Jump to content


Blemain finance


dax
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1588 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 421
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Midge:

A secured loan is a mortgage as far as I am aware. The definition of mortgage in the Oxford Law Dictionary : an agreement which involves lending money using property as security:'Principal or First Mortgage' main mortgage where deeds are deposited with the lender as security.'Puisine mortgage' any other charge or loan against the property where the property is offered as security but the deeds have not been deposited with the lender.

 

So I think the FSA ruling equally applies to secured loans and its just a name thing really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...I've taken a look at the figures BF sent me. If want a peek at the letter, click here ,and page 2 is here. The statement is here.

 

Can any of you 'Rule of 78' Guru's work out if they've calculated this correctly?:confused:

 

......think I need to start my own thread on BF & Rule of 78;)

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're more than prepared to send the breakdown of figures ONLY to those who DIDN'T take out PPI!:mad:

 

From what we have on the thread, they've refused to communicate with most claimants......after all, they won't put out their dirty linen without a fight!

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we could really do with some help on this thread especially because none of the regulatory bodies have been of help to date....

As simple as this might sound, Midge61, "How do we PM a Site Helper(s)?"

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Missy,

 

Rule of 78 : Payments not yet due (Payments Not yet due+1)

Total Number Payments (total Number Payments due+1)

 

X Total charge for Credit = Rebate

 

therefore: Total Charge for Credit - Rebate Due = Amount to pay + or -

 

So in order to work it out will need the following :

 

1. Term of loan.

2. Monthly repayment amount.

3. Total Charge for credit (as stated on the agreement).

 

This will give the redemption figure not that it is any use really: as I understand it it is up to you to show that irrespective of whether they've calculated the figure correctly or not, that whatever the figure is, it amounts to more than their actual loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greedfighter,

 

thanks for the feedback.

 

You said ".....the redemption figure not that it is any use really: as I understand it it is up to you to show that irrespective of whether they've calculated the figure correctly or not, that whatever the figure is, it amounts to more than their actual loss."

 

I'll do a bit of digging but have you come across any CAGERS who've actually been able to do this and won their case?:confused:

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

This is the rule 78 calculator if it helps

 

Rule of 78 Loan Calculator

 

Thanks for that!

 

Was up till 3am recalculating the figures using the Rule of 78 formula on the The Office of Public Sector Information website.....It wasn't an easy task!!:(

 

Looks like they made me overpay by 1,400! On Monday, I'll be sending them a copy of my calculations (as my prelim) as well a copy to Trading Standards to cross check the figures for me.

 

I'll also be claiming back the default interest of 21.17 and collection activity charge of 352.50. This gives a total of 1,900 or so. The grand total with 8% statutory interest (not 100% sure if this applies) is 2,800...:grin:

 

 

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

The redemption figure is the total amount required to be paid to discharge the loan : it is made up of

 

(a) The amount of capital outstanding +

(b) Any administrative or legal fee at the end of the loan +

© Any fees agreed before the loan (to be debited at the end) +

(d) Any default charges or interest thereon +

(e) The total charge for future interest -

(f) The Rebate

 

These calculations will give the redemption figure.

 

You can only claim :

 

(d) if the charges are unreasonable.

 

and

 

the difference between the charge for future lost interest (which is made up of total and future interest)(e) minus the rebated amount (f) if the amount is more than reasonable (i.e more than their actual loss). What you are effectively arguing is that the amount they have charged you for future losses is unreasonable. The FSA enquiry and undertaking effectively says that the figures arrived at using the rule of 78 to calculate their losses will almost certainly be unreasonable. So whatever figure they have arrived at for the redemption figure is relatively unimportant, whereas the figures for calculating their actual loss are.

 

Whilst I dont want to be pessimistic there are some important things to consider,

 

(a) Banks usually employ only a small team of legal people since their legal issues are fairly limited (mainly debt) and usually straightforward.

(b) Building Societies and Mortgage Companies on the other hand employ large numbers of legal people since they are dealing with legal issues on a much bigger scale (conveyancing, landlord tenant, contractual stuff etc).

© The law relating to property, conveyancing, mortgages etc is far more complex than that which arises when claiming back bank charges.

(d) it is generally accepted that Mortgage Company Legal people are for more skilfull and have much more expertise than bank legal people.

 

I still think you can and should make a go of it but it's not something I would fancy fighting myself (please remember this is only my opinion and you certainly shouldn't let it put you off). I'm not aware of any cases that have won other than those already mentioned that have lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Midge61,

 

are all the 3 loans with BF?

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I haven't heard from BF since requesting them to recalculate the settlement figure 2 weeks ago; I also used this as a Prelim.

 

Sent off the LBA today.

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all

 

I am still waiting for the rest of my info from my S.A.R but last week I had a letter from the ICO to say they were going to write to BF about non compliance.

 

Today I recieved a letter from Monarchs Stating that the account is in serious default.

 

They are claiming 1 months payment (which is higher than normal amount) and over £800 in charges that must be paid or they will commmence legal proceedings!

 

Can they do this. They have not mentioned charges before and no default notice as of yet.

 

All help gratefully recieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From personal experiance i dont remember getting a default but presumed i did. They went for a re-possession hearing with me, but i managed to pay all arrears a few days before the hearing date, by borrowing off a friend.

 

As this was done before the date, the hearing was cancelled, and i had no charges. Scarey stuff though. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

WOW, what a thread! It's taken me ages to read through it, and all the documents I have relating to my dealings with BF. I do need help though as to a way forward....

 

I took out a second mortgage of £25,000 with BF. The agreement is signed by me (not them) as 27/05/05. (31/05/05 seems important from alot of the above - but the loan wasn't granted until June or maybe July 2005).

 

I lost my job and last year they began chasing me trying for respossession. Woolwich were OK about my arrears (having never been unemployed before) but BF were dragging me to court every other month, even though I told them I was releasing capital from another property I half own and intended to pay them off in full).

 

There were some late payments, as my employment became erratic (not least because of the stress of repossession threats). They've had every penny as far as the installments are concerned, and on 14th February I paid them £25,000 by debit card (it was too much for Barclays to do over the internet) but that didn't stop them sending me an "arrears letter" from their debt collection branch dated 15th February (but posted on 20th).

 

I asked for a balance of the account, but was today sent a Solicitor's letter with their redemption figure of £7,219. On top of that I have to pay a further £4,929 in legal fees for their failed attempts to repossess my property.

 

If I pay £12,149 by 17/03/08 the debt will be cleared. But by then I will have paid more than £48,000 for a £25K mortgage over 32 months! That's actually more than the outstanding amount on my Woolwich mortgage!

 

I think I need to ask them for a proper statement detailing all charges and the rate of interest they have charged me. The original agreement said 17%, and they have never sent me a letter advising any change to that (as they are required to under the *very* feint print on the back of the agreement).

 

HELP!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oscar

 

These are the worst of the worst. I would refrain from talking to them on the phone in future as they never stick to anything said.

 

If you post in the following section you may get a quicker response.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/

 

You will see there is someone else dealing with a repossession from BF.

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1588 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...