Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
    • No the first LBA was delivered by royal mail, but I responded by email, sorry if I didn't make that clear.   I look at redacting the emails tomorrow, got to get some sleep now.   Thanks
    • ok well that changes things alot. you've accepted one before by email  and now they are doing it again ..   might have shot yourself in the foot until now lets get some 1st aid done.   gonna be a pain to redact but i'm gonna need to see all the emails in/out please in ONE MULTIPAGE PDF from/inc  date of their last PAPLOC   redact them properly !! read our upload guide carefully   you may  think this is immaterial, but its not, esp important is their and your exact wording
    • OK I've looked back at my emails and it appears I've been dealing with shoosmiths since the start of 2019 when they sent a LBA that I'd totally forgot about.   I replied that I didn't recognise the debt and we got into a big letter tennis over the facts.   They then went quiet and then contacted me again in April 2020 asking for income and expenditure details to work out a payment plan with them.   After I responded with my covid comments they went quiet again.   And now they are back with another LBA and I haven't responded to that.   Hope that clears it up. 
  • Our picks

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

false accounting by second charge lender.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2709 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

Hi,

 

I am in the position of having cast iron proof that our second charge lender has committed the criminal charge of false accounting on our loan application. They have increased both our salaries by entering the gross salary amounts as net amounts of both of us, and then taken hardly any outgoings of the inflated amounts apart from their loan payment, a buffer payment, and a 1st mortgage payment.

 

This has served to increase our monthly income by over £1000 making the loan look affordable on paper, and resulted in them paying a secret commission to the broker that brokered the deal. There is no info on secret commission at all in their T&Cs. This information has been discovered via a SAR request and the information comes from their internal paperwork.

 

We were unhappy with the lender at the time and we advised them that we thought the loan was unaffordable and that something was not right . We originally signed for a 50k loan in 2006 and then were forced to take a higher loan of 70k as they said it was uncancellable due to the fact it was secured on our property and we had signed a legal charge.

 

We can also show that final loan documents were sent to us before either the broker or lender had any personal or financial documentation from us of any kind, showing that affordability was never able to be considered in the time frame of the loan issuance.

 

The loan application was sent out for the lender with the loan application for the broker in the same letter, and stupidly we signed both of them at the same time thinking the lenders form was just a straight forward application form to be either accepted or refused as they had received no confirmed info at all from us at this time.

 

Both loan applications for 50k and 70k for the lender were sent out within 5 working days of each other putting us under enormous pressure to sign as we were told we could not cancel anyway. We never signed another application form from the broker for the 70k loan.

 

Also the second loan for 70k came with a higher rate of repayment than the first which was not pointed our to us.

 

There are other problems with this loan to do with misrepresentation, but these are the main ones.

 

Given the fact that we can show criminal activity to a judge would the judge be able to void the contract and order the removal of the legal charge over our property.

 

Also is Wilson V Hurstanger still the up to date law that needs to be cited for the case of secret commission.

 

Our problem is that our lender is saying that all contact was not with them but with the broker who is not in business anymore and that in effect they deny all contact except a welcoming call and letter at the end of the loan process, and are denying all responsibility for everything. We always believed that we were dealing with the lender and not the broker and have documentation on the lenders headed paper to prove contact before they say.

 

Surely as the lender they must be at least responsible for their own paperwork.

 

If anyone could offer some help and insight I would be grateful.

 

thx Willow x

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...