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

[welshperson3]

I haven’t update this recently but there has been a lot going on that I needed to keep quiet about.

 

 

Firstly I now have specialist consumer law solicitors acting for me, as you know this is now a high court and it is just to important a case for me to cock-up as it relates specifically to,

 

1 the charges blemain added to the account

 

2 why they didn’t vary the interest rate

 

3 secret commissions paid to the broker

 

4 unfair relationship s140 CCA

 

 

 

 

Today there was a case management conference at court, now blemains have been told to clarify what terms of the agreement they rely on to add charges and to clarify what they are claiming them for, and also the amount of charges claimed.

 

So the judge has taken an interest in what has been going on and I think this is going well, (so far so good)

 

Wp3

[frettful38]

Excellent WP3.......really pleased for you how you have been keeping all this together...well done so far.

[determindator]

Amazing news WP. I believe this bad business in the financial sector is gaining momentum within the Judicial system becoming more recognised, and so well done for your tenacity.

Edited January 26, 2012 by determindator

[patrickq1]

and to report how the charges are made up what method of accounting they have used think you could add this question ,

Wp

[caro]

Great news WP. I'm sure this will be of interest to many people.

 

If possible could you tell us how long Blemain have to comply.

 

I look forward to more updates.

[welshperson3]

Great news WP. I'm sure this will be of interest to many people.

 

If possible could you tell us how long Blemain have to comply.

 

I look forward to more updates.

 

 

Hi Caro

2 weeks, but that is just the breakdown of what they are claiming, what each charge relates to, the interest on such charges, what terms of the agreement allows them to claim charges and so on.

I then have to reply to what they send, and then there will be another case management conference, and this is were the fun will really start.

They don’t have to substantiate the actual costs to them of each phone call or letter.

Not yet any way I firstly need an itemised breakdown of charges then I can attack each one and get them to prove what it actually costs them.

Wp3

[Fielder]

Hi wp3

Looks like things seem to be going well for you. Well deserved, especially after all your hard work!!

 

Just wondering about your lawyers, I would be interested in speaking to them with a problem I have.

Could you let me have their details and a contact number?

Looking forward to hearing more about your case.

 

Thanks,

Fielder

[phatram]

Would you please pm me with your lawyers details. Thanks and good luck.

[determindator]

Hi WP, hope you are well. This thread is so hidden, I have to locate through my subscribed threads. This was posted in Campaign thread this evening http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?325085-Epetition-End-the-legal-loan-sharks.-Let-the-govt-know-how-you-feel.Biteback-time./page2 post 30. It concerns the FCA which will oversee consumer credit - and have the power to act to address 'toxic' financial products which cause detriment to consumers. Here is a link to the e-petition to support the end to legal loan sharks http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20219.

 

Your legal help may find this interesting if they don't already know the update on the bill.

[Dougal16T]

Morning All,

I have a similar case which is about to set foot on the long path....only mine concerns Abbey(Shabbey) and Santander.

 

I am reading your case with great interest and wish you (and all of the other Caggers) the very best,

 

Regards

 

Dougal

[sweetjane]

Great thread WP. I think you'll be giving a lot of people a lot of hope for their own chances with your brave and thorough fight against this toxic lender. We all know they're not the only ones and thousands of people are suffering because of unfair terms, charges and interest. I do feel the time has come to stamp out these parasites. Everyone should write to their MPs with their stories especially now while the finance bill is going through. Lets ramp up the exposure. All good wishes to you WP from SJ

[welshperson3]

Hi

 

I’m looking for some impartial advice on some of the terms of my loan agreement,

And I would like to give you all a bit of background of why I am asking this question.

 

I have a high court case going on at the moment with a sub prime lender,

which will have a significant impact on all lenders and borrowers,

and I am having a difference of opinion with my solicitor over some of the terms of the agreement.

 

Now I have studied these terms and relevant law for over 2 years and I am finding it hard to believe that I am wrong,

so I get impartial advice I wont put up any of my thoughts on this,

but I would like some views on what to do and what legal argument to use if any.

 

 

The following are actual terms taken from my agreement, it is a variable interest rate and it is a consumer credit act regulated agreement.

 

 

1 “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”

 

2 “rate means the higher of %5 above the base rate for the time being of the bank of Scotland

or the highest rate payable under any credit agreement and the highest rate payable under the relevant agreement”

 

 

 

If you read number two correctly it says that the interest rate will go up if the bank of Scotland raise their interest rate, but if the interest rates fall then the interest on this agreement will never go down. Below what is stated on the agreement?

 

 

All opinions especially negative ones (to show were im going wrong) would be much appreciated.

 

wp3

[welshperson3]

just started a new post

 

here is what it is all about

Is this an unfair term in a consumer contract?

 

Hi

 

I’m looking for some impartial advice on some of the terms of my loan agreement,

And I would like to give you all a bit of background of why I am asking this question.

 

I have a high court case going on at the moment with a sub prime lender, which will have a significant impact on all lenders and borrowers, and I am having a difference of opinion with my solicitor over some of the terms of the agreement.

 

Now I have studied these terms and relevant law for over 2 years and I am finding it hard to believe that I am wrong, so I get impartial advice I wont put up any of my thoughts on this, but I would like some views on what to do and what legal argument to use if any.

 

 

The following are actual terms taken from my agreement, it is a variable interest rate and it is a consumer credit act regulated agreement.

 

 

1 “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”

 

2 “rate means the higher of %5 above the base rate for the time being of the bank of Scotland or the highest rate payable under any credit agreement and the highest rate payable under the relevant agreement”

 

 

 

If you read number two correctly it says that the interest rate will go up if the bank of Scotland raise their interest rate, but if the interest rates fall then the interest on this agreement will never go down.

 

 

All opinions especially negative ones (to show were im going wrong) would be much appreciated.

Edited March 27, 2012 by welshperson3

[Ford]

wp

 

otherwise, if able to say, how are things going?

[determindator]

Hi WP, good to hear from you. I discovered to my horror back in 2004 that the loan taken out by a similar company, would never reduce their interest rate. Not only that, it would rise because of the way these companies obtain their money. I will pass on your posting to others.

[welshperson3]

Hi ford

Nothing much happened as such, it is just going thro the court presses, but when anything happens I will give all the details of how it all went.

I have to keep quiet about it as solicitors are dealing with it and I don’t want to post something that might upset my solicitors, or give blemain the heads up on what is happening.

As for the interest rate check this out

The FSA have demanded a Cheshire mortgage rates contract change.

The Cheshire Mortgage Corporation who are part of Blemain Group, has been instructed to amend the terms of its mortgage contract after the FSA deemed the original contract wording was unfair.

The FSA felt that the original wording of the Cheshire mortgage rates contract gave the lender unrestricted power in varying mortgage rates without providing a valid reason for doing so.

The FSA believe that the terms were to the detriment of consumers as they could result in mortgage repayments being increased in both a non-transparent and unpredictable way.

The Cheshire Mortgage Corporation has now amended its terms listing a valid reason as to why an interest rate can be increased or decreased. The lender has stated mortgage rates may increase in response to increased funding costs.

wp3

[Ford]

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/other/cmc-undertaking.pdf

 

further info re wp's post above re cheshire mortgage and the fsa.

 

(if you want it removed, say and i'll edit it)

Edited March 28, 2012 by Ford

[welshperson3]

Don’t remove it ford the more people that know what this company is unto the more it will cost them in bad publicity and people challenging them in court or thro the FOS.

Wp3

[determindator]

Hi again WP, don't know if you saw this, may be of interest http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?296108-Hot-news-for-anyone-who-has-suffered-mortgage-arrears-charges-irresponsible-lending-or-other-unfair-lender-conduct(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[Ford]

Don’t remove it ford the more people that know what this company is unto the more it will cost them in bad publicity and people challenging them in court or thro the FOS.

 

Wp3

 

some interesting comments there in that pdf eg

 

'Nor, in our view, is the firm dealing fairly with the consumer if it has an unfettered discretion to vary the interest rate applicable to the mortgage for any reason and at any time it chooses.' ? fsa

Edited March 28, 2012 by Ford

[welshperson3]

thanks determindator

I believe in the interest rate argument, but I think it spooks my solicitors, as there is no case law setting any precedence, plenty of information from FSA.

 

Just solicitors after an easy win I thing, they going for the charges and all the easy points they get a bit touchy when they have to put some effort in.

[spot]

In my opinion, the very word 'Variable' seen in the context of interest rates by the layperson would quite rightly be seen as a rate which would rise as well as lower as bank rates changed (no matter how the company finds its funds). The Bank rate is the barometer of interest rates to the majority of people in this country (and to many more I'd imagine) and to say that rates could ONLY go up is a one sided contract.

 

A person taking a loan or mortgage especially from a non High Street lender is a somewhat vulnerable punter anyway. Seeking the best option with a limited amount of financial savvy. Especially where business models of companies are concerned.

 

No broker would be supplying the detail of a finance company's business model (from where these interest rates derive).

 

No broker would spell out the basis of how the interest rates are determined

 

and No broker would be in a position to supply comparitive business models for different suppliers to give you an informed choice - which is what they were meant to do.

 

So, as a customer/consumer in the absence of all these factors the word 'Variable' used without supporting analysis of said business models immediately puts you in a disadvantage position.

 

I am aware of sub-prime lenders sending out letters to customers when the Bank of England rates went up stating " in view of the interest rate changes your interest rate will be increasing by .25% from xx/xx/xxxx."

 

When in fact they admit to others when pressed that their rates were in fact linked to the Libor rates which hadn't changed at that time. In court, they argue that rates are determined by 'investor pressure' and when you actually dig deep enough and really find out where they get their funding and the arrangement they entered into with the body supplying said funding you see that the return promised to said 'investors' is some 20% thus proving that whatever excuse they used, the variable rate interest could never have been reduced due to their business arrangement with their funders.

 

As a consumer you would have never have known that, so I'd suggest you do a little bit of digging through their accounts and annual reports, see who their main shareholders are and see who lent them the funds and what the return is - then you might get to the bottom of how your 'variable' rate is a one way ticket - the details of which you will invariably (scuse the pun) swing a judge to your way of thinking.

Edited March 28, 2012 by spot

[Ford]

just some further info re the s140/ppi case Harrison v Black Horse, posted up earlier. harrisons given permission to appeal to the supreme court.

 

http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/news/4064.asp

Edited April 1, 2012 by Ford

[caro]

Thanks for the info Ford.

[Ford]

Thanks for the info Ford.

 

welcome. an interesting comment on shoos article is re the 'threshold' for s140 should be lower than what is currently being applied. ie it should be more in favour of the borrower. hopefully the appeal will turn out in favour.