welshperson3 v blemain finance - 140A Unfair relationship -started court proceedings

[determindator]

Well done W3. I hope the message is reaching the Court Judges about these predatory lenders.

Edited October 24, 2011 by determindator

[caro]

Well done. I'm sure your hard work won't have gone to waste and will come in next time round. Preparation for court is vital IMO. You can never do too much.

[maybelline]

well done wp3 !

[maybelline]

Well done W3. I hope the message is reaching the Court Judges about these predatory lenders.

- not yet (sadly)

[sillygirl1]

Well done, don't forget you can also ask for a specific person to attend court for questioning, costs £35 but is sometimes worth it, especially if you have been dealing with somebody who claims to be 'qualified' to deal with your matter....

[welshperson3]

Thank you sillygirl1

 

This is something that I had not thought of, the question now is who!

 

 

If I pay a broker £1000 to find the best deal for me then I think I would be right in saying that this broker is working for me.

But that is only what blemain and the broker want me to believe, when in fact the broker and blemain are working together, conniving and conspiring to get my last penny and when that is gone try and take the house as well.

 

Now as I said the broker works for me and as such he owes me a fiduciary duty to find the best deal for me and not the one that is paying him a backhander.

 

 

Gary Bailey, Director of Blemain Finance said,

 

“We are still lending substantial volumes and are committed to improving the service we offer our brokers. I would like to thank everyone who has adopted the Minimum Standard Requirements for packaged cases. With brokers now working more efficiently, this has resulted in cases completing faster, and is an excellent example of how lenders and brokers can work together for mutual benefit. I’m also delighted that the Roving Underwriters are proving so successful and am very grateful for the positive feedback we have received.”

 

 

 

Well sillygirl1 I think I might have just a idea as to who that specific person might be, the only problem I have with this one is he gives all the bulletins on blemain which means he is a good talker and I think he might just baffle them with bull***t.

More research needed

 

ANYONE FROM BLEMAIN READING THIS AND FANCY A DAY OUT IN SUNNY WALES PLEASE PM ME

 

WP3

Edited October 26, 2011 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

What happened to these?

MONARCH RECOVERIES LIMITED

 

FSA maybe?

wp3

[patrickq1]

Two Outer House cases in which Cheshire Mortgage and Blemain Finance (connected companies) were the victims of a mortgage fraud and sought to sue the solicitors instructed by the fraudsters (the banks had instructed separate solicitors) for breach of warranty of authority.

In each case the fraudsters had pretended to be persons owning property which they were seeking to use as security for a loan (of £355,000 in one case and £203,000 in the other). They had been able to produce evidence of their identity in the form of utility bills and driving licences to their solicitors and to the banks. In both cases the fraudsters had approached the bank (directly in one case and via a broker in the other) before instructing their solicitors.

The banks argued that, in each case, the solicitors warranted that they had the authority of the individuals who owned the properties over which standard securities were purportedly granted. The solicitors recognised the doctrine of a solicitor giving an implied warranty of authority. However, they contended that it does not go as far as giving a warranty of the identity of the person for whom they act, nor does it include any warranty as to whether he is or is not the owner or occupier of any particular property. In effect the solicitors said that they warranted only that they had authority from persons who were already known to the banks and with whom the banks were already dealing.

Lord Glennie found in favour of the solicitors. The circumstances in which the solicitors came to transaction were of particular importance. By the time the solicitors became involved, the banks knew who they were (or who they thought they were) dealing with. They had already made the decision to lend to those individuals. The solicitors had been instructed (by the fraudsters) for the limited purpose of drawing up the loan and security documentation and liaising with the banks’ solicitors.

In one of the cases there was also discussion as to whether the solicitors were liable to the bank in terms of the letter of obligation they had granted. The bank argued that they suffered loss as a result of the solicitors’ failure to procure the title deeds recording the security in terms of the solicitors’ undertaking. However, Lord Glennie again agreed with the solicitors’ arguments on this point:

 

1. the letter of obligation was collateral to the principal transaction between the bank and the borrowers and could not be enforced if that principal transaction was void; and
   
2. in any event, the bank could show no damages flowing from the failure by the solicitor to produce a title encumbered with the Standard Security, since the Standard Security referred to in the letter of obligation was itself void.
   
3. full judgement here see link below
   

http://enewsletters.tictocfamily.com/t/r/l/tkjdlyd/l/ir/

[Bigdebtor]

Patrick

 

Thanks for lighting up an otherwise dreary day. I think "poetic justice" is an appropriate comment?

 

Whilst I don't condone fraud (and place solicitors only slightly higher in the "morality" scale than bankers and DCA's) I think this loss is more justly borne by this pair than by the solicitors!

 

BD

[patrickq1]

my sentiments also ,its nice to see blen lose some cash through their own self greed and this case highlights it greedy bankers caught with their pants down hehe , an they seem to think by just turning up in court they have a right to be listened to with a we wouldnt do that attitude , well at least the judge dressed them down

patrickq1

[welshperson3]

What happened to these?

 

MONARCH RECOVERIES LIMITED

 

FSA maybe?

 

wp3

 

 

Licence Number:0190361

Licence Status:Lapsed on 07/06/2011

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business NameCompany Registration NumberMonarch Recoveries Limited1959967

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit Consumer hire Credit brokerage Credit reference agency Debt adjusting/counselling Debt collecting

 

strange that acompany making £ 6 million

pre tax profit just fades away

 

WP3

[welshperson3]

Licence Details:

 

 

Licence/Application Number Licence Status Applicant/Holder Name 0032328 Current Blemain Finance Limited

Event Details:

 

 

Event TypeDate of ReceiptClosed DateStatus

Renewal04-May-2011 Open ??????????

Variation07-Apr-2011 27-Apr-2011 Completed

Notification02-Feb-2011 07-Mar-2011 Completed

Variation02-Feb-2011 07-Mar-2011 Completed

Renewal31-Mar-2006 08-May-2006 Completed

Notification07-Feb-2002 08-Feb-2002 Completed

Renewal14-Sep-2000 26-Apr-2001 Completed

Variation11-Jun-1999 02-Jul-1999 Completed

Edited October 27, 2011 by welshperson3

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

I just wish I had been a Director of that vanished Company (Monarch Recoveries)........must be like winning the Lottery!!!

 

Best wishes everyone,

 

Dougal

[welshperson3]

Hi dougal

 

If you would like to be a director at monarch then you would love this one.

 

Question? how is it possible to make a profit of over 50% of your turnover, if your lend money at between 10% and 20% add then take out wages and overheads, then it is impossible.

 

The law states that they cant make a profit out of their £35 letter and phone charges or the buildings insurance that they add whether you want it, or need it.

 

BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED

 

 

Last registered accounts: 30/06/2010

 

Annual turnover: £79,034,000.00

 

Annual profit: £40,440,000.00

 

Turnover per employee: £272,531.03

 

Profit per employee: £139,448.28

 

Number of staff: 290

 

Directors' remuneration: £2,488,000.00

 

Increase over last 7 years: 113.75%

 

Highest paid director's salary: £709,000.00 he must put some overtime in to be earning over 50 thousand a month

 

 

Now add the £6 million profit that monarch made collecting on theas loans and it adds up to a big WOW

Edited October 29, 2011 by welshperson3

[maybelline]

wow - but I think I can see how my lender will continue to make plenty off me - paying off arrears on top of payment as pre Norgan, however, the unfair charges, variously called, 'late payment fee' 'admin fee' 'arrears fee' all the same thing at £40 per month compounded, continues to accrue interest and will be asked for at the end of the term, as this will not have been touched and their dodgy contract states they can allocate payments ANY WAY THEY LIKE.

[sillygirl1]

In stating that they have CLEARLY set up a contract that goes against current LAW. Welcome Finance have come a cropper with their 'allocating' payments the 'wrong' way. This is a clear and blatant unfair relationship.

[frettful38]

Hi dougal

 

If you would like to be a director at monarch then you would love this one.

 

Question? how is it possible to make a profit of over 50% of your turnover, if your lend money at between 10% and 20% add then take out wages and overheads, then it is impossible.

 

The law states that they cant make a profit out of their £35 letter and phone charges or the buildings insurance that they add whether you want it, or need it.

 

BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED

 

 

Last registered accounts: 30/06/2010

 

Annual turnover: £79,034,000.00

 

Annual profit: £40,440,000.00

 

Turnover per employee: £272,531.03

 

Profit per employee: £139,448.28

 

Number of staff: 290

 

Directors' remuneration: £2,488,000.00

 

Increase over last 7 years: 113.75%

 

Highest paid director's salary: £709,000.00 he must put some overtime in to be earning over 50 thousand a month

 

 

Now add the £6 million profit that monarch made collecting on theas loans and it adds up to a big WOW

 

 

Hi WPS do you have any info where it states that they cannot charge £35 a letter please?

[maybelline]

In stating that they have CLEARLY set up a contract that goes against current LAW. Welcome Finance have come a cropper with their 'allocating' payments the 'wrong' way. This is a clear and blatant unfair relationship.

 

you are right but try getting a DJ to hear it!!- my claim was kicked out, it doesnt matter how terrible the terms of contract are, if the county court wont hear it then the lender has it all their own way. If you are using s140 a-c then they will argue it only applies to certain agreements, and it will be necessary to argue it applies to the one in front of the dj.

[welshperson3]

Hi fretfull

 

“Hi WPS do you have any info where it states that they cannot charge £35 a letter please?”

Not an easy answer for this sorry, but here is the basic version.

Did you believe that bank charges were unfair?

Did you understand the argument as to why bank charges were unfair?

If the answer to the above is yes, then that is exactly why £35 a letter is unfair.

There is way to much information and arguments about bank charges, and why they are unfair for me to even try and explain in one post.

But I can explain why you can use the numerous (reclaim bank charges template letters)

1 In the bank charges fiasco the Supreme Court never ruled on the fairness of bank charges.

2 The rulling was that the charges couldnt be assesd for fairness as they were a core term of the agrement.

3 A core term is basically one of the following. The item you are buying / the service they are providing / the price you pay.

4 The bank won by saying that the charges you pay are in fact the price you pay for your bank account, so now your bank account is the service they provide and the charges added to your account is the price of the account which makes it a core term of the agreement and not assessable for fairness.

 

Now we are going to look at what is a core term in a loan agreement

 

 

1 the monies they lend is a core term

2 the interest we pay is a core term

 

Now with a loan agreement we have our core terms set out nice and plain for all to see, we know exactly what we are getting and how we are going to pay for it which are the core terms.

Now as charges on loans are not core term then all the arguments about unfair bank charges stil apply to loan agreements.

Take my word for it fretfull that blemain will use the supreme court judgment to try and baffle the judge (I know from experience) just make sure you understand what this judgment was all about.

 

Wp3

[welshperson3]

The problem's finding a fairness law, so something can be done about it

The OFT tried by taking on the banks in a test case, and indeed it beat them in the High Court, then again in the Court of Appeal.

Yet in November 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in a shock judgment, that followed strong arguments from the banks expensive barristers, that due to a narrow technical decision bank charges didn’t NEED to be fair – well at least on the main piece of law that was tried.

What was the law examined in the test case?

 

The test case focused on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, yet in the end it all boiled down to one simple nerdy technical point – were bank charges a core part of a bank account?

Unlike the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that they were, and that meant under those specific regulations the price of bank charges could not be used to examine whether they were fair.

Had this not been the case then the level of charges would’ve needed to be proportionate to banks’ costs, and a £35 charge to send a simple letter isn’t proportionate. Yet the Supreme Court ruling blew this out of the water.

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

I agree, but as yet the European Court have not ruled on this - if they did (....I think they will, in the not too distant future), well we can only hope for some sense to be made of this wholesale 'theft' by the banks!

 

Have a good day everyone,

 

Dougal

[maybelline]

Morning all,

 

I agree, but as yet the European Court have not ruled on this - if they did (....I think they will, in the not too distant future), well we can only hope for some sense to be made of this wholesale 'theft' by the banks!

 

Have a good day everyone,

 

Dougal

 

Hi Dougall - in what way will this affect the unfair charges debate (for the layperson)

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

That is a very good question, and personally for my part, I believe that the EC will rule that Bank Charges are historically unfair and that the position should be rectified.

 

You will know that the Supreme Court left the 'door open' for this aspect to be challenged, and I believe it will be - it might not be this week, or even next year, but I do not think we are far away from this happening, possibly within the next 2-3 years.

 

I do so hope I am not being misled from what I have heard.....

 

Best wishes everyone,

 

Dougal

[maybelline]

thanks Dougall - uk and europe not happy bedfellows eh

[frettful38]

Hope this of some help there is a section about penalty payments

 

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/49-11/1001153.aspx