Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Blemain finance and charges, so confused


billy1969
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1864 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

 
6th March 2019, 15:04:PM
 
Hi there

My late mother has a secured loan on her property from Blemain Finance.
I vaguely remember helping her to getting a loan as I was staying with her at the time and even though the loan was secured on her house her salary wasn't enough to pay it (she was a dinner lady) so they used mine as well.
 
At the time mum was intending on selling her house and paying off the debts she had,
one with Skiptons for £76,000 approx. and
then the Blemain one which she got 4 years later.
 
I always wondered how she was able to raise finance but I guess that they had the loans secured on the house so would get their money either way no matter whether it was affordable or not.
 in Jan 2019 I received a letter from Blemain saying that they had over charged the account because of an Incorrect calculation in Building Insurance premiums and were refunding charges of £275.49. I decided to order a SAR from them which they were good about and didn't charge for and once the magnitude of paperwork came through it made for shocking reading:

Original loan was for £13,000 @ 19.3apr
120 payments of £232.69
Total payback £27,922.80
This was over a 10 year period.

They have stated that the loan to value was 40.48%

On top of the loan was a :
£995.00 brokers fee (First Trust)
£455.00 loan acceptance fee
Skipton arrears fee £481.84
therefore the loan total was
£14,450.00
Interest rate variable @ 14.95%

Also after going through the loan even the my mother had building insurance she was charged to have Blemains buildings insurance as well.
This equalled £477.36 over the time of the loan.
I didn't think you were allowed to insure the same thing twice?

There was also:
£444.00 of arrears charges
£90.00 on visit costs
£12.00 land reg charge for copies
£5.00 for a land reg priority search
Online issuing fee £100.00
Issue os possession proceedings £40.00
Court preparation fees £59.00.

Mums mortgage with Skiptons was for £76556.43 at a payment of £400.00 per month
and
Blemain at £232.69 per month

Her salary without mine was £1000.00 per month plus tax credits.

Blemain also wrote to mum about £276.00 charges that they had added but hadn't notified her of back in 2013 & 2014.
They refunded the interest of this which was £47.00 in 2015 but surely that amount of charges would have put up the amount of loan thus the amount of interest chargeable for those 2 years before they refunded it back.

Sorry this is so long but I am doing my best to add as much detail as possible here.
Also for every £232.69 that was paid every month £179.37 was interest charges.

Poor mum she never had a chance.

The loan was cleared prior to mums death in 2015 when she sold her house.

The early settlement figure was £14,451.27
Repayment admin fee £195.00
Building insurance charges to settlement date £371.00
Costs and charges £1,1878.00

Total settlement amount £16,205.63

Mum struggled all the way through this loan to stay on top of the payments of £232.69 and her mortgage of £400 after adding it all up she paid off £8756.19 and then £16205.63 = £24961.82 for an original loan of £13,000.00

Gobsmacked isn't the word!
 
in their SAR a letter was enclosed saying that they are legally required to react or withhold certain info from the file.
they are allowed to withhold certain information from inclusion in the request.
They had also noted in their files that mum was a vulnerable person.
 
even though they knew and had evidence that she was dying from cancer they still charged arrears charges early repayment fee buildings insurance again and further costs and charges.

Once again sorry for the length of the post but I didn't want to leave anything out.

I think I can claim back the building insurance ? but is there anything else ?

Thank you
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are an executor then go get reclaiming!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...