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

[welshperson3]

Hi

 

Suffering, nav110, figaro 123

 

 

Why not start threads of your own, that way we will know what type of agreement you have, what stage of complaints procedure you are at, what blemain have done, and how to deal with it.

 

 

As for blemains CCA licence

 

Blemain do have a licence don’t make a mistake of thinking blemain are operating without a licence.

 

What has happened with blemains licence is that they had to renew it in 2011 so they applied to renew their licence, this usually takes a couple of month’s, but in blemains case it has taken nearly two years.

 

So ask you self why has it taken the OFT nearly two years to renew blemains licence

 

Now the rules on renewing a licence are that they can continue trading on their old licence while the OFT process the application for a new licence.

 

 

So the relative point is that the OFT is investigating this company, otherwise they would have had their licence renewed within 2 months, not the two years and still waiting. So I personally would put a bet that you are going to see some fines heading blemains way in the not to distant future.

 

 

 

Below is Taken from OFT register

 

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

 

Renewal in Progress:

 

 

Event Type

Date of Receipt

Closed Date

Status

Renewal

04-May-2011

 

Open

 

 

Legal Formation:

 

 

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

 

Name

Position

Adrian Joseph Grant

 

Gary Bailey

 

Gary Beckett

Director

Henry Neville Moser

 

Mr Marc Richard Goldberg

OFFICER

Stephen Baker

Director

Tracey Bailey

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2013 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

I have started some new threads now we have a specific blemain area on this site , were we can keep important information in plain view of the people that need it.

 

 

Now I believe that blemain are not acting in a faire and responsible way, and there are so many things I believe are wrong that I would like to suggest that we talk about one point at a time.

 

Now when someone comes on a website and says blemain did this, this and this it is hard to say what to do, because each thing blemain has done wrong has its own specific remedy.

 

 

So what I would like to do is make a list of what blemain do that is unfair, then we talk about that one point (would be a lot easier if I was aloud a thread for each point)

 

 

All the charges that have been added to your loan is going to be the biggest thing that people complain about, I don’t want to put that on my thread as it will take over what I am doing, but if anyone starts a new thread about charges I will post my views on this point.

 

 

 

Some points I think would be interesting are listed below and I think the most unknown and possibly the most damaging for blemain is the use of monarch recoveries for debt collecting.

 

 

So hands up all you nice people that have had any experience of monarch recoveries (only those with a loan over 18 months old)

 

 

THIS IS A SELF HELP SITE SO JOIN IN WITH WHAT YOU CAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Blemain using monarch recoveries for debt collecting.

 

 

2 did blemain pay your broker a secret commission

 

3 blemain adding buildings insurance to my agreement

 

4 blemains intrest rate

 

 

WP3

Edited January 23, 2013 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Some basic facts about blemain and monarch recoveries and how they worked

1 monarch recoveries was a debt collecting company

2 monarch recoveries had the same address as blemain

3 monarch recoveries only collected debts for the blemain group of companies

4 monarch recoveries is one in the blemain group of companies

So there is no big deal with all of the above its what is called in house debt recovery or so blemain lead you to believe.

What if I said monarch recoveries only existed in name only, and it was one big con used by blemain to part you from even more of your hard earned money.

I will be back in one hour and then I will show you how the OFT has shut down companies for doing what blemain did when they used monarch recoveries. And the prove you need to see monarch didn’t exist.

wp3

[welshperson3]

What blemain used to do if you fell into arrears was in their own words “instruction of agents (monarch)” charge in my case £250 for passing the account to monarch, and then monarch would charge for phone calls and letters and numerous other things.

 

 

 

Now this is how blemain used this [problem] to add monies to what you already owed them, then getting you further into debt with then and closer to repossession.

 

 

Just as an example, Joe from blemain would phone you in the morning, at dinner time your account gets transferred to monarch, in the afternoon you get a call from Joe from monarch, it’s the same person and you got charged £250 plus interest, over a 25 year loan this would cost you approximately £1000.

 

 

 

Now to prove monarch recoveries was only a name that blemain used to [problem] and frighten you.

 

 

monarch had no employees, but made a profit of over 6 million in 2008 and over 4 million in 2009 not bad with no employees, and the fact that they made this profit by charging £35 for letters and phone calls.

 

 

If you know your charges arguments there is some of your proof that they weren’t a true estimate of their costs, and that they were making millions out of charging you penalties

 

This document is filed at company house and signed by them to be true.

 

I cant upload this document as it is a PDF but you can get it for free you will have to log ibut it is free .

 

MONARCH RECOVERIES LIMITED

REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATMENTS 2009

 

. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01959967

 

This document is prove that

 

1 They had no employees

2 They profit from their unfair charges

3 All this money came from blemains victims

 

 

 

The following happened to logbook loans for doing what blemain and monarch were doing to people.

 

125/11 18 November 2011

The OFT has welcomed a Tribunal's decision to strike out appeals by the UK's biggest logbook loan businesses against the removal of their consumer credit licences.

The First-tier Tribunal's ruling to strike out the appeals of Nine Regions Limited ('NRL') and Log Book Loans Limited (together 'Log Book Loans') follows the OFT's original decision that Log Book Loans were unfit to hold consumer credit licences.

Logbook loans are secured on vehicles such as cars and motorbikes. If the borrower defaults, the loan company can seize the vehicle without going to court. Even after the vehicle is sold the borrower can still be pursued for any shortfall.

The OFT asked the Tribunal to strike out Log Book Loans' appeals because of evidence that emerged during the appeal hearing. Log Book Loans admitted that thousands of letters had been sent to borrowers in the name of a firm called Adams Spencer & Phillips (Legal Services) Limited ('ASP') falsely threatening to take legal action on behalf of NRL.

 

 

 

The First-tier Tribunal found that:

• the letters were sent to give borrowers a false impression that ASP was a body authorised to carry on activities as if it were a firm of solicitors, such as the conduct of litigation
  
• ASP actually had no employees and was not a body or individual duly authorised to bring legal action on behalf of NRL
  
• deceptive practices included that between September 2009 and April 2010, employees of NRL called customers pretending to be employees of ASP
  
• the ASP letters were part of a deliberate deceit
  
• the deception was played out, not simply in front of customers but also with third parties such as solicitors acting for borrowers, as well as the Financial Ombudsman Service.
  

David Fisher, Director of the OFT's Consumer Credit Group said:

'The OFT welcomes the Tribunal's decision to strike out the companies' appeals. The decision confirms our view that these companies are unfit to hold their consumer credit licences.

 

'Intentionally deceiving debtors as part of a debt collection policy is an extremely serious matter, which calls into question a licensee's fitness. We expect businesses licensed by the OFT to treat all their customers, including those in arrears, fairly and transparently

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wp3

Edited January 23, 2013 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Now just in case anyone isn’t quite following then I will list the important facts and what rules they are braking.

1 Blemain misled you

Debt collection

OFT guidance for businesses engaged in the recovery of consumer credit debts

2.2 In general terms, businesses17should:

• treat debtors fairly – debtors should not be subjected to aggressive practices, inappropriate coercion, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not I DOMT THINK BLEMAIN HAVE READ THIS

• be transparent in their dealings with debtors and others – information provided should be clear and should not be confusing or misleading MAYBE THEY DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS EITHER, THINK I MAY SEND THEM A COPY AND THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE ALL RIGHT.

2.1 This chapter identifies matters that the OFT considers to be unfair or improper business practices for the purposes of section 25(2A)(e) of the Act. These are set out under the following sub-headings:

• False representation of authority and/or legal position: businesses should accurately and truthfully represent their authority/status and the correct legal position with regard to debts and the debt recovery process STRANGE THAT I HAVE A LETTER STATING MONARCH ARE GOING TO START COURT ACTION, CANT BE TRUE THEY DON’T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES.

Deceptive and/or unfair methods: businesses should be truthful and fair in their dealings with debtors and others ANOTHER ONE BLEMAIN CANT HAVE READ

Charging for debt recovery: charges should not be levied inappropriately or unfairly THEY WASN’T BEING UNFAIR THEY HAVE TO MAKE A LIVING THEY ONLY MADE 6.5 MILLION ON COLECTING IN 2009 (AFTER TAX )

2.2 It is unfair to communicate with debtors, or their representatives, in whatever form, in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner

False representation of authority and/or legal position

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority and/or the correct legal position with regards to debts or the debt recovery process.

Physical/psychological harassment

DON’T GET ME STARTED ON THIS ONE

Charging for debt recovery

3.10 Charges should not be levied inappropriately or unfairly.

3.11 Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows:

a. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay recovery charges when this is not the case

b. claiming recovery costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual provision to be able to do so

c. not giving a clear indication in credit agreements of the amount of any charges payable on default60

d. applying unreasonable 61 charges

HOW IS SOMEONE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A LIVING POOR BLEMAIN WOULDN’T HAVE MADE £6.5 MILLION AFTER TAX IF THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT ALL THE RULES

I REALY THINK SOMEONE SHOULD CONTACT BLEMAIN AND SEND THEM A COPY OF THIS OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT FIND THEMSELVS IN BIG TROUBLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING WRONG.

Debt collection

OFT guidance for businesses engaged in the recovery of consumer credit debts

WP3

[welshperson3]

Consumer

Protection

from Unfair

Trading

Regulations

2008

 

TABLE FOR ASSESSING

UNFAIRNESS

 

 

REGULATION 3

 

Contrary to the

requirements

of professional

diligence

 

 

 

REGULATION 5

False or deceptive

practice in relation

to a specific list of

key factors

 

 

REGULATION 6

 

Omission (or unclear/

untimely provision) of

material information

 

REGULATION 7

 

Aggressive practice

by harassment,

coercion or undue

influence

[welshperson3]

How about

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40944[/ATTACH]

Did Blemain pay your broker a secret commission?

Then have a look at this

This is what they supply to brokers, Joe public never supposed to see this

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40943[/ATTACH]

[dx100uk]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all figures and dates. {DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

DO NOT USE ANY PDF EDITOR TO BLANK STUFF, THAT CAN BE REMOVED

DO IT IN PAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites [http://docupub.com/pdfconvert/]

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

.

we are awaiting admin to action the forum creation request

 

dx

[welshperson3]

What it says in the documents above and is quoted word for word

 

Brokers fee

 

May be charged on all plans and must be agreed with the client.

 

 

 

 

Commissions

 

The maximum commission on one case is £10,000 with payment protection and £8,000 without, NOTE this dose not include the brokers fee.all commissions are paid on the loan advance (not including payment protection or fees) i.e. the amount paid to the client including the redemption of any finance.

 

Notice that they say you must tell the client of any brokers fee, but the most important thing is that they don’t say to tell the client about the commission.

 

 

The second document has exact calculations of what % commission is paid on what type of loan agreement, the higher the interest rate you pay on the loan, then the higher % commission the broker gets

 

 

EXAMPLE

 

If your loan is %9.8 interest rate the commission rate is % 1.25

 

If your loan is %17.7-interest rate the commission rate is %10.5

 

 

This works out that the higher the interest rate that the broker gets you the more money he makes..

 

 

 

If the broker gets you a loan for £30k at the best interest rate for you he makes approximately £300 on top of his broker fees.

 

If the broker gets you a loan for £30kat the worst interest rate for you he makes approximately £3000 on top of his broker fees.

 

 

I’m sure all the brokers out there would have gone for the £300 and not bent anyone over for the £3000.

 

 

Wp3

Edited January 24, 2013 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Thanks DX

I think I might have some information that may help people when going up against blemain and I don’t want it to fade into this thread.

wp3

[Gallahad]

They paid £11,000 commission on my loan of 140k

g

[dx100uk]

no bother at all

 

we'll do a bit of work too and bring other thread on BH over to it.

 

prep is the key too from the users

 

i know this is a hell of a long thread

but if it need splitting into individual 'people' cases threads

and info thread let meknow

 

just give us the post numbers and we'll do it. [ie posts 12-25 make new thread for XXX user] etc etc

 

we always find it better and it shows the extent of issues whe things are split up

 

also gives weight to complaints

 

dx

[welshperson3]

Hi g

 

 

They must have liked your broker as the documents say a maximum of 10K.

 

All kidding aside it would be to do with the time you took out your loan as the document I posted is for brokers, and what and how they paid it changed over the years.

 

G if you know how much they paid your broker then I gather you are alright on this point, but if your looking for more evidence that they paid commissions then it is in their accounts, filed at company house and available to the public. (just ask if you need them).

 

Wp3

Edited January 24, 2013 by welshperson3

[Gallahad]

I am far from alright about it WP and it could have been 1k brokers fee and 10k commission so you could be right. I took a barristers opinion through a no win no fee solicitor. I wanted to go for unfair contract and hidden commission but the opinion was that there was no case law precedent to make my case strong enough. Which when I one realises that one of the conditions in the contract is that any and all money paid out on an insurance claim must be paid straight to Blemain so if i had a fire or flood I would have to live in the house as it ends up while they pocket the money seems absurdly unfair. Not just to me but to my building society who hold the first charge.

G

[welshperson3]

Hi g

What I mean when I say you must be alright with it , is the fact you now know that they paid a commission on your loan, and your not looking for information on whether they did or didn’t pay a commission,

　

As for the terms and conditions of your loan yours is unregulated, and I have seen the terms for unregulated most terms are the same as a regulated agreement, but im not %100 but chech out your terms and see if they allow blemain to do the following,

　

Do the terms of your agreement allow blemain to do the following.

　

1 very the interest rate whenever they want ?

2 very the amount you pay each month whenever they want ?

3 very the amount of months the agreement runs for ?

　

If you answer yes to the above then think about what you signed up for.

　

You signed an agreement that would allow. a company to take every penny you earn for the rest of your life.

　

I’m not saying this will happen but you have an agreement that will allow the following to happen if blemain wanted to do it.

　

Blemain raise your interest rate from %%10 to %.100 pa, your monthly payments go up 10x what you are paying now, you cant afford this payment so blemain extend the term of the loan to 100 years

The terms of the agreements allow blemain to do what they want when they want READ THEN FOR YOURSELF

　

If blemain say they have taken out insurance and are charging you for it then there are two ways to deal with this.

　

1 it has to be fit for purpose, all the PPI claims are basicly that it was not fit for purpose

Buildings insurance is to rebuild the building in the event of something bad happening to the building, blemains insurance only pay the loan.

Basically an insurance policy is there to (indemnify) put you back in a position as if nothing had ever happened, blamains insurance only pays them so if you house burns down blemain get paid ,your still left with a burned out house. Are you indemnified ?

　

　

So is the above insurance fit for purpose.

　

　

2 blemain have a term in the agreement that requires you to name them on your insurance policy, if you don’t then you are in breach of the terms of the agreement,

　

If you breach an agreement then a company is allowed to claim reasonable costs in dealing with any breach, the costs that blemain add to your account and say they are for insurance are the same as any other cost that they add (phone ,letter charges) they are not fair or proportionate get them to prove how much it costs them.

　

There are plenty of terms in the agreement that are very one sided and it is a shame that the regulatory bodies that are there to protect the consumers are failing in their duties.

 

wp3

[Gallahad]

Hi WP, I am very aware and agree with all you say but am powerless to do anything about it while the chocolate teapots misnamed as "The Authorities" remain ball less.

G

[dx100uk]

you now have

 

and are in the BH forum!!

 

i'll try and move over as many BF threads as i can find later

 

dx

[determindator]

Great news dx for the Blemain fighters!.

[welshperson3]

Thanks DX im sure a Blemain forum will have lasting implications for those that have issues with Blemain now, and also evolve into a good source of information for future Blemain victims.

 

wp3

[suffering]

ok i give up, what is this BH forum and how do you access it

[dx100uk]

you are already there

scroll right up the top

 

hit theblue blemain finance in between the two >> like > blemain finance >

 

threads being moved from all over the forum now by me to this forum

 

dx

[suffering]

I have a totally unafordable loan from Lanc Mortgage (Blemain) so i will be showing the judge i cannot make payments and i was never in a position to meet such high payments income was nowhere near the repayments the only payments made are the ones incorporated into the loan further more a house sale released payment to LMC for £192,000 at a stage when i was £68,000 in arears yet when i asked was i up to date or infront i was informed they had kept me in arears this case is as big as bentley v blemain for unfair relationship i really need to win this. Anyone know how much i would need to be earning to meet repayments of £6475.00 a month?

unafordable loan , irresponsable lending on a massive scale i was set up to fail by Marc Goldberg Director of LMC. I have proof of deceitfull behaviour, i have proof of intimidation, i have proof the loan was unaffordable

[searching70]

Interest Rates and Circumstances When Loan Made

 

In Nine Regions (t/a Logbook Loans) v Sadeer [2008] Unreported, 14 November 2008, the court held that there was no unfair relationship. The high interest rate was not unfair as it was justified by the high risk to the creditor, being a last resort loan. In contrast, in Mrs Sharon Morrison & Mr Keith Robinson v Betterpace Ltd (t/a Log Book Loans) [2009] Unreported, 1 September 2009, the court held that there was an unfair relationship.

 

The borrower was not informed that the interest rate on the second loan would be significantly higher than the interest rate on the first loan. Additionally, the failure by the lender to update its records meant that the borrower was charged for multiple default letters each month.

[welshperson3]

Hi suffering

 

From your post above you say

 

“I have a totally unafordable loan from Lanc Mortgage (Blemain) so i will be showing the judge i cannot make payments and i was never in a position to meet such high payments income was nowhere near the repayments"

 

 

Can you tell me if this was a first charge mortgage?

 

Is this a bridging loan?

 

Was this a commercial loan, used for business?

 

 

I have read lots of your posts (from all sites) and you seam to know what your doing, but a good read if your loan is a first charge is MCOBS, but there are different rules for different types of loan agreement, it is important you know what rules cover your agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

MCOB 11.3 Responsible lending, and responsible financing of home purchase plans

 

MCOB 2 – 7 contain the broad scheme of regulation extending over the whole range of mortgage selling, and impose detailed requirements as to the form and content of communication and financial promotion; the conduct of advising and selling; disclosure of information; the terms of offer documents including the requirement to give illustrations; having regard to the interests of customers and the duty to treat them fairly; and the duty to keep records (with supplemental provisions in MCOB Sched 1) etc.

 

 

 

MCOB 11 contains some important duties that extend the requirement in MCOB 6 to treat customers fairly.

 

 

(1) A firm must be able to show that before deciding to enter into1, or making a further advance on,1 a regulated mortgage contract, or home purchase plan,1 account was taken of the customer's ability to repay.

 

 

wp3

[welshperson3]

I started this thread with the hope that it will turn into a good source of information about what to do if Blemain start court proceedings for possession of your home.

 

　

There is no quick and easy answered to this problem as there are different types of loan agreement and different rules apply to these agreements, a few of the more conman ones listed below.

 

　

CCA regulated

Unregulated

Bridging loan

First charge mortgage

 

　

　

Now the first thing I would like to discuses relates to a CCA regulated agreement.

 

　

One thing that is required BEFORE starting court proceedings is a default notice DN, the DN Blemain send out is non compliant with the rules, what this means is that they have no right to start court proceedings.

 

　

A faulty DN doesn’t mean you get the loan written off, it doesn’t mean Blemain cant start all over again with a new DN.

 

　

What a faulty DN means for you is that it will give you some time to sort your self out, YOU CAN ALSO CLAIM YOUR COSTS, BLEMAIN WONT BE ABLE TO ADD THEIR COSTS TO YOUR LOAN.

 

　

If Blemain have got a suspended possession order on your home and they have got it after issuing a DN like the one I post up for all to see, if you really want to you can go back to court and get it removed. ( I GOT MINE REMOVED)

 

　

Now if blemain are going for possession of your home and you already got a suspended possession order, then you need to bring the faulty DN to the attention of the judge (they cant have possession without following the rules and one of the rules are that they send out a CCA compliant DN)

 

　

This bit is were it gets messy

What if Blemain went to court and got possession, take someone’s home, all without the right documents. Legally they were never entitled to go to court and claim possession.

This would have defiantly happened because Blemain sent out thousands of faulty DN (they were a standard computer generated document)

 

　

If Blemain repossessed your home after issuing you with a DN like the one I post up then I strongly recommend you research what I am saying, you maybe entitled to a lot of money back. (CCA regulated loans only)

 

　

Why were the default notices faulty?

 

　

The consumer credit act sets the rules for CCA regulated agreements, and one of the rules say they must issue you with a default notice, and another rule says exactly what is required to be written in the DN,

 

Blemain have never been bothered with things like rules, so they decided to leave out parts of the DN which would have helped you,

 

A particular paragraph that must be included in a DN is the following.

 

　

　

　

　

The following is a prescribed paragraph and is missing fron Blemains DN

 

A statement in the following form—

"IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT TO DO, YOU SHOULD GET HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE

YOU SHOULD CONTACT A SOLICITOR, YOUR LOCAL TRADING STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OR YOUR

NEAREST CITIZENS' ADVICE BUREAU".

　

　

The construction of the Default Notice is such that it IS NOT lawfully compliant and that it defeated the intents and purpose of the act and as a matter of law is sufficient to allow the court to strike out the claimants claim

 

　

I will scan one of the faulty DN and put it on here tomorrow. But look at your DN AND SEE IF THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS MISSING

 

Wp3