Beacon Homeloans/Redstone agreement unenforceable... so why can't I do anything about it?

[subprimevictim]

If anyone could advise me on the following it would be much appreciated.

 

I have a "mortgage" with Beacon Homeloans/Redstone

and have been fighting a battle against these sub prime sharks for the past 2 years,

but now feel I have no ammunition left.

 

I had my mortgage agreement audited by a solicitor who found it to be unenforceable

on the grounds that the APR was incorrectly stated, ie 10.1% instead of 10.3%, and possible other breaches.

He subsequently wrote to Beacon Homeloans asking them to agree that they would not enforce the Agreement.

Needless to say, they did not respond.

 

The solicitor then told me that he would apply to the court for a declaration of unenforceability.

Nothing else happened for a few weeks,

 

 

I suddenly received an email from the solicitor stating that, as my claim was on a conditional fee basis,

the funders had decided not to provide the funding, even though it was a good case.

 

I have been in arrears with Redstone for some time, and so far have managed to hold them off

by informing them that the agreement is in dispute, whilst continuing to pay what I can afford.

No doubt they will soon find out that my dispute has fizzled out and will come down on me for repossession.

 

I have tried to find someone else to act for me,

but keep being told that nothing can be done as the "mortgage " was taken out after October 1974.

(It completed on March 31st 2007)

 

I know that several other things are wrong with this mortgage as well.

I was charged an arrangement fee of £995 by Beacon Homeloans on completion,

and another £995 by Redstone when it was transferred to them the following day,

which Redstone tell me is another arrangement fee!

 

 

Why do I have to pay an arrangement fee to Redstone,

when they did not arrange anything,

but simply aquired it from Beacon?

 

 

There is also a charge of around £500 for court fees from an adjourned repossession hearing,

for which I was never given a breakdown.

 

There are also numerous arrears fees which the FOS says are quite fair,

but I have not yet approached them regarding the APR or the arrangement fee charged twice.

I have found the FOS useless in the past, but they may be the only option left to me now.

 

If there is anyone out there who has been in a similar situation and succeeded,

or if a solicitor is reading this and is not afraid to take it on,

I would welcome any help you can give.

 

 

Why should those of us who were duped into a sub prime mortgage

because we were not told what they entailed, have to suffer for it for the rest of our lives?

[Guest MamaG1]

This is a very interesting tread and I will keep an eye on it.

 

Did the fos help youa at all though?.

 

Dont give up fight, you dont have anything to loose by fighting. I am not very legal withe the advises, but I am sure you willget help from fellow Caggers, try calling the Debt line. they may also be able to help or get you funding for your lawyers fees. they have probably bribbed the lawyer not to defend u. who knows.

[subprimevictim]

Hi MamaG1, and thank you for your reply.

 

The FOS didn't really help at all; they got Redstone to offer me a refund of £150 as full and final settlement, which I declined.

 

You make an interesting point in saying that the company might have bribed the lawyer not to defend me. I hadn't thought of that, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

If I can find a lawyer willing to help me, I would be entitled to legal aid, as I am on Pension Guarantee Credit.

 

By the way, I made a mistake with the date in paragraph 6. The claims companies are all telling me that they can only help with mortgages taken out before October 2004 (not 1974)! Apparently mortgages became regulated after this date so nothing can be done. Does anyone know whether this is true? If so, why did the first lawyer not tell me this?

 

Thanks again for your interest.

[tifo]

There are also numerous arrears fees which the FOS says are quite fair

 

Don't know how they can say this when the FSA say they are unlawful if not for admin costs only (i.e. no profit). The FSA has encouraged people to claim these charges as unfair.

[tifo]

The claims companies are all telling me that they can only help with mortgages taken out before October 2004 (not 1974)! Apparently mortgages became regulated after this date so nothing can be done.

 

Why only before 2004 (when they became regulated)?

[subprimevictim]

I thought other customers/victims of Redstone Mortgages might like to know of Redstone's latest ploy to get round the FSA ruling that they must stop the £50 per month arrears fee if the customer sets up an arrangement to pay the arrears.

They are deliberately making it difficult for the customer to set up an arrangement. They tell the customer over the phone that in order to make an arrangement, they need an Income and Expenditure form filled in by the customer, with 3 months bank statements and pay slips.

When the customer phones about 2 weeks later to make a payment and check the payment offer has been accepted - surprise! They haven't received the form. It must have got lost in the post. So unless you have kept a copy or want to do it all again, they can carry on happily charging you £50 per month.

In my case, I find it very hard to believe that they didn't receive it, as I also sent a letter of complaint about unlawful charges on the same date, which they have received.

Anyone else experienced this tactic?

[Ell-enn]

Make sure anything you send to these people is sent by recorded delivery - that way you can print the signature receipt from the royalmail website. Usually when you tell them who signed for it, they miraculously find the letter !

[subprimevictim]

Yes, with hindsight I sincerely wish I had sent it recorded. I know these people can never be trusted, but they always seem able to stoop that extra bit lower than you expect.

[Ben Reeve-Lewis]

I know how you feel SPV. I work for a local authority doing the government's Mortgage Rescue scheme and have to negotiate with the banks all the time. When we start a case we have to send a off a letter of authorisation sugned by the borrower so the banks can talk to us and they lose them constantly, which delays things and pushes fees up. My preferred tactic has always been to put 4 or 5 staples on the letter and the authorisation and yet, when I ring them weeks later (having heard nothing back) they say they have my letter on file but not the authorisation. It happens so routinely for me and my colleagues, with all lenders, that you just know that it must be planned

 

Just after Xmas I met a bloke who is the ex head of mortgage repossessions for a very well known high street lender who is now working for the other side and asked him about it. He confirmed that they just rip them off and throw them in the bin.

 

I agree with El-enn, recorded delivery everytime.

[subprimevictim]

Hi all,

 

I have a debt with Redstone (they call it a mortgage).

I have read through the FSA ruling on which fees and charges can and cannot be reclaimed, but could someone please clarify whether the £50 monthly arrears fee can be reclaimed when there was not an arrangement to pay in place at the time?

 

Any advice would be welcome.

Thank you.

Subprimevictim.

[rebel11]

Hi sub

 

The guys will be happy to advise as soon as they are available.

[subprimevictim]

A word of warning to anyone thinking of trying to reclaim unlawful arrears and other charges - don't waste your time.

 

I was told by the Financial Ombudsman Service today, in response to my claim against Redstone,

that the company is entitled to do whatever it likes, and charge whatever it likes, because I signed for it.

 

So the fine imposed on Redstone, Kensington and others by the FSA for unfair treatment of customers doesn't make a scrap of difference.

 

Neither does the fact that Redstone commenced repossession proceedings against me in 2008 despite being informed that I was about to start 2 new jobs.

 

They are entitled to do that too, thus adding approx £700 to my "mortgage" balance.

And even though the FSA ordered them to refund unlawful arrears charges to customers, they don't have to if they don't want to.

 

I had planned to issue a court claim against Redstone if the FOS did not uphold my claim. But there is no point.

The judge will obviously say the same as the FOS.

 

So, as always, the big powerful company can do whatever it wants and no-one will help the individual.

 

You make one mistake in signing for this sham of a "mortgage" and you pay for it for the rest of your life.

 

Subprimevictim

[ims21]

Erm...no...the Judge may not do that at all.

 

Fos have never been any good at charges reclaims.

 

For the best chance of getting them back, court is the best option.

[subprimevictim]

Thank you for replying. I would like to try the court route, but cannot afford to be hit with costs if I lose.

[ims21]

If it is small claims track then you won't have to worry about costs.

 

What is the value of your claim?

[subprimevictim]

£1,760 from Redstone and £265 from Kensington.

[ims21]

At those values you would be in small claims so you wouldn't be exposed to costs

[kaz320]

Hi

 

If you are on working tax credit or a similar benefit you will not have to pay for the court application. Don't be put off by FOS they are not always the best option, the courts look at things differently because they interpret the law.

[lesterlass]

£1,760 from Redstone and £265 from Kensington.

 

Sorry to disagree with the above posts but you will incurr costs all sub prime have a clause in the contracts, you will have to pay the costs. I am with Kensington and it is in the contract.

[kaz320]

Hi

 

Just to reply to lesterlass I think she is talking about something completely different here. My point is that to make an original claim to the court you are exempt from paying the initial court fees if you are on certain benefits, the proof of this is on the court website along with the form needed which will exempt you from payment.

 

As far as paying for costs if the case is lost this is not applicable to just sub prime lenders this is applicable to all lenders and not just for mortgages it applies to all types of lending.

 

If any lender takes a client to court all costs incurred by that action is payable by the client (you) but lets not lose sight here of the original statement.

 

To submit a court claim against a lender the fee can be waived if you fulfill the necessary conditions as stated above.