Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • hi all. bit of advice please. I had a Three contract up until November last year. At £11pcm for 24mths. Paid every month on time via their online portal. When I ported over, I received a letter from Three thanking me for being a customer blah blah blah.. It also said IF I owed anything a final bill will be sent. No final bill ever received - I get a phone call around the first week in December form an Indian sounding man who was extremly difficult to understand. Said he was calling from Three, and wanted me to confirm my details - something of which I didnt as something didnt sit right. He said I could log into my account and review my bill as I owed money and then hung up. After the call I thought I'd best log into my account just in case.  Couldnt log in. Account access denied. Logged on to chat - they said as I ported over and I was no longer a customer my access was suspended. Couple of weeks later I had another call from a local area number and answered again it was some Indian guy telling me I owed money, wanting me to confirm details. I refused and he said details will be sent out to me to my email on account and my home address as it was important. Once again nothing.. 15th Dec I received an email from PastDue in my name RE Three. Email stated they were contacting me about Three an I should receive a letter soon regards to this matter. Says about visiting their website.  22nd Jan another email form Pastdue. Stating they have yet to receive a response to the letter, and they had already sent me an email about this. We will continue to contact you until this matter is resolved. Again asks me to login. 23rd Jan letter received dated 13th Jan. Titled "We are here to help keep your Three Services"  Claiming I owed "Airetime Balance £201.43" and contract period was 26/11/2019 to 25/11/2020 States "We have been appointed by Three to recover the amount of £201.43. If you pay this amount in full Three may be able to waive the cancellation fee and reconnect their service for you" - what cancellation fee / re connection??? I ended the contract giving the 30days notice and paying the last bill.. Then the normal crap about its important to pay. If I'm experiencing difficulties etc. Now both December and  January Credit reports from ClearScore, Credit Karma, Credit Expert, Totally Money and Equifax all show Three as Closed and balance as Zero. (Date Satisfied /closed 17th Nov, bal 0, last updated 30th Nov) I've had nothing from Three. As far as I'm concerned I owe nothing as no final bill and no access to the portal. Should I email PastDue and do a prove it & attach proof of Credit Reports being £0 or do I do something else?  
    • Hi she did say she was cancelling and returned the equipment. It looks like they put her on a rolling contract for 24 months when she phoned before trying to reduce her payments as they kept going up. I know Sky haven't done that to me. She didn't see that email as she's had lots of stressful situations. No.letter in post or when she originally phoned about reducing her bill well over £100 they didn't tell her about this contract. Like you say there should be recordings. BT mobile contract is separate to broadband and the cancellation fee is for the broadband. They have blocked her mobile so she can't use it and that is a contract. She is phoning CAB in the morning and checking through her paperwork. I'm quite happy with Sky as they tell you upfront what is happening and have never rolled over my contract. Thanks for taking time to reply it is much appreciated. 
    • I've sent an email to a press contact And one to a journalist at the BBC!
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3057 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

Jasper I can give it to you in one sentence.The administrative contract with the spv to whom your loan was sold specifically forbids loan modification and I think payment date modification.Its as simple as that and states so in the prospectus,you have an arguable case that you never agreed to this agreement but its a difficult one involving contract law and mcob regulations etc.The fee however is excessive and unnecessary if they just told you the truth instead of skirting around it,a court could actually order them to change the payment date..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Jaspar, ask them for the invoices and the breakdown of their costs. Get in touch with the solicitors and get a table of their costs on what they charge. I've had some, but not all legal charges dropped, when they failed to provide any proof of how the costs came about or why.

 

 

Slgsue. Well you have 3 choices..you either accept it, take it further or go down the court route. I'd stick with it and keep gathering as much as you can for the Ombudsman as AFAIK they will only add and not take away from any previous decision made by an adjudicator. I had a partial decision on the refunds that addressed just a few points from an adjudicator but it took the Ombusman that looked at the whole situation to make the full refund and final decision.

 

It's an uphill struggle for sure but you just have to keep at it.

 

There is software available for free to check that your statements are correct but be warned that it takes ages to fill in and you must have all your statements available and remember to keep adjusting the interest rate.

 

I'm still in the muddle of pursuing miss-selling and if you think the Fos is time consuming, dragging on and right royal pain then you should jump on this side. So far so good but the amount of work, time and money makes me wonder if it's worth it. I can't say much but I have got one over on someone and they are not too happy on being on the receiving end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is software available for free to check that your statements are correct but be warned that it takes ages to fill in and you must have all your statements available and remember to keep adjusting the interest rate.

 

What and where is this? I'd like to try it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember the name of the one I used but just Google for mortgage statement checkers. I've changed computers since then! You should be able to at least find a free trial version that can calculate your statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys I dont know if I am supposed to copy stuff from other sites but this is from money saving expert from last year jan 2010. How can the FSA and the FSO say one thing last year and now say something completely different just because of bank charges I dont get it, maybe I am a bit thick but I know what I have read in the past 5 years since I have been battling with SPPL and this stuff about charges not being unfair etc seems a step backward somehow, how can the regulators say one thing then completely contradict themselves a few months down the line, it makes them look pretty stupid if that is the case. The following is the article I copied .

Reclaim unfair mortgage arrears fees, FSA says

 

 

Guy Anker

News Editor

26 January 2010

 

 

 

 

Reclaim_cash.jpg

Homeowners hit with excessive mortgage arrears charges should demand their cash back, says the city regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

It today launched a crackdown on unfair fees that hammer those already behind on payments (see the Mortgage Arrears and Redundancy guides).

It has also told MoneySavingExpert.com that consumers should not stand for shoddy treatment and should reclaim their cash, regardless of when the fees, which can sometimes run into thousands of pounds, were levied.

Almost 200,000 borrowers were significantly behind on payments at the last count, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, who could all be hit by high fees.

Below is a quick Q&A reclaiming guide. We will soon issue a full step-by-step guide so get the free weekly email for updates.

What's happened today?

The FSA announced proposals (which won't be implemented until June) designed to better protect borrowers in arrears from excessive and unfair charges.

When MoneySavingExpert.com asked the regulator whether those unfairly treated should reclaim excessive fees, a spokeswoman said: "We want consumers to take a handle on the situation so if they think they have not been dealt with fairly they should definitely complain."

The Financial Ombudsman Service, which independently arbitrates on complaints between consumers and lenders, also echoed that sentiment when asked.

The FSA's proposals demand that firms stop hammering those in hardship; for example, by issuing charges when a payment plan has already been agreed or by allocating payments payments to clear an arrears charge rather than clearing the balance.

They also state repossession should always be the last resort and that lenders must record all arrears handling calls and keep records for three years.

What is an unfair fee?

It is about the size of the fee and how it's charged:

  • Excessive fees. One of the clearest examples, the FSA says, is where the charge is higher than the administrative cost to the lender. If it costs £10 to send a letter but the charge is £35, that's £25 too much.
     
    Lenders often charge around £35 per missed payment, £100 for a debt collector visit and thousands in legal and estate agent fees if your property is repossessed (see the Huge mortgage fees MSE News story).
  • Unfair charging. The FSA has found numerous examples of firms sneakily finding ways to incorporate charges when they shouldn't. For example, when struggling borrowers are already on a repayment plan.
     
    Also, lenders charging non-direct debit payment fees (to pay for payment processing) when no payment was made, or including arrears charges in the total mortgage balance when calculating an early repayment charge (ERC), which is usually a percentage of that balance.

Financial services secretary to the Treasury Paul Myners described some lenders' high arrears fees as "extraordinary" during a July Treasury Committee hearing.

How far back can you go?

The Ombudsman says you can reclaim fees from as far back as you like, as long as you make the complaint within three years of realising you could.

As the FSA has only got tough over the past few months, most people will still be within that three-year time-frame.

If unsure of past charges, you can make a request to get a list of fees charged from your lender over the past six years under the Data Protection Act. This will cost up to £10.

How do you reclaim?

First complain to your lender setting out why the charges are unfair and ask for your money back. If you are turned away or do not get a satisfactory response within eight weeks, then complain to the free Ombudsman service (see the Ombudsman guide).

To highlight this is possible, the FSA ordered GMAC-RFC, which was the tenth largest mortgage provider before the credit crunch, to pay compensation to up to 114,000 borrowers hit with unfair arrears fees last October (see the GMAC mass refunds MSE News story). It also issued a whopping £2.8 million fine.

The FSA is also taking action against a number of other firms, but has not concluded investigations yet.

Martin Lewis, MoneySavingExpert.com creator, says: "While the FSA has not named a price deemed excessive its statement echoes the bank charges campaign.

"If you pushed me on a figure, the Office of Fair Trading says it won't challenge credit card penalty charges under £12, so that is a good benchmark.

"As there's no cost, and most people in arrears are in financial hardship, and therefore should be treated with sympathy, I would urge anyone who feels unfairly treated to complain."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA should maybe read this article to refresh their memories a little!

The FSA announced proposals (which won't be implemented until June) designed to better protect borrowers in arrears from excessive and unfair charges.

When MoneySavingExpert.com asked the regulator whether those unfairly treated should reclaim excessive fees, a spokeswoman said: "We want consumers to take a handle on the situation so if they think they have not been dealt with fairly they should definitely complain."

The Financial Ombudsmanlink3.gif Service, which independently arbitrates on complaints between consumers and lenders, also echoed that sentiment when asked.

The FSA's proposals demand that firms stop hammering those in hardship; for example, by issuing charges when a payment plan has already been agreed or by allocating payments payments to clear an arrears charge rather than clearing the balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent posts cher so the FOS it appears currently refuses to implement what the FSA recommends unless the FSA has fined the lender,is this some sort of farce being played out to placate the treasury select committee etc at the massive cost to the homeowner and huge profits to the Lender/administrators.

Anyone got the actual FSA announcement from June 2010 when this was all supposed to be implemented?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent posts cher so the FOS it appears currently refuses to implement what the FSA recommends unless the FSA has fined the lender,is this some sort of farce being played out to placate the treasury select committee etc at the massive cost to the homeowner and huge profits to the Lender/administrators.

Anyone got the actual FSA announcement from June 2010 when this was all supposed to be implemented?

 

Here you go peter

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Policy/Policy/2010/10_09.shtml

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_09.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that,think we've been here before the last time the FOS was debated but this is the the applicable rule.So maybe the sensible thing would to be to quote this Rule to the FOS ,state that gmac were fined for levying a fee of £45 which the FSA deemed to be excessive and ask that in the light of this that you would like a breakdown and justification of Acenden's charges because you believe they are in breech of this Rule which it is in the FOS's remit to implement and decide on the basis of Acenden's justification whether it is fair or unfair based on the market rate of similar third party administrators in comparison to those such as HML and if the FOS cannot implement the FSA rules who then can?. As a footnote HML were/are the administrators for Kensington.

 

12.4.1 R (1) A firm must ensure that any regulated mortgage contract that it enters into does not impose, and cannot be used to impose, a charge for arrears on a customer except where that charge is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the additional administration required as a result of the customer being in arrears.

Edited by peterjm
Link to post
Share on other sites

There you have it Peterjm.

 

By the way, just so that people are aware, while the FOS can evaluate and direct a firm's compliance with rule 12.4.1 R (1) or not, the individual is still not bound by the FOS' decision on this, if they're not happy with the outcome or the process by which it was reached. They can still go to Court and compel the lender to justify their charges if they so wish.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring it on! The company I am pursuing have named someone that has taken up their services. A high-profile football coach for a well known team in their words. Would they require such a mortgage and put their name to it? Except he isn't a coach and is a nobody for under 16's that isn't aware his name is being used by the company and has no connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s, of the investigating & prosecuting organisations:

 

DO NOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen. 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633 

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643 

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 (part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : tel#0207 637 6236  

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Subprimefees/#detail

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that dotty have managed to transfer the passage here.

Securitisation

6

In considering what action to take to address this market failure, the Government has borne in mind mortgage originators’ need to securitise mortgages. Securitisation plays an important role in mortgage funding. At present there is around £400 billion in outstanding UK residential mortgage securitisations.

Securitisation involves the transfer and legal sale of mortgages to a special purpose vehicle (SPV). The SPV sells claims on the interest and repayments generated by the pool of loans to investors. The SPV is a legal shell which owns the mortgages and manages the payments to investors, but the mortgages may be managed either by the originator or the originator may appoint a TPA.

Policy options

The Government is concerned that borrowers may be treated unfairly because their mortgage has been sold on to an unregulated firm as part of a mortgage book sale, a decision over which they had no choice or control. The Government has considered four policy options: Option 1 - maintain the existing framework; Option 2 - to create a new regulated activity of 'purchasing' a regulated mortgage contract; Option 3 - to create a new regulated activity of 'managing' a regulated mortgage contract; and Option 4 - to expand the definition of the regulated activity of 'administering' a regulated mortgage contract.

Option 1 would leave mortgage holders vulnerable to the market failure set out above.

Option 2 would only provide the mortgage holder with protection at the point of sale of their mortgage, not on an ongoing basis. It would also require the SPV in a mortgage securitisation to be FSA regulated, which would have the undesirable outcome of adversely affecting the utility of securitisation for lenders.

Option 3, if drafted on a broad basis, would also require SPVs to be FSA regulated. Even if the SPV were to delegate all its decision-making powers to a TPA, it would have legal residual rights over the mortgages. These rights would be captured by a broad definition of ‘managing’. HM Treasury consulted on this proposal in December 2009, estimating the costs to firms for this approach as £0-£10 million one-off and £0-£3.5 million in annual costs.

A narrower definition of managing would avoid this problem. However this would have no advantage over expanding the definition of ‘administering’ – option 4 – but would require more complicated legal drafting.

Following consultation with industry, the Government has decided to proceed with option 4. It will bring forward legislation extending the existing definition of ‘administering’ a regulated mortgage contract. This will extend the regulation of firms to all those who exercise specified rights such as changing interest rates or taking action to repossess the property against the borrower.

 

NOTE WORDS: TRANSFER AND LEGAL SALE OF MORTGAGES,SO HOW IS IT THE SPV IS NOT BRINGING THE CLAIM AGAINST THE BORROWER IN DIFFICULTY YET REAPING THE REWARDS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HIDE BEHIND THE NON NOTIFICATION OF THE SALE TO THE BORROWER AND AVOID REGULATION OF WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A REGULATED MORTGAGE CONTRACT SUBJECT TO MCOB FSA RULES.

WOULD BORROWERS HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THESE AGREEMENTS IF IN THE FIRST PLACE THEY REALISED THE UNPARALLED ABUSE THEY WOULD SUFFER FOR GETTING BEHIND AND THE FACT THAT IN REALITY THEY HAD NO REGULATED PROTECTION WHATSOEVER AS HAS BEEN PROVED TIME OVER BY EVENTS AND THE CONTINUAL FLOURISHING AND ABUSES OF ACENDEN?

Edited by peterjm
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a response from the FOS and it's the same as before, i.e. charges are fair under the circumstances and the bank has provided a breakdown.

 

However, this time they say the contract has also been assessed for PIL and as it is clear I understand why the charges are incurred, there is no doubt that it is in PIL. Thus Reg 6 of UTCCR precludes any assessment under Reg 5 and the 'service' by the bank is the admin of the account whilst in arrears.

 

I don't believe the contract has been properly assessed for PIL but only that I know why the charges are incurred. But what I said was I don't know why they are so high, why the litigation referral fees are so high and why the bank applies monitoring fees while the account is at the solicitors, incurring me double fees.

 

Again they say the FSA fines against other lenders are not relevant.

 

This is totally the opposite of what others get from the FOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find (in search) any of my threads from October 2010 onwards.

 

And i can't find (in search) any of my posts after 2007.

 

Though the threads and posts are still on here. I can get to them from my emails.

Edited by tifo
Link to post
Share on other sites

has anyone received a telephone call off these muppets today????????????

 

Mid - morning today o/h answered a call from acenden, asking if everythhing was ok! And to inform us that interet rate has slightly risen, and a letter would be on its way to clarify this... and all we need to do is pay, on the 15th (as we normally do) to ensure that it is cleared by the 19th (made this arrangement with them in Jan, without any fuss on their part, job change on my part,) i cant help but get the impression that everytime we have to speak with them, that they seem to fall over themselves to go out of their way to be helpful!!! which on its own merits is very un -settling, i just wish i knew what we seem to have over them...i cant quite put my finger on it....i wont let them intimidate me, i run rings around them everytime i reluctantly have to speak over the phone....i mean they even had the audacity to quote being seen to be responsible lenders, when i rang to clear 5.5k of their fabricated arrears in december....i mean, pleeeease.

i will be ringing them on monday to find out what the problem is, as we all know acenden just dont do Customer service, and especially not on saturday mornings!!!!....so what is the hidden agenda acenden??? is the fsa finally closing their net in on you? or will you be fabricating a charge to start the arrears rollercoaster again?????

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like its simply a front to appease the FSA and probably recorded or videod! you must be one of the few who got your payment date changed without an almighty struggle,whats your secret.!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello

first timer here and ive been reading with interest

everyone here says that arrears charges should be added to the mortgage balance rather than the arrears .. im with acenden and in the terms and conditions it says they

can , so if it says that in the terms of the contract i signed how can i solve this issue , almost 7 thousand pounds charges in 5 years .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it actually say the charges can be added to the arrears and not added to the account ?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...