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

[welshperson3]

Hi maybeline

Not arrogant at all, but your confidence led me to believe you are on top of your game, and me giving you advice is like me teaching my granny to suck eggs.

But anyway here is some good reading for you;

The different regulatory regimes established by the FSMA 2000 and the CCA 1974 are considered in sections 2.1 and 2.2. The principle is that the regimes should be mutually exclusive. The FSMA regime governs Regulated Mortgage Contracts being first legal mortgages over the borrower’s home. The CCA regime largely governs second and equitable mortgages; the detailed rules are summarized in Section 2.2.1. The regulatory divide is thus governed by the type of loan and lender rather than the type of borrower.

Both regimes are based upon the principles of decentered market regulation where the object of regulation is to create an open and competitive market in which borrowers can make informed choices best suited to their needs through the provision of standardized comparative information for instance regarding interest rates, repayment installments and penalty charges. Within this market borrowers are thus expected to be equipped to borrow responsibly and lenders to lend responsibly.

Lenders wishing to enter this market must be licensed and may be subject to disciplinary proceedings either by the FSA, if they conduct Regulated Mortgage Business, and by the OFT where their business is subject to regulation under the CCA. Thereafter both regimes adopt what has been called “cradle to grave” approach by setting out the steps and information that must be provided to the borrower throughout the course of the transaction from the lender’s marketing of the loan and the borrower’s first approach to the lender through to the mortgage offer and completion of the transactions. There are also requirements governing information that must be provided to the borrower during the course of the mortgage and provisions regulating the lender’s actions should the borrower default.

However, the FSMA and CCA take different approaches. The FSMA looks to satisfy broad principles, including in particular to treat borrowers fairly, through the articulation of process based rules set out in the Conduct of Mortgage Business Handbook known as the MCOB. A breach of these rules may lead to an action for breach of statutory duty by the borrower or disciplinary action by the FSA. However, the enforceability of the mortgage itself is unaffected.

The CCA is somewhat more prescriptive in detailing the form and content of the loan agreement and mortgage and the process by which they must be completed. Furthermore the consequences of a breach of these requirements is more far-reaching; the mortgage is void and can only be enforced with the approval of the court, who may require a variation in the terms of the mortgage. There is no equivalent of the MCOB Handbook governing CCA regulated mortgages but the OFT does issue guidance on various matters for instance as to requirements lenders must satisfy to obtain and retain a license, default charges and on non-status lending

A particularly important additional distinction between the two regimes is the provisions of sections 140A-C of the CCA 1974 which applies only to CCA regulated mortgages. These sections confer upon the court an important jurisdiction to reopen a mortgage where they determine that its terms create an unfair credit relationship between the lender and borrower, although it is still unclear exactly when a court will consider a particular credit relationship unfair. The OFT have offered their own guidelines

Although the two regimes are distinct, it should be noted that the FSA and OFT do maintain a close collaboration in which the Financial Services Ombudsman also plays a part in its complaint and dispute resolution role to borrowers under both regimes.

From a comparison of the legal forms of redress it is evident that the CCA regime affords great judicial protection to the borrower. This is perhaps not surprising given that CCA regulated lending is conducted mainly by secondary lenders, rather than high street banks and building societies, and is not primarily directed at home purchase loans but to secure loans to consolidate a borrower’s debts or secure other expenditure. Nevertheless the OFT has been subject to criticism by consumer groups as failing to provide adequate, comprehensive and current guidance and to put in place an effective monitoring and compliance strategy.

The FSMA does provide a more coherent regime and various groups have suggested that all loans secured against a borrower’s home should be regulated under by the FSA. However, the credit crunch has exposed the weakness of decentered market regulation, in particular lenders’ failure to lend responsibly. The Turner Review (referred to in the additional web material) is critical of the FSA’s past ‘light touch’ approach to its regulatory responsibilities and promises more intensive supervision focusing on responsible lending by considering the viability of regulated lenders business strategy, and not just their compliance with the MCOB. Also to come under greater scrutiny, will be the competence and probity of a lender’s employees responsible for the conduct of the lender’s business

[welshperson3]

sorry that sounds arrogant of me - oops, yes if you can check this it would be appreciated, fsa say my agreement is not regulated and so is therefore not exempt under cca 1974 category, however, i am lip and very open to anyhelp on offer:)

 

Its not a regulated mortgage then yes 140 will cover you.

[welshperson3]

Update

 

Went to court this morning,

Local solicitor representing blemain wanted a 28-day possession order; well to cut to the chase they didn’t get what they wanted, but I did I got the go-ahead for my trial.

 

Different judge to the last time but I still think I might get the right out come as he showed a fair bit of interest in the charges that have been added to the account.

 

I wanted a directions hearing this morning with standard disclosure, but the judge has gone one better, he has ordered a further directions hearing before the trial date.

 

 

This is what is going to happen

 

1 I have 14 days to file a defence and request documents from blemain

2 they have a further 14 days to respond and send documents

3 directions hearing date not yet fixed

4 trial date not yet fixed

 

 

In the judges words when he ordered the directions hearing (TO MAKE SURE WE ARE REDDY AND HAVE EVERYTHING PRE TRIAL)

 

They narrowly escaped an unfair relationship judgment last time, only as I won on my first point and the judge didn’t feel the need to give his judgment on the unfair relationship, and that was with the help of a top London barrister ££££££££.

I felt insulted today when they only turn up with a locum, after all my hard work and research they can at least show some effort.

 

WP3

[welshperson3]

Hi Patrick

This is what I asked the judge for today, but he wants me to file my defence at court first.i beleve that this is what will happen in the next directions hearing.

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed

 

31.6

 

Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which –

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

© the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

And if they don’t comply with the above then I aply for

Specific disclosure or inspection

 

31.12

 

(1) The court may make an order for specific disclosure or specific inspection.

(2) An order for specific disclosure is an order that a party must do one or more of the following things –

(a) disclose documents or classes of documents specified in the order;

(b) carry out a search to the extent stated in the order;

© disclose any documents located as a result of that search.

(3) An order for specific inspection is an order that a party permit inspection of a document referred to in rule 31.3(2).

[welshperson3]

sorry Double post

Edited October 24, 2011 by welshperson3
Double post

[welshperson3]

Thank you sillygirl1

 

This is something that I had not thought of, the question now is who!

 

 

If I pay a broker £1000 to find the best deal for me then I think I would be right in saying that this broker is working for me.

But that is only what blemain and the broker want me to believe, when in fact the broker and blemain are working together, conniving and conspiring to get my last penny and when that is gone try and take the house as well.

 

Now as I said the broker works for me and as such he owes me a fiduciary duty to find the best deal for me and not the one that is paying him a backhander.

 

 

Gary Bailey, Director of Blemain Finance said,

 

“We are still lending substantial volumes and are committed to improving the service we offer our brokers. I would like to thank everyone who has adopted the Minimum Standard Requirements for packaged cases. With brokers now working more efficiently, this has resulted in cases completing faster, and is an excellent example of how lenders and brokers can work together for mutual benefit. I’m also delighted that the Roving Underwriters are proving so successful and am very grateful for the positive feedback we have received.”

 

 

 

Well sillygirl1 I think I might have just a idea as to who that specific person might be, the only problem I have with this one is he gives all the bulletins on blemain which means he is a good talker and I think he might just baffle them with bull***t.

More research needed

 

ANYONE FROM BLEMAIN READING THIS AND FANCY A DAY OUT IN SUNNY WALES PLEASE PM ME

 

WP3

Edited October 26, 2011 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

What happened to these?

MONARCH RECOVERIES LIMITED

 

FSA maybe?

wp3

[welshperson3]

What happened to these?

 

MONARCH RECOVERIES LIMITED

 

FSA maybe?

 

wp3

 

 

Licence Number:0190361

Licence Status:Lapsed on 07/06/2011

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business NameCompany Registration NumberMonarch Recoveries Limited1959967

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit Consumer hire Credit brokerage Credit reference agency Debt adjusting/counselling Debt collecting

 

strange that acompany making £ 6 million

pre tax profit just fades away

 

WP3

[welshperson3]

Licence Details:

 

 

Licence/Application Number Licence Status Applicant/Holder Name 0032328 Current Blemain Finance Limited

Event Details:

 

 

Event TypeDate of ReceiptClosed DateStatus

Renewal04-May-2011 Open ??????????

Variation07-Apr-2011 27-Apr-2011 Completed

Notification02-Feb-2011 07-Mar-2011 Completed

Variation02-Feb-2011 07-Mar-2011 Completed

Renewal31-Mar-2006 08-May-2006 Completed

Notification07-Feb-2002 08-Feb-2002 Completed

Renewal14-Sep-2000 26-Apr-2001 Completed

Variation11-Jun-1999 02-Jul-1999 Completed

Edited October 27, 2011 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Hi dougal

 

If you would like to be a director at monarch then you would love this one.

 

Question? how is it possible to make a profit of over 50% of your turnover, if your lend money at between 10% and 20% add then take out wages and overheads, then it is impossible.

 

The law states that they cant make a profit out of their £35 letter and phone charges or the buildings insurance that they add whether you want it, or need it.

 

BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED

 

 

Last registered accounts: 30/06/2010

 

Annual turnover: £79,034,000.00

 

Annual profit: £40,440,000.00

 

Turnover per employee: £272,531.03

 

Profit per employee: £139,448.28

 

Number of staff: 290

 

Directors' remuneration: £2,488,000.00

 

Increase over last 7 years: 113.75%

 

Highest paid director's salary: £709,000.00 he must put some overtime in to be earning over 50 thousand a month

 

 

Now add the £6 million profit that monarch made collecting on theas loans and it adds up to a big WOW

Edited October 29, 2011 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Hi fretfull

 

“Hi WPS do you have any info where it states that they cannot charge £35 a letter please?”

Not an easy answer for this sorry, but here is the basic version.

Did you believe that bank charges were unfair?

Did you understand the argument as to why bank charges were unfair?

If the answer to the above is yes, then that is exactly why £35 a letter is unfair.

There is way to much information and arguments about bank charges, and why they are unfair for me to even try and explain in one post.

But I can explain why you can use the numerous (reclaim bank charges template letters)

1 In the bank charges fiasco the Supreme Court never ruled on the fairness of bank charges.

2 The rulling was that the charges couldnt be assesd for fairness as they were a core term of the agrement.

3 A core term is basically one of the following. The item you are buying / the service they are providing / the price you pay.

4 The bank won by saying that the charges you pay are in fact the price you pay for your bank account, so now your bank account is the service they provide and the charges added to your account is the price of the account which makes it a core term of the agreement and not assessable for fairness.

 

Now we are going to look at what is a core term in a loan agreement

 

 

1 the monies they lend is a core term

2 the interest we pay is a core term

 

Now with a loan agreement we have our core terms set out nice and plain for all to see, we know exactly what we are getting and how we are going to pay for it which are the core terms.

Now as charges on loans are not core term then all the arguments about unfair bank charges stil apply to loan agreements.

Take my word for it fretfull that blemain will use the supreme court judgment to try and baffle the judge (I know from experience) just make sure you understand what this judgment was all about.

 

Wp3

[welshperson3]

The problem's finding a fairness law, so something can be done about it

The OFT tried by taking on the banks in a test case, and indeed it beat them in the High Court, then again in the Court of Appeal.

Yet in November 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in a shock judgment, that followed strong arguments from the banks expensive barristers, that due to a narrow technical decision bank charges didn’t NEED to be fair – well at least on the main piece of law that was tried.

What was the law examined in the test case?

 

The test case focused on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, yet in the end it all boiled down to one simple nerdy technical point – were bank charges a core part of a bank account?

Unlike the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that they were, and that meant under those specific regulations the price of bank charges could not be used to examine whether they were fair.

Had this not been the case then the level of charges would’ve needed to be proportionate to banks’ costs, and a £35 charge to send a simple letter isn’t proportionate. Yet the Supreme Court ruling blew this out of the water.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[welshperson3]

Blemain are going down!!!! I am not at all sad, I am sure all concerned, directors etc. have earned very well on our money.

But, what about ongoing cases regarding unfair charges. Will I get my money back if they go?

 

 

Will you get your money back if they dont ?

[welshperson3]

Looks like im getting a pay rise

Litigant in person increased from £9.25 an hour to £18

Are you entitled to double time on Sundays ?

52.4

 

The amount, which may be allowed to a litigant in person under rule 46.3(5)(b) and rule 48.6(4), is £18 per hour.

Wp3

[welshperson3]

Thanks for that spot

The bit I like best is (I would allow the appeal, and I would award him costs of £10,460 in total)

And I am truly inspired

Wp3