Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nov 5: Sold iPad on eBay for 220 GBP, used eBay Packlink as it was recommended by eBay. Nov 6: Handed parcel over to the local shop. Parcel included iPad in its original box. Got proof of postage. Nov 9: Parcel received by buyer - after opening he realised he received a Jaguar/Landrover car part instead of an iPad. The packaging I used with the correct label was opened and the item was replaced. Nov 10: Filed a loss claim and started a tampering investigation with eBay Packlink Nov 25: Received response from eBay Packlink, confirming tampering, approving a refund of 25 GBP + 2.89 GBP postage fees.   So, after accepting that they have thieves running criminal operations in their depots, (stealing iPads and Macbooks as I've read from numerous people in this forum and elsewhere) they decided to compensate me for 25 GBP. This is way off the original value of the item sent, which was sold for 220 GBP.   I am seeking help on the next steps I should take to recover the remaining funds. Please let me know if I need to share any other details.   The poor buyer received a useless car part (he provided pictures) and in theory shall be refunded. This leaves me with around 200 GBP out of pocket and a huge willingness to take any legal avenue that will enable me to get compensated and create problems for those scams.   Any help will be appreciated.   Kind regards
    • Here is my first draft:     Dear Sir or Madame;   With regards to the above vehicle that was purchased from you on the xxxx, there are now some serious problems with the Automatic gearbox and for the last 3 weeks it has been at an independent garage who have diagnosed the problem but cannot guarantee this will cure the problem because the gearbox has not be serviced within Fords milage guidelines. I have the paperwork to show that the gearbox was indeed serviced at 35,000 & 70,000 miles well within the guidelines. The service book has been stamped at 100k for a service but no paperwork was included which is very strange as everything that has been replaced or serviced with this car has been included. After speaking with the garage that did the 100k service they can confirm that the minimum service was done which did not include the gearbox, so the gearbox has gone well over the specified guidelines.   I would like to point out that since the car has been collected, I have only done 1,500 miles so do not believe any fault would be down to ‘wear & tear’.     Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this car should be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. My rights have been breached because the car you sold me is faulty. I would like you to put this right by repairing the car at your cost at an independent garage.     I expect a full response with 5 working days otherwise I will be taking the matter further.
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this ‘clone firm’. View the full article
    • Post the letter here before you send it off please. I certainly think that the missing documents should be referred to although probably in a rather more pointed fashion. Post the letter and will have a look and amended as necessary. In terms of getting other inspections, is there any dispute as to the condition of the vehicle? Have the garage themselves agreed the condition of it? Good news that it's fine at the garage for the moment – but you should ask them what storage fee would be if it went on too long – and in any event if you brought acclaim and won it. No point in giving up an opportunity to get a bit of extra money and if these people are doing you a favour then you may as well tell them that you are prepared to pay for storage if you win your case and if a claim for storage fees is met. It will certainly be reasonable to claim for storage fees – although you would have to produce an invoice for them at some point. However, even a pro forma invoice stating what the tariff is will probably be good enough to begin with
  • Our picks

Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2996 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

The breakdown covers a particular charge amount, e.g. £20 or £35 and all charges of this amount come within this breakdown. The bank has not had to justify EVERY instance of charging and the FOS has not asked them to do this. They say the bank has provided breakdowns for all charge tariff's but will not send me this info. So I am assuming the bank has given a breakdown for £15 and £20 and £25 and £30 and £35 and £40. Maybe at court I can ask for this and argue that they need to provide a breakdown of every charging instance.

 

Also to note is that the bank has provided an ESTIMATE of the costs and not an actual breakdown and the FOS say this is enough to justify the charges.

 

The FOS hasn't said why the mortgage is covered under MCOB rules or is regulated but that it is and the bank hasn't, as far as I am aware, disputed this.

 

Then there's litigation referral fees and account monitoring fees the bank AND the solicitor have been applying almost every month. The FOS say these are OK as the bank and solicitor would need to monitor the account whilst in arrears.

 

The bank has made me pay arrears as part of repossession hearings but now say all such charges were capitalised but I don't have any evidence of this. All I was ever told was that legal fees are being capitalised, usually 6 months after arrears were cleared.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The breakdown covers a particular charge amount, e.g. £20 or £35 and all charges of this amount come within this breakdown. The bank has not had to justify EVERY instance of charging and the FOS has not asked them to do this. They say the bank has provided breakdowns for all charge tariff's but will not send me this info. So I am assuming the bank has given a breakdown for £15 and £20 and £25 and £30 and £35 and £40. Maybe at court I can ask for this and argue that they need to provide a breakdown of every charging instance.

 

Also to note is that the bank has provided an ESTIMATE of the costs and not an actual breakdown and the FOS say this is enough to justify the charges.

 

The FOS hasn't said why the mortgage is covered under MCOB rules or is regulated but that it is and the bank hasn't, as far as I am aware, disputed this.

 

Then there's litigation referral fees and account monitoring fees the bank AND the solicitor have been applying almost every month. The FOS say these are OK as the bank and solicitor would need to monitor the account whilst in arrears.

 

The bank has made me pay arrears as part of repossession hearings but now say all such charges were capitalised but I don't have any evidence of this. All I was ever told was that legal fees are being capitalised, usually 6 months after arrears were cleared.

 

SAR the FOS. Why should they withold this information from you of the breakdown of the charges. I'm sure the FOS make up their own rules at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't send me the breakdown ESTIMATE because it's confidential they say. I don't know how it can be confidential when all it is an ESTIMATE equal to their published rate. So a SAR may be a waste of money but it may get me other useful information as I can include those other complaints which were irrationally judged. I have about 5 of these relating to credit card accounts.

Edited by tifo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The info above about each charge being relevant to that particular breach only (instance of charge) is useful as I've been told otherwise from the FOS, so I will now ask them to get a breakdown for each charge as they are judging it wrong otherwise. Are there are FSA/OFT rules I can use for this?

 

Also, the FOS has provided terms and conditions from 1995 and 2001 only and none when these were later varied, as they can't be lasting 10 years to date. Can I say that since I wasn't aware of the relevant condition at the time of the charge, because the bank did not inform me though it may have been the same wording, it is unfair and unenforceable?

 

They've sent me tariff info from 1999, 2002 and 2010. My charges are between 2003 and 2009. They haven't charged me any for 2010 even though I am in arrears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tifo

To my knowledge, that argument will only really stand up in court where you can show that they are penalty charges. The FOS should not really be saying they are fair on the basis of the 'estimates' given to them which they in turn refuse to disclose to you.

 

The good news is, if it went to court, they would have to disclose not only the estimates, but the real costs in each instance to show they weren't penalties.

 

The bad news is, it appears lenders are now having a degree of success in using the OFT vs Abbey Supreme Court ruling as a weapon to shoot down all charges reclaims connected to financial accounts, not just bank accounts! :shock: It was originally understood that the SC ruling was a narrow one applicable only to current accounts from banks - but one or two highly paid barristers later - and some County Court judges are starting to agree with them.:!: :!:

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

But yes, SAR the FOS to see what they will disclose. Might even be worth doing a Freedom of Information request too. You may not get exactly all of what you want, but could end up with other v.useful info plus it might just shake them up a bit.

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
tifo

To my knowledge, that argument will only really stand up in court where you can show that they are penalty charges. The FOS should not really be saying they are fair on the basis of the 'estimates' given to them which they in turn refuse to disclose to you.

 

The good news is, if it went to court, they would have to disclose not only the estimates, but the real costs in each instance to show they weren't penalties.

 

The bad news is, it appears lenders are now having a degree of success in using the OFT vs Abbey Supreme Court ruling as a weapon to shoot down all charges reclaims connected to financial accounts, not just bank accounts! :shock: It was originally understood that the SC ruling was a narrow one applicable only to current accounts from banks - but one or two highly paid barristers later - and some County Court judges are starting to agree with them.:!: :!:

 

The FOS is not really looking into the matter properly but this is the route they're on and seems no turns. Initially they said they don't investigate mortgage arrears charges but then changed their mind. But i'll push them to ask for a breakdown of every charge, as it should be reflective of costs for that instance only, but I don't think they'll listen.

 

If the matter ends in court, maybe because the bank initiate repossession proceedings or I issue for the charges, then I can argue the points. But it may be the case that the court might not look into those charges already part of a balance when repossession proceedings were issued previously, as they may deem a judge has declared the balance enforceable even though the balance included arrears charges but these were not disputed by me, due to lack of knowledge but also because the bank has always insisted, in their terms and conditions, they are reflective of costs so I was misled.

 

The FOS also tried to use the SC ruling but not anymore. However, the argument here would be that only personal current account terms and conditions were assessed and not mortgage conditions and that the SC did say a challenge could be bought by the consumer under Reg 5(1). It is also clear arrears charges are incidental to a breach and not a request for an informal overdraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The FOS also tried to use the SC ruling but not anymore.

How nice of them to interpret and apply the ruling more fairly. :roll:

 

However, the argument here would be that only personal current account terms and conditions were assessed and not mortgage conditions and that the SC did say a challenge could be bought by the consumer under Reg 5(1). It is also clear arrears charges are incidental to a breach and not a request for an informal overdraft.

Agreed Tifo, and this is how I see it.

 

The challenge is getting this message out with the very sound arguments needed to defend it and refute the points being raised against it by the other side. The impact of this should not be underestimated as lenders are using this very SC ruling to knock down default charges claims with some success. Something that's very concerning to many Caggers.

 

The very fact that the FOS initially sided with the lenders that the SC ruling could be applied to non personal current accounts shows it's very easy to misread and misapply. You say they're no longer doing this. Presumably that was communicated to you in some way. Have they issued any sort of formal statement making the distinction obvious? This would help many people to knock this back to the lenders who're trying to use the ruling to shoot down claims for charges.

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
The very fact that the FOS initially sided with the lenders that the SC ruling could be applied to non personal current accounts shows it's very easy to misread and misapply. You say they're no longer doing this. Presumably that was communicated to you in some way. Have they issued any sort of formal statement making the distinction obvious? This would help many people to knock this back to the lenders who're trying to use the ruling to shoot down claims for charges.

 

I'm not home this weekend but i'll check the response but I think the letter said they'll ask for a breakdown as per MCOB 12.4.1R whilst previously they'd said the SC ruling arrears charges could not be challenged. This was used together with them saying they don't investigate these charges, they consider them fair as it's a market rate and that I agreed to the conditions (this they still say).

Link to post
Share on other sites

was doing a schedule of my fees when I noticed something ....

 

There are two transactions in 2005 under "capital transfer to new lender" and "capital transfer ex old lender", a credit and a debit which returns the balance to where it was a few days before, plus interest of around £50 because of "delay" between the two. The whole mortgage amount is credited and debited apart from any arrears balance (interest from the previous month or so).

 

A "capital transfer" is done again around 5 years later in 2010. Obviously this is securitising and the 5 year period would suggest bond maturity. The first is 6 years after I got my mortgage and I always thought they'd 'sold' it before that. The questions to ask are: who was it transferred to and from on both occasions? My mortgage conditions state I can enforce the transferee's obligations if they fail in their duties but I don't know who the transferee is whilst they can enforce my obligations towards them, such as charging me fees and issuing court proceedings against me. Doesn't this create an imbalance within the contract?

 

The bank has also applied "litigation instruction" and "solicitors costs (other than fees from solicitors)" in the same months, sometimes adding around £300 a month. The fees are also different and erratic, though there is a pattern to some. It's very hard to work out why and how they apply these fees thus the condition doesn't meet the 'plain english' criteria.

 

The other fees are "unpaid item" and "arrears fee" and again sometimes one or both are charged.

Edited by tifo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

We must keep this thread going, the more people it reaches in the google rankings the more people it can help,to let it die will give the pariahs a huge victory so please keep making contributions thats the only way we can cause them damage and the more contributions the more prominent the site and the more people become aware of what is available.

This thread with the spml thread has now been going 3 years and many personal victories have been won.

The knowledge is here most things have been debated through so please continue to make contributions,the object is to help as many as possible to stay in their homes..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently found out that my parents (just retired) have a £86,000 mortgage with Acenden, with a monthly repayment figure that equates to 2/3 of their monthly pension income. They have paid a mortgage for 25 years and watched it go up, rather than go down. Although they have not received a repossession letter as yet, i don't think one is far away.

 

I really don't know what to do, so any help advice would be appreceited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baxterboo - do you know what their arrears are? Is this a capital and interest mortgage or interest only ?

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

Ell-enn, having read all your support previously to steph, i was hoping you might pick this up soon. My parent's arrears are £4000 ish, but i am unsure if this is just interest. I believe the whole outstanding balance is around the £86,000 mark. If you are available, i would like to post a couple of questions?

 

Baxterboo

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm at work at the moment, but will be looking in regularly so if you want to post questions I'll respond as soon as I can.

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

Nothing to stop you buying the house - or paying off the mortgage and then your parents transfer the deeds into your name, but it would be your parents who would go after the charges. Obviously you would need to get advice from a solicitor as to the best procedure.

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

Sorry i had to be rather hurried earlier, but i needed to attend an appointment with my father. A little bit more detail regarding my parents situation:

 

Mortgage outstanding £86,000

 

value of house £105,000 ish

 

Other debt £40,000

 

Mortgage monthly repayment £900 per month.

 

As i previously mentioned, they have both recently retired with a pension income of £1300 per month. They cannot afford the monthly repayments on the mortgage, let alone their other debts. We have been to Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and although at a stretch, i could possibly purchase the house, there is very little equity in the house against the risk that i would undertake if i purchased. CAB have said that an option to release my parents from all debt would be to go bankrupt and having read other website, it would appear that would be the best course of action.

 

With that course of action, it is accepted they would lose their house and they would need to rent - which could be achieved if they relocate to where i live with my family. I think the only issue at the moment holding me back from that course of action is the thought that Acenden will get all of their money; hence my question on retrospective pursuit of the unfair/illegal charges against their mortgage.

 

I was wondering if you knew whether we could go through the SAR process during bankruptcy, or even after bankruptcy to get them to cough up their ill gotten gains, as i would take personal satisfaction nailing them on behalf of my parents for every penny possible?

 

Baxterboo

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your parents are going to rent, why not rent from you? that way you would get an income from the property and they could stay in their home. They could then go bankrupt for the remaining debts.

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

I have been advised that the receivers would look at the sale of the house as under valued and therefore, they would suspect it was underhand and my parents were hiding their assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if your parents are in receipt of any government benefits they would lose them as it is not permitted to rent from a relative and receive any housing benefit or any other means tested benefit.

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question begs to be asked and its a big one,one of the regulatory rules think its mcob 4 specifically deals with affordability and lending into retirement when granting loans,this factor was obviously not considered at all by the broker or the lender(represented by Acenden) there is some question of an unenforceable agreement here and such was proclaimed by the fos sometime ago in similar circumstances.Will try and find it and post it up for your consideration to see if it applies here,if you make a complaint to the fos could buy you time and delay things considerably,its free and you may get a result on affordability,lending into retirement and Acendens outrageous charges and also its free..

In the meantime it may be worth checking gallahads post above with the dwp to see where you stand exactly.

I don't think theres enough equity in the property in the current fickle market to bother the receiver with sale at an undervalue ,as to redeem the mortgage with numerous fees it will probably be 90k plus anyway.

If your parents decide on the bankruptcy route they will be discharged after just a year with no hounding or further worries,has to be worthy of consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI , when i got into difficulty with mortgage payments i asked Acenden for help and the only option available was to extend the term of the mortgage , i now realise that i will be 75 years old when it finishes.

They asked at the time how i would pay the mortgage after retirement , i said either with my pension / by selling house.

Is this a proper way to handle mortgage selling as all it has done is cost me more money by paying less each month.

Would my pension cover the mortgage when i retire ?

I already have an ongoing complaint with FOS and would love to give them more ammunition to fire at Acenden. I now see that i was duped into thinking that the arrears at the time of the terms change would be paid off , how wrong i was , on about the third page of the agreement their was a confusing statemtent that i read as though the arrears would be paid off. They just extended the mortgage to keep me in arrears.

 

Any advice welcome.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
HI , when i got into difficulty with mortgage payments i asked Acenden for help and the only option available was to extend the term of the mortgage , i now realise that i will be 75 years old when it finishes.

They asked at the time how i would pay the mortgage after retirement , i said either with my pension / by selling house.

Is this a proper way to handle mortgage selling as all it has done is cost me more money by paying less each month.

Would my pension cover the mortgage when i retire ?

I already have an ongoing complaint with FOS and would love to give them more ammunition to fire at Acenden. I now see that i was duped into thinking that the arrears at the time of the terms change would be paid off , how wrong i was , on about the third page of the agreement their was a confusing statemtent that i read as though the arrears would be paid off. They just extended the mortgage to keep me in arrears.

 

Any advice welcome.....

 

Hi niccuro

can i just ask is yours a first or second mortgage? and when did you take it out? thank you cher69

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...