Hi suffering I went to court with them. But like a fish they wiggled and squirmed and got away, but like any big greedy fish they came back and now they are hooked again, and this time I have learned how to play a big fish. I did end up with an interest free loan I did end up with a charge free loan wp3

sorry to hear you are unwell Thinking of you and get well soon bigmac WP3

just here to say hello just a quick update after 9 years fighting blemain I thought me and blemain had come to a uneasy peace but its back on blemain removed every single charge from my account blemain removed all insurance charges from my account blemain removed all interest from my account (intrest free loan ) but I made a mistake I let solicitors add the point about brokers fees being unfair and I couldn't prove this point the same solisitors put phone harassment into my defence and I couldn't prove this point either so I ended up with some costs so me and blemain are back on I will start a new post and give you all the details WP3

Don’t believe what blemain are telling you about them asking for the case to be stayed on the day of court. What blemain will do is to send a solicitor to court with orders to ask for possession of your home. Get yourself ready to deal with a possession hearing Read up on putting someone to strict prof send blemain and the court a letter saying you dispute the amount claimed and you are putting the claimant to strict prof on what they are claiming. wp3

Cantor law and blemain one and the same (nearly) Cantor law are blemains in house (pet) legal team, cantor law work with blemain and operate out of the same premises, they also share a phone line, when blemain moved premises last year so did cantor law. I would advise you to treat anything this company dose or says to you with the same respect as if blemain had personally sent it. Personally I believe they have changed to in house solicitors to save on costs, I think they no longer want to go to court, and are now going to use cantor to hound and harass you into paying them something. In my personal experience blemain and cantor law were responsible for changing my view on how low people are willing to stoop just doing their job. If I may explain, the owners of blemain are making 10s of millions of pounds a year, so that is why they do what they do, not acceptable but I understand why the do it. The people who work for these companies, and some are only earning£15k a year are willing to do the things they do for £300 a week. Where have their self-worth and morals gone. Rant over (but I dofeel better) Wp3

thanks slick132

Hi Marvin You need to consider carefully what to do now, in my opinion this is what blemain are going to do now. 1 they are going to ask the court for an adjournment. 2 in a few weeks/months they will withdraw the case. 3 a few weeks/months after withdrawing from court they will start phoning you sending you letters saying you owe them money. 4 they will still have a charge over your house so if youever sell it they will get whatever they say you owe them, and it will be tens of thousands of pounds more than it is now. 5 how do I know this? this is exactly what is happening now with someone on another consumer help site. (nearly 2 years after blemain dropped a court case) This has to be your choice but if I was in your position I wouldn’t allow them to just drop this case without them agreeing what if anything is owed, and get them to remove the charge they have over your house. Phone the court and send a letter saying you require this case to continue and that you will be asking the judge to make the claimant prove what they are claiming, and if they are not willing to prove their claim then you will be asking the judge to order that the claimant remove their charge over your property. If you don’t continue to end this now then you are going to have years of harassment from them. can the site team activate his PM, there are something's that need to be kept away from blemain until after the court hearing, im fully aware that the site team are able to read PM and I have no issues if they keep an eye on the PMs sent. Wp3

Im starting to get the picture now havingread various threads and sites, this one in particular took my interest whichI posted on too http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2012/0...se-of-process/ The above case is a perfect example of how blemain operate, and shows that you should never trust anything they say. My plan is to ascertain the magnitude of the charges applied to the account so an SAR isgoing off today personally I dont think they will obligate this. A good start and you are right they won’t comply, but the court is there to make them comply, threaten them with it and then use it if you have to. I have just figured out that we have made the monthly contractual payments plus an additional payment off the arrears but due to the charges the additional payments have been swallowed up withcharges therefore the arrears are not going down. If what you are saying is correct then this wouldn’tbe allowed, wait for a response to your SAR and you can deal with this when you have the proof. What I am trying to say is they could not take us to court for repossession due to the fact the payment we make off the arrears is made as a seperatepayment from the contractual payment so any laymen looking at our account will clearly see they are taking thatparticular payment just for charges. Not riveting stuff but adds weight to my argument They can and do change payment dates after a judgment, The truth is if they changed your payment dates then they will lose £50 a month arrears fee from you, and then they would have to do the same for everyone, and the poor buggers have just been forced to stop adding all the other unfair charges, (give them a brake will you ) It took me 2 years of asking, begging and pleading but then for some unknown reason they did change my payment date. (and there was a court order on my agreement) When you have proof that they are taking your arrears payments and using them to pay charges then make a decision on how to deal with it. Something for everyone to think about, if blemain are charging you unfair fees and you intend on challenging them in court, then why rush one years’ worth of charges, or five years’worth of charges removed from your account means the same =£0 in charges you have to pay so don’t rush in know what you are doing first. For me five years of charges and interest = approximately £10,000, amount I did pay in charges and interest =£0,00 Wp3

Ok let’s look at your options (there is no easy one) 1 you carry on exactly as you are and blemain carry on adding charges, you get to the end of your agreement and realistically blemain will say you still owe us over £20,000 but we are wiling for you to carry on paying us monthly until you pay us what we want. 2 you carry on exactly as you are and blemain carry on adding charges, you get to the end of your agreement and realistically blemain will say you still owe us over £20,000 you say no I don’t, blemain then start court proceedings and you defend against this. 3 you take out another loan to pay blemain off now (including the charges already added to your account) 4 sell your house, blemain have a charge so will get repaid along with all their unfair charges. 5 ask blemain to stop adding charges, you have already tried this but there is a possibility you may be able to get them to stop, 6 you can start court proceedings now to stop them adding charges and remove the ones already added to your account. 7 you can start court proceedings sometime in the future to stop them adding charges and remove the ones already added to your account. There may be other options but the only ones I can think of where you don’t pay blemain more that they are entitled to are options 2 6 7 above and they all involve the court. Personally I think you should use option 5 above, and stop asking them to change a payment date, and start telling them that it is unfair not to change a payment date. ( something is unfair because a rule or regulation or the OFT/FSA or FCA say it is unfair not because you don’t like it) While you are trying option 5 research, learn and prepare yourself for option 2 or 7 I would like to say there is an easy option, but as your loan is un regulated then the reality is pay them or go to court. ( prepare yourself first ) Wp3

Web you asked about a template letter for claiming charges back from blemain, this company isn’t that easy, You need to consider your options on how to deal with this,but most importantly don’t rush, research and understand then decide what to do. wp3

Hi web I asked how much your loan was for and when you took out this loan so I could see whether it was a regulated agreement, the answers you gave would make your agreement unregulated. A regulated agreement is one that has a specific set of rules on what must be done. Consumer credit act 1974 covers some loans, so lenders have to follow the rules set by the CCA 1974. MCOB usually apply to first charge mortgages (a standard mortgageto buy your home) so lenders have to follow the rules in MCOB. As your loan is not regulated then there is no specific set of rules that apply to your loan,that doesn’t mean there is no rules that the lender has to follow. A few rules and regulations that do apply to your loan agreement are listed below. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 s.140a consumer credit act 1974 What I read a lot about is that people are saying that their lenders are adding charges to their accounts and that they think this is unfair,(but why is it unfair ) something is only unfair if a specific rule or regulation say it is unfair. So to understand unfairness then you first have to know the rules and regulations that make something unfair, I have posted three regulations above and each one will answer the question as to why it is unfair to charge £35 for a phone call (example) Web if you (or anyone else) read the above regulations and post up why it is unfair to add charges to an account then hopefully others will join in and we get a debate going, then anyone reading this post in future will understand unfairness in consumer contracts. As for blemain being a member of ConsumerCredit Trade Association, this is just to help blemain it will doyou no good at all, blemain being a member is like someone joining a union inwork it just helps them. wp3

Anyone reading this that has a regulated loan with blemain then may I suggest you read the terms and conditions of your agreements, there are more unfair terms than there are fair terms in your agreement, what these terms allow blemain to do to you is shocking, you real did sell your soul to the devil when you signed this agreement. ( I signed one I’m ashamed to say ) but there is a cure you just need to challenge them and stop being a victim, It will make you feel a whole lot better. wp3

Marvin you only have about 15 minutes max in court, and you just have to show you have a reasonable defence as to why you don’t owe blemain what they say you owe them. The judge will set this down for a trial (give you another date)he will also give directions on what has to be done before this date and you canask him to direct that blemain prove what is owed. So when in court tell the judge that you are putting the claimant to strict proof as to what they are claiming and ask him/her to order blemainn to supply this information and then allow you to put in a defence. In your defence you will have two things that will make blemain have to prove that all costs they added to your account are fair, (putting them to strict proof and the CCA s140 ) im sure the £35 phone calls really cost them £35 to make. wp3

Hi Marvin Blemains insurance charge is a penalty charge the same as all the other charges added to peoples accounts. I will explain (in basic terms) what makes a charge a penalty and what makes a charge unfair 1 for a charge to be a penalty = it is something that you have to pay when you breach one of the terms of the agreement. So term xxxx says you have to insure your property and put blemains name on the policy, you didn’t (no big deal) so blemain charge you, step one of becoming a penalty. 2 Rules and regulations allow lenders to make a charge when someone breaks a term of an agreement (I think this is fair) what is not allowed is for lenders to make profits from these charges, and they make huge profits from adding insurance . Step two this is now a penalty charge. Basically it’s a penalty because it happens when you broke one of the terms of the agreement and then they charged you much more than it cost them. There is also another reason that makes the insurance term in blemains agreements unfair. If I may explain what would happen if you add blemains name to your insurance policy Not putting blemain on insurance policy scenario You insure your house for its rebuild cost so that in the unlucky circumstance that it burns down your insurance will cover the cost of rebuilding it and this is what will happen if you don’t put blemains name onyour insurance policy, after the rebuild blemain will still have a charge over your house and things go on as if the fire never happened. If you put blemain on your insurance policy scenario You insure your house for its rebuild cost so that in the unlucky circumstance that it burns down your insurance will cover the cost of rebuilding it, but you also put blemain on the policy, now the terms in blemains agreements state that should you make a claim on your insurance then blemain get paid all what is owed before anyone or anything else, so if you claim on your insurance blemain get paid first leaving you without enough money to rebuild your house, so now your homeless as you don’t have enough money to rebuild your house. wp3

Make yourself a list of all payments made on this account;take it to court along with the loan agreement to show you have paid this agreement in full.

When editing the above put in paragraph numbers

IN THE xxxxxxxxx COUNTY COURT Claim No: xxxxxx BETWEEN: BLEMAIN FINANCELIMITED Claimant AND MR xxxxx xxxxxx & MRS xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Defendant DATE xxxxxxxxx We names of address are the defendants in this case and are litigants in person. This is an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 We the defendants believe we have paid the claimant more than is required to pay this agreement in full, we respectfully ask the court to order the claimant to supply a breakdown of what they are claiming, and we also put the claimant to strict proof in respect of all monies claimed. Upon receiving a breakdown of how the claimant has come to the figure they claim is owed, then we the defendants will supply a fully particulate defence and counter claim for any over payments, and the return of excess interest paid on this agreement. We dispute this claim as it is made up totally of penalty charges added to our account, To allow the claimant to assess their position and to help the court, then we will briefly explain why we believe this claim is ill conceived for the plain fact that we have paid the claimant more that is required to end this agreement. It is the contention of the defendant that an “unfair relationship” exists under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, The defendant will ask that the court consider using its powers under section 140B of the Act There are numerous default charges added to this account, the most recent breakdown of costs I have in my possession is dated xxxxx and totals £,xxxxThe claimant is continuing to add charges, and interest and as this was a fixed term agreement which ended on the date then there is no agreement in place or terms which allow the claimant to continue to add charges or interest. The defendant believes that all charges added to this account are unfair under the terms of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974,And also unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the default charges are in fact a true estimate of the costs to the claimant in dealing with this account. Should the claimant contend that costs added to our account were a genuine pre estimate, then we dispute this as the debt collection department of the claimant shows they made millions of pounds a year out of debt collecting, and will be shown in the accounts of monarch recoveries (the claimants debt collecting department) The consumer credit act 1974 s86e says that a creditor shall not add charges to an account until 28 days after they have informed the debtor of the charge, in our case the charges were added to our account before we were aware that we had incurred a charge. The consumer credit act 1974 s86e also says that a creditor is only allowed simple interest (not compound ) on any charges, as said charges were added to our account and our account is compound interest then this would not be allowed, and is also unfair. Variable interest rates in clause 3 of the agreement States ” The lender may vary the rate of interest per month from time to time to take Account of actual or expected changes in market conditions” Clause 29 of the agreement explains how the interest rate on this agreement tracks the Bank of Scotland when it goes up, but it will not track it if it goes down, this makes for a very unfair term as we had all the risks if the interest rates went up, but received none of the benefits when interest rates fell. The Financial Services authority have published guidelines on variable interest rates in (Fairness of terms in consumer contracts Statement of Good Practice) and I quote “4.4 In our view,the power to vary interest rates during the lifetime of a contract is not inherentlyunfair. Indeed, a variable rate may be the most attractive for many consumers.It may also give firms the flexibility they need to manage their businessprudently and remain competitive. However, the contract terms should not bedrafted in a way which allows the firm, in varying these rates to take unfairadvantage of the consumer. It is likely to contribute to the fairness of a termif it sets out if, when and how the interest rate may change.” The defendant believes that the interest rate clause on this agreement should be assess under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999,and that the way in which it has been operated should be assess for fairness under S140 CCA 1974 unfair relationship We would also bring to the courts attention the Judgment of the Court of Justice. C-243/08 Pannon GSM Zrt. v. Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi . (1) In this case the following question was raised. Does the consumer protection provided by Directive [93/13] require the national court of its own motion – irrespective of the type of proceedings in question and of whether or not they are contentious – to determine that the contract before it contains unfair terms, even where no application has been lodged,thereby carrying out, of its own motion, a review of the terms introduced by the seller or supplier in the context of exercising control over its own jurisdiction? (2) By this question, the referring court asks the Court about the obligations on the national court,by reason of the provisions of the directive, in order to determine whether the national court, in the context of assessing its jurisdiction and irrespective of the type of action, must rule, if necessary of its own motion, on the unfairness of a contractual term. . (3)The court seised of the action is therefore required to ensure the effectiveness of the protection intended to be given by the provisions of the Directive.Consequently, the role thus attributed to the national court by Community law in this area is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. (4) The Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules: The national court is required to examine,of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction. 18 the defendant also respectfully requests that the court has an obligation as is shown in the above case to assess the terms of this agreement for fairness. 19 the defendants requests that we be allowed to file a full defence after the disclosure of the requested information. Statement of Truth we believe the facts stated above are true. Sign here in pen ------------------------ Signed by: xxxxxxxx signed by: xxxxxxxxx Dated xxxxxxxx

Slick132 I totally agree with your open forum policy, but some things give the opposition a heads up on what to expect, and for that reason only, something’s need to be kept quiet. In the next post I’m going to post a letter, firstly read it and understand it then ask questions on anything you don’t understand,then edit it to suit your needs, finally and only when you understand it send a copy to blemain ( recorded delivery) and one to the court. Wp3

Question Why have the government banned loan sharks Because they don’t like the competition

Yes they can A judgment doesn’t stop them adding charges unless it specifically says no charges to be added to the agreement. a judgment works alongside your agreement, so you have your loan terms and conditions which say xxxxxx and then you have a judgment which adds to the terms of your agreement. Web some questions to find out what sort of agreement you have 1 What year did you take out this loan? 2 How much did you borrow? 3 What does it say on the top of your loan agreement, first page (this loan is regulated by the consumer credit act)? I just got them to wipe of over £10k in charges and interest they added to my account. They actually gave me an interest free loan, I got the same agreement they gave bently in the case bently v blemain

Just be careful trying to use MCOB and make sure they cover the type of loan you have, they mostly apply to first charge mortgages,

I tried to PM you but it says yon are not receivingPMs

Hi Marvin Do you have the following documents? 1 copy of your loan agreement and the terms and conditions. 2 up to date statements of account (showing all payments and charges) 3 copy of the default notice blemain sent you. If you don’t have the above documents then send blemain a CCA section 77/78 request (there are template letters online youcan use one of them) use recorded delivery and a £1 postal order. As for what to do next then yes you will be sending blemain and the court a letter (I will send youa PM) blemain will also be contacting you, usually a week before the court date trying to get you to agree to what they want.

Hi Marvin I will try and explain a few points about what is going to happen and why it happens (in laymens terms) If someone takes someone else to court, then the person making the claim has to prove what they are claiming, if the second person disputes what is claimed (puts in a defence) blemain rely on the fact that 90% of people don’t know what to do and blemain end up getting what they want, (suspended possetion order and then full possession) Hopefully now you understand that blemain have to prove that you owe them money, (and as you say you have paid £100 more than was required to pay off this agreement then blemain are going to have to prove all the unfair charges. It will go likethis in court Blemain will say, we have brought this case for possession because Mr Marvin owes us £xxxx and hasn’t paid us. Mr Marvin says, on the front of my loan agreement it says total amount to pay off this loan is £xxxx and my statements of account show that I have paid more than is required to pay off this agreement. So I dispute what blemain say I owe them. Blemain will say, term xx of the loan agreement allows us to add charges to the account. Mr Marvin says, the consumer credit act and the unfair terms in consumer credit regulations say it is unfair and not allowed to add penalty charges to a regulated loan agreement. And he disputes that he owes these charges. Mr Marvin then asks the judge to put blemain to strict proof of what they are claiming from him. The judge will then say that as this hearing is only listed for 15 minutes then he will set this case down for a trial (another date ) If this goes to a full trial what blemain will have to prove 1 that it cost them £35 to phone Mr Marvin 2 that it cost them £35 to send a letter to Mr Marvin 3 that all charges added to this account are what it cost them (insurance, monthly arrears,ETC ETC) 3 And the interest Mr Marvin paid is also unfair because it tracks the bank of Scotland when it goes up but it doesn’t track it if it goes down (UNFAIR) Blemain made over 6 million pounds in one year from unfair charges (look at the accounts of monarch recoveries) it’s not permitted to profit from debt collecting on a regulated agreement (all charges added to someones account should only cover what it cost blemain) Some reading tohelp you understand what the above is all about Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 Definition of Unfair Regulation 5(1)[n 3] defines the principle of unfair: If a contractual term has not been individually negotiated[n 4] and the term causes significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations, then the term is contrary to the requirement of good faith. "Has not been individually negotiated" encompasses terms ofwhich the consumer has not had the opportunity to mould. Terms that have beenindividually negotiated are outside this regulation, while other contract termsmay be within the regulation.[n 5] "Causes significant imbalance". For a term to be deemedunfair, this requires the term to be to the detriment of the consumer and benefit the seller or supplier to anexcessive degree. "Contrary to good faith". Schedule 2 sets out an indicative, non-exhaustive list of terms thatwould be unfair. Effect of Unfair Term Regulation 8 provides that an unfair term "shall not be binding upon theconsumer". The 'contra proferentem' rule The 'contra proferentem' rule is that where there is any ambiguity inregards to a clause it is to be interpreted against the party which insisted onincluding it. Regulation 7 states this very clearly:[3] "(1) Aseller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract isexpressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If thereis doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is mostfavourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply inproceedings brought under regulation 12." SCHEDULE 2 INDICATIVE ANDNON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil hisobligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation (h )automatically extending a contract of fixedduration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadlinefixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract isunreasonably early (I) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms withwhich he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusionof the contract (m )giving the seller or supplier the right todetermine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with thecontract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract (n)limiting the seller’s or supplier’s obligationto respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitmentssubject to compliance with a particular formality;

For anyone with a consumer credit act regulated loan from blemain Here is an easy way to show how blemain have a total disregard for rules and regulations, Go and get some of the letters blemain sent you saying they were going to add a charge to your account (phone call, letter, monthly arrearsetc etc) Now get your statements of account. Look at your statements for the dates that charges were added to your account, then look at the date on the top of the letters blemain sent you saying they were going to charge you for something. What you will find is that blemain put the charge on your account before you received the letter. What you also should know is that once a charge is added toyour account you are paying compound interest on that charge from the day it isadded to your account. Ok now why is the above such a big deal? Because the consumer credit act says that blemain shouldn’t add charges to your account until 29 days after you have received notice of the charge. The consumer credit act also says that only simple interestis allowed (NOT COMPOUND) as your loan agreement is a compound interest loan then anything added to it gets compound interest added to it. Blemain are making a lot of money adding charges up to 2 months early and then charging them compound interest for the time remaining on the agreement 5 DEFAULT SUM NOTICES 5.1From 1 October 2008, creditors will be required by section 86E of the 1974Act42 togive the debtor a notice in a specified form where a defaultsum becomes payable under a regulated agreement. A 'default sum'means a sum (other than interest) which is payable by the debtor inconnection with a breach of the agreement Thenotice must be given to the debtor within 35 days of the default sumbecoming payable.44 Thenotice may be incorporated in any other statement ornotice under the 1974 Act. Thecreditor may not charge interest in connection with a default sum beforethe 29th dayafter the day on which the default sum notice was givento the debtor.45 Inaddition, such interest must be simple interest, and may notbe compounded.