Jump to content


GE Money Home Lending - Taking Court action to recover charges


george_h
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4206 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I was in arrears with my mortgage and managed to clear these off but as a result have £600 of charges on my account which GE money say are arrears, I say they are not and are the total of the unfair charges they have levied on my account. I am refusing to pay these charges so they are adding £40 per month to my mortgage in admin fees for been in arrears, they have also reported me as 5 months in arrears with experian, equifax (who incidentally won't put a notice of correction on my file about this being purely charges).

 

Anyway I threatened GE Money with court action and so far they have refused to refund any of these fees which they say are fair and lower than other companies charge. I have sent them an LBA but again they have replied saying that they will not refund any charges and the matter is now closed, if I do not pay they will commence proceedings for repossession.

 

So I now need to take them to court, I have drafted out a particulars of claim but wondered if anyone else had got as far as taking them to court and if so what success (or not) did they have. I could alternatively go to the Financial Ombudsmen.

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at this.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?700-Hot-news-for-anyone-who-has-suffered-mortgage-arrears-charges-irresponsible-lending-or-other-unfair-lender-conduct

 

You must prepare to take immediate court action against GE if you need to. They should be aware of the DB decision and the Redstone decision by the FSA and they are trying to cheat you of your money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see you POC here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My draft POC

 

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }

 

Particulars of Claim

Part 1 Introduction

This is a Secured Loan Charges claim not a Bank Charges claim. The Charges which are the subject to this claim have nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling against the Personal Current Account providers - Eight British banks and others. ( OFT v Abbey etc.) Because this claim is not affected by the Supreme Court decision, all parts of this claim remain open for determination by the Court, Penalties, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999(UTCCR), misrepresentation and breach of statutory duty.

 

This claim is brought as the Claimant believes that the charges levied by the Defendants are in fact penalties applied for breach of contract on the part of the Claimant.

 

This claim is brought for the refund of money paid under a mistake and for restitutionary damages and/or interest under s.69 county court Act 1984.

 

This claim is brought under reg.6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) and alternatively under reg.5 UTCCR.

 

Alternatively this claim is brought on the basis of a contractual misrepresentation by the Defendants.

 

This claim is also brought for the Defendants breach of Statutory Duty.

 

The Claimant's position is that either the Monthly Arrears charges, failed Direct Debit Charge Fees, Default notice charges that the Defendants impose on its customers are not part of their core business and are so excessively high that they are wholly disproportionate to their costs and are therefore unfair under reg.6 UTCCR, or

 

That the Defendants occupy a dominant position in relation to the Claimant and have operated their dominant position contrary to the requirements of good faith by misrepresenting the true nature of its charges per reg.5 UTCCR, or

 

That the Defendants have made contractual misrepresentations.

Part 2 The Parties

 

The Defendants are a sub-prime secured loan provider offering loans secured on clients property.The Defendants were formerly known as iGroup. They are now part of GE Money Home Lending.

 

The Defendants are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and are subject to the obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook and Mortgage Conduct Of Business Sourcebook, implemented under the Financial Services And Markets Act 2000.

 

The Claimant arranged his secured loan through a broker that offered the Defendants as a secured loan provider which would lend a sum of £ to the Claimant. This loan was secured by a legal mortgage on the Claimant's home.

 

The Claimant entered into a secured loan agreement Account number xxxxxxxx with the Defendant on xxxxxx .The secured loan was provided under the Defendants’ own standard Terms and Conditions. A copy of the loan agreement and terms and conditions are attached.

 

Between xxxx xxxx and xxxx xxxx the Claimant incurred failed direct debit fees, default notice charges and monthly arrears fee charges totalling £xxx.00. The Claimant has asked the Defendants for a detailed breakdown or costings analysis of these charges but the Defendants have failed to prove them.

 

The Defendants charges are expressed by them to be their costs for dealing with an account whilst in arrears, and their administration costs in representing failed direct debit payments. The Defendants will not supply any detailed breakdown of the charges proving their actual costs.

Part 3 The Defendants’ dominant position.

 

The Defendants are a sub-prime secured loan company and part of the GE Money group.

 

The Defendants operate on their own standard terms and conditions which are imposed upon the customer. There is no opportunity for the customer to object to, or to renegotiate any aspect of the mortgage contract. There is no element of mutuality or reciprocity within the contract.

 

The Defendant sub-prime secured loan company occupies a dominant and superior position to the Claimant because they are fully informed as to the true nature and level of the operations (or activities), and also the true cost of dealing with Customer Late Payment episodes, and yet refuse to reveal or disclose in any way the mechanisms involved or the true costs associated with Customer Late Payment episodes. The Defendants reserve to itself the right to levy charges it describes as “Direct Debit recall charges”,“Administrative Charges”, “default notice charges” and “Monthly Arrears Charges” and will not disclose the level they are calculated to either, instead relying on them being stated in the Terms and Conditions of the secured loan contract.

 

However the Defendants levy these Charges against its Customers without any proper explanation as to how the costs are derived and so that the Customer is obliged to accept the Defendants generalised explanation of their charges at face value. The Customer is therefore obliged to repose faith in the integrity and straight dealing of the Defendants because of the Defendants superior position in the contract.

 

The Defendant secured loan company have also largely ignored the Claimants letter before action sent by recorded delivery, received by the Defendants on xxth xxxx xxxx. The remaining points raised in my Letter Before Action are not addressed, the Defendants stating “Having looked at our records I can see that your concerns have been previously addressed and we have issued our final response to you regarding the fees.”, and “Our position remains the same on the points you have raised. I am unable to consider your complaint further and must once again refer you to the Financial Ombudsman Service should you remain dissatisfied.” No further response has been received by the Claimant in respect of the Letter Before Action.

 

The Defendant secured loan company reserves to itself the right to levy Charges it describes as “Monthly Arrears Charge ”, “Administration fee”, “Direct Debit recall charge”, “default notice charge”.

 

Part 4 The Defendants’ misrepresentation.

 

The Defendants refer to their Terms and Conditions of the Claimants secured loan account. They refer to Monthly Arrears Fees of £40, Direct Debit recall charge fees of £25, Default notice charges of £35.

 

The Defendants have provided copies of guides to charges showing contradictory fee scales for returned direct debits, administration fees and issue of default notices.

 

The Defendants have failed to provide any detailed audited costings analysis for any of these charges.

 

The Defendants continue to state that these charges represent a true estimate of the actual costs involved in dealing with the Claimants late payment episodes. The Claimant is confused as to how his account has been charged these fees, and the Claimant believes that these charges are automatically applied by the Defendants computer system, thus disproving the Defendants claims.

 

A study commissioned by the BBC in 2006 found that the episodes of the type for which the Defendant imposes default fees typically cost a maximum of £4.50 per episode.

 

The OFT conducted a study into the fairness of the level and application of unauthorised charges in April 2007. The subsequent OFT July 2008 report found a number of concerns they believed needed addressing:

1. Low levels of transparency over charges and costs, coupled with a high proportion of banks’ total revenues made on charges and costs.

2. The complexity of the charges makes it harder for consumers to control the costs they incur.

3. A significant group of consumers underestimate the level and frequency of banks’ charges, and

4. A general perception among consumers, not completely unfounded, that switching is complex and risky, contributing to low levels of switching between banks.

(Although this study applied particularly to banks, it is submitted that the principles of the study and the results are applicable to other companies within the finance industry which operate excessive charging regimes.)

 

The Financial Services Authority has imposed large fines on other sub-prime lenders with similar charging regimes to the Defendants. GMAC were fined £2.8 Million in October 2009 for not treating customers fairly. Kensington were fined £1.23 Million in April 2010 for similar unfair treatment. The Claimant believes that if the FSA found GMAC's and Kensington's charges for customers whilst in arrears to be unfair, it follows that the Defendants similar charging regime is unfair.

 

Claim that the Defendants charges are actually concealed penalties for breaches of contract.

 

The Defendants have charged varying amounts for the same breaches of contract. Yet they are unable or unwilling to substantiate these charges by way of detailed costings analysis. The Claimant believes that the Defendants apply these charges as penalties for breach of contract.

The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to determine whether the Defendants charges are penalties. The Claimant believes that the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

Claim under regulation 6 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999.

 

The Defendants Charges are not part of their core business. They are incidental or remedial Charges and are unfairly high. They are therefore invalid under UTCCR.

Claim under regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999.

 

The Defendants have abused their dominant position by misrepresenting the nature of their charges. This is contrary to the requirement of good faith, and as a result of this the Claimant has suffered detriment.

 

Therefore it is submitted that the Defendants charging regime is invalid.

Contractual Misrepresentation.

 

The Defendants have misrepresented the nature of their Charges, the Claimant relied upon the Defendants representations because he believed that he had caused losses to the Defendants, and that he had an obligation to indemnify the Defendants for those losses. If the Claimant had appreciated the excessive nature of the Defendants Charges, he would have investigated making his mortgage arrangements elsewhere.

Breach of Statutory Duty.

 

The Defendants are regulated by the Financial Services Authority under The Financial Services And Markets Act 2000 and are subject to obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook. Under Regulation 4.2 of the Sourcebook the Defendants are required to ensure that they communicate with their clients fairly, clearly and in a way which is not misleading.

 

The Claimant believes that the Defendants specialist Contentious Litigation Department, designed to obstruct customers access to information that they seek, is a clear breach of their obligations.

 

Under Regulation 12.4.1R of the Mortgage Conduct Of Business Sourcebook the Defendants are required to ensure that any arrears charges they apply should only cover their actual costs of dealing with an account whilst in arrears. The Defendants have failed to comply with their obligations.

 

By misrepresenting the nature of it’s charges both in it’s Terms and Conditions, and in it’s correspondence to the Claimant, the Defendants have breached their statutory obligations.

 

 

The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to order standard disclosure when issuing this claim as the Defendants have continually refused to supply any requested information.

The Claimant respectfully asks the Court to order the Defendants to lodge in court full and detailed financial vouching for the Defendants actual losses sustained by the Claimants mortgage arrears, together with their full financial accounts revealing how much income the Defendants generate from their monthly secured loan Arrears Charges, compared to their actual costs of administering the Claimants missed monthly secured loan payments.

The Claimant would be most grateful to the Court if the disclosure extended to all charges including legal and litigation fees charged by the Defendants.

The Claimant respectfully asks permission of the Court to amend his claim once in receipt of all information from the Defendants.

 

 

The Claimant claims:

 

1. The return of all charges paid in the sum of £xxxx.00 ,

2. Court costs,

3. Restitutionary damages to be determined by the Court, or

4. Interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum to the date of issue, which is £xxx.xx and continuing until the date of judgment at a daily rate of xxp.

5. A declaration that the Defendants have breached their obligations contained in the FSA Sourcebooks.

6. Removal of any and all incorrect and defamatory information submitted to Credit Reference Agencies by the Defendants regarding the Claimants alleged arrears on the secured loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please look at the new templates and revise your POC accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can keep most of the detail you have reproduced in your POC here but you must also include the FSA breachs stuff in the template.

 

The template in the library is minimalist so don't waoory about adding to it - as long as what you put actually reflects what has happened to you.

 

Don't just copy slavishly. If you do, it will beceom obvious and no one will take your claim seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the advice. I intend to get the claim done this weekend, however I have today had a letter from GE saying that they have commenced proceedings for repossession of my house and I will shortly be receiving a date for a court hearing from their Solicitors. I am just wondering how I should respond.

 

I should point out that all my arrears were paid, the outstanding "arrears" are just the total of the charges they have levied which of course are increasing every month. My mortgage is £140 per month, charges are now at £680 which GE say are arrears, they intend to add £375 for legal fees plus court and solicitors costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have put my claim in today at the local County Court. Since GE are now taking me to court for repossession how does this work, probably I suppose it depends which hearing comes first. I have received no papers yet from GE for a court hearing but if I do when there is already a claim pending for unfair charges then should I use this as a defence or submit a counter claim? Any ideas anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received notification of a possession hearing in five weeks time. GE want to repossess my home for just over £600 of alleged arrears and yet they owe me £700 of unlawful charges which they are clearly refusing to admit to. I think this is a case of getting in before I had chance to put my claim in to the court. I have put my claim in but I doubt that it will be heard before the possession hearing given that GE will have to be allowed time to put in a defence.

 

So regarding the claim, shall I put in a defence that the "arrears" are unlawful charges or should I ask for a strike out or a stay pending my hearing for unlawful charges?. It is also worth pointing out that the court claim put in by GE does have false information:

 

1. They have told the court that my contracted monthly payment is higher than it actually is.

2. They have told the court that my arrears stood at £1100 and I have paid of £500 of these which is totally untrue

3. They have given the court a statement of account showing two missed payments that I know I have paid and have the stetement from GE to prove it

 

The figure they have provided to the court simply do not add up. They have also added £300 of costs to the alleged arrears.

 

This in my opinion is clearly an immoral action by GE to get me out because I rocked the boat with them over the charges they have added to my account and clearly they want to do this before I have chance to take them to court over the charges. To repossess my house for a mere £600 on and £80,000 mortgage which is bang up to date (except for the outstanding charges) to me is totally unacceptable. I hope the DJ sees this.

 

So what are my next steps, can anyone help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi george and sorry to hear about your problems, hopefully someone with better knowledge will be along soon to advise. In the meantime please have a read of the links below and see that not all is lost

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/nov/23/homes-at-risk-debts-oft

 

http://www.totallymoney.com/news/index.php/2010/11/borrowers-homes-threatened-due-to-600-debt/

 

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/debt/debt/10479/will-you-be-forced-to-sell-your-home-to-repay-a-600-debt

 

Good luck with everything

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondered if anyone who is better versed in these things can offer any advice as I am getting quite desperate about what my next steps are with the possession hearing looming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

George,

 

Don't panic! :-)

 

I would submit a defence stating that the alledged arrears are in dispute and a court action is pending. Ask for a stay in proceedings subject to your claim over the arrears charges. The Judge shouldn't make any judgement as the arrears are in dispute.

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

 

Me vs Rockwell/Tessara/RBofS: pending.

Me vs MBNA/1st Crud: Discontinued.

First Direct Overdraft: CCJ won.

IR: 2 CCJs 1 won.

Birmingham Midshires: pending

BT: pending

others to come....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice. I do not have a problem with compiling the defence as such, the problem is that there ia also a claim in the same county court from me to get my charges back from GE money. They have responded by starting possession proceddings.

If it comes to having to pay the alleged arrears then I will in full, I can actually pay these anyway but the issue is that I have refused to pay them because they are made up of unlawful charges.

So in addition to my court claim for unlawful charges I was wondering if my defence at the possession hearing should also include that these are unlawful charges and that I have asked GE money to prove to me that the charges they have levied are proportionate and not penalty's.

I should point out also that I was never given any warning that they would be starting a repossession it just dropped on my dorrmat. I was still awaiting a response to my LBA, sent in December, and a follow up to my LBA giving them more time to cough up, sent in January.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I can't seem to find the thread or link but I believe the information is very useful and would be helpful in your defence. Adjust it to your own personal needs

, and I will try and find the thread

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/...2010/120.shtml

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf

 

http://www.fs.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf a

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumer...ortgages.shtml

 

 

It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.

 

Furthermore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.

 

Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counselor visits - even if they have been attempted.

 

You are entitled to refuse counselor visits and not incur any charges.

 

Any charges for counselor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.

We are hearing stories of people being charged for counselor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.

 

It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.

 

You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.

 

However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.

 

Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.

 

If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit fileicon being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.

 

You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.

 

You must not make any complain through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.

You must make your complaint through the county courticon for a rapid and effective remedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi George , i sent the letter before action wishbone ash and Homer simpson sent ( i just ammended iit to suit my situation ) , i had a reply saying the usual crap they are sorry to hear of my dissatifaction and have added 28 days for thier investigation after i gave them 14 days :( , so bloody cheeky, i think they will refuse so think court would be a definate part of my future with these pigs, as for repossesion iv been there with these pigs and the chelsea, ( they tried to re possess my home both of them at same time) to be honest the judge was great with me and told Ge that he would not let them take my home as i had sold my car and took out a loan (i had to wait 2 more days for it to clear the judge gave me a month for the loan to clear( he he ).

The bottom line is the judge wont give them possesion iif its thier fees and not your mortgage re payments you owe , im pretty sure of that one , i watched the idiot from eversheds try so hard to get the judge to give them my home but the judge told them no way as most of my arrears where unpaid direct debit fees Good luck let me kniow what happens :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice. I do not have a problem with compiling the defence as such, the problem is that there ia also a claim in the same county court from me to get my charges back from GE money. They have responded by starting possession proceddings.

If it comes to having to pay the alleged arrears then I will in full, I can actually pay these anyway but the issue is that I have refused to pay them because they are made up of unlawful charges.

So in addition to my court claim for unlawful charges I was wondering if my defence at the possession hearing should also include that these are unlawful charges and that I have asked GE money to prove to me that the charges they have levied are proportionate and not penalty's.

I should point out also that I was never given any warning that they would be starting a repossession it just dropped on my dorrmat. I was still awaiting a response to my LBA, sent in December, and a follow up to my LBA giving them more time to cough up, sent in January.

These hearings are typically allocated 5 mins, so the Judge won't be too interested in your full arguments, though it would be wise to have a copy of the argument there, least the lender tries to con the Judge that you have no chance. Try to have a 30 sec summary of why there are no arrears.

 

As you are disputing the full amount of alleged arrears, I cannot see the Judge granting any form of repossession order - it would be unjust to do so. I believe the claim will be dismissed or (more likely) stayed pending your other action. I would tend to ask for it to be dismissed using the FSA information posted by fretful - you can always ask :-)

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

 

Me vs Rockwell/Tessara/RBofS: pending.

Me vs MBNA/1st Crud: Discontinued.

First Direct Overdraft: CCJ won.

IR: 2 CCJs 1 won.

Birmingham Midshires: pending

BT: pending

others to come....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

OMG I love this thread George...

 

We are in exactly the same position with GE court April for repo...we think they have taken about 2K so far...

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortgage arrears charges from GE Money or from anyone else are unlawful if they exceed actual administration costs.

 

 

The FSA fined Deutschebank over £1 million for this and made it clear that these charges breach their regs. This means that they are a breach of the leneder's statutory duty.

Don't let GE money or any one else try to tell you that these charges are affected by the bank charges test case.

 

They are not.

 

Any mortgage arrears charges are now absolutely recoverable. - plus interest calculated on the basis of restitutionary damages.

Don't give an inch on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't want to hijack George's thread so better start my own...just for interest:-

 

Claimed against Kensington yesterday via MCOL and will send them a detailed POC within the 14 days.

 

GE: Going to defend the repossession with the charges claim, we have a feeling these are 2K to 3K and have sent SAR enclosing the PO and regestered delivery...we are also looking for the underwriting documents with a view to secret commissions paid to agents...which, by all accounts they build in to our repayments...(there are threads on this aspect).

 

Just for the record, I had mentioned claiming mortgage charges in peoples threads regarding repossession hearings in the past and as a defence to repo but, everyone said go to the FOS...I did with Kensington and FOS threw it back due to time restraints...i.e you have 8 weeks from the date of the final response ( from the lender) to your please repay my charges letter.

 

So now just bang them in to court..I can imagine they will do anything to get repossession of homes with a history of late payements...

 

So folks, thanks again to this great forum and it's long term tireless helpers..:-)

 

PS: I did file a counterclaim against another repossession attempt on a different house a year or so ago which is just stayed for now...guess it is time to reserect it..

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't want to hijack George's thread so better start my own...just for interest:-

 

Claimed against Kensington yesterday via MCOL and will send them a detailed POC within the 14 days.

 

GE: Going to defend the repossession with the charges claim, we have a feeling these are 2K to 3K and have sent SAR enclosing the PO and regestered delivery...we are also looking for the underwriting documents with a view to secret commissions paid to agents...which, by all accounts they build in to our repayments...(there are threads on this aspect).

 

Just for the record, I had mentioned claiming mortgage charges in peoples threads regarding repossession hearings in the past and as a defence to repo but, everyone said go to the FOS...I did with Kensington and FOS threw it back due to time restraints...i.e you have 8 weeks from the date of the final response ( from the lender) to your please repay my charges letter.

 

So now just bang them in to court..I can imagine they will do anything to get repossession of homes with a history of late payements...

 

So folks, thanks again to this great forum and it's long term tireless helpers..:-)

 

PS: I did file a counterclaim against another repossession attempt on a different house a year or so ago which is just stayed for now...guess it is time to reserect it..

you are quite right. Please don't hijack this thread. Start another thread and it will be much easier to help you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortgage arrears charges from GE Money or from anyone else are unlawful if they exceed actual administration costs.

 

 

The FSA fined Deutschebank over £1 million for this and made it clear that these charges breach their regs. This means that they are a breach of the leneder's statutory duty.

Don't let GE money or any one else try to tell you that these charges are affected by the bank charges test case.

 

They are not.

 

Any mortgage arrears charges are now absolutely recoverable. - plus interest calculated on the basis of restitutionary damages.

Don't give an inch on this.

Does apply to unregulated mortgages? i.e. pre Oct 2004 or second charge mortgages.

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

 

Me vs Rockwell/Tessara/RBofS: pending.

Me vs MBNA/1st Crud: Discontinued.

First Direct Overdraft: CCJ won.

IR: 2 CCJs 1 won.

Birmingham Midshires: pending

BT: pending

others to come....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does apply to unregulated mortgages? i.e. pre Oct 2004 or second charge mortgages.

 

 

Hi AM, I believe that the MCOB rules would apply to unregulated mortgages pre Oct 04.

 

I will have a quick look at some info I have saved and post up in a bit, here's a good read in the meantime

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=452719&in_page_id=2

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...