welshperson3 v blemain finance - 140A Unfair relationship -started court proceedings

[phatram]

Be very careful what you put on here. I know a businessman who has dealings with Blemain and he said to me they are horrible, and no doubt will be watching. Although he also said they think they are untouchable and believe everything they do is above board. They tell you what their charges are etc etc, needless to say I disagree and hope we can get together to do something about them.

Edited November 6, 2011 by caro
Removing potentially libellous comment

[maybelline]

S140 and completed agreeements? completed when?

[welshperson3]

The new provisions have applied to new credit and related agreements with individual debtors

 

since 6th April 2007, and since 6th April 2008 have applied to all such agreements, whenever

 

they were made. A “credit agreement” is defined as

 

“any agreement between an individual (the

 

‘debtor’) and any other person (the ‘creditor’) by which the creditor provides the debtor with

credit of any amount”

 

(s.140C(1)). In turn “credit” is defined by s.9 of the 1974 Act as including

 

a cash loan,

“or any other form of financial accommodation”, as well as finance by way of hirepurchase.

 

Edited November 6, 2011 by welshperson3

[Gallahad]

Sadly the blemain unregulated agreements dated before april 2008 have no requirements to meet and no regulations to control them.

G

[maybelline]

'whenever they were made' I'm guessing is the key part, I reckoned the retrospective part applied to pre existing agreements, but only those that were not completed by a certain date (not sure where I saw that) i.e. still live agreements (unless they were caught by exemptions) yes those exemptions are giving me a headahce - all redundant for me now but still worth clear picture for other hideous agreement victims, any yes, the vast amount of still unregulated, which means to me IMHO no protection or redress for same is a matter of concern

[maybelline]

'whenever they were made' I'm guessing is the key part, I reckoned the retrospective part applied to pre existing agreements, but only those that were not completed by a certain date (not sure where I saw that) i.e. still live agreements (unless they were caught by exemptions) yes those exemptions are giving me a headahce - all redundant for me now but still worth clear picture for other hideous agreement victims, any yes, the vast amount of still unregulated, which means to me IMHO no protection or redress for same is a matter of concern

[maybelline]

oops dont know what happened here, didnt mean to post twice?

[welshperson3]

Sadly the blemain unregulated agreements dated before april 2008 have no requirements to meet and no regulations to control them.

G

 

 

If the agreement ended before April 2008 then true.

But if the agreement was ongoing past April 2008 then S 140 applies

[Gallahad]

yes I agree a matter for much concern to many unfortunate souls.

G

[maybelline]

http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/2263/Broker-not-a-fiduciary.pdf

[phatram]

Be very careful what you put on here. I know a businessman who has dealings with Blemain and he said to me they are horrible, and no doubt will be watching. Although he also said they think they are untouchable and believe everything they do is above board. They tell you what their charges are etc etc, needless to say I disagree and hope we can get together to do something about them.

Sorry about that caro.

[welshperson3]

Hi maybelline

My gut instinct with your case is that a good barrister has managed to baffle the judge with bull**** your job in court was to stop this.

In my case in court when I mentioned charges being unfair their barrister tried to use the OFT supreme court case and I think the judge would have accepted this view, I believe the barrister knew what she was saying was wrong, but was still going to try on.

Please don’t take this the wrong way but if you don’t know the answers now then when you went to court you were unprepared, there are always different views on any given point of law but before going into court you have to have your view on any given point sorted and be able to argue this point.

As litigants in person then we all will make some mistakes and all we can do is research, research, research, then if you have any spare time do some more research.

[Gallahad]

Excellent advice WP

G

[welshperson3]

http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/2263/Broker-not-a-fiduciary.pdf

 

this might help withthe above.

 

Actual Undue Influence

In these cases it is necessary for the claimant to prove affirmatively that the wrongdoer exerted undue influence on the complainant to enter into the particular transaction which is impugned. For example, see: Williams v Bailey (1866) LR 1 HL 200.

Undue influence was described by Lindley LJ in Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145, as "… some unfair and improper conduct, some coercion from outside, some overreaching, some form of cheating and generally, though not always, some personal advantage gained."

 

Presumed Undue Influence

 

Class 2b

 

If the complainant proves the existence of a relationship under which the complainant generally reposed trust and confidence in the wrongdoer, the existence of such relationship raises the presumption of undue influence.

In a class 2B case therefore, in the absence of evidence disproving undue influence, the complainant will succeed in setting aside the impugned transaction merely by proof that the complainant reposed trust and confidence in the wrongdoer without having to prove that the wrongdoer exerted actual undue influence or otherwise abused such trust and confidence in relation to the particular transaction impugned.

The relation of banker and customer will not normally give rise to a presumption of undue influence, but it can do so in exceptional cases if the customer has placed himself entirely in the hands of the bank and has not been given any opportunity to seek independent advice.

Manifest Disadvantage

 

With both of the above presumptions (class 2A and 2B), the transaction must be to the 'manifest disadvantage' of the party claiming undue influence.

[caro]

 

Please don’t take this the wrong way but if you don’t know the answers now then when you went to court you were unprepared, there are always different views on any given point of law but before going into court you have to have your view on any given point sorted and be able to argue this point.

 

As litigants in person then we all will make some mistakes and all we can do is research, research, research, then if you have any spare time do some more research.

 

I couldn't agree more with this.

 

Excellent advice WP

G

 

It certainly is.

[andrew1]

Although he also said they think they are untouchable and believe everything they do is above board.

 

All the Sub-Prime market believe this to be true of themselves such is the arrogance and feeling they have gotten away with it thus far they must be right

 

I seem to recall a certain other industry doing much the same until around 2007 when actions undertaken on forums like this began to be felt on their bottom lines when we exposed their complacency and uncovered the true way these companies should perform their duties under the laws they used against us - that being the DCA's. They'd never admit to that, but my favourties Cabot lost £16million off the first financial year's balance sheet bottom line once we intervened in the Cabot Fan Club followed by £23million the next and why was that? - because we energised enough people to question what they did - it is now a different industry relatively, a lot of the scumbags have lost their licences and others have been on TV and had to clean up their acts and they actually now know what the OFT and the CCA really mean.

 

Sub-Prime are going the same way - it's not over yet by a long shot, but they are beginning to learn slowly but surely.

 

..tick tock sub-prime, tick tock.

[welshperson3]

I know Blemain finance read this thread, I also know they have read, and have posted on other forums.

So I have a question for someone from Blemain,

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO POST ON HERE?

IN RETURN I PROMISS I WILL BE TOTALLY RESPECTFULL

WP3

[welshperson3]

Question for

Anyone that has blemain agreement and is behind with payments

Are they phoning you and asking for payments ?

The reason I ask is that I don’t get any, I used to get them all the time but I haven’t had any for over 6 months ( I don’t want to be left out )

The real reason I ask is that I believe they are under investigation by OFT, as the directors haven’t had their licences renewed by the OFT yet.

So if they are under investigation then maybe they are cutting back on the £35 a time phone calls.

Also if I phone them they are not as nasty as they used to be, still quite demanding,

But not demanding with menace.

So if you can let me know if anyone else is noticing a difference.

WP3

[phatram]

I've just received the following text,

"Heard strong rumour Blemain Group are in financial trouble, no funds left to lend having funding cut by UBS bank. Could go down soon".

[frettful38]

I've just received the following text,

"Heard strong rumour Blemain Group are in financial trouble, no funds left to lend having funding cut by UBS bank. Could go down soon".

 

Well you know what they say about rumours.........maybe we could get Blemain on the Jeremy Kyle Show to do a lie detector test? then we'd know for sure

[welshperson3]

BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED

 

Annual Accounts year ended 30 Jun 11

 

FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 30/06/11

Filed on: 03 Nov 2011

 

Have not got them yet but will be having a look,

 

wp3

[Gallahad]

Should make some interesting reading WP

G

[welshperson3]

A company’s Net Worth is calculated as Shareholders Funds minus Intangible Assets.

 

From the most recent set of accounts filed by BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED their net worth in 2010 was:

 

£92,330,460

 

2005 £26,446,000

2006 £35,551,000

2007 £21,781,013

2008 £37,294,933

2009 £66,303,835

2010 £92,330,460

[welshperson3]

From the most recent set of accounts filed by BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED total current assets in 2010 were:

 

£36,333,086

2005 £311,854,000

2006 £541,339,000

2007 £504,306,755

2008 £330,915,137

2009 £31,616,127

2010 £36,333,086

[welshperson3]

If you ever had a charge of monarch recoveries remember that all charges should only cover admin costs, and not be for profit, now look at the profit monarch made. And look at the cost of sales

Remember when you were having charges applied by monarch and blemain at the same time, in 2008 monarch made a pre tax profit of over 9.5 million pounds with a cost of sales of £0.

this document is relating to monarch not blemain, but if anyone wants a look at blemains let me know.