Picture Loans / Idem Servicing

[wrigley20]

ps just type webb resoloutions into the small browser at the top of this page,its an intresting read.

 

Interesting to read some Webb forum posts about how the 1st charge would not allow ebb to initiate repo proceedings.

 

Can a 1st charge put a block on this type of action brought about by these sharks?

[newstarter]

Im afraid not,was reading a judgement only this morning where Webb were granted a P.O due to arrears,judge sited lack of communication from the borrowers as the reason for the judgement,also stated the very act of this couple defending Webbs action was almost an abuse of process.

[newstarter]

Scannan.pdf

[newstarter]

Thats the company that escaped my mind at the time.

[wrigley20]

I note the following:The loan was entered into before April 7, 2007, either it is not regulated by the CCA (Consumer Credit Act1974) or no part of it was used to pay PPI (payment protection insurance) premiums;

 

Our loan was prior to 2007. Is it not covered by the CCA?

[newstarter]

Up to 25k taken out after may 98 and before april 2008 will be covered,before may 98 loans up to 15k are covered.

[wrigley20]

Up to 25k taken out after may 98 and before april 2008 will be covered,before may 98 loans up to 15k are covered.

 

Ok thanks.

 

Looks like our loan is not covered; 65k 2006.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

It's all to do with tax. So I have an EGG credit card debt bought by BarclayCard and a BC credit card debt sold to Cabot...it's just a merry go round...

[newstarter]

Do you remember years ago when building societies were begging their savers to vote for change with regard to turning themselves into banks,why do you think they wanted to change to banks so badly?For a start building societies were heavily regulated,they could only lend out what savers put in,think about it,if the B.S lent out 20k it would need 20k of new savers.The reason why they wanted change so badly was that it allowed them ( as a bank) to borrow money from outside sources and not just the savers,it also meant shareholders owned them seperate from savers,plus they would raise millions from selling the shares.This led to a ma ssive change in the mortgage and loan market .

 

Self cert,fixed term together,plus consolidation and any purpose loans sprang up from nowhere along with countless other products sold by the banks through brokers,thousands of em flogging the banks products and taking a hefty fee from each customer tying them into deals and contracts that they knew in the long term were not suitable.

Of course as the banks lending increased,so did the risk that some would default on loans and mortgages,the more people who borrow,the more chance of defaults thus the greater the risk.What selling loans on does (securitisation) is pass the risks on to someone else while making a profit, usually at the borrowers expense.

 

 

For example say a loan company has 10 customers owing 10 k each,that company is owed 100k from its customers,what it does is register a new company and the new company is sold to an outside investor and the new company contains those 10 loans,thus in this threads case Picture becomes Picture Jersey p.l.c or whatever and they sell to Paragon who pay over the odds for the loan book,in other words instead of paying the 100k they would pay 130k.F the original lender theres a quick profit on the sale,the risk of defaults has been passed on so how do the new owners get back that extra they paid,and make a profit ?

 

The answer is they squeeze the borrower dry,increasing intrest rates,implementing charges and repo,s,and once you have milked the borrowers for as much as you can,you simply create another company and sell the 10 loans on again as they are liquid assetts.

[wrigley20]

Can I ask that seeing has my loan with Idem, or whatever their bloody called these days is not covered by the CCA, what if anything does cover these secured loans?

 

Are they able to do whatever the hell they wish to?

[newstarter]

Good question,of course if the new owners try it on with arrears charges,late payment fees,intrest charges an so on you can take your case to the financial ombudsman where an adjudicator will look at all the paperwork and make a decision,they are not consistant but people have had decisions go their way.Then of course there is the F.S.A,however they are not much use unless they recieve complaints on mass.Finally there is the option of going to court to fight any future financial battles,however the only people who get justice in a civil court are those that can afford it.S to answer your question Wrigley if your looking for some act that covers this type of loan from sharp practice,then the above is about it im afraid.

[Airwolf]

Forget the FSA not a FSMA regulated agreement.

 

Try s.140 of the CCA

 

Take a look at Blemain Finance v Peter Bentley for a possible way forward.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Airwolf

[Airwolf]

Forget the FSA not a FSMA regulated agreement.

 

Try s.140 of the CCA

 

Take a look at Blemain Finance v Peter Bentley for a possible way forward.

 

A debtor has secured a five-year block on repossession in a claims management case against his lender, after using consumer credit law to challenge his secured loan agreement. Peter Bentley, of Bridgend, Cardiff, used the meaning of unfair relationships under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 to claim that his loan contract with Blemain Finance was an unfair one. Blemain also agreed to charge no further interest on the £40,000 loan and cut his repayments from £550 to £150 a month. At the High Court in Cardiff, Judge Milwyn Jarman also prevented the lender from levying any charges or legal costs "whatsoever." The judge barred Blemain for enforcing repayment via repossession for five years, but even after this period, it can only bring repossession proceedings if there are at least 12 months? arrears on the new level of payments. Bentley's lawyers, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS), successfully argued that Blemain had loaned the money to Bentley irresponsibly and that the agreement took advantage of his desperate situation. CCLS argued that shortcomings in the decision making procedure on granting the loan, such as in the under writing, affordability checks and valuation processes, led to the credit agreement being unfair. Andrew Settle, solicitor for CCLS, said: "The relationship between the parties was an unfair one within the meaning of Section 140A of the CCA 1974. CCLS is utilising a significant number of legal arguments, like those used on behalf of Mr Bentley, in thousands of cases on behalf of our clients." CCLS successfully demanded to have the loan account re written, which is believed to be the first time a loan account has been rewritten under settlement, as a result of the unfair relationships test. Bentley's case was taken on by claims management company Cartel Client Review. Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel Client Review, claimed that Blemain made the offer to Bentley in a bid to prevent a judge in a High Court setting a legal precedent against its lending practices. He added: "A legal precedent could have driven a coach and horses through all its loan accounts. The consumer credit rule book is being rewritten as a result of High Court settlements like Blemain Finance v Bentley." Bentley's financial problems started when his mother died in 2007. He began part-time work to look after his father, who was suffering from Alzheimer's, and then took out a £40,000 secured loan in February 2007 to alleviate his financial predicament. His caring responsibilities led to a drop in working hours, and therefore a fall in income, and he then fell behind on his repayments. Blemain later chased Bentley for repayments on the loan, which by the time of this case being heard in court, had increased to £47,000.

[newstarter]

I was wondering when this case would get posted on the thread,thanks Airwolf a very intresting case it was and well explained,its good to see some in depth detail now and again.Peter Bentleys case centered around s140 cca 1974 ,the case has been well outlined by Airwolf so i wont repeat what has already been written.At the time it was seen as both a warning to lenders and a victory for the borrower,to many there had in fact been an unfair relationship between the lender,Blenheim Finance and the borrower Peter Bentley.However once the dust had settled and a closer was taken at this case it was not the victory for Joe Public that folk first thought.

 

First off this case was rather singular in that it involved the death of both Peter,s parents,indeed as he was the primary carer this was the contributing factor for his arrears,thus there was a sympathy element which many could not bring to a court.

 

Second,all Blenheim have to do is play the waiting game.The loan is still outstanding,its gone up 7k (which he still has to pay) ok the judge impemented some punitive measures

but you could not say Blenheim did that badly out of this indeed with the lower contractual payments they have an even better chance of recieving what they are owed.

 

Its the third point which really blows this out of the water,s140 c.c.a was never tested because Peter Bentley withdrew his action in favour of agreeing to Blenheims offer outlined in Airwolfs post,the above agreement was made outside the courtroom,no precedent was made by the judge,thus no judgement that others could refer to in support of any future cases.Now Bentley didnt do badly out of this,the threat of repo gone,reduced payments and no added intrest,but the unfair relationship between lender and borrower under s140 was never tested.This brings me to the 13th and 14th of October this year when the unfair relationship between borrower and lender was used as a defence in two cases ,both cases involved the use of s140 and both appeals failed and in the former a precedent was set.

 

For reference read Harisson and Harisson v Blackhorse and Jones v Northern Rock In the former,Lord Tomlinson stated this," under s140 cca 1974 the test requires the relationship to be unfair between lender and borrower not the contractual agreement between them.Secondly it is not an economic test,therefore a viable unfair relationship claim would be difficult to bring" Borrowers often alledge that cost is a relevent concern when looking at the unfair relationship test,as the master of the rolls wryly observed during the oral arguments in this case " well they would do wouldnt they"You cannot shut the door on this defence more firmly than that.It would be brave person who would risk loosing upwards of 20k on using s140 as a defence after that judgement and thats what Jones lost after his appeal failed,again using s140 as a defence.

 

You could never use Bently as support because in reality it ended when he withdrew,there was never really a case however i for one can certainly feel which way the wind is blowing at the moment and as usual its not with the borrower.

[Airwolf]

For reference read Harisson and Harisson v Blackhorse and Jones v Northern Rock In the former,Lord Tomlinson stated this," under s140 cca 1974 the test requires the relationship to be unfair between lender and borrower not the contractual agreement between them.Secondly it is not an economic test,therefore a viable unfair relationship claim would be difficult to bring" Borrowers often alledge that cost is a relevent concern when looking at the unfair relationship test,as the master of the rolls wryly observed during the oral arguments in this case " well they would do wouldnt they"You cannot shut the door on this defence more firmly than that.It would be brave person who would risk loosing upwards of 20k on using s140 as a defence after that judgement and thats what Jones lost after his appeal failed,again using s140 as a defence.

 

Hello Newstarter

 

I think you may be mistaken. In both cases, you appear to have mixed up the Claimant with the Defendant.

 

Jones did not risk losing upwards of £20,000 for using s.140 as a defence. Jones was actually the Claimant and not the Defendant. This is also true in Harrisson v Blackhorse, the borrower was the claimant and the lender was the defendant. Using s.140 as part of a defence, would not incur any additional risk to a borrower.

 

s.140 should not be so quickly dismissed as a tool in a well constructed defence against a claim brought by a lender. After all, that would be to ignore that in Bentley it was also argued that shortcomings in the decision making procedure on granting the loan, such as in the under writing, affordability checks and valuation processes, led to the credit agreement being unfair.

 

These would appear to be arguments that numerous other borrowers, could incorporate into any defence.

 

Is there anything to lose by including s.140 in a defence, rather than a claim ?

Edited November 26, 2011 by Airwolf

[Airwolf]

His Honour Judge Owen QC gave judgment on a payment protection insurance claim in Jones v Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (2011), Unreported, Lincoln County Court, 13 October 2011.

 

Mr Jones initially issued a claim against NRAM alleging (amongst other things) that the PPI was represented as compulsory. After disclosure and exchange of evidence, Mr Jones applied (and obtained) permission to amend his claim and abandon the allegation that the PPI was represented as compulsory (as this was not supported by the call recording) and expand his other allegations.

 

Mr Jones also sought to rely upon Appendix 3 to the Financial Services Authority’s Dispute Resolution: Complaints (“DISP”). By the time of trial, Mr Jones also abandoned any reliance on DISP. He also abandoned his allegations that there was non-compliance with ICOB and/or an unfair relationship because NRAM failed to advise on, or take account of, the cost of alternative policies on the market and received a commission from the insurer (following Harrison).

 

His Honour Judge Owen QC dismissed the claim. After hearing submissions on costs, he awarded them on the indemnity basis in the sum of £19,348.11.

 

Mr Jones pursued his claim in the Courts. By the time of trial, Donns LLP (the solicitors instructed by Mr Jones), had incurred costs (excluding a success fee which was, no doubt, 100%) of around £49,000. If the success fee was 100%, Mr Jones’ costs would have been just short of £70,000 yet, by the time of trial, he had only paid £3,634.01 towards the PPI.

[newstarter]

My apologies for the lack of clarity Airwolf,and the mistakes numerous glasses of white wine on a Saturday evening does little for my legal reasoning on points of law,however i do believe that s140 has little to offer and is at best weak,i know i wouldnt use it if i were defending myself but thats my opinion and would be my choice,for me that defence has lost its credebility.

[Airwolf]

If I didn't have to get up early tomorrow, I would be joining you for some wine... I could do with a large glass myself

[newstarter]

I see Paragon have again won in court this time this time calling in 6.9 million buy to let business.

Edited November 28, 2011 by newstarter

[wrigley20]

I see Paragon have again won in court this time this time calling in 6.9 million buy to let business.

 

You mean they just asked for full repayment of the amount outstanding?

 

Were these buy to lets in default?

[newstarter]

Correct on both counts Wrigley,seems the claimants argued Paragon couldnt call it in because they were not a full 3 months in arrears judge ruled otherwise.

[wrigley20]

Correct on both counts Wrigley,seems the claimants argued Paragon couldnt call it in because they were not a full 3 months in arrears judge ruled otherwise.

 

Well I have received our (Non Regulated) agreement from Idem, along with a statement showing all payments and interest added to date.

 

The original borrowing amount has changed by very little.

 

I suppose Idem will be waiting for a change in the BoE rate, and bang the letters re an increased monthly payment won't be out the door quick enough.

[camshaft]

Im not sure if I should start a new thread or jump on this one ? Firstly, I am new to the forum and have spent sometime reading some very interesting information. I now know what an utter idiot I have been, however would appreciate some advice ?

 

I took a picture loan out in Jan 2006 for £100K. The full monthly payment of £1000 was paid each month up until the start of the recession in 2009 when I was unable to make the regular payments due to a huge decrease in salary. I arranged with Picture to pay £150 per month, as thats all we can afford to pay.Picture agreed to freeze the interest untill we could afford to make the contracted monthly payements again. Since these clowns at Idem have taken over I have made 3 payments of £150. Every single time I call them to make a debit card payment I end up havning a huge argument with them over the amount we are paying, and they are charging 8% over base ! They are constantly pushing for more than we can afford to pay. We completed an I/E form for Picture, which hasnt changed since we agreed the reduced payment with them. Idem wont accept that, and have sent me numerous threatening letters asking for an I/E which I have refused to do based on their utter contempt for our situation. They have now sent a form asking for a Mortgage ( First Charge ) details...... Whats their game ?? I have also not made a Payment for December as I am unsure what the best thing to do is ?

Our property has very little equity, not enough to cover their loan.

 

Any advice greatly recieved before I have a meltdown ! I am normally a very level headed, mild mannered person. These people manage to rile me !

 

Many Thanks,

 

Camshaft

[wrigley20]

Hi Camshaft,

 

I think most people feel duped, and silly having undertaken additional borrowing with Picture Loans; I for one certainly do.

 

Why not complete a new I/E, copy the original info, and send to Idem. Can you not pay the £150 pm via online banking?

 

Saves you having to speak to these monkeys over the phone.

 

Regarding your missed payment for December, it would be interesting to know what their reaction is.

[RightG]

Hi, I wish I had found this thread last year. So many familiar stories on here.

 

I took out a 80k loan about 5 years ago with Picture, got into financial trouble with all lenders 3 years ago. Discussed with C&G, main lender and Picture who were all very understanding. Picture said they stopped the interest for us and we paid them what we could. Then Idem arrive on the scene and got heavy day 1.

 

So now we have a default against us for the 80k and although they are saying they will accept a reduced payment they will continue adding full amount of interest regardless. Main lender C&G now happy and just today have rescheduled the loan removing all arrears and showing payments up to date but unless I can reduce / stop interest by Idem I have to sell up. No point paying only £3k per year towards a full payment of £8.5k, as costing me £5.5k being added each year.

 

Any advice?