Harsh Letter received from Kensington *Claim struck out in court*

[jamorgan]

Hi to all,

 

Here's my storey so far.

 

Had a mortgage with Kennsington (Now call them selves MAS)

had for 1 year slightly discounted then interest rates kept climbing in the first year and reached 9%.

Had to get out fast so got stung for £7240.00.

Sent letters off to complaints found in the libary and like other people on these threads I have recieved the foboff response and in short words tuff charges stand.

 

So I followed there complaints procedure and escalated the complaint to stage 2,

But had this back.

 

I belive that the recent press coverage concerning bank charges may have given you the impression that you have a valid claim. MAS6 of course is a mortgage lender not a bank,and your complaint does not concern bank charges but rather ERC you paid when you redeemed your mortgage account.

 

From your letters, I see that you do not fully explain precisley which aspects of the common law you consider have been infringed by MAS6 applying the ERC to your account. Furthermore you have mentioned in your letter "statute and recent consumer regulations" but are no more specific than this. If you issue court proceedings you will of course have to refer in your claim to the relevant Common Law principles and/or statutory provisions. Without this detail I am unable to understand the precise basis of your complaint and therefore perhaps you would assist me by providing this info to me now.

 

I must advise you that if you do not provide us with these details and do issue proceedings, our solicitors will draw this to the attention of the District Judge and invite the court to take your refusal into account when considering your liability for our solicitors' costs.

 

You do however make reference in your letter to bank charges being ltd to expenses actually incurred because of a customers breech. You therefore seem to be likening bank charges relating to customers breaches to the ERC, when in fact two are entirley different. You of course did not breach your mortgage agreement by redeeming your account. You were quite entitled to re-mortgage with another lender. The ERC is therefore not a charge to penalsie a defaulting borrower.

 

The ERC, which was a major term of the mortgage agreement clearly detailed to you, and which you specifically agreed to pay if the account was redeemed within a short time of the mortgage completing, was charged because the precise details of the mortgage product offered to you were,as you will know, based on repayments over a period of 30 years. As such, the proposed mortgae contract was based on the reciept of monthly payments long term after the time when you decided to redeem and the ERC was included in your mortgage agreement to ensurethat your martgae remained finaciially viable transaction for MAS6 in the event that you chose to redeem your mortgage within the first 5 years rather than contine the contract for the agreed 30 years. A mortgage is after all by it's very nature a long term finace agreemeny, not a short term loan and the long term funding arragements are a key consideration.

 

You also state in your letter that MAS6 was under an obligation to conduct itself "lawfully and in a manner that complies with uk law," the suggestion being that ther has been a breach of this obligation. This is a serious allegation. Again,without specific details of the basis upon wich you believe that there has been any unlawful conduct or breach of obligation by MAS6, nor specific reference to the relevant statutory provision(s) I am unable to comment on this point further.

 

In a letter to you of 21st July 06 my collegue referred you to the content of the mortgage offer and t&c which allow for ERC.All in all the details could not have been made any clearer at the time you were cinsidering yuour mortage.

In short the Erc is applied to an account for sound commercial resons and you agreed to pay it if you redeemed early.

 

I have looked into this matter and the complaint is misconceived. If you wish to start County Court proceedings you sould serve these upon our solicitors whose details can be supplied on request. The claim would be defended. You should consider carefully your liability for solicitors' costs before commencing your claim and on this basis I would recommend that you seek independant legal advice in this matter than run the risk of incurring further expense by way of solicitors and legal costs.

 

HELP! anyone please

Morgyx

[jamorgan]

Thanks to you both, fab letters.

 

Will send letter off this morning and fax it, but how many days do you think I should give them to respond .

 

Cheers

 

Morgy

[jamorgan]

Hi Ellielou,

I have now sent off a third letter as above and have given them one last chance to send breakdown. If they have not replied by the 14th Sept I am going to issue a claim on line.

However not sure yet weather to claim £5k or the full £7k

I now I will be liable for there costs if I loose

Can I claim for £5k plus interest then go back around the loop for the remainder.

 

Any thoughts on this one guys!

 

Morgyx

[jamorgan]

Hi all,

just a quick update if anyone's interested.

Just put claim in online to kennsington (Mas) tonight

Exciting stuff!

 

£7318.32 plus £658.50 (interest) plus £1.61 per day untill they pay up!

 

Keep you all posted

 

x

[jamorgan]

Thankyou, thankyou,

so much for all the support you guys

and good luck

x

[jamorgan]

Hi Guys,

 

Only a little something to add.

Recieved a letter from a Drydens lawers replying:

 

Please find enclosed a copy of the acknowledgement of service we lave lodged at Court. By our calculations the defence is required by 4pm on 20th October 2006

 

Also enclosed is our Notice of Acting

 

Yours faithfully

 

Drydens

 

They have then sent me a copy of the Acknowledgement of service and ticked the box they intend to defend all of this claim.

 

God help me!

 

keep you posted

Morgyx

[jamorgan]

Hi ellielou,

 

Good luck with MCOL today.Nothing to report as yet,still waiting

will post soon as I recieve the defence.

Jx

[jamorgan]

HI ALL,

Need help!

just recieved defence from a drydens lawyers of Kessington (MAS)

 

Dear Madam,

please find enclosed, by way of service,our client's defence and counterclaim. It is given the contents of this document that your claim is completely without merit and so we strongly urge you to withdraw your claim. Should you fail to do so we reserve the right to produce this letter to the court on the question of costs which are client will seek from you.

 

Whilst writing, if you do intend to pursue your claim,please confirm why your husband has been omitted from the claim.

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

1.save as appears otherwise,the defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the particulars of Claim herein as if the same were each set out and specifcally denied. This Defence and counterclaim are served without prejudice to the Defendant's contention that they establish no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or are an abuse and should be struck out.

 

DEFENCE

2. The first sentence of the Particulars of Claim is noted.

3. The Defendant denies the second sentence. Redemption of the mortgage by the Claimant was not a breach of contract,but was expressly provided for under the terms of the Mortgage Offer and the Mortgage Conditions.Alternatively,if,which is denied,the claimant's redemption of the Mortgage was a breach of contract,it is contended by the defendant that the early repayment fee was a liquidated damages clause.

4.As to the third and fourth sentences, the defendant contends that the contract between the claiment fee and that the fee was not a disproportionate penalty.

5.It is denied that the erc was enforceable at common law and/or that it was a penalty clause. It is the defendant's case that the erc was the price payable under the contract by the claimant for excercising their contractual right to redeem the Mortgage earlyand was thus neither a penalty for breach of the contract,nor a liquidated dameges clause intended to compensate the defendant for breach of the contract.

6.The defendant has repeatedly explained to the claimant why the early repayment fee was leived and why the defendant will not agree to refund this.A copy of letters attached for this paragraph 5 is denied.

7.By way of a brief history, the defendant confirms:

8.On 26 March2004 the defendant sent a Mortgage offer to the claimant offering to lend a sum of £119,195 on the terms set out in the letter (including the special terns and conditions) The terms of the offer are attached.

9.Under the special conditions contained in the Mortgage Offer it was a TERM OF THE LOAN THE Claimant were entitled to redeem the Mortgage at any time before the end of the Mortgage term,but that if redeem the Mortgage at any time before the end of the Mortgage term,but that if redemption or part redemption of the loan occurred before the end of the Mortgage term an early repayment fee would be levied in accordance with the terms set out therein.

 

There are points 11-17 which i have not included in this post because it seems to me they are just repeating themselves

They have attached also a copy of our mortgage offer and terms and conditions which we signed

 

any help on this one whould be greatly appreciated.

thanks

Jx

[jamorgan]

Sorry guys, Thanks for responding quickly need you,getting very scared and stressed.

 

Not sure were I went wrong, still with my husband I just forgot to put his name on the money claim on line have I messed up with this.

And yes they have put under part 13 at the bottom of the page counter claim and parts 14-17 sort of repeat themselves then this:

 

AND the Defendant counterclaims:

 

(1) Costs and expenses as a matter of contract as set out in paragraph 15 herein;

(2) Alternativley to (1),the costs of these proceedings as a matter of the discretion of the court;

(3) Interest;

(4) Such further or other relief as may be necessary or desirable.

 

Then the stamanet of truth bla bla

 

Jx

[jamorgan]

I shall do the letter tonight thankyou.

It's £7318.32 plus interest of 658.50

Thanks again hun.

x

[jamorgan]

I asume you need paragraph 15 but I thought i'd fill you in with a few other things that are on the defence that i did not include earlier, just incase you need to know.

 

12. The mortgage completed on or around 7 April 2004. The claimant redeemed the Mortgage with the defendant on 8 August 2005. Under the terms of the Mortgage, that was in the 2nd year following completion of the mortgage,an early repayment of 6% of the sum being repaid was payable. as a result the defendant applied a fee of £7149.64.

 

13. In the premises the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to recover the sum claimed plus interest plus court fee or that the claimant is entitled to any relief wahatsoever.

 

14. The defendant repeats the defence herein.

 

15.Persuant to the mortgage conditions incorporated into the mortgage,the claimant agreed to indemnity the defendant against any costs it incurred.

 

16.In the premises,the defendant claims from the caimant its resonable costs of these proceedings on a full,complete and unqualified basis.

 

17. Further,the claimant claims interest on those costs at the mortgage interest rate from the date those costs are incurred untill payment,alternatively under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at such rate and for such period as the court shall redeem fit.

 

Have a good night , speak tomorrow.

Thanks again x

[jamorgan]

Hi guys,

Sorry been away for a few days but I have sent the defence and counter claim off to the solicitors and the local court also the allocation Questionaire.

 

Awaiting there response with debated breath.

 

keep up dated

 

Morgy

x

[jamorgan]

Hi Alan,

 

Nothing as yet, but I have rung my local court to get an update and they advised me the case had been transfered to another local court. This is because there is a designated judge at this particular court dealing with these sort of claims and this is also due too claims of this sort have been flooding in.

I wait a court hearing,else the judge wants a brief meeting first.

Will post soon as I get any info

Thanks,speak soon

 

Judex

[jamorgan]

Hi everyone,

ok, here we go again.

I have just recieved a general form of judgment or order from the court

they write:

Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE ***** sitting at Cardiff court civil justice centre

 

Upon reading the Allocation Questionaires and file

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1) There shall be a Case Management Conference at Cardiff Civil centre on 19/1/07 @ 12.30 to be by way of telephone conference call to be arranged by the Defendant's legal representatives.

 

2) By 4pm on the 12th January 2007 the parties shall liaise and file a list of prepared directions to be agreed if possible.

3)Any party may apply to set aside,vary or stay this order pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(5) and (6).

 

Any help would be greatly appriciated.

 

Morgy x

[jamorgan]

Hi Alan

No I think it's a case of a transfer from one local court (Newport) to Cardiff,they say this is just because there is a designated judge at Cardiff civil court that is handling all cases like this one.

 

Also recieved this morning a letter form solicitor it reads as follows:

 

Please note our client has lodged an application to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment asking the court to list this application at the same time as the case management conference on the 19th January 2007

 

You will be served with a copy of the application and supporting evidence shortly.

 

Any comments!

[jamorgan]

Thanks for the continued suport everyone.

 

Do I need to send the Draft order for Directions above, to the soliditor & the court and If so anything else and then just wait untill the case management appointment ? all so very confusing for me. please help

Morgyx

[jamorgan]

Hi,

Yes I have had a letter this morning from the court saying

 

It is ordered that

 

1.The application shall be heard at the Case Managment Confrernce at Cardiff Civil Justice Centreon the 19th January 12.30pm

2. The hearing shall 1. not be by way of telephone hearing 2. be given a time of estimated 1 hour.

3.The Defendent shall serve and file evidence and written submissions in support of the application by 4.00pm on the 30th December.

4.The claimant shall serve and file evidence and written submissions in response by 4.00pm on the 12th January.

5.Any party may apply to set aside,vary or stay this order pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3 (5) and (6)

This letter was dated 14th Dec onlu today recieved so not sure now what the next step is and what to send it's all getting abit complicated for me.

any help again would be appreciated as to the next steps

x

P.S Merry christmas everyonex

[jamorgan]

Hi zootscoot, hope your having a wonderful christmas.

 

There's no mention of a consideration to strike out the claim in this order

 

What do I need to do now,I havent sent anything to the solicitors or the court yet, that includes the directions or covering letter

been so busy with work before christmas but now obviously need to get something sorted before the 30th Dec.

What sort of evidence would they be expecting me to send them.Would that be letters of complaints I have sent and do they want my mortgage offer etc ?

Thanks again for your help

Jamorganx

[jamorgan]

The first letter recieved on the 6th December was from the courts advising of a CMC on the to be held 19th Jan.

 

Second letter was recieved on the 8th Dec from Drydens (solicitors) advising an application has been lodged to strike out the claim and/or list the application at the same time as the CMC, also we would be served with a copy of the application and surporting evidence,which we have not recieved in the post.

 

Then 19th Dec court has advised the application will be heard at the CMC.

x

[jamorgan]

Thanks a bunch zootscoot

No answer at the courts as yet,will try again later.

x

[jamorgan]

Ok,

Yesterday I recieved a copy of the allocation to strike out the claim and the client's witness statement. (due date was the 30th)

It's basiclly 9 pages long and then some documents thrown in, ehich ive seen about three times during this claim.

Would you like me to post this allocation to strike out on here or not.

 

Introduction

1. I am the defendant's legal rep and have conduct of this case subject to supervision of a partner.I am duly authorised to make this statment on behalf of the defendant in support of their defence and counterclaim.

2. The facts and matters contained within my statement are either within my own knowlwdge and are true,or derived from the sources set out in this witness statement is a bundle of documents

My involvment in this case.

3 I work in the technical division of my firm and deal with non standard matters.

4. I have been involved in this case since the claim was issued.

5. The claimant,by her claim form issued on the 20th Sept,seeks repayment of a charge to total of £7,318.32 plus interest.

6.The claimant essentially contends that these charges are unenforceable by vertue of the UCT in Consumer Contracts Reg 1999,the UCT Act 1977 and the commom law.

7. The Defendant,by its Defence dated 25th Sep,denies the claim in its entirety and submits that the claim is misguided and has nobasis in law.The Defendant has counterclaimed for costs and expenses incurred in recovering the charges and defending these proceedings.The counterclaim is made pursuant to the conditions incorporated into the Mortgage.

 

BACKROUND.

8. On or around 26th March 2004 the defendant sent a mortgage offer tothe claimant and Mr Morgan offering to lend the sum of 119,195.00 to the intend to purchase a new property for which the purchase price was said to be 132,000.00.

9. The terms of the mortgage offer were set out clearly and the document will be referred to at trail for it full terms and effect.The mortgage offer was expressed to be conditional on the creation of a first legal charge over the mortgaged property and comprised an offer and to lend the sum £119,195.00 over 30 years on a repayment basis with a discounted interest rate upto and including 31st May 2005

10. The mortgage offer was also expressed to be made on and in accordence with terms and the special conditions.

11. on 29 march 2004 the borrows signed and dated a written form accepting the terms and conditions of the mortgage offer.By signing this form the claiment confirmed that she had recieved a copy of the mortgage offer including the special conditions and the defendants current fees sheduleand that she understood and accepted the terms of the mortgage offer.

12.The following conditions applied to early repayment of the mortgage:

a.Condition 17.1 of the mortgage conditions the claimant was entitled to repay the debt in whole or in part at any time.

b. Condition 17.2 of the mortgage conditions provided that if the claimant did make an early repayment of all or part of the debt (other than any interest or other charges arising by reason of the claimants failure to comply with the conditions)and assuming the mortgage offer provided otherwise,the claimant must pay to the defendant an early repayment charge.

c.Condition 673 of the special conditions set out how an early redemtion charge would be calculated and this condition replaced clause 17.3 of the mortagage conditions.The ERC was 6% of the sum repaid in the first,second and third years following completion,and in the fourth subsequent years the ERC was to be calculated as interest for the number of days between the date of redemption and the next Monthly payment date.

d.Condition 750 of the special conditions provided that if the claimant repaid her mortgage in full, 'encluding any erc payable,in the second or third year following completion of the initial advance then (the defendant) will repay to you the early settlement charge providedthat contemporaneously,with the repayment of your mortgage over the property (the defendant) provides you with an advance over a new property of an amount equal or greater to the debt repaid.If the amount of the new advance is less than the amount of the debt repaid then (the defendant) will refend the erc in the same proportion as the new advance is to the debt.

e.Condition 750 of the special conditions also states: Ant ERC will be refunded within 14 days of (the defendants) solicitor informimg (the defendant) that the new advance over the new property has been completed.You should app;y for your new advance over the new property asap.(The defendant is) not obliged to maek a new advance and the decision will be subject to (the defendnat's) product and underwriting criteria at that time as well as a satisfactory mortgage valution and cirtificate of title given bt (the defendant's)solicitor in respect of the new property together with (the defendant's) terms and conditions

 

13. Pursuant to condition 48 the claimant agreed to keep the defendant 'fully indemnified in respect of any breach or nonobservance of the mortgage'.

 

14. Furthermore,condition 49.3 of the mortgage conditions provided that:

'You (the claimant)will be responsible on a full indemnity basis for:

1.any costs,charges or expenses (including legal expenses)at all times we have to pay or bear,as well as our resonable administrative expenses in connection with any steps we take;

(a) in order to enforce any powere or sale or payment of any money due under your martgage;

(b) to protect or perfect our security;

© to remedy or secure the performance or observance of any of the terms of your mortgage:

(e) to comply with any request made by you in connection with your mortgage;

 

2.any damages occasioned to us by your default in observance or performance of any of the terms of your mortgage.

 

And codition 49.3 of the mortgage conditions provided that:

 

'you (the claimant)must pay any costs'charges,expenses or damages referred to above immediatly they are incurred paid or sustained.'

 

15. on 7th April 2004 the mortgage completed and the sums were advanced to the claimant.

16. The claimant redeemed the mortgage in full on the 8th August 2005. Since this occurred in the second year following completion the defendant calculated the ERC at the rate of 6% the rate applicable.This resulted in an ECR of £7149.64.

17. It will have been noticed that the origanal mortgage was executed in favour of Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd,but the claimant is Mortgage Agency Services Number Six Ltd.

18. On 28 June 2004, all legal and beneficial entitlements were transferred form Kensington to Mrtgage Agency Services Number Six Ltd.This included the benefit of the claimants mortgage.Accordingly,MAS stands in the shoes of Kennsington, under condition 58 of the conditions. A copy of the deed of transfer is attached.

 

DEFENCE

The ERC

 

19. I do not believe that the ERC is in any way an unfair or unreasonable charge.I do not believe that it constitutes a penalty clause or liquidated damages clause and I also think that analysis is irrelevant as there was no breach of contract.If there was a breach of contract (which is denied) the ERC could be characrerised as a liquidated damages clause.Furthermore,in my respectful submission the ERC is not unenforceable by vitue of statute or the common law (although i appreciate this will be the subject of legal submissions at trial).

 

20. The claimant was fully aware of the ERC:

 

a. The ERC was referred to in the Mortgage Offer,the Mortgage conditions.Special Conditions and shedule.It was the claimant's responsibility to read and fully understand these documents before signing.Furthermore the claimant relied on legal and independant financial advise when deciding whether or not to grant the mortgage on the terms put forward by the defendant.

b. The solicitors who acted for the claimant in redeeming the mortgage recieved correspondence on or around 28 july 20054 quoting the ERC appicable on redemption.This letter is attached.

 

22.If the court accepts the claimant's argument it is submitted that th ERC clause was a liquidated damages clause.Again,I believe this will be a matter for legal submissions.However,at this stage I can expalin that the clause does equate to a pre-estimate of loss.For example:

 

a.By redeeming early the defendant lost a significant amount of revenue which they would have recieved had the claimant continued to pay throughout the mortgage term:

b. If the claimant had continued to pay throughout the mortgage term the defendant would have recovered some of the costs spent in obtaining the funds for the mortgage advance,making the advance and servicing the nortgage over its expected lifespan.It should be recognised thet the defendant borrow's money on the money market inorder to be able to provide the mortgage products and commits its self to borrowing funds over the same fixed period at slightly lower rates than those offered to borrowers so as to make a small profits.Therefore if a borrower redeems her mortgage before the end of the fixed term, for example to take advantage of lower rates elsewere,the defendant is still commited to it's own borrowing at the origanal rate but it cannot re-lead the money at the interst rate orriganally offered to the borrower.Therefore, the defendant will suffer a loss over the remaining term of the fixed rate period and the ERC is designed to compensate the defendant for this;

 

Sorry this is so long winded but there are also points 22-28 do you still require this to be posted if so I shall do this later.

 

I'm assuming I need to send a defence to all this by the dates set out above any comments or help will be again greatly appriciated.

x

[jamorgan]

I thought I would post points 22-28 just incase there is anything that could be of relevence.

 

22.

c.If the defendant did not give mortgagors prior warrning of the exact ammount of the ERC, the alternative would be for the borrower to pay the defendant acctual costs of adjusting it's position.The exact loss can vary over the term of the fixed rate.The defendant obviously cannot assess this in advance with any certainty and therefore if this system had been adobted the claimant would not have been able to see how much she would have had to pay for her early redemption at the time of granting the mortgage.The method of calculation adobted by the defendant (and most other lenders I believe) provides the certainty of a gaurenteed and quantifiable price of early redemption before an individual borrower enters into the mortgage contract.By setting an ERC in advance based on the calculation of the fixed rate period the borrower is always able to tell exactley how much it will cost to redeem;

d. Without an ERC commercial consiquences for borrowers would be higher than the initial fees allternativley higher rates of interest both of which do not opperate in the interests of the consumer.It would also leave the defendant at a significant competitive didadvantage in the mortgage market place;

e.The defendant also believe's it is fairer for the consummers who choose to redeem at an early stage to foot the costs of that early redemption rather than imposing extra costs on the consumers who continue to make payments under their mortgage;

 

23.Equally I do not belive that the charges can properly be construed as an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations or the unfair contract term act.This will be elaborated in legal submissions but at this stage Iwould like to make the following points:

 

a.The ERC was a core term of the Mortgage contract between the claimant and the defendant. I believe the reason for this is that this is part of the deffenation of the main subject matter of the contract and because it directly concerns the adequacy of the price or remuneration the defendant was to recieve in return for making the loan available to the claimant on the agreed terms. As the ERC affected the price of the services supplied, it is a core term and is not to be assesed for fairness;

b.The ERC wasn't contrary to the requirement of good faith;

c.the ECR was in plain intelligible language;

d.The ERC didn't cause a significant inbalance in the parties rights and obligations.In this case the ERC was simply inposed in return for the claimant getting a cheaper mortgage.It was the calimant's choice to enter in to the mortgage agreement, and in making that decision the claimant had independant legal and finacial advice;

e.The ERC was debtrimental to the claimant as a consumer:

The claimant was entirley free to act as she chose.If the claimant wanted to avoid the ERC she could have waited untill three years had passed form inception and provide one months written notice.

 

24.Furthermore it should be noted that the claimant relied on legal and independant financial advice at all times when deciding wether or not to enter into the mortgage.The legal advisor and the independant finacial advisor were employed by the claimant and they had a resposibility to make the claimant aware of the charges applicable to the claimants account.A copy of a letter from the defendant to the claimant dated the 21st July 2006 expaining this to the claimant is enclosed.

 

25. Accordingly,I donot believe that the claim for the return of the ERc has any real prospect of success at trial or a reasonable chance of succeeding. In my submission the court should dismiss the claim and enter judgment for the defendant with interset and costs as set out in the defence and counter claim.

 

COUNTER CLIAM

 

26.In accordance with conditions 48&49 of the mortgage conditions and clauses the claimant agreed to indemnify the defendant in respect of any costs the defendant reasonably incurred in dealing with the discharge of the mortgage.The defendant also claims interest on those costs.The defendant denies that this condition is in any way unfair or unreasonable in any event the defendant is entitled to and will seek if necessary an order for costs pursuant to the courts genral discretion.

27.Accordinly, the defendant is entitled to and does seek to recover all costs the defendant incurred in relation to these proceedings.The defendant also seeks interest on those costs.

 

SUMMARY

28.In summary I belive the claim should be dismissed and I respectfully ask the court to enter judgement for the defendant on it's counter claim with costs pursuant to contract alternativly in the courts discretion and interest on that sum for the defendant.

 

Sorry about the delay in the last bit of the application but think every one need to see it

x

[jamorgan]

Hi zootscoot (my rock)

I got in touch with a recomended broker (White knight partnership)

Everything was done over the phone and we did not have a choice of who we could lend with,White Knight just automatically sent me the details below and that was it. (I didn't know anything about mortgages) so we just let them carry on because to us we would be getting our dream house.

They told me that my husband and I had what they called light adverse credit and told us we would pay a little extra for self cert (I had returned to work part time) and we would also have to use their solicitors too.

In Feb 2004 they sent me these details:

 

LOAN DETAILS

Company Kensington

Loan ammount £118800.00

Property value

purchase price £132000.00

Interest only £118800.00

interest rate 6.25% (discounted at 1.75%)

standard fees £1175.00

MIG £1068.56

Arr fee £395.00

Status Self Cert

Future % 8%

Redemption 6% 6% 6%

Term 30 years

Product 1 year discount

Application fee £295's.00

We mooved in on the 7th April 2004 by June,september,December,2004 The interest was raised by Kensington. (a quartley thing)

We were initially going to pay £618.75 (as stated in the paper work white knight sent)And were then advised that the interest rate had gone up before we signed and that we would now be paying £641.00 a month and the amount of this payment will be reviewed in accordance with the t&c.

In july 2004 it went up to £689.00 by Oct 2004 it went up to £721.00 then it did go down to £715.00 in Jan 2005 Then upto £719.70 in March

Then we recived a letter in May to say our payments would be £894.23 a month at a rate of 8.950% (as the yearly discount would have ended)

So we initially had gone from £618.00 to £894.00 and they had the right to up the interest every quarter according to there t&c.

I did contacts them and ask if they could offer a better deal than this for May 2005 as we could not afford to have them up the interest rate when they felt like it.

 

This company knows exactly what their doing.

They want pepole to pay these ERC's im sure of it and it shouldn't be allowed.

This company has got me and my husband in a mess, a real big mess.

 

Hope this is ok

Thanks again hun

x

[jamorgan]

Thanks for the support \ellielou,

I have just recieved another letter form Drydens (there solictor)

 

Please find enclosed,by way of service, our client's skeleton argument for hearing 19th January 2007

Should I post the details Zootscoot

x

[jamorgan]

Well that's bloody awful.

I cant offer you any help, but I am sure zootscoot can lead you in the right direction. It's sole distroying how these companies can treat people the way they do and worst of all get away with it.What ever the circumstances everyone should be treated fairly.

We did not want to change mortgage companies and pay this ridiculous amount in charges but they gave us no other option, there interest rates rose in the first year every quarter, i think they classed it as a conssentionary interest rate and after the first year we could not aford for it to happen again in the second and third year. we just could not take that chance.

Were no better off now, we have had to borrow more money to cover the ERC fees,Brokers fees again,higher lending fee, arrangement fee etc.

We only wished we had been a bit more switched on with the mortgage side of things, and took our time on getting some more advice before we entered into these agreements,but its too late now, we were so nieve at the time.

It will not happen to us again, we have lost too much money over the past three years to go down this road again.

 

Good luck to you and your familly you deserve it.

x