Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok just an update sent my DQ recorded delivery, received by court 18/07/24, nothing yet showing on mcol. Deadline is Monday 22/07/24. Hopefully shows on before
    • So, the two child benefit cap is going to (rightly or wrongly) be a big issue, with the care of kids undoubtedly taking second place to political point scoring  ... Some think that parents should be responsible for kids, and the state pay as little as possible else the parents will just use having kids (which they then neglect) as a means of income for them to spend on fags and booze. Some think that benefits should be effectively there for anyone whatever the circumstances.   So what do people think might be some sort of solution?   I think that both those stances are extremes,  and you can be sure of just a few things 1. Neither or any approach fits all affected. There are some who will abuse the system, just as there are some left in genuine desperate need. 2. None of its the kids fault, and how they are treated will have a large impact on our nations future.   So, despite the claims of 'it means only rich people can have kids' which is rubbish, I think the cap should stay. ... BUT that free school meals should be introduced for all state school kids:   Which would * ensure our nations children kids get fed at least one meal a day with the funds intended for that * be a significant incentive to go to school for the poorer kids at least - keeping many off the streets and away from bad company * almost certainly reduce problems and increase productivity in the classroom from irritable hungry kids (per stats)   Not a perfect solution by any means - but seems a positive move to me.    
    • and more positive change From next year, mobile phone, paid television and broadband companies must inform customers of any price rises at the point of sale. The changes, ordered by Ofcom, will come into force on 17 January and mean that any mid-contract price rises must be given “in pounds and pence” and in a “clear and comprehensible” way.   Taken a change of government to do it after years of bluster about it eh?   Mobile phone companies banned from hiking prices mid-contract based on inflation WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The new year plan ensures providers are transparent on prices at the point of sale  
    • Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? It depends which country, I imagine. Most UK banks want proof of address and ID, probably more. If your friend/partner can use the house address and provide bills that could help. You would need to look at various online banks and see what their requirements are. Or there are expat accounts but I haven't looked closely at how they work. Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage) I'd have thought the DWP would pay to a new account, as long as the person they're authorised to deal with asks them and provides details. The international pensions people in Newcastle are pretty helpful.
    • HB - he has certainly given me a challenge ! I set a plan in motion. A refinance plan that would have enabled me to take time to sell one asset and sort out another for him.   The bank account blockage has hindered the plan.  His partner seems to think I can do everything w/o paying anyone for anything.  I don't mind helping - but it's not normal to clear out 2 properties, organize storage or sale of possessions, get properties ready for sale/ rent - w/o being paid.  He has the money to pay for things and services - and for my help - but the blockage prevents that. If the refinance plan could still be actioned then at least I would have some time to sell one asset.  Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage)
  • 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
      • 162 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

Posts moved from hijacked thread


nevos
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6390 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

Hi, Jamorgan:

 

Sorry to hear you lost in court, stayed up most of the night reading your thread. The more I read the more I felt the case was way over the head of the Judge and sadly, a tough call for you too.

 

I think at times people on CAG get carried away with law, no offence meant here because this is a great site with great people however, often you can boil things down to basics.

 

Firstly, people like us with adverse credit have very limited choices for a mortgage. We are very happy when a lender takes us on, we know we can make money on our property and as long as we can make the payments then, we are very happy to sign up. You had been happy to take the loan and also been made aware of the penalty clauses for ER.

 

We all know about the interest rate hikes, it was this that prompted you to look for another lender I beleive, in which case you must suffer the charge for redemption, you agreed to it in the first place.

 

A judge would look at it this way, they lent you the money, you happily borrowed it, before you signed on the dotted line you would have had lot's of bit's of paper telling you what your in for and what it will cost you to get out from under.

 

IMO we are not being fair to the lender here and choose to scream when it suits us, sorry to say it. I do agree that the ERC is way too high however, I know these guys pay big commissions to brokers and agents.

 

My estimate would be £30K to get this in the High Court, is it really worth it, the money would be better spent trying to get some legislation in place to cap the costs to actuals rather than a random figure.

 

This being said, I wish you luck and other helpers with your apeal.:)

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

RBrears:

 

But is the main function of the erc to deter you from breaching the contract when the contract actually provides a contractual right to redeem early?

 

Is it a breach of contract?

 

IMO it is clear cut that the ERC is a term of the contract. A breach of contract usually includes the words: If a remedy can't be found but, the ERC is the remedy.

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear you lost in court......

 

they lent you the money, you happily borrowed it, before you signed on the dotted line you would have had lot's of bit's of paper telling you what your in for and what it will cost you to get out from under.

 

IMO we are not being fair to the lender here and choose to scream when it suits us, sorry to say it.

 

Hollow words of comfort Nevos - One could excuse Jamorgan for being less than comforted

Is it a breach of contract?

 

IMO it is clear cut that the ERC is a term of the contract. A breach of contract usually includes the words: If a remedy can't be found but, the ERC is the remedy.

 

and Nevos - what would you say bank charges on overdrafts for example

 

"they they lent you the money, you happily borrowed it, before you signed on the dotted line you would have had lot's of bit's of paper telling you what your in for and what it will cost you to get out from under."

 

So in conclusion Nevos - if you aren't backing the CAG position - have the honesty to declare yourself - failing that goodbye

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/53089-fnc-ge-money-erc.html

21/12/2006 SAR

Next Step 31/1/2007 - Prelim / S.A.R Enforcement

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/55694-fnc-c-g-erc.html

21/12/2006 SAR

13/1/2007 - Prelim

Next Step 27/1/2007 LBA

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/55692-fnc-lloyds-tsb.html

21/12/2006 SAR

Next Step 31/1/2007 -Prelim / SAR enforcement

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/55784-fnc-better-half-nationwide.html

20/12/2006 Prelim with Schedule and SI £640

5/1/2007 LBA with revised schedule CCR £867

Next Step 20/1/2007 CLAIM

PC World - Refund Faulty goods Preliminary Letter 13/01/2007 - Consumer rights are getting addictive

 

Don't get angry get even:D

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevos i dont understand your logic if youu dont believe in the work we are trying to do here why come here ?Nobody on this site claims to be an expert although collectively we have all got input we can all read and what i read or you read or someone else reads can be taken up differently there by we are able to bring different elements to each others particular problems or questions we are a community a self help group yea we can suggest things we research our own claims and get others views so far we have had more victories than loses i know one thing for certain from ive joined the consumer action group im more confident taking on the finacial institutions not only for claims but in every way because i have leaarned things from this site that i never knew just help yourself read the different sections read some members stories and see how they have been helped at the end of the day all im saying to you is if you cannot saay something constructive dont bother saying it the tone of that last post you made my first thoughts were that you must work for a mortgage company well enough said !

if my advice has been of any help to you then please click the scales ! Thank you :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rbrears

 

Can I ask for clarification here

 

If i follow your argument the key issue is - is there a breach?

 

So If a contract said

 

1) Party a gives party b a fiver in payment for the loan of toys for an hour

2) As a promotional bonus on entering the contract b gives a an irresistable freebie promotional sweetie of value £0.50

3) If the toys are returned early there will be a pro-rata refund, less sum of £1 costs and less £0.50 p (the value of the consumed sweetie).

4) £1 is a liquidated cost - estimated at time of contract as costs of extra admin

 

Regarding 3) Which of the following best describes your position (if either)

 

The £1 is ok - it is compensation

the 50p is ok because it anticipates non completion of term of contract (so there is no breach)

 

or

 

The £1 would be ok but the 50p is a penalty (it is unrelated to liquidated costs as the 50p freebie was a sales promotion) - so clause 3 is a penalty term for breach and is unenforceable

 

Sorry to be thick - but the above is effectively the wording I have on my contract - the "Freebie" was in my case a 2% Cash "GIFT" returnable if terminated within 5 years

 

many thanks for your time

 

FNC

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/53089-fnc-ge-money-erc.html

21/12/2006 SAR

Next Step 31/1/2007 - Prelim / S.A.R Enforcement

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/55694-fnc-c-g-erc.html

21/12/2006 SAR

13/1/2007 - Prelim

Next Step 27/1/2007 LBA

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/55692-fnc-lloyds-tsb.html

21/12/2006 SAR

Next Step 31/1/2007 -Prelim / SAR enforcement

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/55784-fnc-better-half-nationwide.html

20/12/2006 Prelim with Schedule and SI £640

5/1/2007 LBA with revised schedule CCR £867

Next Step 20/1/2007 CLAIM

PC World - Refund Faulty goods Preliminary Letter 13/01/2007 - Consumer rights are getting addictive

 

Don't get angry get even:D

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me this someone

 

If as in our case the High court made an order for us to sell our house rather than the Mortgage company who wanted to repossess it but it would have to go one way or the other how come they can take an early redemption fee

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, sorry if you found my words less than comforting for Morgy etc...however, I don't want to go off on a tangent and upset the thread and or the contributors. May I try to answer the comments of others by way of a reply.( A mod can delete it if they feel it's a breach of the thread).

 

Rbrears: Post#206: As I read things in the thread Morgy was trying to prove breach of contract and unfair unlawful charges etc..The mortgage is a contract and there is a means of terminating it by paying the ERC. My point was: it is not unreasonable or unlawful, simple contract between a company and individual. The mortgage co did not breach the contract and Morgy simply exercised her option to redeem.

 

FNC:

 

Hollow words of comfort Nevos - One could excuse Jamorgan for being less than comforted
Sorry, just being devils advocate here and putting myself in the other guys shoes. Of course I feel for Morgy(hope you don't mind me calling you this) also, I wouldn't wish to see the lady racking up more and more costs, I do believe this is a High Court Action as others have said. I guess my point was, keep an eye on reality, sorry again if I offended anyone.

 

and Nevos - what would you say bank charges on overdrafts for example

 

IMO they are two entirely different kettles of fish.

 

PaddyM: this what I said:

I think at times people on CAG get carried away with law, no ofence meant here because this is a great site with great people however, often you can boil things down to basics.

 

I most certainly do not work for a mortgage company, I'm merely putting their side of the argument: They could have lent the money to others at high interest rates, they do pay big commissions to agents and financial advisers etc..

 

Morgy: I am full of admiration for you taking on those guys in court and I am sure the case was way over the Judges head. I sincerely hope you, with the help of people here, can see a way through it all.

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevos,

 

Whilst your comments at the time may have seemed somewhat raw and unfeeling, I do accept that you had reality in mind.

 

That said, on the no breach argument, there can be no doubt if you choose to redeem on any kind of agreement, you are breaking a contract you have with a seller, therefore breaching the original term surely.

 

Within the wording on many mortgage agreements, it is referred to as "the Loan" and if a lender then chooses to apply a fee for that should you choose to redeem/breach, the amount applied must be deemed to be fair for the period that the lender would be without the business.

 

I do not believe for a minute that a lender would not be able to re-sell the same product again for the rest of the term of that is stated in the agreement. In fact, from a friend of mine who works in the market, the average time span is up to 6 weeks, which is sure as hell a lot different to several months worth of penalty charge eh?

 

If the lender was transparent and said to me, look, we re-sold a similar product to compensate for the loss of your business 8 weeks after you redeemed, here's an amount of money that would take you from the end of the 8 weeks to the rest of your charge period, then that would be fair yes? But i'm looking at things through rose coloured glasses. The reality is that lenders are shallow in their approach to those with poor credit ratings (some are left in positions where the rating is not necessarily through their own doing, but personal circs beyond their control). They are happy to discriminate and add on ridiculous charges knowing that you could have the potential to not be able to afford it, adding more worry and pain. They are in the game of making the biggest possible profit fo shareholders, who probably (in the main) don't have mortgages to worry about!

 

Some of us aren't as blessed financially as others, the mortgages lenders know this, BUT that still does not mean they can't be reasonable and fair in their approach eh? I think if a lender came to the table with a reasonable offer as to the redemption penalty, perhaps people would find this more paletable.

 

Ahhhh...that feels better off my chest lol!

 

;)

--------------------------------------------------------------

HSBC

Settled in FULL on 8/8/06 - £3619.53

:D

CAPITAL ONE

Settled in Full on 6/9/06 - £84.76

:D

ABBEY NATIONAL (Old N&P Mortgage)

Settled In Full on 2/3/07 - £307.13

:D

SPML

*Court Case Withdrawn - family illness*

MORTGAGES PLC

*Court Case Withdrawn - family illness*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Les_Gun

 

 Whilst your comments at the time may have seemed somewhat raw and unfeeling, I do accept that you had reality in mind. 

 

Hi, I accept what your saying also what Morgy has been saying in her case however, IMHO I believe, that the issue is with contract law and not perhaps, consumer driven. This was my reason for pointing out both parties side of things.

 

Contracts exist to make the deal clear, this is why I said to RBrears regarding, there was a contract between the parties and a clause i.e. the ERC to allow Morgy an escape route. As the good lady staed she could no longer afford the repayments and wanted to look for other products.

 

Without a water tight contract there would have been no way out of an expensive mortgage, the lender is happy to maintain the contract conditions for obvious financial reasons however, did fix the rate for say 3 years, pay all the associated agents fees etc etc..plus your estimated 8 weeks maybe £1K in interest, £2K for agents plus contribution to their over heads...£5k would be soon expended. In which case maybe £2K is the actual penalty factor.

 

I have a similar situation with GE Money, they told me that if I wanted to move house the mortgage may be transfered at the same value without taking a hit on ERC if we stay with them.

 

I do know this is CAG but, has anyone looked at contract laws here?

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought rbrears post on 18th was a major contribution. Thanks rbrears.

 

I, and I'm sure others too, found your thoughts incisive and creative both in relation to what probably 'went wrong' and also as to what avenues

could be examined for inroads forward.

 

In particular - your observation that the contract (in relation to ERC) behaves like a breach, but provides a clause so it is not regarded as such, AND thus allows the lender to avoid the rules on penalties being applied.

 

Surely this 'letter' v. 'spirit' of the law may throw up some real opportunities for the long term. (It does seem the lenders have been deviously clever here and thus far got away with it)

 

Also the claim the ERC is 'compensation' with all the possible vulnerabilities of that statement - no laymans clear explanation (in fact ERC 'details' can read as little as a line of percentages....'6% 6%' etc.) .....no intricacies of

calculation indicated, etc. Is this ambiguity designed to conceal what

could be construed as a penalty?

 

It would seem another approach worthy of detailed examination.

 

And the other relevant and clear strands you highlighted rbrears....

 

Although I am not myself versed in law you provided some really

creative insights and suggestions to consider. I am looking forward to seeing how they develop as you and others slug out the possibilities.

Really well done. Are you putting 'something' together for Morgy over the weekend??? Look forward to reading it if you are.

 

.....ALSO.....still thinking about you Morgy....everyone is rooting for you.

 

Thanks.

 

Kind regards

 

lellypea

2006 RatNest - Personal a/c:

JulyLBA, Aug Filed Claim, Oct Settled in full £7,000

 

2006 RatNest - Ltd Co a/c

JulyLBA, Aug Filed Claim, Oct Settled in full £8,000

 

2006 RatNest - Hub's a/c

JulyLBA, Aug Filed Claim,Sept Settled in full £1,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Lellypea, and the 'letter' v 'spirit' of the law seems relevant here. This is from Zoot's 'Response to no Breach Argument':

 

I would also like to draw your attention to the Regulation 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

 

7. - (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.

 

(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nevos....just noticed you are 'above' me.

 

I think many of us knew you felt for her....and were just trying to provoke examination of the situation from another angle (and possibly one that could do with some attention)

 

I thinks it's just in the sensitivity of the moment for Morgy, and everyone's

overriding desire to be as positive and supportive as possible .... you

took a backlash. Perhaps just delaying a day or two to let the dust settle may have been advisable and more sensitive in the desperate and distressing circumstances.

 

In view of what's happened it's vital all aspects are scrutinised. Your

'devil's advocate' role re Contract law will I'm sure be helpful in determining

the way forward.

 

Your subsequent courteous and gentle references to Morgy have I

think made clear your helpful intentions.

 

Kind regards

 

Lellypea

2006 RatNest - Personal a/c:

JulyLBA, Aug Filed Claim, Oct Settled in full £7,000

 

2006 RatNest - Ltd Co a/c

JulyLBA, Aug Filed Claim, Oct Settled in full £8,000

 

2006 RatNest - Hub's a/c

JulyLBA, Aug Filed Claim,Sept Settled in full £1,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...