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

[Gallahad]

Hi JP well done you but as i am paying over £18,000 P.a in interest i think it may not be a record especially when you add the £16,000 in upfront but hidden commission.

regards G

[Dougal16T]

Hi especially Galahad, The Bankers report refreferred to says at the end that 'new drivers are needed to take changes for the benefit of the customer forwards'. Please note : Dougal has just got onto the driving seat and started the engine!! More when I am able to say so.

Best wishes all

 

Dougal

ps : It ain't over till the fat FELLA sings and I'm been putting on a few pounds lately!!

[Halifax71]

A very interesting thread and one which is similar to one i'm involved with with FirstPlus (Second Charge secured loans).

 

I've spent years trying to get the regulators to do something, but ultimately they're useless.

 

My t&c state:

 

We may from time to time vary our interest rate. We may increase or decrease our interest rate to reflect a change which has occurred, or which we reasonably expect to occur in inerest rates generally, or to ensuret hat our business is carried on prudently, efficiently and competitively. The interest on your account will not in any twelvemonth period, vary by more than twice the variation in the Finance House Base Rate published by the Finance and Leasing Association during the same period. If for any reason, the Financing and Leasing Association ceases to publish the Finance House Base Rate we may refer the variation in our interest rates to any other Base Rate which in our reasonable opinion best matches that rate.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From inception.

1. All increases to the Finance House Base Rate or Bank of England base have been fully tracked by the loan APR.
   

1. No decreases to the Finance House Base Rate or Bank of England base have been applied to the loan APR.
   

1. The only reductions have been contractual ones to realign with the APR of 12 months previous. See the FHBR 12 month “cap” in the above clause.
   

Maximisation of the loan APR has had a massive impact on FirstPlus’ accounts. Their liability in respect of PPI reparations has been fully met viatheir increased Interest Rate profit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the last 4 years:

• Profit on the Interest Rate has increased from £53m per annum to £205m per annum.
   
  
• Commissions* have shifted from an income of £101m per annum to an expense of £74m per annum.
  
• Operating Costs have reduced from £61m per annum to £31m per annum.
  

*The accounts clearly state that “Commissions” include PPI remediation costs.

 

As it stands it is irrefutable that FirstPlus are making me pay for their illegal selling of Payment Protection Insurance, as despite their huge liability in this regard it has little to no impact on their underlying profit.

 

 

TheOffice of Fair Trading have, as a direct result of mine and other like minded complainants, formally reprimanded FirstPlus by means of a CCA Section 33a Requirement Notice - can't post link so google OFT FirstPlus CCA section 33a

 

The OFT refuse to disclose the specifics of the reprimand, even under the stringent restrictions of Enterprise Act section 241a, specifically introduced to assist consumers in this regard. Apparantly it is against the public interst and would harm FirstPlus' commercial interests if they disclosed. The PHSO are due to rule on this on Friday - it's taken them 18 months to get to this stage after they tried to palm the issue off on the ICO but as i'm seeking disclosure under EA 241A and not the FOIA the ICO won't get involved. I told them this but they wouldn't listen.

 

A Group of us, via our own forum are starting the legal process, we've engaged a Solicitor and a Barrister and have a plan of attack, not going to highjack your thread with details of that but it's good to know we're not the only ones.

 

Good luck.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Halifax71

[andrew1]

EA 241A

 

Well done Halifax71, I know of a similar group working on another sub-prime lender Swift Advances with similar issues.

 

The OFT have been pathetic to be honest, absolutely pathetic. Gesturing is all that has come from them, slapped wrists with fines which do not find their way back to the people who have suffered as a result of these mal- practices. Effectively it is just the OFT getting their rent and staff pay back, the consumer gets the scraps having had to do all the running themselves.

 

Interest rates are more geared to the business models of these companies rather than the bank rates or Libor and variable rates varying upwards only despite both plummeting. Profit margin % have doubled since loans taken out...

 

In February 06 when a loan was taken the Libor rate was 4.82% BOE rate 4.75% the lender charged 13.44% giving them a profit margin of 8.62% over Libor

 

In August 2011 when the Libor rate was 0.29% and the BOE rate 0.05% the lenders interest rate had risen to 15.83% giving them a profit margin of 15.54% over Libor

 

It's the business model - not the banks or lending rates. Get to the root of the business models, their agreements with their investors on what returns they have to pay out and that's where you find your s.140 fertile ground.

 

Can you enlighten me on the E241A please?

 

Good to hear people are now taking this on seriously rather than just discussing well done - this is a big black hole all this and the hole needs filling.

[Dougal16T]

Evening, have you seen this.....:

 

URGENT MESSAGE:

Have you all seen this: http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/what-is-fraud., this is possibly one of the best web pages on the internet, it defines each and almost every type of fraud there is (....so far as we know...!!)

 

More importantly it gives EVERYONE the chance to IMMEDIATELY report a possible or actual fraud which has taken place and which they have suffered (not just financially) from.

 

The website is devoted to dealing with the Crime of Fraud and will provide you with an almost immediate Crime Reference number, which can of course be tendered as evidence in a Court. It may be useful to many people, especially when you consider that Criminal Law always takes precedence over Civil Law.

 

As always

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

Edited June 11, 2012 by caro
Removing potentially defamatory content

[Halifax71]

EA 241A

 

Can you enlighten me on the E241A please?

.

 

Hi Andrew

 

 

Section 241A is a recently introduced (well 2008) addition to the Enterprise Act which aims to assist consumers in identifying if they’ve been wronged.

 

I can’t do links yet, nor post attachments but if you google “section 241a enterprise act” one of the top entries is the BIS guidance. Look for "A Guidance Note on Information Disclosure........", and see section 2 of that. oceedings

Section 241A EA02 enables public authorities in certain circumstances to disclose information where the information is to be used for civil proceedings or otherwise for the purposes of establishing, enforcing or defending legal rights. This will include prospective proceedings, taking legal advice in respect of proceedings and alternative ways of establishing, enforcing or defending legal rights such as Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes.

 

Although the new disclosure gateway is discretionary, a public authority must exercise the discretion in good faith and for the purposes of the legislation, which is to help consumers and IP rights holders to obtain their legal rights. The Act and the Order lay down detailed criteria for making disclosure (in particular in section 244). Where the criteria are satisfied a public authority would be expected to disclose unless there was a legally proper reason to justify nondisclosure. Although the authority will need to satisfy itself that the grounds for the request are genuine it is not required to make a judgement about the likelihood of success for the consumer or IP rights holder.

 

An important element of this is that any information disclosed under this route cannot be used for any other purpose, or shared with anyone else. As per the guidance “A person commits an offence if they wrongfully use specified information disclosed in a way not permitted by Part 9.”

 

Another important element is the discretionary nature of the gateway. The OFT have hid behind this using nonsense to justify their stance.

 

Now, the simple fact is the OFT have formally reprimanded FirstPlus by means of a Section 33a Requirement Notice. This reprimand was solely due to their Interest Rates. However as section 33a Requirement Notices have no retrospective powers (legally) then from a consumer point of view it’s pretty much useless. That said since the reprimand was issued their behaviour has changed, they could have raised rates once in September 2010 but didn’t however they would have had to have reduced again in March 11 – they had done this the previous 2 years though. I wonder if the ongoing investigation affected their decision at the time???? Similarly they have yet to apply the FHBR increase in January 12 – this is the first time they have failed to pass on a FHBR increase.

 

My question to the OFT was simply what had FirstPlus done wrong? They won’t tell me – Why? Section 33a reprimands are a measure “to address matters which cause the OFT to be dissatisfied”. What are they dissatisfied with? Have the specific terms within my contact been deemed ambiguous and as a result has their manipulation of the terms fallen foul of the UTCCR / Second Charge Lending Guidance and potential be deemed unfair / in breach of the Unfair Relationship Test?

 

The OFT’s argument is 3 fold,

 

1. Public Interest – The OFT say that must be able to continue to deal with businesses on a confidential basis. Without this, businesses would be less likely to engage in open dialogue. It cannot be deemed acceptable to prevent consumer redress simply on the premise that the public interest in best served by the OFT’s continued ability to engage openly with the businesses it regulates.

 

It appears to me that the OFT’s view / opinion "that the public interest in accountability and transparency is outweighed by the OFT’s ability to conduct investigations" is fundamentally wrong.

 

2. Commercial Sensitivity – The OFT believe that "the legitimate business interests of FirstPlus would be harmed by disclosure". I just cannot see how this argument stacks up. Yes, their business interests might be harmed, as it could lead to a massive problem for them should consumers like myself need to be compensated as a result of their “wrong” – but that is not legitimate business interests.

 

3.Necessity – the OFT have stated that "I have failed to prove that the requested information is necessary in order for me to seek consumer redress". To be honest I’m really struggling with the logic behind such a statement. How can the industry regulators formal reprimand not be a prerequisite for any claim for consumer redress? Even the PHSO said this was a strange stance.

 

I put in a claim of maladministration to The Parliamentary Ombudsman who subsequently tried every trick in the book to dodge the issue finally insisting that it went to the ICO.

 

The ICO, after much legal discussion with the PHSO stated that:

 

Given that all of the withheld information either consists entirely of, or contains, specified information, the Commissioner would consider that it is completely covered by section 44(1) of the FOIA. As this is an absolute statutory bar, unfortunately the Commissioner cannot assist you further in obtaining the withheld information. He has no jurisdiction to assess the merits of a public authority’s application and interpretation of any legislation other than that which he regulates.

 

I.E, the ICO cannot consider EA 241a requests.

 

So,the PHSO have to now rule. They've used their statutory powers to obtain the info from the OFT but it's now been escalated to some senior panel to be discussed this Friday.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Halifax71

[jaypope]

Just to jump back on here...... heres my "balance sheet" with Blemain.

 

BORROWED £48000.00 IN 2006

PAID BACK £30000.00 IN PAYMENTS

 

BALANCE OWED £63000.00

 

THEY PRAY ON THOSE THAT CANNOT REPAY OR DEFEND THEMSELVES.

 

Discusting and should not be allowed to trade. The OFT? their useless as others have stated. Me? hiding behind a name in case they try and sue me for something? Nah loan number 10014644, come and get me if you like i have nothing left, lost the lot, house, job and wife brought on by their constant pressures. Up yours Blemain may your directors rot in hell.

Edited June 13, 2012 by caro
Removing defamatory remarks

[andrew1]

Jaypope, my sympathies but hang on in there because there will be a day of redress. Nobody can turn the clock back for you, this is rolled out across the country with all sub-prime, but if you are prepared to begin the fight, gather the information with a few others and actually strip back Blemains business model to the core, you will begin to build a way back to claiming your money and your life back. It's a hard job but there are other Blemain people on here, get to know them and work something out between you. SYNERGY - the power of two people equal to 3, the power of 3 making 5. Believe me it works.

 

Halifax, thank you for the 241a information, this is new to me and that is an eye -opener as I too have been in liaison with David Fisher, the Director of Consumer Credit at the OFT over a sub-prime lender and I am awaiting an answer on one particular issue he has written to me about which if I published on here his initial response will blow away whatever credibility they might have had left.

 

Good luck for Friday and I'll be interested in knowing how you get on.

 

Thanks

 

A1

[citizenB]

Halifax71 - is this the correct link ?

 

file41381[1].pdf

[Halifax71]

Halifax71 - is this the correct link ?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36003[/ATTACH]

 

Yes, thank youMain part is section 2 from page 7 onwards. Thanks again.

[citizenB]

Great - BTW, if you want to post up documents, follow the instructions below and you should be ok.

 

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or ir you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

the hit reply button

[determindator]

A very interesting thread and one which is similar to one i'm involved with with FirstPlus (Second Charge secured loans).

 

I've spent years trying to get the regulators to do something, but ultimately they're useless.

 

My t&c state:

 

We may from time to time vary our interest rate. We may increase or decrease our interest rate to reflect a change which has occurred, or which we reasonably expect to occur in inerest rates generally, or to ensuret hat our business is carried on prudently, efficiently and competitively. The interest on your account will not in any twelvemonth period, vary by more than twice the variation in the Finance House Base Rate published by the Finance and Leasing Association during the same period. If for any reason, the Financing and Leasing Association ceases to publish the Finance House Base Rate we may refer the variation in our interest rates to any other Base Rate which in our reasonable opinion best matches that rate.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From inception.

1. All increases to the Finance House Base Rate or Bank of England base have been fully tracked by the loan APR.
   

1. No decreases to the Finance House Base Rate or Bank of England base have been applied to the loan APR.
   

1. The only reductions have been contractual ones to realign with the APR of 12 months previous. See the FHBR 12 month “cap” in the above clause.
   

Maximisation of the loan APR has had a massive impact on FirstPlus’ accounts. Their liability in respect of PPI reparations has been fully met viatheir increased Interest Rate profit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the last 4 years:

• Profit on the Interest Rate has increased from £53m per annum to £205m per annum.
   
  
• Commissions* have shifted from an income of £101m per annum to an expense of £74m per annum.
  
• Operating Costs have reduced from £61m per annum to £31m per annum.
  

*The accounts clearly state that “Commissions” include PPI remediation costs.

 

As it stands it is irrefutable that FirstPlus are making me pay for their illegal selling of Payment Protection Insurance, as despite their huge liability in this regard it has little to no impact on their underlying profit.

 

 

TheOffice of Fair Trading have, as a direct result of mine and other like minded complainants, formally reprimanded FirstPlus by means of a CCA Section 33a Requirement Notice - can't post link so google OFT FirstPlus CCA section 33a

 

The OFT refuse to disclose the specifics of the reprimand, even under the stringent restrictions of Enterprise Act section 241a, specifically introduced to assist consumers in this regard. Apparantly it is against the public interst and would harm FirstPlus' commercial interests if they disclosed. The PHSO are due to rule on this on Friday - it's taken them 18 months to get to this stage after they tried to palm the issue off on the ICO but as i'm seeking disclosure under EA 241A and not the FOIA the ICO won't get involved. I told them this but they wouldn't listen.

 

A Group of us, via our own forum are starting the legal process, we've engaged a Solicitor and a Barrister and have a plan of attack, not going to highjack your thread with details of that but it's good to know we're not the only ones.

 

Good luck.

 

Thank you for your informative post Halifax. The scandal of this type of product sold as a short term answer and not transparent is detrimental to those it was sold too. If you would post a link if you have a thread, many thanks.

Edited June 14, 2012 by determindator

[Halifax71]

 

So,the PHSO have to now rule. They've used their statutory powers to obtain the info from the OFT but it's now been escalated to some senior panel to be discussed this Friday.

 

Just a short update ,i'll start a new thread when I have the info in writing from the PHSO. I've attached my referral below forr information.

 

The PHSO hearing regarding disclosure was yesterday morning.

 

 

 

My caseworker presented my case to the senior panel that she had referred it to. They are not satisfied that the reasons given by the OFT are sufficient.

 

 

 

They do not accept that the 3 reasons, i.e. public interest, commercial sensitivity or necessity, when balanced against the arguments I've submitted for disclosure, are grounds to refuse.

 

 

 

A really positive outcome, that said, this doesn't mean I get disclosure - yet.

 

 

 

What it does is show is that the PHSO are satisfied that there is “an indication of administrative fault or of service failure, and that injustice or hardship has flowed from it.” That is the test.

 

 

 

It now goes for a formal investigation - only a small percentage of cases get to that stage (about 1%) and I'll get a written explanation of that, detailing the senior panels findings and what happens next.

 

 

 

So, the saga drags on, but this is in my opinion a really positive outcome – my caseworker thought so anyway and confirmed it was the best outcome I could have hoped for. There was not a possibility of disclosure being ordered by the panel as the OFT will now be given the opportunity to supplement their case – essentially give another reason as this one has been proven to be insufficient.

 

As I said above i'll open a new thread up when I have the wriiten finding so I don't clog this thread up. That said I do believe that the information i'm seeking would assist in the Blemain case as the OFT investigation and subsequent reprimand was specifically regarding interest rates albeit with FirstPlus.

PHSO referral.pdf

Edited June 16, 2012 by Halifax71

[jimmyq]

hi wp any updates on your case and if possible can you pm me with your legal teams details please

[juliejc59]

can u give the details of your legal team we are having a nightmare with blemain

[suffering]

Blemaine / Lancashire Mortgage Company when you took out a loan with this company did they mess you about i.e did they tell you the loan would be quick / a day or two then drag it out weeks untill you were desperate then change the loan last minute etc or did this just happen to me. I am building a case against this Co. and i am looking for some insight.

don't be intimidated by this lot! speak out & fight back

[Halifax71]

Has this claim died a death?

 

Shame if it has.

[Guest]

wp3 is with legals and said before won't be able to post up much. hopefully it hasn't died, and wp3 is still on the front foot.

re spots post earlier, spot on. 'variable' to them means up never down no matter what the bank rates are!

and barclays are being investigated again.

pity that the black horse appeal case previously mentioned has been dropped. for whatever reason.

gallahad - 18k interest p/a

Edited November 6, 2012 by Ford

[Gallahad]

Yep:jaw:

[Guest]

Yep:jaw:

 

how are you managing that? are you challenging things?

[Gallahad]

Been trying to challenge for 3 years under unfair relationship and hidden commission (16K) but no joy.

G

[Guest]

you prob have seen already, but would bcobs be of any use also?

[Gallahad]

Thanks for the thought Ford but it is an unregulated agreement taken before 2010.

G

[Guest]

its the thought that counts

what about the Lending Code? any poss concessions there?

[Gallahad]

It seems unregulated loans are not subject to any codes or regulations if over 25 K even though over 12% interest on a secured loan appears excessive by any standards.

G

Edited November 5, 2012 by Gallahad
typo