Jump to content


I am looking for some one to Take on Endeavour personal finance LTD


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3649 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

Morning guys:-D

 

I am looking for some one who is willing to take on a case against Endeavour PLC Ltd, a sub prime lender under investigation by the OFT and holders of a legal charge on my property by charge of a mortgage deed.

 

I have raised a complaint over 8 weeks ago and they sent me a letter on the 20th April asking for more time and that they would have a response to me within 7 working days, they still have provided no response:-(

 

I also raised a request for a subject access data at the same time as raising the complaint still not received.

 

However what i have received re letting my property is a letter requesting a fee per year of £29.00 stated to have been sent in a booklet of fee's and charges in 2007, never received then or there after and either in the terms of the loan agreement or charge makes no mention of any such fee being required or ref to a booklet. In contacting HFC the sister company acting for EPF, they stated that we agreed to the terms, the booklet states a fee required, doesn't need to be mentioned in the contract agreed to?

 

The following is details of my complaint. I am unable to take this any further my self as comes under statue law as is an unregulated agreement. If any one is willing to act on a no win no fee basis it would be more than appreciated. The details of the claim are below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning guys:-D

 

I am looking for some one who is willing to take on a case against Endeavour PLC Ltd, a sub prime lender under investigation by the OFT and holders of a legal charge on my property by charge of a mortgage deed.

 

I have raised a complaint over 8 weeks ago and they sent me a letter on the 20th April asking for more time and that they would have a response to me within 7 working days, they still have provided no response:-(

 

I also raised a request for a subject access data at the same time as raising the complaint still not received.

 

However what i have received re letting my property is a letter requesting a fee per year of £29.00 stated to have been sent in a booklet of fee's and charges in 2007, never received then or there after and either in the terms of the loan agreement or charge makes no mention of any such fee being required or ref to a booklet. In contacting HFC the sister company acting for EPF, they stated that we agreed to the terms, the booklet states a fee required, doesn't need to be mentioned in the contract agreed to?

 

The following is details of my complaint. I am unable to take this any further my self as comes under statue law as is an unregulated agreement. If any one is willing to act on a no win no fee basis it would be more than appreciated. The details of the claim are below.

 

 

A Complaint was raised against Endeavour PLC Ltd On the 20th March 2012 - No response in full to this date has been received

 

A Subject data request was made also on the 20th March still not received and stated by the firm as not received until the 10th April, I have receipts of postage.

 

The account is currently on hold

 

The Broker who sold the loan is Norton Finance

 

Complaint

 

Miss selling of a secured Loan by legal charge,

‘Misrepresentation’

 

Endeavour personal finance a sub prime lender, entered into a legally binding agreement with the claimants named above on the 16th November 2007

 

Endeavour personal finance failed to inform the claimant of the unfair relationship held with the broker prior to the agreement being entered into recently disclosed as a packager for the lender.

 

.The agent and defendant failed to provide the claimant’s with the details of the legal obligations and the contractual terms prior to any agreement being entered into.

 

The telephone call made by the agent for the defendant was made to the claimant’s mid-afternoon in a quest of the agent and defendant to sell a financial service for substantive financial gain of all parties concerned, except that of the claimant (Consumer)with no prior acknowledgement o rawareness of being received,

 

The call made to the claimant’s was made with the intention of securing a financial agreement for the financial gain of the defendant with little regard or concern to the claimant’s financial needs health or family situation at the time.

 

The agreement miss advised to the claimant, was made and advised to be a benefit to the claimant and too good to miss. During the call received on the 1st November 2007, the agent as a regulated professional body had a professional duty of care to consider the claimant’s needs now and long term, and effects of any agreement being entered into.

 

The call received, was a cold call offering financial services and consolidation loans. The agent used unreasonable pressure on the claimant’s in a bid to speed up the process for the financial gain of the firms concerned.

 

During the disclosure over the phone the agent failed to advise the claimant of the financial loss that would be incurred if the agreement was accepted.

 

The agent acting for the claimant also failed to advise the defendants of the interest rate to be charged on the account

 

The agent aware of the broker fee to be charged failed to advise the claimants of any such charge or fee being required

 

No mention of any fees were ever discussed or brought to the defendant’s attention during the claim process. During the disclosure process or in written form prior to the final agreement being presented.

 

During the initial call received on the 1st November 2007, the amounts quoted by the claimant’s agent never included any amount or otherwise of a broker fee or charge to be incurred.

 

The broker fee’s and admin charges are not shown in the agreement as incorporated in the loan as an amount owed. The mention of broker fee’s and lender admin fees are shown as separate identities and are not shown as a final figure of total loan amount.

 

The fee’s mentioned as broker fee £2,000 and admin lender fee £150.00 where undisclosed or mentioned prior to the agreement being made and the, term shown underneath the fee’s, states (if any) form the total amount owed and bear interest upon, and are not shown in the total amount nor as a total amount on any financial statement. led us to believe that the amounts shown bared no relevance to ourselves as had not been disclosed, had not formed part of the quotes given and had not been given in any other communications taken place.

 

However these amounts soon after were found to be amounts added to the account, and paid to the agent for work carried out as well as a further paid and undisclosed to the claimant.

no previous disclosure was given and the contract lay out was somewhat Miss leading to the onlooker, we believe that these amounts levied were done so unlawfully.

 

A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1). Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

 

The Total loan amount should always incorporate all amounts owed under the agreement, Failing to do this when forming an agreement that is legally binding can have negative effects on the agreement signed as such relevant data if informed correctly of could have such an impression on a person concerned that changes the decision made over all

 

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 (HPH 1132) "A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive."

In failing to disclose such information prior to the agreement being entered into verbally or otherwise The defendant has fraudulently, , negligently, misrepresented the contract entered into by the claimant’s for the firm’s financial gain to the cost of only the claimants.

 

5(1). Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer. The requirement of 'good' faith embodies a general 'principle of fair and open dealing'.1 It means that terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly and that terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given appropriate prominence duty of disclosure under equitable principles where there is a fiduciary relationship

Link to post
Share on other sites

During negotiations the defendant failed to provide specific financial details relating to the account causing what could be conceived as unfairly influenced causing entering of a legally binding contract, were there was a misrepresentation made;

 

The claimant’s believe that the defendant and agent may have used improper bargaining tactics, exploiting their position of undue influence over the defendants, acting in some way in an

unconscionable manner to the other party, using unfair pressure that was incorrect, un clear as all details advised were details relating to an amount excluding the fee’s shown to have been added to the account prior to any disclosure, discussion or communications taking place. Simply believed carried out to get the defendants to agree to an agreement that clearly was miss- represented and not made clear at the onset.

 

The claimant’s believe that the defendant and agent acting for the defendant misrepresented the contract details quoted prior to any agreement made, using undue influence and resulted in an agreement being entered by the claimant’s playing a part in the final decision being made due to being misrepresented from the onset.

 

The claimants here by inform the claimant that the misrepresentation made about the agreement which was entered into by the defendants who have concluded differently had all the facts been disclosed at the onset and not in prevention of information being given that knowingly would have led to an alternative response or agreement being given.

 

During any business agreement specifically legally binding agreements, a person selling a product or service is required to provide the absolute truth and as such in forming agreements is required to do so with absolute obligation not to mislead not the opposite as believes to be the case here.

 

EPF had an obligation to state the absolute truth prior to and during any agreement being made.

 

The claimants have suffered financial loss as a result of the miss leading information given from the onset rather than the absolute truth. In failing to provide the correct and appropriate

information the claimants have suffered financial loss to the degree of nearly losing the home.

 

The claimants have been misled by the defendants from the onset of the call being received

Link to post
Share on other sites

The defendant and agent set the claimant’s up for immediate failure at the cost of the claimant’s only and financial gain of all other parties concerned.Ath only the cost to the claiment of almost Loosing their home and all for nothing more than a broker fee and Personal financial gain.

 

The defendant and agent concerned used the naivety of the claimant’s and lack of knowledge at that time to convince a mother of disabled children to sign her name to an agreement that she holds no financial right to,

 

The defendant aware of the needs of the family, a holder of a consumer credit license had a duty of care to the claimants as a professional and as stated by and to the licence legally bound to a licence holder governed by the OFT.

 

The defendant and agent failed the claimants and their family out of greed. The defendant had a duty of care to ensure that the products offered were at amounts that could be afforded, not at amounts hidden to prevent disclosure or non-acceptance to an agreement

.

The claimant’s in 2007 were quite young when the agreement was made and both defendants had limited understanding of the terms and phrases used in financial promotions used to entice individuals specifically those who fall under the mental health guidelines and who were classed as vulnerable as we were scene at the time or scene by some as an easy target.

 

The property the charge has been placed against was the family’s first mortgaged property and was the home for the disabled children

the claimant worked long and hard to be able to afford. this property and the defendant Endeavour personal finance set their sights on the home and set the entire family up, Sending legal documents to a person after an agreement has been signed is fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

The defendant used the family’s vulnerable situation to their advantage and set the family up for failure.

 

The defendant and agent miss advised and miss sold the secured loan, miss sold deceitfully at every level for one reason and one reason only, personal financial gain, for the measly amount of broker fee’s,. At the cost only to the claimants concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The broker Norton Finance on the 1st November advised the claimants of a loan agreement disclosed and quoted as £40,000, when in fact found following agreement being made was £42,150, this amount stated to be by the defendant as broker fee’s & lender admin fees. The broker arranged a secured loan for consolidation of unsecured debts in contravention of Financial Services Authority regulations on the advising and selling on mortgage products, resulting in the consumer taking out a loan agreement which was unsuitable for the claimants needs.

 

The broker Norton finance acting as a packager of the loan not an introducer as was led to believe,

cold-called the claimant’s by telephone without the claimant’s specific invitation, in writing, and

received without any prior clear confirmation or request in advance.

The defendant failed to disclose early full and adequate explanation of all contract terms and conditions and all fees and charges which may were payable under the loan agreement entered into High-pressure selling was used and speed was stated to be of the essence, in adequate time was allowed for the claimants to reflect on the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the seriousness of the risk of taking out a loan secured on residential property, and to obtain independent advice before signing.

 

. The lender failed to provide pre-disclosure agreements prior to the agreement being entered into, nor was terms advised or stated for the claimant’s to seek legal advice prior to the agreement being entered into. The defendants failed to ensure the affordability of the loan amount being borrowed and used irresponsible lending and all underwriting decisions

without any proper assessment of the borrower's creditworthiness/ability to repay without resort to the security. All the contract terms are in the favour of the defendant and since learnt to be at only the loss to the claimants.and conditions of the loan agreement were found to be soon after acceptance as being unfair and un clear, and certainly not be written in plain and intelligible language. High-pressure selling was received by the broker (packager) putting the claimant’s under undue pressure to enter into a new loan agreement

 

The Brokers failed to disclose at the outset the nature and extent of the service being offered to the claimant, together with any ties they may have to lenders or other brokers. The broker also failed to inform the claimants of any brokerage fee and neither the broker nor the defendant Made clear at the outset or during completion of the agreement. The amount of the fees to be incurred. Even the amounts quoted to the claimants did not include the addition of these significant fees found to be levied onto the loan agreement and bearing interest upon. These amounts were also not confirmed in writing, verbally or made clear within the contract agreement entered into.

 

The existence of any commission or other payment payable by the lender to the broker should be disclosed to the borrower at an early stage, so that they are aware of the potential conflict of interest. The amount of the commission should be disclosed on request. Lenders should ensure that remuneration arrangements do not provide an undue incentive for brokers to recommend particular products when these may not be in the borrower's best interests. For example, lenders should only be offering higher commissions in respect of one of their products relative to another where this is justified in terms of the relative work involved. They should not be offering volume overriders 10.

 

Brokers and salespersons should always ensure that any advice given is in the best interests of the borrower, based on the information available, including advising that it would be not be in the borrower's best interest to take out a secured loan when this appears to be the case. All advice should be appropriate to the borrower's needs and circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contract documentation should comply with all relevant legislative requirements, including the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 200411 and all relevant provisions of the Consumer Credit (Disclosure of information) Regulations 200412 and the Financial Services (Distance Marketing) Regulations 200413 on pre-contract disclosure. It should set out clearly and fully the borrower's rights and responsibilities under the agreement. Contract terms should be written in plain and intelligible language, and should not be unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs).14

 

The defendant failed to advise the claimant or encouraged the claimant to read all contract documentation carefully, and to consider obtaining independent legal or other advice (for example, from a Citizens Advice Bureau or Money Advice Centre or Law Centre) before entering into the agreement. No mention of this was given to the claimant’s nor adequate time allowed for this. The contract documentation and any associated customer booklet or leaflet should set out clearly any other fees or charges payable by the claimant including any amounts payable on default. They should explain the purpose and nature of the fee, the basis of calculation, the amount due,15 when and how payable, and to whom. All of which was not received by the claimant verbally, in written format or within the contract agreement.

 

APRs must be accurate. If rates or charges are variable, then it should be made clear to the borrower that this has not been factored into the APR or early settlement examples. The potential implications of such variations should be explained in full. Rates should only be varied to recover genuine increased costs in lender funding and should not be misused, for example, to take advantage of a borrower's lack of ability

 

The Brokers and the defendant should, have as far as is reasonable and practicable, Ensure that all information on a loan application is correct. They must not themselves - nor encourage or allow the borrower to falsify details (for example as to income or employment). If the borrower goes into arrears, lenders should deal with this sympathetically. They should

monitor the account regularly and carefully with a view to preventing arrears building up quickly or excessively. They should notify the borrower, in writing, each month while the borrower is inn arrears, of the current amount of the arrears, together with the amounts paid and unpaid since the last notification and any interest or other charges accrued including default charges

 

The defendants have failed to use appropriate actions in respect of arrears on the loan agreement account and a second subsequent default was issued following no contact being received for over 5 months and no default or sums outstanding were given

 

The defendants in the knowledge of the account being in dispute be failed to use consideration sympathetically a proportionate and use Repossession as a last resort. The defendant issued the subsequent default when in the knowledge that no financial statements or letters or contact by the lender had been made for some significant months and the issue of a subsequent default notice without a default notice or amounts owed was sent in the hope to foreclose on the property without having to undergo procedure.

 

The defendant within the contract terms has tried to remove any liability for the actions or selling of the loan agreement as a joint responsibility for acts or omissions of brokers who act on their behalf.

 

The defendant and broker acted in any way which was deceitful, oppressive, unfair and improper, whether unlawful or not.

 

Lenders also should not harass the borrower by, for example, sending misleading standard letters made to appear as if they are court/legal documents or making undue, excessive or inappropriate use of statutory demands.

 

The defendant failed to provide the claimant’s with a draft copy of the legal agreement prior to the agreement being made

 

The PAP applies to arrears on second charge loans as it does to first charge loans. The aims of the PAP are to ensure that a lender and a borrower act fairly and reasonably with each other in resolving any matter concerning arrears; and to encourage more pre-action contact in an effort to seek agreement between the parties on alternatives to repossession.

 

Lenders should not disclose the fact that the borrower is in arrears to any third party without the borrower's consent. They should respond promptly to any telephone calls or correspondence from the borrower or from the borrower's agent or representative.

 

In cases of serious misconduct and/or where there are concerns about integrity, we may conclude that a trader is not fit to hold a licence and will act to revoke its licence. Failure by second charge lenders or brokers to employ adequate practices and procedures in order to ensure that consumers are not subject to unfair or improper treatment would constitute grounds for the OFT to consider fitness to hold a licence. Similar considerations would apply to both existing licensees and Applicants for licences.

 

The defendant Endeavour Personal Finance Ltd failed to make clear, fair and balanced, the terms of the agreement, misinterpreting the facts in order to secure the agreement with the claimant’s for financial reward. Misleading the claimant’s into agreeing to a legally binding document, in particular with regard to the costs of borrowing and the loan agreement being entered into.

 

The Defendant failed to provide full details and implications of the risks to the claimant’s The implications and details relating to the agreement were not provided or explained, orally or in writing to the claimant’s during disclosure or upon the agreement being entered into.. In particular, the defendant failed to make the claimant aware of the potential consequences of missing payments, or under-paying, including default charges and risk of repossession of the property. The possible risks to the claimant’s credit record, and ability to obtain credit in future, were not emphasised.

 

The defendant failed to inform the claimant’s verbally or in writing the details relating to the interest charges, charged on the account entered into. The defendant failed to use full transparency about the circumstances in which any variable rates or charges may change, in particular where they are not linked to Bank of England base rate and where they may be varied at the discretion of the lender.

 

The defendant used undue influence emphasis on the speed with which the loan had to be agreed by and in order to ensure that the agreements were signed and returned quickly, was stated to the claimant’s if not completed quickly then the agreement being offered may become unavailable, stated and emphasised upon in order to ensure agreements were entered into quickly at the detriment to the claimant concerned

 

Endeavour Personal Finance broke the confidence of the relationship, between the claiments and themselves, Endeavour Personal Finance LTD. Endeavour Personal finance instructed the broker Norton finance to act as an agent for the lender, packaging the loan agreement for the lender for financial reward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The defendant ‘Miss sold, ‘Misrepresented’ used Undue influence, harsh sales techniques, abused the confidence & trust placed within them by the claimant’s, then exerting unfair mental pressure in order to ensure the agreement was entered into for the defendants financial gain at the detriment to only the claimants.

 

The agreement entered into on the 3rd November 2007 was sold to the claimants using undue influence and misrepresentation of the loan being offered The Secured loan consolidation Plan

was advanced to the claimant’s and debtors of the claimant’s in individual loan amounts. The agreement arose out of an unfair relationship of influence between Mr & Mrs Newman, and the lender Endeavour Personal Finance.. Mr & Mrs Newman, during the relationship took no advantage and entered into the agreement with ‘Good Faith’. The loan plan was only accepted solely on the information provided Endeavour personal finance with the aid of the broker Norton finance,

exerted unfair pressure over Mr & Mrs Newman.

 

Endeavour personal finance and the broker failed to inform the claimants of the duties requested by the defendant to the broker during the agreement being made. The defendant abused the relationship and trust placed in them by Mr & Mrs Newman. The defendant abused the trust placed in them by the claimant’s, braking not only the trust but the confidence of the parties

concerned, The defendant in misrepresenting the loan agreement to the claimant’s set the family up, for financial loss, financial failure at the risk to their family home, health and long term causing financial hardship.

 

Endeavour personal finance failed to provide all the relevant required documentation relating to the agreement being entered into, specifically details of the cost of the loan being agreed to, The negative equity within the property upon agreement to the loan, the interest rates to be paid under the agreement along with the number of payments to be made, the total cost of the loan agreement, broker fees to be charged bearing interest upon them, admin fees and hidden charges. All of which

has placed the family home of the claimants’ in negative equity and at great risk to the extent of the

family almost losing their home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fee’s to be incurred overall, details of the hidden secret fees paid to the broker by the lender Due to the undue influence placed on Mr & Mrs Newman, they formally entered into a legally

binding agreement that they found soon after could not financially afford.

 

in 2008 the claimant’s raised a complaint with Endeavour Personal finance, the defendants in receipt of the details of the complaint being raised, ‘upheld the complaint’ The defendants agreed with the claimant’s, stating the loan agreement was miss sold to the claimant’s., however in upholding the complaint and extending the term by 5 years at the further cost to the claimant, little redress was received. The defendant in upholding the complaint reminded the claimant that although the complaint was upheld the agreement entered into was a legal contract and as such was to remain so. The defendant went on to say that the contract entered was a legally binding agreement and that obviously as the claimant’s had signed the agreement found to be miss sold, they were obviously were happy with the terms, as if not happy would not have signed the contract agreed to.

 

Endeavour Personal Finance made it clear that they would extend the term to 20 years, reducing the monthly outlay slightly, however could not extend the term to the 25 years quoted as the saving per month would be so small, yet the cost of the loan amount would be significantly higher. Believed to have no other choice, the agreement was signed with great upset of the claimant’s to the redress received, but believed they had little alternative other than to sign the agreement in order to reduce monthly outgoings if only slightly in the hope to reduce the risk of losing their family home. The defendants response in failed to provide the claimant’s with alternate contacts to appeal the decision of the complaint and scared for their home extended the term as was believed from the letter received that little else could be done and if payments were breeched it would come and the cost to the claimant’s home. No alternatives given, the pressure of the financial situation being applied meant the claimant’s had to agree with the defendants as nothing else could be done as stated in the

letter received and believed by the claimant’s was fact.

 

The complaint letter received states that the claimant’s approached the broker! This statement is extremely untrue and was told to the defendant following receipt of the response being given as being so. The broker on the 1st November 2007, without any prior request of the claimant’s, completely out of the blue contacted the claimants in a bid to sell a consolidation loan agreement to the claimant for financial reward to the broker by the lender Endeavour Personal finance, upon the agreement being sold and later found packaged for the lender for financial incentives offered as a reward for loan

agreements being sold

 

The defendant stated within the particulars that they were concerned by the claimant’s comments that Norton finance stated that the loan term could be extended after completion. However the broker confirmed that on the 1st November 2007, the broker quoted for a loan of £40,000 over both 15 and 20 years and that the claimant’s opted for 15 years. That due to a technical error the transcript of the call had been damaged Endeavour went on to say that ‘ultimately you have signed a legally binding agreement indicating that the claimants were happy with the terms of the contract. Therefore if the claimants were unhappy with the term or monthly repayments the claimant’s should not have signed the agreement. The letter goes onto say that the defendants were prepared to restructure the account to a term of 20 years not 25 years as the difference is only £24.00 per month and approximately would cost an additional £15,000 in interest charges. The defendant made it clear that unless the letter was signed no adjustments would be made, leaving the claimant’s little other option in their financial situation but to sign the letter to try and prevent the loss of their home due to the hardship of being unable to pay the amounts required..

 

As clearly revealed the amounts quoted were also misrepresented when the loan was being sold as the amount inclusive of Broker fee’s undisclosed was an amount of £42,150.00 further increasing costs to be incurred Lacking the understanding or having the knowledge of the options available to the claimant’s, The claimant having Bipolar disorder and Mr suffering a mental breakdown, stated to by his practitioner as clinical depression, caused by the financial stress placed upon him, Unaware of their legal rights, the fear of the loss of their home, the letter received was signed and found later was yet another misleading document setting the family up for yet further failure

 

Endeavour Personal Finance use of undue pressure applied, abuse of the families understanding, mental health, abusing their position of strength in order to place Mr & Mrsin a position

of no alternatives. Continued with the agreement made at further financial loss per day at amounts of significantly high interest, recently described as a subprime lending loan agreement miss sold and entered into due to limited understanding and placing the trust in what was believed as professional individuals whom had our interests at heart. Sadly we couldn’t have been further from the truth if we had tried. Mr & Mrs incurred significant loss to their health, finances and equity within the property following entering into an agreement that the claimants’ were led to believe was the answer to all their financial needs, were as in fact what the payment plan actually was, was setting the family up for failure at the cost of their family home.

Using comments and statements that were untrue and all to gain the agreement of the loan being offered, use of third parties and false disclosure of information being given. The claimants’ were being set up from day one and even when raising complaints simply miss led further using the lack

of the claimant’s understanding at that time against them along with the ill health of the claimant’s and claimant’s children concerned..

 

The sale of the loan plan agreement was carried out for financial gain of the defendant’s; with no concern to the claimants’ or their family concerned..Mr & Mrs believe that there was an unfair relationship between themselves and the creditor unaware that a fee would be charged Mr & Mrs following recent advise received and investigation taken place found not only were broker fees paid that were undisclosed to the claimant’s but also that a secret fee had been paid to the broker by the defendants Endeavour

Personal finance Following discovery of specific documents within a SAR received from Santander the first mortgage on the property, it was found that Norton finance believed to be acting as an introducer of the loan, was actually acting as an agent for the defendants themselves. Following contacting the broker firm and speaking to the underwriter of the loan agreement we entered, the broker concerned explained the relationship held between the parties concerned as well as the disclosure of a further payment being made by the lender at the cost to ourselves the claimants upon the loan agreement being finalised and packaged. This was given by the lender Endeavour as a hidden fee and paid for duties to the lender for packaging the loan we agreed to and all for cash incentives given to the broker by the lender at the cost to us the claimant’s for the financial gain of the lender Endeavour and broker

Norton finance.

 

This undisclosed payment, known as a secret payment was made to the broker upon the agreement being finalised and packaged by the broker. The broker in this case was not acting as an introducer to the firm to the claimant, but was in fact acting as a packager for the defendant for a large financial reward at the cost only to the claimants’ and their family.

 

The claimant following further investigations and support being given found that the agreement entered was being charged at two interest rates, a variable interest rate of 9.8 and an underlying interest rate, again not event within the contract terms and again presented in such a way only to miss lead the claimant’s concerned. All for financial gain of the lender.

 

Endeavour personal finance as the lender for the loan agreement had a duty to ensure that all details relating to the loan agreement were disclosed. However this was never evident and as such the claimant’s at no stage were made unaware of the consequences of the interest rates increasing, especially at the extortionate rates being charged, Or In particular circumstances, or were unlikely to reduce in line with changes in the market. As a result the claimants’ entered into an agreement without all the facts and information and had specific documents such as the details relating to the equity in our home and fee’s to be incurred being un- disclosed prior to the agreement being entered into,

 

We the claimants’ believe had we of been informed of all the information at the onset of the agreement being entered into we would quite possible have chosen not to enter into the transaction. Especially so, had we been in full knowledge of the facts. Mrs the second claimant within the agreement diagnosed with Bipolar disorder in 2008 was sold the loan on the 1st November 2007 following receiving a call completely out of the blue, without any prior knowledge what so ever of a call being expected or agreed to receive. Mrs named on the agreement, not named on the title deeds, and stated clearly at the onset that she did not want to be named on the agreement as was not named on the title deeds. Mrs Newman long term unemployed,. A full time career for her two Disabled children and unwell herself stated that the children’s disability payments could not be taken into account when working the income amounts for the loan.

 

Mrs the claimant went on to say that her income could not be relied upon due to being made up of disability benefits and payments used for the long term care of her children concerned. Mrswas told that in order for the loan agreement to be granted she was required to also be named on the agreement, not due to financial status, but simply as a requirement of the

lender when agreements are being made and persons are married. This was stated to be a general requirement of all lenders and should we wish for the agreement to go ahead and receive all the fantastic benefits of the loan being offered, reducing financial distress and increasing monthly income overall, then her agreement to enter the contract was a requirement to the lender concerned. Little did Mrs this was simply sales patter and she did not have to enter the agreement at all and the real reason for this request was to enable the lender to have more security should they need to foreclose, allowing for the income from both parties to be taken ensuring the probability of a healthy return. Mrs was made to believe she had no other choice that if she didn’t sign the agreement it would affect her family long term, made to believe no real choice as to acceptance of the particular terms. Mrs was made to believe that her agreement was a standard requirement when persons are married.

 

Endeavour Personal finance Ltd is believed by the claimant’s to have engaged in business practices which are deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not.

With regard to the contractual terms, the terms related to the legal charge, baring no link to the main agreement were undisclosed at the onset. This in turn resulted in a document baring little other detail other than legal charge and request of signatures to be witnessed to be signed by the claimant’s, again as no terms relating to the charge by mortgage deed were not disclosed prior to the agreement being entered the claimants were not informed fully of the legalities of the document being signed. As terms were stated on the first agreement the claimant’s did not feel as though any documents were missing, however recent disclosure has proved once again not to be the case.

 

The agreements were also at no stage individually negotiated and are regarded as unfair as are contrary to the requirement of good faith, and cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the claimant’s Mr & Mrs Endeavour PLC the defendants failed to inform the claimants of any broker fee’s, or secret fee’s as recently shown to have been paid prior to the agreement being entered into.

 

The defendants failed to advise the claimant’s that the fee stated to be a lender admin fee, was actually a fee paid to the broker Norton finance.

 

The defendant failed to inform the claimant of the relationship held with the broker or make aware of any fees to be paid relating to the legal agreement being entered into.

 

The defendant failed to provide in pre-disclosure or within the details of the legal agreement, details of the total amount borrowed inclusive of all fees and charges under the loan agreement.

 

The defendant failed to advise the claimants of the sums paid for insurance, unrequested, not asked

for, nor needed or even disclosed of

 

The defendant failed to advise the claimant of any broker fees or secret fees for packaging of the loan agreement, that the claimants were unaware of being carried out by the broker for the defendant Endeavour PLC Ltd.

 

The defendant failed to disclose details of the loan being entered in a pre-notification agreement prior to the legal agreement being entered into allowing for the claimant’s to consider the agreement over a longer period, provided with all the legal documents not provided before the agreement was

entered into,

 

The defendant Endeavour Personal finance, failed to advise the claimant of all fees individually to be applied to the loan agreement in a clear and not misleading way as well as shown as a total amount payable under the agreement.

 

The defendant failed to provide details of the number of payments required for the loan agreement being entered into.

 

The defendant failed to advise the claimant within the loan agreement entered into of the date payments were required for the loan agreement entering into. No mention of date or how payments are to be made was given prior to the formal agreement being signed by the claimant’s

 

The defendants failed to provide details of the variable interest rate to be paid under the agreement being entered into, or explain to the claimant’s that not only a variable interest rate would be charged but also an annual interest rate charged as an underlying interest amount, leading to only

further costs overall to the claimant’s

Link to post
Share on other sites

The defendants within the agreement or in any PRe-disclosure agreement failed to provide details to the claimants of the total cost to be incurred for the total sum borrowed for the agreement.

 

The contract terms used within the agreement are miss leading an open to abuse by the lender as the sums to be paid for default or early settlements or costs of specific sums are not shown as a figure and are open to alteration at the discretion of the lender. This also relates to the interest rate charged and cost per month, again can be altered at the discretion of the lender and long term loss to the claimant’s concerned. All the terms of the agreements are for the benefit of only the claimant and show no benefits what so ever to the defendant. Even under the complaints section the contract signed refers to the financial services authority inclusive of website addresses and telephone numbers when in the knowledge that the agreement does not fall within the jurisdiction of the financial services at all.

 

The defendant failed to provide the claimant with the number of payments required under the loan agreement entered into.

 

The defendant failed to ensure that the claimants could financial afford the loan being entered into

 

The defendant prior to the agreement being made failed to inform the claimants of their property upon acceptance of the loan agreement being in negative equity. The details relating to the amount of equity left within the claimant’s home neither was nor received till after the agreement had been entered into. ‘Due to the excellent credit rating of the claimant’s we have been able to grant you the loan using 95% of the equity in your home!!’

 

The defendant used high pressure sales that were miss leading and did not incorporate amounts found out as charged as brokerage fees, lender admin fees and or undisclosed hidden fees charged to the defendants account. The facts relating to the account were misrepresented. The defendant withheld documents that were required by the claimant’s to make an informed decision prior to entry to the loan agreed. The defendant used unclear agreement details miss leading the claimant’s into a false sense of belief, violating Mrs Newman’s mental health, level of understanding at the time the agreement was entered into. All misrepresented to the claimant’s in order to ensure an agreement was made for the financial gain of the parties concerned.

 

The defendants failed to advise the claimant’s to seek legal advice prior to acceptance of the agreement or signing the legal charge unaware of what the meaning of the document was due to the terms being withheld at the time the agreements were entered into. The defendants set the claimant’s up for financial loss, financial hardship, possible loss of their

home, a high risk agreement with contract terms that were for the benefit of only the defendant and detriment of the claimant’s concerned.

 

The defendant withheld relevant information from the claimant’s.

 

The defendant dated the contract agreement the 29/11/2007 without the claimant’s permission or disclosure prior to being dated. The contract agreed to was entered prior to this date being a date shown by the broker as the 15/11/2007 some weeks previous.

 

The defendant failed to ensure that the claimant could afford the loan being entered into. Documents relating to the contract agreed, dated the 29/11/2007, were undisclosed to the claimant upon receipt of the legal documents being received or advised of during disclosure. These documents were not received until after all documents had been signed and cash payments paid by the lender into the claimants mortgage account on the 4/12/2007 days after the agreement date was signed by the lender and stated to be the date of agreement when in the knowledge that the agreements had been signed some weeks previous

 

The underwriter of the loan agreement stated the amount we stated was the loan amount was somewhat higher than they had been led to believe Documents within the data received from the main lender Santander relating to questionnaires asked for by Norton finance as well as permission for the second charge to be listed on the registry stated to Santander that the amount of 42150.00 included insurance payments

 

The claimant’s believe that the defendant was professionally negligent, paid secret undisclosed fees to the broker without informing the claimant’s, disclosed by the under writer for the loan as being correct. The financial statements provided also have missing payments made and are not shown on the financial statement, the amounts shown are incorrect; the interest rates are also incorrect along with the balance shown as owed under the contract. We have provided you with this document with the exact payment amounts made and true balance of the account for the dates shown on the statements provided, please amend accordingly and repay interest for failing to add the amounts leading to further indebtedness and interest being incurred under the agreement.

 

With respect to the contract terms of the agreement entered into , The Unfair Terms in Consumer

Contracts Regulations 1999 5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as

unfair. Terms to which these Regulations apply 4.—(1) These Regulations apply in relation to unfair terms

in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer

The claimant Mr & Mrs do here bye say the following

"Yes, I entered into a contract with you but I should be allowed to get out of it because of what wassaid/what was done by you/your position of power over me, etc. “Mr & Mrs do hereby

rescind the agreement made.

 

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 (HPH 1132) "A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead

or deceive." Endeavour personal finance when negotiating a contract or performing a contract are legally required to carry out such obligations with an absolute obligation not to mislead - an absolute obligation to tell the truth. Endeavour personal finance provided miss leading information to the claimant’s leading the conduct of the defendants to the claimant’s error of accepting an agreement that was misled to the claimants concerned. It must be possible substantially to restore the status quo

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final part:-D

 

Mr & Mr believe your firm have deliberately broken their trust shown towards you for own financial gain, and in doing so have exploited the trust placed with you. Mr & Mrs Newman have

sent money during the time of the relationship unaware of the extra charges being incurred or legal agreement details relating to the legal charge. Mr & Mrs have almost lost their home as a result of the negligence of you firm, all of which was for financial gain of you the lender and your agent acting as a broker. Should this matter not be resolved within 8 weeks from the date of this letter, then upon a request being made to the courts, a court hearing will take place.

 

Should we not hear from you within the time scale as required, then a court date will be appropriated and all relevant documents to be brought forward for the Judge’s decision. We hope

that court action will not be required and this matter can be resolved.

Yours Sincerely

 

If any one can help it would be appreciated as i do not no were to go from here especially as unable to take to the FSO, i am however providing the OFT with regular up dates following request xx

Ps thank you for taking the time to read my complaint against EPF xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

Where have you tried for advice so far, please? Have you spoken to the CAB for instance?

 

CAG doesn't recommend lawyers and I would advise exteme caution if anyone contacts you. If you're looking for a NWNF lawyer, have you tried the Law Society website? I know they have a database of lawyers and their specialisms, you might be able to find one near you.

 

Of course NWNF people will only want to act if there is going to be enough of a payout to pay their costs.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Hi honeybee

 

We have been in regular contact with the oft and now have contacted the law society. However I am tuning out of people to call as all have stated not there area of law and civil . However I have found one which is a little further from home so fingers crossed. We have finally received a response to the complaint which states they did take my benefits into account and had they not we would not have been awarded the loan. They have refered me to the fso however contacted them again just to make sure found the same responce not in there jurisdiction. Myself and my husband have talked and belueve we may have to act for ourselves but we have no idea were to start. Any help would be appretiated xxx

lQUOTE=honeybee13;3834438]Hello

there.

 

Where have you tried for advice so far, please? Have you spoken to the CAB for instance?

 

CAG doesn't recommend lawyers and I would advise exteme caution if anyone contacts you. If you're looking for a NWNF lawyer, have you tried the Law Society website? I know they have a database of lawyers and their specialisms, you might be able to find one near you.

 

Of course NWNF people will only want to act if there is going to be enough of a payout to pay their costs.

 

My best, HB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the statement that you referred to in your other thread?

 

If yes, then my opinion remains the same; you probably don't have a case for a miss-sold mortgage.

 

Even if you do, you are going to need the services of a solicitor, who will undoubtedly engage the services of a barrister to give advice on the case. It's not going to be cheap.

 

No win no fee lawyers don't act 'if there is going to be enough of a payout to pay their costs' - the person who stated this is wrong. Conditional fee agreements are based on likelihood of success, so the service you get should be the same as if you had paid for it up front, the fees are paid for by the other side if you win, and if you lose, your solicitor swallows the cost in the form of after the event insurance (usually).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i ask why you feel we have not got a case lea?also if we go a head could you possably help me with an n1 statement ? XQUOTE=Lea_HTH;3845109]Is this the statement that you referred to in your other thread?

 

If yes, then my opinion remains the same; you probably don't have a case for a miss-sold mortgage.

 

Even if you do, you are going to need the services of a solicitor, who will undoubtedly engage the services of a barrister to give advice on the case. It's not going to be cheap.

 

No win no fee lawyers don't act 'if there is going to be enough of a payout to pay their costs' - the person who stated this is wrong. Conditional fee agreements are based on likelihood of success, so the service you get should be the same as if you had paid for it up front, the fees are paid for by the other side if you win, and if you lose, your solicitor swallows the cost in the form of after the event insurance (usually).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'why' is the same as in the other thread where you quoted my response to someone else on the same matter.

 

If you want to pursue this issue you will need a solicitor to do the paperwork for you. It will require a great deal of research, a great deal of reading through paperwork to find any alleged issues, and a great deal of time - none of which the vast majority of lawyers would be willing to do for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you lea. you mentioned 'un clean hands' can you explain what this means in relation to my complaint? also, can i ask in relation to a responce receivef from endeavour all though they stated the complaint was not up held in responding to my points raised the firm admitted in there responce that they took my income at that time made up of the childrens monry ie my sons dla tax credits and child ben and had they not the form would not have granted the loan. can you advise me if this is standard ?QUOTE=Lea_HTH;3845886]The 'why' is thesame as in the other thread where you quoted my response to someone else on the same matter.

 

If you want to pursue this issue you will need a solicitor to do the paperwork for you. It will require a great deal of research, a great deal of reading through paperwork to find any alleged issues, and a great deal of time - none of which the vast majority of lawyers would be willing to do for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lea i have to say you have raised a very important fact that could be used as a defence to the case we are making. unsure of the statement or term you used 'un clean hands' following looking into the meaning of this doctrine i discovered such a statement can be used by both parties which can be defended. Looking at the meaning i came accross some very interesting material relating to the case being discussed with you. Would it be correct that in legal terms my claim would come under two violations missrepresentation occured befor the agreement was entered inducing an agreement were the firm induced ourselves by missrep of the material relating to the agreement or nature of thr agreement for the want of a better word being dishonest and failing to disclose vital terms and requirements which as a result we entered an agreement under duress for thr firms finsncial gain. i suppose this vould be condidered fraud? we then entered an agreement with good faith trusting the firm later realised was agreement we had not realised as being an agreement we would not have entered had we been made aware of the facts entised into un lawfully setting us up for failure for financial reward of the firms conserned. the agreement i would say is unconsionable? and not entitled to specific performance because commited wring doing ?

Edited by ikle pickle
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason lawyers spend years learning and practising the law.

 

Couple of questions:

 

You took the loan out in 2007 - when did you fall into arrears?

 

What date did you start to think the loan was miss-sold?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god yes! I honestly take my hat off and have up most respect for such as your self as trying to learn what I have has taken weeks and weeks and still I haven't even touched the sides of what you have had to learn to work in the field you do:)

In response to your questions, the loan is dated by the lender agreed to 29/11/2007

 

We fell into arrears soon after around in June 2008 . We realised literally after and contacted them but were told we signed it so must have agreed to it and if we didn't pay the required amount they would take our home and possessions to sell to make up any short fall. We even raised subsequent complaints and as stated in the contract under complaints and in complaints letter to go to the fos. But the fos informed us that it fell out if their jurisdiction. It wasn't till recently contacting the oft that we found out there licence details and what contract we have

There is a reason lawyers spend years learning and practising the law.

 

Couple of questions:

 

You took the loan out in 2007 - when did you fall into arrears?

 

What date did you start to think the loan was miss-sold?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be absolutely unfair of me to give you false hope in your situation. The bottom line is as I have stated before - even with a proven miss-sold loan, the likely outcome is rescission, which generally means paying back the capital that you borrowed in the first place. For the vast majority of people, this will mean selling their home in order to meet that commitment. It is game over at that stage - either you pay the money, or the house is sold to pay the money as it basically means that there is no longer a contract between the parties and they must be put back into the position they were in before the contract arose.

 

If you are positive you want to pursue this, then I can only stress that you will absolutely and undoubtedly need the services of a solicitor, who will read through all the papers, look at all the evidence and give you advice on your likely chance of success. It is more than likely, if they find anything in the least suspicious, that they will ask for the opinion of a barrister. This is going to cost you quite a bit of money to pursue, and even if you win, the outcome isn't likely to be what you want.

 

I'm afraid that you are not going to be able to get the kind of advice you want online - it just isn't possible beyond giving the most basic of guidance, which ultimately won't help you. You don't have the resources, or access to the resources, that most lawyers have, and therefore even finding the up to date case law on the subject will prove impossible.

 

I understand that you are positive you want to go through with this - but I personally don't think it's wise. You are far better concentrating on resolving any arrears, paying them off, staying clear for a couple of years and then remortgaging to a high street lender. You can, of course, re-claim any charges you have - there are plenty of threads about that.

 

If you are going to go through with it - you MUST get a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lea thank you so very much for your honesty and taking the time to advise me. Endeavour is one of the very few subprime lenders still holding a licence. Thankfully they are no longer lending as hsbc stopped funding the firm as did not want to be associated as part of. HFC are epf sister company and currently also under strict terms with the oft

 

Lea just out of interest can it not be possable to recind the agreement and ask for unsecured payment arrangements? I no this is something we have asked in our complaint.

 

I trust in what you say and if terms could not be put in place if we had a case, if we start to resolve the situation they set us up for, could you help me put together a complaint befor action to reclaim the broker fees etc xQUOTE=Lea_HTH;3846358]It would be absolutely unfair of me to give you false hope in your situation. The bottom line is as I have stated before - even with a proven miss-sold loan, the likely outcome is rescission, which generally means paying back the capital that you borrowed in the first place. For the vast majority of people, this will mean selling their home in order to meet that commitment. It is game over at that stage - either you pay the money, or the house is sold to pay the money as it basically means that there is no longer a contract between the parties and they must be put back into the position they were in before the contract arose.

 

If you are positive you want to pursue this, then I can only stress that you will absolutely and undoubtedly need the services of a solicitor, who will read through all the papers, look at all the evidence and give you advice on your likely chance of success. It is more than likely, if they find anything in the least suspicious, that they will ask for the opinion of a barrister. This is going to cost you quite a bit of money to pursue, and even if you win, the outcome isn't likely to be what you want.

 

I'm afraid that you are not going to be able to get the kind of advice you want online - it just isn't possible beyond giving the most basic of guidance, which ultimately won't help you. You don't have the resources, or access to the resources, that most lawyers have, and therefore even finding the up to date case law on the subject will prove impossible.

 

I understand that you are positive you want to go through with this - but I personally don't think it's wise. You are far better concentrating on resolving any arrears, paying them off, staying clear for a couple of years and then remortgaging to a high street lender. You can, of course, re-claim any charges you have - there are plenty of threads about that.

 

If you are going to go through with it - you MUST get a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't write letters for you - if you write it and post it to the thread, I'll suggest amendments if needs be.

 

You can ask for the contract to be rescinded if you wish - do I think they'll oblige? No.

 

All I can reiterate at this stage is that if you believe you have a case, you must get a solicitor to go over all the paperwork so that he/she can give you advice specific to what is contained therein, and take advice from a barrister if the need arises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...