Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 374 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ocean Finance were my broker, they have written and advised me that they had not given me any advice regarding the loan.




Blemain Finance are saying that they had no part in arranging the loan nor did they give any advice. Unless I am nuts I can't understand how I got this loan. Both sides are not taking responsibility for any advice.


I have a undisclosed commission case also on top of all of this but there are so many flaws in the agreement that I know that I have a good case for unfair relationship. The Declaration of Income & Affordability that me and OH signed to pay x amount each month do not tally with the payments on my loan agreement with BF.


BF are saying that this was done by OF but I am afraid that is not a good enough excuse as this is mis-representation. You tell a borrower each month you will be paying x amount each month but when it is time to pay the sum is more than you agreed to. My agreement does not even state what my interest rate is linked to, e.g. BOE, LIBOR, or tracker etc etc and this the OFT say should be on the agreement.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Below is a letter that I wrote to Blemain questioning my interest rate loan. My loan is a variable interest rate loan.


I am writing in response to your previous letter dated 21 June 2010 regarding the interest rate policy on my loan agreement with you and would now like to raise a formal complaint and have answers to the questions I raise below.


In essence, what your response is saying is that you can do as you please with regards to the interest rate you charge me, as long as you state it is for the good of your business.

THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, Or partly truthful there is case law to show they can do what needs to be done ( for the good of the business ) so if the business is failing and they put up interest rates this is allowed,but to use this to make a huge profit in times of recession then i think it becomes unfair.and hopefully so will the judge.under unfair relationship they will have to show it was needed and not just a case of profiteering


Can you please explain the mechanism within which you calculate my interest rate?


Can you also provide the calculation by which you decide my interest rate both current and going forward?


You will have taken my loan on board day one at a given margin above your cost of funds, can you please disclose that and also disclose the margin above your current cost of funds as of today's date? If there is a difference (which their must be as your funding costs have reduced) can you explain and justify why this is the case?


I note from your accounts that during the last 2 financial reporting periods, the reductions in your borrowing costs have allowed you to significantly increase your profits from £8m pa up to £40m pa in the last filed accounts. It is clear that you have done this through a manipulation of existing agreements by not reducing customer APR in line with your own cost reductions.

Do you have a copy of this ( from £8m pa up to £40m pa in the last filed accounts)

I have one for the (JERROLD HOLDINGS) But i would love a copy of one for blemain.

My loan with you is stated as variable. As funding costs have reached an all time low and are only likely to increase in the future, can you outline the circumstances within which my APR would decrease? The OFT Guide to Secured Lending is categoric in how costs to customers should be increased and you have increased the underlying interest rate on my loan by failing to operate a variable rate agreement within the spirit and understanding of term.


Under the guidelines issued by regulators, I am entitled to the right to be able to budget for my current and future commitments. As your funding costs will only increase in the future, can you outline the circumstances within which my interest rates will be increased?


Without satisfactory answers, I will conclude that not only are you operating in breach of UTCCR and the OFT Guide to Secured Lending, I will also state that your contract with me is unfair in terms of the "unfair relationship" test.


I look forward to your response.


Yours sincerely


This is the response or one of their responses I received:






Today i received a letter in the post from blemain,

I was all excited was this the response to my CPR part 18 request ??

Was this to be the response to the court order my self and the court are still waiting for from them ??

my hopes were shattered when i opened it to find a all new Default Notice,

And this one is not your standard computer generated Default Notice ( I MUST BE SPECIAL )this one is hand typed and nearly correct.


Now i have another dilemma, obviously this agreement is in dispute as it is going to court.

Issuing a DN while a account is in dispute is a no no i think but i will have to check it out.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites






Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



They are sending a barrister from London :madgrin: gough square chambers no less.


I just hope she appreciates a nice day out in wales, away from all that smog.


received a skeleton argument and i think they could have done better but what is apparent from it is that they are going down the line of trying to bull**** the judge.


my paranoia about posting things up in advance is now quite well founded as this is a quote from part of the skeleton.


"country to the advice provided on certain consumer action websites an invalid default notice does not amount to an unlawful rescission of contract which gives a counterclaim for damages."


on the issue of charges they think they are a bank , as they are relying on the OFT case.


they're arguments are not strong, at all as long as the judge is up to scratch and doesn't let them baffle him with bull**** all should be ok.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure we are all hoping you get a fair minded judge that knows his stuff so the best of luck WP


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

what this company is doing is why the unfair rules were introduced, if i loose it will be because of misdirection of the judge not on any thing about fairness.


also i have already looked at appeal so i am prepared.


who ever wins this i think there is going to be a appeal it is to big for them to lose, and i know what they do is unfair so i am not backing down


thanks for the well wishes G



Edited by welshperson3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping everything crossed for you WP3 :wink:


Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%


MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI


MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded


MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%


MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded


MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded


Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded


Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%


Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%


Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%


M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI


M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%


Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%


Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%


Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded


Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks landy


Hopefully i should be OK as they are relying on technicalities and i am the one that is after fair dealings.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Remember, this is not the first time that Blemain have tried and lost!!





Update: 2013 Following our recent (9/7/13) hearing about Bank Charges at the Court of Appeal, and refusal to grant permission to Appeal; an Application has just (23/10/2013) been made for a fresh hearing and the Court Location is yet to be confirmed!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with this, their arguments do sound weak and the fact that they seem to want to increases the costs by sending a barrister (ask for their legal qualifications - you have a right to this info) seems to point to them getting into a panic situation.


If you get a chance say to the judge when costs are mentioned that costs should not be awarded to the claimant as they have changed the legal advice at the last minute.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from court it was adjourned.


The judge was not impressed; the reason was that they were going to rely on authorities that I have not received.


They say that they posted them on Monday but I don’t think they did as the court only received them this morning.


But I also was in the wrong (I put my bundle in to court late) my reasons were that as I had sent a part 18 request off to them and was waiting for a reply and was also waiting for a reply as to the judges order that they should send a response to my claim, but as the judge pointed out that he had made a order and this was no excuse.


And my first point about an invalid default notice

The judge then went on to say that he had read the arguments and he thinks that they can issue a new default notice to rectify their mistakes. And then says it is up to me to show him why they cant


And on that point the original judgment is flawed but that doesn’t mean that they cant have another go.


I think I can convince him on this matter but it is not the end of the world if I don’t as the unfair relationship is the main point, as if it is found unfair then he has the power to alter any of the terms and this is what will really hurt them and hopefully set a precedence, it is only in county court but it will still be taken in consideration in all other county court cases.


Their first point is that it should not be allowed to continue to trial as it is out of time.


The judge says that on his opinion they are wrong and that they might want to think about that.


My view is that the judge wants this to go to trial.

Judge went on to discus costs for today.


I wasn’t allowed costs, as I had not complied with the directions order for service of documents

And I can’t argue, as it is true, I made a mistake in waiting on them to respond to a court order. (LESSON LEARNED ALLWAYS COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER)


The baddies then say that they are going to rely on an indemnity clause in the agreement.

Judge was not imprested by that he then says no and that he is making an order for no costs for today and that they must not add costs to the agreement.


How much a London barrister cost for the day ?



1 The opinion I got from today is that the judge is clued up about credit law.

2 That he is not going to throw this out.

3 That I got my hands full trying to prove invalid default notice would leave them no right in issuing another default notice.

4 This judge has concern on the unfair aspect and want to judge on the unfair part,

5 It also looks as though he is going to be fair as can be seen in the way he dealt with the charges.

6 A bit disappointed that it didn’t go on today but it gave me hint as to what to expect.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Wp not a bad result for the first skirmish I would say.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I think it is looking ok.

A bit disappointed about adjournment though

but it was a good insight as what to expect

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I believe you have had a fantastic result, and have made me even more determined to fight them.


Great job WPS keep the fight going.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

fretfull we are in the same boat and my outcome may well help you and others and if it does it would make this even sweeter for me.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
fretfull we are in the same boat and my outcome may well help you and others and if it does it would make this even sweeter for me.


Thanks WP3 and yes we are in the same boat, just have to make sure there are no holes in it as Blemain have got their crocodiles all around it.


I am sure that you will win in my opinion especially when you start firing the Unfair Relationship grenades LOL!!!!!!!!!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

anybody having trouble with the interest rates variation clause of their agreements ?



Dyson LJ, who was also a judge in Paragon Finance v Nash, Staunton,

clarified the position regarding the relevance of interest rate variations in

determining whether a credit bargain was extortionate. Dyson LJ

maintained his view in Paragon Finance that the way in which an interest

rate variation is operated is not a factor to be taken into account in

determining an extortionate bargain. However, he also mentioned that he

did not mean that the existence of such a clause could never be relevant

to the question of whether the credit bargain is extortionate because

such a clause had the potential to make a credit bargain extremely

burdensome. It was also said that the failure of the lender to inform the

borrower of the way the interest rate variation clause is operated is a

factor to be taken into account in determining whether there had been a

gross contravention of the ordinary principles of fair dealing


and maybe just a tad unfair !



  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent info WP3, I can add this above to my long list of all the other things I have.


Great and thanks again

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet the boyos in manchester will tremble when the spies read that one tomorrow


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



I still have not received a copy of there court bundle, I have had their skeleton and a witness statement but no case law that they are relying on. or copy of any agreements or letters that they are going to use in court.


I think this was an attempt to ambush me in court

If they can get an advantage over some one, legal or not they are going to get it,their lack of fair play is astounding.


They have a legal department that is well aware of their duty’s when it comes to sending documents but is still trying all the dirty tricks in the book and some more.

It just goes to show how low this company will stoop

I have sent of copies of my previous 5 unfulfilled requests for information and request that they send a copy of a court bundle to be received by me 5 days before trial.


I have sent my bundle so have nothing else to comply with, but what happens if they continue to frustrate proceedings.

As I started the case can the case continue with out them supplying documents?

Or if they don’t turn up what would happen?

Edited by welshperson3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my hands full







Called Lincoln's Inn (2006)

Lord Denning Scholarship, Lord Brougham Scholarship and Hardwicke Award

Classics (Greats) at Oriel College, Oxford University

Law conversion course (CPE) at City University

Masters in Law (LLM) at University College London


Ruth practises in all areas of consumer and regulatory law.


She regularly represents banks and other financial institutions in courts all over the country on a broad range of consumer credit matters, including enforceability disputes, alleged mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance, payment of ‘secret commissions’, provision of copy documents, compliance with drafting requirements, ‘extortionate credit bargains’ and the ‘unfair relationships’ test. Ruth also undertakes drafting and advisory work in these areas.


Ruth regularly appears in court in mortgagee possession and appeal proceedings, sale and supply of goods disputes, contractual disputes, claims for debt and insolvency proceedings.


Ruth has experience in other regulatory matters, both civil and criminal. During her pupillage she worked as a Trading Law Specialist at Asda and advised on the legality of comparative advertising. She also completed an internship at the Office of Fair Trading, which involved advising on the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. She has represented local authorities in a variety of regulatory trials.


Publications: contributor to ‘Advertising Law and Regulation’, ed G. Crown, 2nd edn, Bloomsbury Professional (2010)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If, when you get to court, you find yourself at a disadvantage because you haven't had all the information you need, make sure that the judge is aware of this. You could even ask for an adjournment.


If a court order or even CPR requests haven't been complied with, you might consider applying for the case to be struck out.


If there are references to things that you can find though, get yourself copies so that you can respond to them in court if necessary.


Take a look at this excellent advice from BRW too. I hope it helps.




What's Best for You?



The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.


Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007



Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Caro it was very helpful

Just a quick question does anybody know if an indemnity clause in the agreement allows them to add costs to the agreement if they lose in court?

Reason I am asking is that they tried to rely on this when we were in court so that they could add their costs for the day to my agreement.

All they sent me in regards of a court bundle is the skeleton argument, I can see what case law they are going rely on out of that but I don’t know if they are going to produce any other documents. So I have sent a recorded delivery letter requesting copy of the court bundle delivered to me 5 days before the hearing.

If I don’t get a copy of the court bundle I will see if I can get the case law mentioned in the skeleton and ask the judge not to allow any thing else that they have in the bundle.

As for asking for a strike out I am the one that started the case,

caro it was adjourned last time for lack of information.

I have tried everything I can to get information from this company SAR / CPR REQUEST /SECTION 77/78 REQUEST they haven’t complied with there duties under any of them but there is no real penalties when they don’t.

They have more to lose if they disclose what they are doing, than any penalty for non-compliance.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi WPS I am not sure if this is of any help but I have been reading that the OFT do not like the use of Indemnity clauses in agreements. I hope the info below is of some help to you.





Unfair Contract Terms





When a dispute arises over a clause in a contract, it is easy for the party defending this clause to say ‘well, you should have read the contract’. But how many of us actually take the time to trawl through the small print when signing up to an agreement? Most of us will assume good faith, and rely on our statutory rights to protect us. However, complaints regarding minimum term clauses in mobile phone contracts and gym membership contracts, as well as the use of exclusion or indemnity clauses by unscrupulous firms is proof that this can be a false assumption.

Such contract terms may be found to be unfair, and hence legally unenforceable. For guidance on this, we refer to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In a nutshell, this piece of legislation protects consumers who enter into legally binding agreements with suppliers where the contract is biased in favour of the supplier. Unfair clauses are those which try to exclude any of the following:


  • liability for negligence in the event of death or personal injury. Liability for loss or damage may be excluded, but only where it is considered reasonable.
  • liability for breach of contract. This includes situations in which the supplier did not carry out their contractual obligations (the item was not as described or the service not carried out)
  • Indemnity clauses are those which protect an individual or a supplier from legal action in the event of professional negligence
  • Product guarantees designed to protect the consumer in case of damage of defect
  • Statutory rights with regard to Sale of Goods and Supply of Goods and Services legislation.
  • Misrepresentation in the form of false or inaccurate claims

The following are also taken into account when deciding whether a clause is ‘reasonable’ or not:


  • The relative strengths of supplier and consumer and whether there is a significant imbalance
  • Whether you were offered an inducement to agree to the term
  • Whether the items purchased were produced or adapted to your particular requirements.

More recently introduced European Regulations clarify further definitions of what constitutes ‘unfair’.


  1. Making the arrangement legally binding on you, but not on the supplier.
  2. Allowing the supplier to retain money in the event that you cancel, but not obliging the supplier to pay compensation in the event that they cancel.
  3. The requirement for you to pay cancellation charges which are disproportionately high.
  4. Allowing the supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis, without giving you the same right.
  5. Allowing the supplier to cancel the contract without reasonable notice to you.
  6. Automatic contract renewals where you are not given reasonable opportunity to prevent the renewal.
  7. Incorporating legally binding contractual terms without giving you reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them before signing.
  8. Allowing the seller to alter the terms of the contract without a valid reason which is specified in the contract.
  9. Allowing the supplier to determine the price at the time of delivery, or significantly increasing the price without giving you the chance to cancel.
  10. Giving the supplier the right to determine whether the goods you receive are as described or allowing him to interpret contractual terms as he sees fit.
  11. Legally obliging you to fulfil your obligations, while not obliging the supplier to fulfil his.
  12. Allowing the seller to transfer his rights and obligations if it affects any product guarantees you may have with him.
  13. Not allowing or restricting your right to take legal action against him for negligence or breach of contract

For further information, see the regulations themselves:




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



I have the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations,but i didnt realise a indemnaty clause was in them.


have a look at 29.7 of your agreement terms and conditions see if it says the same as mine.


29.7 "RATE" means (in the case of unregulated agreements) the higher of 5% above the base rate for the time being of the bank of Scotland or the highest rate payable under any credit agreements and (in any other case) the highest rate of interest payable under the relevant agreement;



have you ever seen a better example of a unfair term ?


if you read it it shows your interest rate can only ever go up it can never come below what says on your agreement,

This is one that the OFT should be made aware of.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...