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

[searching70]

Hi wp3 I read this article:

 

Although the FSA has allowed the banks to put a hold on all claims for unfair bank charges - You are still entitled to reclaim unfair credit card charges. The consumer law states that any charges that credit card providers pass onto their customers must be proportional to the actual costs they incur. It simply is unfair to charge £35 just to send an automated letter when someone’s gone 1p over their limit? The Office of Fair Trading have been supporting reclainers cases, however they have stated that they would not investigate any charges of less than £12. So any charges you recieve above £12 are deemed ‘unfair’ and can be reclaimed.

 

The above relates to bank charges.....and I believe that if the OFT deem anything above £12 unfair then I would think that Blemain also would be deemed being unfair charging £35 a letter.

[citizenB]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40830[/ATTACH]

Copy of MCOBs ^^^

[dx100uk]

Hi wp3 I read this article:

 

Although the FSA has allowed the banks to put a hold on all claims for unfair bank charges - You are still entitled to reclaim unfair credit card charges. The consumer law states that any charges that credit card providers pass onto their customers must be proportional to the actual costs they incur. It simply is unfair to charge £35 just to send an automated letter when someone’s gone 1p over their limit? The Office of Fair Trading have been supporting reclainers cases, however they have stated that they would not investigate any charges of less than £12. So any charges you recieve above £12 are deemed ‘unfair’ and can be reclaimed.

 

The above relates to bank charges.....and I believe that if the OFT deem anything above £12 unfair then I would think that Blemain also would be deemed being unfair charging £35 a letter.

 

ANY charge is unfair as it is a PENALTY.

 

dx

[welshperson3]

Thanks citizenb

Blemain are basically a 2nd charge sub prime lender so they wont come under the MCOBS rules but they do some first charge lending thro Cheshire mortgage company and they would fall right in the lap of MCOBS.

[welshperson3]

ANY charge is unfair as it is a PENALTY.

 

dx

 

DX I hope you don’t think I am being pedantic but what I am trying to do is show people why and how they can claim back unfair charges,

So if a charge is a penalty why can I claim it backs and who says I can claim it back?

With the bank charges claim being lost don’t that mean I can’t claim against my lender?

DX this information isn’t needed for me personally I believe I know the answers; this thread is for information for people just starting a fight with blemain so these people will need to know more than it is a penalty.

Wp3

[dx100uk]

then it is for THEM to research

putting up guides is all very well

 

encouraging people [as we do on cag]

is all very well

 

but blindly following some elses info

is dangerous. as are templates

 

like kenny's & swift - Blemain finance are one of the worst

 

it is far better they research and discover the reasons.

 

the info on PENALTY charges is already carried

 

and can be read by simple use of our search in the grey toolbar top right above.

 

.....

 

its about time we had a forum for BF on here

 

to put everything in one area.

 

dx

[welshperson3]

Has someone from the site moved these new threads and added them to this one?

The idea was to have specific points of an argument in one place, to help people trying to find answers to points of law, I don’t need these threads added to my thread as I believe I know the answers they were going to help others.

Wp3

[dx100uk]

for the minute yes

 

we need to create a forum for BF

 

and them we can make you stickies.

 

sep thread now re-created

 

 

dx

[welshperson3]

DX I think we have a difference of opinion on some points and I hope there is some freedom of opinion on this site that will at least let me get my view out.

 

then it is for THEM to research

putting up guides is all very well

 

So how do people research something they don’t know exists?

DX were could I find out what is on an underwriting sheet?

DX were can I find out what is an offline transaction report?

DX were can I find if blemain pay brokers commission?

DX if you could possibly show were someone can research what they are going to receive in response to a SAR( a list of documents alphabetically would be nice)?

 

There are legal requirements when making a SAR no big deal if you get it wrong just start again.

There are also rules and regulations when facing repossession but getting this wrong will result in sleeping on the street. But as you say above “it is for THEM to research”

 

encouraging people [as we do on cag]

is all very well

DX what do you do to “encourage people”? .

ME I WOULDN’T ENCOURAGE ANYONE just give them the information they were looking for.

 

 

but blindly following some elses info

is dangerous. as are templates

 

if you would have read the first post of every new thread it says that every thing said had to be factual with a link to prove what was said. Template letters in general are a bad idea as people don’t understand what they are doing but a basic SAR requesting all information cant be detrimental as it is only a formal request for information.

 

like kenny's & swift - Blemain finance are one of the worst

 

it is far better they research and discover the reasons.

 

Yes blemain are one of the worst and by the time someone has found their way to some consumer website they are already in some difficulty so they domt have to much time to try and learn the whole Consumer credit act, MCOBS, and civil procedures rules, contract law and which of these apply to them also trying to find out if 14 days is enough time for them to do a SAR. TO LATE BLEMAIN GET THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY WERE BUISEY RESEARCHING

 

the info on PENALTY charges is already carried

 

But there is a lot of confusion between bank charges and those added to loan agreements.

I have faced their barrister in court who tried to say that the OFT V banks case put an end to claiming back charges I also know of lenders quoting this case in response to letters sent in claiming back charges.

 

and can be read by simple use of our search in the grey toolbar top right above.

 

.....

 

its about time we had a forum for BF on here

 

to put everything in one area.

 

Good idea

 

PS I am not asking for answers, in general I am hoping that myself and others may be able to give answers and information DOCUMENTS

Wp3

Edited January 20, 2013 by welshperson3

[dx100uk]

what you are currently doing by this excellent thread is the one to read

if found

 

we have sep parts of cag like we have for most cards, banks & financial institutions.

 

when we get the BF forum done

 

stickies can be created & guides can be created to accomplish the parting & gathering of

others knowledge and paperwork very easily.

 

it can also contain links to where on here

info on say the SAR is already provided

or its own SAR link upon what it contains or should

from this company

 

likewise there is already a forum on home repro,

if you link to that or create BF's own stickies is totally open.

 

the 'bank charges' issue is one that has created its own confusion....

 

the OFT/FSA debacle never referred to anything other than 'bank' charges

the fact that it has been 'used' by other institutions or people on forums

is neither here nor there.

 

if a charge or fee can be seen as 'fixed' or 'repeatedly' the same i'e it is always say £12

no matter what the 'indescression' it must be a 'PENALTY'.

 

PENALTY charges are unlawful, even before the 'bank' charges cases caused the focus.

 

"it does not reflect the true admin cost in each individual case & the various financial institutions, will not break it down."

 

remember, CAG is a self help forum too.

 

CAG and yourself can only provide the info & help

 

it is voluntary and would not exist without people like yourself

 

let us create the focus & maximise your efforts.

 

dx

[suffering]

Keep the ball rolling WP3 what you are trying ti do is fantastic i totally agree some people do not even realise what they can and can't complain about, and the hours that are wasted reading up on irrelivent information on a subject only to find you are barking up the wrong tree and its got no substance to it. Especially with the speed Blemain work at to try and catch you out. The hours spent tiring yourself out adding to the stress could be halved there will always be people making claims that have very little to back it up so rules must apply Subject / Compaint / the Law / Case Law/ proof / Documents etc The old KISS applies to us all Keep It Simple Stupid

[wishboneash]

that's one thing i forgot how much gmac paid the broker for getting me my mortgage i have all my statements

[Figaro123]

I would be pleased to receive any advice on how to use blemain for an unfair relationship. I have a strong case if anyone is interested. Maybe I Should download the documents I have

[determindator]

Hi WP3, this article covers mis-selling and at the end of the article refers to the sub prime industry http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/29/claims-firms-mortgage-mis-selling

[welshperson3]

Hi Figaro 123, and Determindator

May I suggest that if blemain are not taking you to court, or trying to repossess your home then hold of starting any court case against them until you can answer yes to the following questions? (YOU CAN DO THIS BUT IT TAKES WORK)

1 do you know civil procedure rules?

2 do you know what regulations govern your loan agreement?

3 do you know what case law/rules and regulations you would be using in court?

4 are you confident you can show the judge you are right when blemains barristers are telling the judge you are wrong?

5 do you have the documents to prove what you are saying?

6 do you want to take the risk of blemains costs if you lose in a high court (approximately £20,000)

I only posted the above as there are way too many people on the web site saying (GO GET THEM / CLAIM IT BACK /TAKE THEM TO COURT) make sure you know and understand everything you are about to do, THEN DO-IT

Learn first don’t rush into anything, blemain will be there when you are ready, im reasonably confident that we are going to see blemain get fined for the things that they have been doing (shouldn’t be to long now either) any fines issued by the regulators will help anyone in court, as this will be prove that blemain have been treating people unfairly.

If blemain are taking you to court then my advice is to FIGHT /FIGHT/FIGHT. You are going to court anyway so now is the time to show the judge exactly what you have.

Hopefully this won’t put anyone off going to court, it will just make shire they are prepared, there is plenty to beat blemain with, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW and the risks you are taking.

Some good reading below

Set up to fail - full report ( 390kb

Treasury Committee: Press Notice - UK Parliament

wp3

[welshperson3]

Nearly two years and their licenses haven’t been renewed by OFT never seen it take this long!! Must be one hell of an investagation

http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/default.aspx

 

 

Edited January 23, 2013 by welshperson3

[Figaro123]

Thank you welshperson. I shall heed your advice. I wish you will, keep us all posted. God bless , I know what you must be going through

[suffering]

Are you sure they haven't had their licence renewed i've seen this stated before somewhere, but when you check the OFTregister under Lancashire Mortgage Corporation no.204327 it shows licence status as current.

Just one more thing i was advised by director Marc Goldberg Director of LMC who effectivley took over from the broker completley changing my loan and i wondered if he needs a licence to be a finance / loan adviser he and LMC are on the FSA register

Edited January 23, 2013 by suffering
added information

[welshperson3]

Hi

 

Suffering, nav110, figaro 123

 

 

Why not start threads of your own, that way we will know what type of agreement you have, what stage of complaints procedure you are at, what blemain have done, and how to deal with it.

 

 

As for blemains CCA licence

 

Blemain do have a licence don’t make a mistake of thinking blemain are operating without a licence.

 

What has happened with blemains licence is that they had to renew it in 2011 so they applied to renew their licence, this usually takes a couple of month’s, but in blemains case it has taken nearly two years.

 

So ask you self why has it taken the OFT nearly two years to renew blemains licence

 

Now the rules on renewing a licence are that they can continue trading on their old licence while the OFT process the application for a new licence.

 

 

So the relative point is that the OFT is investigating this company, otherwise they would have had their licence renewed within 2 months, not the two years and still waiting.So I personally would put a bet that you are going to see some fines heading blemains way in the not to distant future

 

 

Below is Taken from 0FT licence check

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

 

Renewal in Progress:

 

 

Event Type

Date of Receipt

Closed Date

Status

Renewal

04-May-2011

Open

 

 

Legal Formation:

 

 

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

 

 

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

 

Name

Position

Adrian Joseph Grant

 

Gary Bailey

 

Gary Beckett

Director

Henry Neville Moser

 

Mr Marc Richard Goldberg

OFFICER

Stephen Baker

Director

Tracey Bailey

[suffering]

Thanks excellent explanation thanks for ironining that out. It also adds weight to what you are trying to do it just goes to show how your research on this occasion was better than mine well done!

[welshperson3]

Hi

 

Suffering, nav110, figaro 123

 

 

Why not start threads of your own, that way we will know what type of agreement you have, what stage of complaints procedure you are at, what blemain have done, and how to deal with it.

 

 

As for blemains CCA licence

 

Blemain do have a licence don’t make a mistake of thinking blemain are operating without a licence.

 

What has happened with blemains licence is that they had to renew it in 2011 so they applied to renew their licence, this usually takes a couple of month’s, but in blemains case it has taken nearly two years.

 

So ask you self why has it taken the OFT nearly two years to renew blemains licence

 

Now the rules on renewing a licence are that they can continue trading on their old licence while the OFT process the application for a new licence.

 

 

So the relative point is that the OFT is investigating this company, otherwise they would have had their licence renewed within 2 months, not the two years and still waiting. So I personally would put a bet that you are going to see some fines heading blemains way in the not to distant future.

 

 

 

Below is Taken from OFT register

 

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

 

Renewal in Progress:

 

 

Event Type

Date of Receipt

Closed Date

Status

Renewal

04-May-2011

 

Open

 

 

Legal Formation:

 

 

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

 

Name

Position

Adrian Joseph Grant

 

Gary Bailey

 

Gary Beckett

Director

Henry Neville Moser

 

Mr Marc Richard Goldberg

OFFICER

Stephen Baker

Director

Tracey Bailey

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2013 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

I have started some new threads now we have a specific blemain area on this site , were we can keep important information in plain view of the people that need it.

 

 

Now I believe that blemain are not acting in a faire and responsible way, and there are so many things I believe are wrong that I would like to suggest that we talk about one point at a time.

 

Now when someone comes on a website and says blemain did this, this and this it is hard to say what to do, because each thing blemain has done wrong has its own specific remedy.

 

 

So what I would like to do is make a list of what blemain do that is unfair, then we talk about that one point (would be a lot easier if I was aloud a thread for each point)

 

 

All the charges that have been added to your loan is going to be the biggest thing that people complain about, I don’t want to put that on my thread as it will take over what I am doing, but if anyone starts a new thread about charges I will post my views on this point.

 

 

 

Some points I think would be interesting are listed below and I think the most unknown and possibly the most damaging for blemain is the use of monarch recoveries for debt collecting.

 

 

So hands up all you nice people that have had any experience of monarch recoveries (only those with a loan over 18 months old)

 

 

THIS IS A SELF HELP SITE SO JOIN IN WITH WHAT YOU CAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Blemain using monarch recoveries for debt collecting.

 

 

2 did blemain pay your broker a secret commission

 

3 blemain adding buildings insurance to my agreement

 

4 blemains intrest rate

 

 

WP3

Edited January 23, 2013 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Some basic facts about blemain and monarch recoveries and how they worked

1 monarch recoveries was a debt collecting company

2 monarch recoveries had the same address as blemain

3 monarch recoveries only collected debts for the blemain group of companies

4 monarch recoveries is one in the blemain group of companies

So there is no big deal with all of the above its what is called in house debt recovery or so blemain lead you to believe.

What if I said monarch recoveries only existed in name only, and it was one big con used by blemain to part you from even more of your hard earned money.

I will be back in one hour and then I will show you how the OFT has shut down companies for doing what blemain did when they used monarch recoveries. And the prove you need to see monarch didn’t exist.

wp3

[welshperson3]

What blemain used to do if you fell into arrears was in their own words “instruction of agents (monarch)” charge in my case £250 for passing the account to monarch, and then monarch would charge for phone calls and letters and numerous other things.

 

 

 

Now this is how blemain used this [problem] to add monies to what you already owed them, then getting you further into debt with then and closer to repossession.

 

 

Just as an example, Joe from blemain would phone you in the morning, at dinner time your account gets transferred to monarch, in the afternoon you get a call from Joe from monarch, it’s the same person and you got charged £250 plus interest, over a 25 year loan this would cost you approximately £1000.

 

 

 

Now to prove monarch recoveries was only a name that blemain used to [problem] and frighten you.

 

 

monarch had no employees, but made a profit of over 6 million in 2008 and over 4 million in 2009 not bad with no employees, and the fact that they made this profit by charging £35 for letters and phone calls.

 

 

If you know your charges arguments there is some of your proof that they weren’t a true estimate of their costs, and that they were making millions out of charging you penalties

 

This document is filed at company house and signed by them to be true.

 

I cant upload this document as it is a PDF but you can get it for free you will have to log ibut it is free .

 

MONARCH RECOVERIES LIMITED

REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATMENTS 2009

 

. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01959967

 

This document is prove that

 

1 They had no employees

2 They profit from their unfair charges

3 All this money came from blemains victims

 

 

 

The following happened to logbook loans for doing what blemain and monarch were doing to people.

 

125/11 18 November 2011

The OFT has welcomed a Tribunal's decision to strike out appeals by the UK's biggest logbook loan businesses against the removal of their consumer credit licences.

The First-tier Tribunal's ruling to strike out the appeals of Nine Regions Limited ('NRL') and Log Book Loans Limited (together 'Log Book Loans') follows the OFT's original decision that Log Book Loans were unfit to hold consumer credit licences.

Logbook loans are secured on vehicles such as cars and motorbikes. If the borrower defaults, the loan company can seize the vehicle without going to court. Even after the vehicle is sold the borrower can still be pursued for any shortfall.

The OFT asked the Tribunal to strike out Log Book Loans' appeals because of evidence that emerged during the appeal hearing. Log Book Loans admitted that thousands of letters had been sent to borrowers in the name of a firm called Adams Spencer & Phillips (Legal Services) Limited ('ASP') falsely threatening to take legal action on behalf of NRL.

 

 

 

The First-tier Tribunal found that:

• the letters were sent to give borrowers a false impression that ASP was a body authorised to carry on activities as if it were a firm of solicitors, such as the conduct of litigation
  
• ASP actually had no employees and was not a body or individual duly authorised to bring legal action on behalf of NRL
  
• deceptive practices included that between September 2009 and April 2010, employees of NRL called customers pretending to be employees of ASP
  
• the ASP letters were part of a deliberate deceit
  
• the deception was played out, not simply in front of customers but also with third parties such as solicitors acting for borrowers, as well as the Financial Ombudsman Service.
  

David Fisher, Director of the OFT's Consumer Credit Group said:

'The OFT welcomes the Tribunal's decision to strike out the companies' appeals. The decision confirms our view that these companies are unfit to hold their consumer credit licences.

 

'Intentionally deceiving debtors as part of a debt collection policy is an extremely serious matter, which calls into question a licensee's fitness. We expect businesses licensed by the OFT to treat all their customers, including those in arrears, fairly and transparently

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wp3

Edited January 23, 2013 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Now just in case anyone isn’t quite following then I will list the important facts and what rules they are braking.

1 Blemain misled you

Debt collection

OFT guidance for businesses engaged in the recovery of consumer credit debts

2.2 In general terms, businesses17should:

• treat debtors fairly – debtors should not be subjected to aggressive practices, inappropriate coercion, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not I DOMT THINK BLEMAIN HAVE READ THIS

• be transparent in their dealings with debtors and others – information provided should be clear and should not be confusing or misleading MAYBE THEY DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS EITHER, THINK I MAY SEND THEM A COPY AND THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE ALL RIGHT.

2.1 This chapter identifies matters that the OFT considers to be unfair or improper business practices for the purposes of section 25(2A)(e) of the Act. These are set out under the following sub-headings:

• False representation of authority and/or legal position: businesses should accurately and truthfully represent their authority/status and the correct legal position with regard to debts and the debt recovery process STRANGE THAT I HAVE A LETTER STATING MONARCH ARE GOING TO START COURT ACTION, CANT BE TRUE THEY DON’T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES.

Deceptive and/or unfair methods: businesses should be truthful and fair in their dealings with debtors and others ANOTHER ONE BLEMAIN CANT HAVE READ

Charging for debt recovery: charges should not be levied inappropriately or unfairly THEY WASN’T BEING UNFAIR THEY HAVE TO MAKE A LIVING THEY ONLY MADE 6.5 MILLION ON COLECTING IN 2009 (AFTER TAX )

2.2 It is unfair to communicate with debtors, or their representatives, in whatever form, in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner

False representation of authority and/or legal position

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority and/or the correct legal position with regards to debts or the debt recovery process.

Physical/psychological harassment

DON’T GET ME STARTED ON THIS ONE

Charging for debt recovery

3.10 Charges should not be levied inappropriately or unfairly.

3.11 Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows:

a. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay recovery charges when this is not the case

b. claiming recovery costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual provision to be able to do so

c. not giving a clear indication in credit agreements of the amount of any charges payable on default60

d. applying unreasonable 61 charges

HOW IS SOMEONE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A LIVING POOR BLEMAIN WOULDN’T HAVE MADE £6.5 MILLION AFTER TAX IF THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT ALL THE RULES

I REALY THINK SOMEONE SHOULD CONTACT BLEMAIN AND SEND THEM A COPY OF THIS OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT FIND THEMSELVS IN BIG TROUBLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING WRONG.

Debt collection

OFT guidance for businesses engaged in the recovery of consumer credit debts

WP3