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

[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

[eolaoy]

If there is anybody from London or the South East who can recommend a good consumer lawyer please send me a note. I am another Blemain customer who is looking to challenge his mortgage agreement in court.

 

Good luck with your court case and I hope you get a satisfactory ruling.

[Gallahad]

Hi Eolaoy, Can i ask on what basis you are thinking of challenging would it be hidden commission or unfair relationship?

G

[caro]

If there is anybody from London or the South East who can recommend a good consumer lawyer please send me a note. I am another Blemain customer who is looking to challenge his mortgage agreement in court.

 

Good luck with your court case and I hope you get a satisfactory ruling.

 

This is a self help site as most caggers can't afford lawyers and we don't make recommendations. If anyone contacts you we have no way of knowing how good they are and are careful to make sure we don't have unscrupulous touts looking for business.

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

I definitely agree with that.

I have had some very dodgy people contact me over the past couple of years offering all sorts of help.......for a 'small fee'. The short answer is if anything seems 'too good to be true' it almost always is, (although I personally think it always is too good to be true!)

 

In the meantime, have a good weekend everyone,

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

[maybelline]

This is a self help site as most caggers can't afford lawyers and we don't make recommendations. If anyone contacts you we have no way of knowing how good they are and are careful to make sure we don't have unscrupulous touts looking for business.

 

signed

I would like a petition not only about the high charges but the misselling of mortgage products pre fsa by disreptuble lenders and brokers and are astonishingly Unregualated in any way. No objection to starting one but dont want to conflict with this current excellent petition:) oops didnt need to press include quote, is about petition!!

[maybelline]

I had my S140 counterclaim struck out, (a Barrister sent by them) as unregulated, despite my arguing S140 should apply. so apparently, if over 25K and pre FSA, and never mind MCOB or UTCCR 1999 if pre that date - those agreements first charges pushed onto right to buy council estate customers en masse, are untouchable according to my county court also, so possession order garnted which includes very high sum of unfair charges plus interest:sad:

[Gallahad]

I had my S140 counterclaim struck out, (a Barrister sent by them) as unregulated, despite my arguing S140 should apply. so apparently, if over 25K and pre FSA, and never mind MCOB or UTCCR 1999 if pre that date - those agreements first charges pushed onto right to buy council estate customers en masse, are untouchable according to my county court also, so possession order garnted which includes very high sum of unfair charges plus interest:sad:

 

Judge completely and utterly out of touch and out of order he has acted "ultra viries".....beyond his powers.......................... section 140 applies to all contracts and agreements regulated by the CCA or unregulated.

 

Section 140 is only barred by FSA regulated Contracts e.g.

First Charge Mortgages.

 

An appeal should be made ASAP

[maybelline]

Judge completely and utterly out of touch and out of order he has acted "ultra viries".....beyond his powers.......................... section 140 applies to all contracts and agreements regulated by the CCA or unregulated.

 

Section 140 is only barred by FSA regulated Contracts e.g.

First Charge Mortgages.

 

An appeal should be made ASAP

 

FSA do not apparently regulate first charge mortgages that were signed prior to FSA regulation existed??? so a First Charge Mortgage that is NOT regulated by FSA should be covered shouldnt it, why do the courts think no such thing as exists?

Edited November 6, 2011 by maybelline

[maybelline]

legal costs now passed to me also, already got no legal help whatsoever, went into this LIP as equity prevents legal aid, only part time employed and a carer seems crazy to me, I have to thump someone to get any legal help i reckon.

[phatram]

Be very careful what you put on here. I know a businessman who has dealings with Blemain and he said to me they are horrible, and no doubt will be watching. Although he also said they think they are untouchable and believe everything they do is above board. They tell you what their charges are etc etc, needless to say I disagree and hope we can get together to do something about them.

Edited November 6, 2011 by caro
Removing potentially libellous comment

[maybelline]

S140 and completed agreeements? completed when?

[welshperson3]

The new provisions have applied to new credit and related agreements with individual debtors

 

since 6th April 2007, and since 6th April 2008 have applied to all such agreements, whenever

 

they were made. A “credit agreement” is defined as

 

“any agreement between an individual (the

 

‘debtor’) and any other person (the ‘creditor’) by which the creditor provides the debtor with

credit of any amount”

 

(s.140C(1)). In turn “credit” is defined by s.9 of the 1974 Act as including

 

a cash loan,

“or any other form of financial accommodation”, as well as finance by way of hirepurchase.

 

Edited November 6, 2011 by welshperson3

[Gallahad]

Sadly the blemain unregulated agreements dated before april 2008 have no requirements to meet and no regulations to control them.

G

[maybelline]

'whenever they were made' I'm guessing is the key part, I reckoned the retrospective part applied to pre existing agreements, but only those that were not completed by a certain date (not sure where I saw that) i.e. still live agreements (unless they were caught by exemptions) yes those exemptions are giving me a headahce - all redundant for me now but still worth clear picture for other hideous agreement victims, any yes, the vast amount of still unregulated, which means to me IMHO no protection or redress for same is a matter of concern