Yes Yes Yes **first Win From Kensington!!!!!!!!!!**

[Louisk]

Hi There,

 

I currently being charged £50 a month for being in arrears with Kensington Mortgages - as far as I see this is a penalty charge and so is covered by the same law relating to unlawful bank charges.

 

Has anyone else claimed against Kensington ?

The threads regarding Kensington seem to have gone quiet.

[Switch]

Hi There,

 

I currently being charged £50 a month for being in arrears with Kensington Mortgages - as far as I see this is a penalty charge and so is covered by the same law relating to unlawful bank charges.

 

Has anyone else claimed against Kensington ?

The threads regarding Kensington seem to have gone quiet.

 

 

I received all of the documentation from Kensington last week, so I will be writing my LBA this weekend.

 

This lot as I am sure you are well aware are ruthless so I really do expect this one to go to court.

[gordonhall]

It certainly sounds like a penalty charge....

 

There are other threads around in regards to mortgages, early redemptions etc, so it may be worth taking a look around and seeing what other peoples thoughts are.

 

All the best

[Louisk]

Thanks for your replys guys

 

Good luck Switch, let me know how you get on.

[Seminole]

See the thread below on Southern Pacific. Kensington is a similar type of outfit.

[Louisk]

Times up ! no response from Kensington so send LBA and another 14 days limit.

 

Then its off to court.

[Louisk]

Had a reply from Kensington stating that the fee is a reasonable 'estime of cost incurred'.

 

However no detail - so its off to court we go.

[hagenuk]

Hi

 

I am just behind you on this one, DPA SAR sent 3rd July but no documentation yet.

 

Keep us posted on how you get on.

 

As for the "estimate of cost incurred" let's see how that is explained in court!

 

Somehow I don't think it will be

[Guest dpg]

This outfit has stung me for thousands. £8500 early sett, £850 solicitors charges in settleing the mortage plus..

 

I also cancelled my DD with them the second month into the mortgage, they continued to apply to my bank for 14 consecutive months, even though the account was closed. I send them in a cheque every month for the payment.

 

They charged me £50 per for two returned DD every month, £25 per request, even though I told them every month the account was closed. They insisted that the terms and conditions said you must pay by DD? 14 months at a charge of £50 , and they got there mortgage payment by cheque !

 

So over the 14 months of my mortage with Kensington the total charges incl early sett was £10,500 .

 

Does anyone think I could claim any of that back?

[hagenuk]

Go for it, I would.

 

If you split up the claim and keep the amount of each under £5k then you would be able to claim with little or no fear of being hit for costs.

[Louisk]

Strange - I currently pay via debt card, each month I phone them send 10 minutes listening to their musak then pay by giving my card number and no objection to not having a DD.

 

I think the bottom line is if they think they can get away with it they'll try.

 

Anyway nice to know I not alone good luck guys.

[Seminole]

This outfit has stung me for thousands. £8500 early sett, £850 solicitors charges in settleing the mortage plus..

 

I also cancelled my DD with them the second month into the mortgage, they continued to apply to my bank for 14 consecutive months, even though the account was closed. I send them in a cheque every month for the payment.

 

They charged me £50 per for two returned DD every month, £25 per request, even though I told them every month the account was closed. They insisted that the terms and conditions said you must pay by DD? 14 months at a charge of £50 , and they got there mortgage payment by cheque !

 

So over the 14 months of my mortage with Kensington the total charges incl early sett was £10,500 .

 

Does anyone think I could claim any of that back?

 

Please don't hijack this thread. It would be better if you started your own.

 

You should be able to recover the bounced transaction charges and I would challenge to prove the legal costs. The early redemption penalty is more contentious. How was is calculated?

[Louisk]

MCOL Started 25th July - Acknowledgment 9th August and a letter form Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, Kensington's Solicitors telling me that they will be acting for Kensington - How nice !

[Louisk]

Had an offer form Kensington's solicitors - full amount and confidentially on a purely commerical basis that is to say it would cost to much to defend - yeah right.

 

Sent a reply saying no to condfidentially.

 

They have just put in a defence on MCOL - so its off to court we go.

 

Can't wait !

[Louisk]

Filled in my AQ and am sending of own CPR part 18 request for more information regarding their 'pre-estimate', lets see what happens now

[Louisk]

Kensington solicitors rejected my CPR 18 request.

 

Does anybody know the procedure for asking the court to order Kensington to comply ?:?

[Louisk]

Judge has ordered a stay until 1st March 2007 !!!!!!!

 

Am sending Bankfodder's objection letter to the court (slightly altered ), also asking for an order for a response to my CPR18 request or standard disclosure.

 

Lets see what happens now!

[ginnever]

Judge has ordered a stay until 1st March 2007 !!!!!!!

 

Am sending Bankfodder's objection letter to the court (slightly altered ), also asking for an order for a response to my CPR18 request or standard disclosure.

 

Lets see what happens now!

 

What does that mean a stay until 1st March 07

[Treacle's Dad 44]

Whats a CPR18? will be taking Kensington all the way soon.......

Thanks T.D.

[Louisk]

Ok Guys,

 

1. A Stay means in effect the case is frozen - no further action is taken, in my case, until the outcome of another case is know. Bankfodder has already written a very good template to send to the court if this happens (Thank God He's on our side).

 

2. A CPR18 - this is used by solicitors usually to intimidate you, its a way of asking for more information but its usually worded in legal terms so that the non legal mind (ie moi) goes into panic mode. If you do a search for rbrears thread on CPR18 you'll find he turned the tables on the bank and sent his own CPR18 basically asking the bank to give a detailed breakdown of how it calculates its costs, which is what I have done to Kensington - but they declined to answer. Now if the Jugde orders them to answer it should get very interesting.

[Louisk]

Kensington have applied to have the case struck out.

 

The Court has set a date for a hearing (23 November) to consider my objection to the stay and their application to have the case struck out.

 

Seems to me they desparently want to avoid disclosure - oh good, which is exactly what I will be pushing for at the hearing.

 

:-D

[Switch]

Kensington have applied to have the case struck out.

 

The Court has set a date for a hearing (23 November) to consider my objection to the stay and their application to have the case struck out.

 

Seems to me they desparently want to avoid disclosure - oh good, which is exactly what I will be pushing for at the hearing.

 

:-D

 

What are kensingtons grounds for being able to apply to have the case struck out.

 

Somehow I think they are clutching at straws, but would be interesting to know what they based there application on.

[Louisk]

Ok Switch,

 

They have summitted a Witness Statement From Andrew Wilson Horton (Fellow of Legal Executives) Associate DLA Piper.

 

The poor chap can't tell the difference between the Claimant and Defendant:-

 

witness statement:

 

5. The Claimant is entitled to charge £50 per month, in relation to an arrears adminisitration fee, where the customer is in arrears. ( uhhhh I thougth I was the claimant)

6. The Claimant is claiming that such a charge, is a penalty, or aternatively, if the charge is not a penalty, then it is unreasonable within The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 Section 15. For the purposes of this Application, I do not intend to comment upon those parts of the Particulars of Claim, which refer to either the charge being a penalty, or being unreasonable. Clearly such issues are not ones which can be determined on a summary basis.

 

7. However, I would submit that the Claimant's claim is fundamentally flawed, and therfore should be struck out, under CPR 3.4, for the following reasons:

 

7.1 The defendant has not taken any monies from the Claimant, therefore there are no monies to be returned. (True they add it to the balance of the mortgage, and who has to pay the mortgage - moi). This is not a situation, in which there is a debt due, and it is not a situation, in which the claimant has a credit, upon an account, from which monies have been deducted.

 

7.2 In any event, the issues, which the Court are being asked to decide upon, have already been dealt with in previous proceedings. (Went to court to halt a order for possession due to arrears - which will be fully repaid this month)

8. Therefore the claim is either res judicta, or alternatively raises questions of issue estoppel. (????????)

 

9. In proceedings in the Swindon County Court under claim Number 5SNXXXXX, the Claimant sought an order ( Did I ?) for possession of the property XXXXXXXXXXXX Swindon. On the 7 September 2005, the claimant filed a form of defence in relation to those proceedings. A true copy of that Defence is at pages 29 to 34 of the bundle. The Claimant did not seek to raise any issues, at that time, as to any monies which have been debited to his account, in respect of monthly arrears charges. ( I did not know until Jan 06 that they were unlawful - time travel is not one of my talents). In fact the Claimant accepts at paragraph 3, the arrears of the mortgage payments. On 17 October 2005, the defendant obtained an order for possession in relation to the property. On 17 October 2005, the Claimant was also ordered to pay to the Defendant the sum of £XXXXX being the amount outstanding under the mortgage. The money judgment included all arrears charges debited to the mortgage, up until 17 October 2005. Accordingly insofar as the Claimant claims charges up to 17 October 2005, then they, at the very least, should be excluded from the Claimant's claim, as the Court have already ordered that those payments are due and payable. ( our friend does not seem to understand - I am claiming all arrears since October 2005 to October 2006 12x50 =650 ).

 

10. Further I would submit, that as the Defendant (I think he means Claimant) failed to raise any isuue, at the hearing on 17 October 2005, or previously, in relation to the Defendant's entitlements to debit his account, he is estopped from bringing such claim within these proceddings.

 

11. In conclusion, therefore, I would submit that the Claimant's claim should be struck out, as it discloses no reasonable cause of action, in that no sum is due from the Defendant to the Claimant, as no monies have been taken from the Defendant (I think he means Claimant), which could be returned. Secondly, the Claimant's claim, is res judicta, or in the alternative, the Claimant should be prevented from pursuing any sums dedited to the account prior to 17 October 2005.

 

There you go then, I sent a CPR18 requesting more information - they declined

I requested Standard Disclosure in my objection to the Stay.

Lets wait and see.

[Joons2]

They are making the application for the claim to be struck out therefore they are the claimant and you the defendent.

 

Make sense?

[Louisk]

Hi Joons2,

 

Thanks, I see what you are saying, but it does say on the front page of this statement Louisk - Claimant ..............Kensington Mortgages - Defendant.

 

Mind you they also managed to get the case number wrong, nice to see Kensington getting good value for money( our money ) from their legal reps.