who behave like this.

 

I think it is important that the council are not allowed to get away with this because I have been made aware of many cases of other people being conned into similar mortgages and facing repossessions through no fault of theirs whatever.

 

Nearly all of them do not have the various mitigating circumstances concerning my case and if the same legal arguments were used by Local Authorities to avoid housing them merely because they have been forced by a horribly venal financial industry into taking out specially designed ‘rip off’ mortgages rather than the regular old fashioned ‘High Street’ Building Society mortgages, it is viciously unreasonable, unfounded discrimination without a shred of logic or decency to support such actions.

 

 

 

If the council are trying on this trick of flouting the intentions of Parliamentary legislation on me, and allowed to get away with it, then there will be thousands of homeless people being flung out onto the streets by mean spirited Councils who couldn't care less about anything other than their misinterpreted impositions of insane, unthinking bureaucracy without the slightest regard to law & the intentions of legislation and the incredible harm their revolting behaviour causes.

 

The council housing officer made it perfectly plain to me in about 2007 when I was being threatened with eviction by (lender) that she disapproved of self certified mortgages in general. She spoke to me in a very disparaging, belittling manner making it plain she disapproved of me & specifically made it clear to me that she intended imposing her own personal opinion about what I should or should not do with my own life on me.

 

 

She told me she was of the personal opinion that I should not have considered ever buying a property again simply on the basis of my being a ‘single parent’ and that I was also ‘too old to realistically expect to ever work again’ and that the combination of being a single parent and being in my late fifties made buying a house “foolish’.

 

I was utterly astonished at what she said to me.

 

She pointed out that because this was her opinion, she was almost certainly ‘minded’ to find me intentionally homeless right from the very beginning.

 

She further informed me it was her opinion that what I should have done with the eighty thousand odd pounds left over after selling my previous House was to use it to rent a property and to live on until all the money ran out and disappeared. She told me that I could have then claimed housing benefit and therefore would never have put myself at risk of losing my accommodation.

 

She said this is what she personally would have done and thought I should have taken this particular course of action too. She immediately told me it was on the basis of this imaginary scenario that she was minded to find me intentionally homeless because she was ‘gobsmacked’.

 

All this was said by her at our first relatively brief meeting when I described my circumstances to her. She had not given any meaningful consideration to all the information I had given to her at that time, but had conveyed her personal prejudices to me as being the basis for her stated intention of discriminating against me.

 

It is the case that this housing officer's logic about renting accommodation and living on the available £80 000 is completely flawed as it would have taken only about five years for the money to disappear at benefit level expenditure, whereas I survived for about ten years and would have survived indefinitely if I had not been so totally misinformed by benefits system employees who have been and are notoriously incompetent and frequently have absolutely no idea whatever about what they are talking about.

 

I am entirely a victim of appalling people who administer the benefits system and council offices because they have ensured that my attempts to survive since 1998 as a single parent bringing up a child and being reliant on benefits have been sabotaged by endless mis-information and maladministration time and time again.

 

If you simply take my individual circumstances into account and me needing to rely on benefits starting at the original situation way back in about 1998 when my son was born, you will see that a person in those circumstances would have been able to be completely secure in terms of never being at risk of losing his then home and that he would have been able to survive with a modest lifestyle on benefits with no risk whatever of serious financial problems.

 

It was the people administering the benefits systems itself which prevented my survival and who are responsible for me losing a gigantic amount of home equity and finally being made homeless. A description of all the details of all this since 1998 will clearly indicate the truth of what I am saying. Frankly, it just takes your breath away at the sheer wanton destructiveness of these people in the benefits system.

 

I always knew this and was endlessly frustrated because the incompetence of the benefits system just ran rings around me and I simply could not cope with a style of bureaucracy which is breathtakingly incompetently administered by people who behave in a truly awful manner. I am not alone in being unable to cope with what has been inflicted on me and being highly educated or generally a competent person is no qualification to ensure an ability to be able to cope with the sort of sheer madness I have encountered within the benefits system.

 

My stability of accommodation was willfully destroyed by the benefits system employees dealing with me on several different occasions and not by me. Except I have to say I must be at fault for simply being unable to cope with the high levels of ignorance, incompetence and maladministration which pervade the whole of the benefits system and cause so much damage to so many people.

 

This behaviour is appalling.

Edited by rocket1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I would go so far as to to suggest that at last something could be done for those with LIBOR linked mortgages.

 

 

All 250,000 of us, unless that doesn't take into account the ones repo'd already.

 

 

You make a contract on the basis the LIBOR rate is correct and not subject to fraud as has been revealed.

 

 

Up, down, win or lose, as a consumer you want honesty and fair treatment,

not a greed based free for all.

 

 

It's another arrow to add to many that the industry has NOT been regulated,

 

 

it's been swept under the carpet and the last people to know are the people that are supposed to be educated in these matters and supervising!

 

 

Move over...we've known about it since 2003 and the grubby goings on of the ratings agencies.

 

 

Did they listen when it was reported? Hell no!

 

 

They were just interested in the next election and bank bonuses to get the champagne in with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

I was accepted on the government mortgage rescue scheme & all the paperwork & surveys etc completed & I was accepted.

 

But at the last minute the Housing Association taking on the house produced a completely fictitious list of repairs with obviously inflated costs as well, and said they could not take on the house on the basis the repairs would cost too much (£27k) and the maximum budget they had was (£20k)

 

Did anyone else have similar experiences with the Mortgage Rescue Scheme ?

 

I am just wondering if we could do something about it as it appears to be completely ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If their repair list is fictitious, then perhaps you could challenge them on this ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mis selling of the mortgage or insurances related to it?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well before we go any further please could you start a thread in the mortgages section for this as we would need a heap of information as to why you thought it was mis sold

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did challenge it. I made an official complaint, but was completely fobbed off. I even rang them, but they were very unpleasant & made it plain they couldn't care less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mis-sold Mortgage CAG

 

I think my mortgage might have been mis-sold. Was it ? And can I do anything about it ?

 

The core essence of the mis-selling is this:

 

I was desperate to pay back an existing mortgage & needed to re-mortgage to avoid re-possession so I phoned up my credit card, Capital One to ask about their advertised Mortgage Broking service.

 

I specifically explained my mortgage history to them which included me explaining I had mortgaged with SPML in about 2002, paid an early redemption charge and moved the mortgage to Birmingham Midshires in 2003, on the basis of being promised it would be ‘cheaper’.

 

Midshires were now engaged in re-possesion proceedings.

 

I explained the underlying cause of my financial problems was that I was a single parent entirely reliant on State Benefits. I further explained I was now expecting to be able to start working again as my child was becoming sufficiently older and more independent to allow this.

 

I was expecting to work as a freelance, although this would take considerable time to build up an adequate income as it was a poorly paid and unreliable market.

 

I explained quite explicitly that I was currently in receipt of state benefits only and that I had contacted the benefits agency to ask them if I could pay freelance earnings into a Ltd company to build up a capital sum, and still claim benefits until the capital sum was large enough to take an income & come off benefits entirely. The Benefits Agency had agreed with this.

 

The Capital One broking company said that would all be OK. They were specialists, they said, in providing mortgages for people on State benefits.

 

Specifically, when I filled in the mortgage application form and filled in a box which asked what an expected average year’s income was likely to be I put in a figure of about £55 000 ( I think). I sent the signed application off and then received a phone call from Capital One Brokers.

 

They said in more or less exactly these words, “the expected salary figure seems a bit high and it might encourage the underwriters to want to make more detailed enquiries and so they wanted to advise me to reduce this earnings figure to a lower, ordinary level of earnings so as not to provoke further detailed investigation which might mean I would not be offered a mortgage. As things stood right now the Captial One broker said, I would definitely get the mortgage approved if I just adjusted the earning figure down a bit.’

 

 

Could I just alter this earnings figure downwards, they told me. I said yes, I would if that was their advice and I suggested they sent the mortgage application form back to me for me to alter it.

 

They if it was OK by me they would be quite happy to alter the figure themselves so they would have no need to send the application form back to me for altferation and initialling. They would make then alteration themselves and initial it themselves ?

 

It was duly done. I was awarded the mortgage which my calculations showed I could afford even while on benefits.

 

However, the benefits system frequently failed to pay what is should have done and often benefits were withheld (entirely unlawfully I have discovered).

 

So I soon got into financial difficulties and SPML were soon extremely aggressive in implementing extra charges and re-possession proceedings.

 

I was eventually evicted at only 24 hours notice after an appeal failed and I was ‘stitched up’ by the mortgage rescue scheme telling me I had been ‘rescued’, only to be told at the last minute by the housing association they would not have enough money to do repairs which did not, in fact, actually exist anyway.

 

That was just a ploy many housing associations were using on many people to refuse to take on mortgage rescue properties, for some reason that is quite beyond me.

 

I was rapidly approaching the official retirement age of 65 a the time the mortgage was arranged by Capital One.

 

Does this look like mis-selling ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't. Time has moved on. I've been evicted and become ill over an extended period of time and unable to deal with much as a result. Although this makes things slightly more difficult, of course that evidence can be found.

 

I know perfectly well that I have a case against the housing association for what is actually blatant fraud, malfeasance in public office and probably other things as well. But I have absolutely no money to pay for a lawyer & all my efforts to get legal aid have been a sick joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is the point you are making ? As you can see from the previous threads, I have got absolutely nowhere with actually being able to get anything done. All previous threads centre around the same things that I refer to today.

 

Being a bit older & wiser, and having learned a bit more about this whole evil business of the fraud within the financial industry I have to find a way of doing something about it as it cannot be just left for them to get away with it. My life has been ruined by fraud & theft & bureaucratic abuse on an epic scale.

 

I thought the best way to deal with it was to start over from scratch in a more focussed way. My thread about mis-selling seems to describe in a pretty focussed way what happened & seems to be to be absolutely clear it describes mis-selling.

 

If that is the case, it would be helpful if other people were of the same opinion. If that was the case I undoubtedly need help to bring a case before a court and bring it to a successful conclusion. I cannot do it by myself. That is why I have so far failed to actually get anywhere. Any attempt I have made to do anything has completely failed for exactly the reason lawyers exist - to do what non-lawyers cannot - i.e. brings cases to court successfully !

 

I imagined the CAG group was about helping people with problems, not simply carping, sniping, Trolling and trying to score points off other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it gives people the background of your fight.

 

 

very important IMHO.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, it does give lots more detailed 'background'. I can't argue with that. But I thought that by leaving behind all that 'muddle' and starting over in that more focussed way, it would be better, and more probably be easier for other people to get to grips with.

 

I would still have to produce all the stuff from previous posts anyway, but re-written in a more focussed way.

It needs to be taken one step at a time.

 

The first step being the simple explanation of how the mortgage was taken out under obviously fraudulent circumstances. Further down the line comes the question of the mortgage rescue - which turned out (it seems) to be a bizarre Government fraud (the reasons completely escaping me).

 

But many, many people had exactly the same experience as me with fictitious & inflated estimates for non-existent repairs thus giving housing asscociations the excuse not to complete and the government simply not being able to spend the available fund for mortgage rescue !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well the links are there

if people want to read them they can....

 

 

its better than merging the whole things

as ...you quite rightly say...everything including yourself...has somewhat matured since those days.

 

 

if / if not a class action is the way to go is the issue me thinks..

 

 

currently..the more individual complaints/legal action against these people the more publicity p'haps..

but ofcourse they've stayed pretty Teflon to date ...

 

 

its a very hard one to call.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...