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

[welshperson3]

Thank for that Andrew

I read so much on the unfair relationship that 140A is permanently burnt in to my brain.

For anyone reading this that doesn’t know below is the full 140a and 140b,

 

“Unfair relationship”

 

 

 

140AUnfair relationships between creditors and debtors

 

(1)The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—

(a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;

(b)the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;

©any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

(2)In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor).

(3)For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor.

(4)A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended.

(5)An order under section 140B shall not be made in connection with a credit agreement which is an exempt agreement by virtue of section 16(6C).”

20Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships

 

 

After section 140A of the 1974 Act (inserted by section 19 of this Act) insert—

“140BPowers of court in relation to unfair relationships

 

(1)An order under this section in connection with a credit agreement may do one or more of the following—

(a)require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to repay (in whole or in part) any sum paid by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement (whether paid to the creditor, the associate or the former associate or to any other person);

(b)require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified in the order in connection with the agreement or any related agreement;

©reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;

(d)direct the return to a surety of any property provided by him for the purposes of a security;

(e)otherwise set aside (in whole or in part) any duty imposed on the debtor or on a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;

(f)alter the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;

(g)direct accounts to be taken, or (in Scotland) an accounting to be made, between any persons.

(2)An order under this section may be made in connection with a credit agreement only—

(a)on an application made by the debtor or by a surety;

(b)at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any proceedings in any court to which the debtor and the creditor are parties, being proceedings to enforce the agreement or any related agreement; or

©at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any other proceedings in any court where the amount paid or payable under the agreement or any related agreement is relevant.

(3)An order under this section may be made notwithstanding that its effect is to place on the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, a burden in respect of an advantage enjoyed by another person.

(4)An application under subsection (2)(a) may only be made—

(a)in England and Wales, to the county court;

(b)in Scotland, to the sheriff court;

©in Northern Ireland, to the High Court (subject to subsection (6)).

(5)In Scotland such an application may be made in the sheriff court for the district in which the debtor or surety resides or carries on business.

(6)In Northern Ireland such an application may be made to the county court if the credit agreement is an agreement under which the creditor provides the debtor with—

(a)fixed-sum credit not exceeding £15,000; or

(b)running-account credit on which the credit limit does not exceed £15,000.

(7)Without prejudice to any provision which may be made by rules of court made in relation to county courts in Northern Ireland, such rules may provide that an application made by virtue of subsection (6) may be made in the county court for the division in which the debtor or surety resides or carries on business.

(8)A party to any proceedings mentioned in subsection (2) shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have any person who might be the subject of an order under this section made a party to the proceedings.

(9)If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary

 

 

 

 

 

wp3

[Ford]

.....Section 140B (9) of the Act provides that if the borrower (or a surety)

alleges that the credit relationship is unfair, it is for the creditor to prove

the contrary. In other words, the onus of proof is on the creditor to

show that the relationship is not unfair. In practice, however, the

borrower will need positively to plead his case or to provide evidence,

which he is relying on to show an unfair relationship, in order to avoid

the risk of having his claim struck out.

 

quite. as pointed out in the pdf i posted #121 (page 11 for eg). Carey case was quoted.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Ford

[welshperson3]

Anyone looking for a job ?

 

 

 

 

 

Customer Relations Quality Assessor

 

Location Manchester, Lancashire

Salary £24,000 - £26,000 per annum

Recruiter Bleming Group

Applications 24

Date 16 Sep

 

 

 

 

 

1. Using the approved framework tools, (COURTS AND BALIFS) this role is to assess and report on the quality of case management (HOW MANY HOMES WE CAN TAKE IN A YEAR) within the Group Customer Relations department and the wider Blemain Group. The company Blemain Finance aspires to be an employer of choice by hiring exceptional individuals (Genghis khan, Attila the Hun, Fagin, TO NAME BUT A FEW)
   

1. 
   The company
   Blemain Finance aspires to be an employer of choice by hiring exceptional individuals and developing and building on their capabilities; (lying cheating and stealing) with a wide range of Company benefits that ensures a balance between work and home.
   We offer our employees challenging, rewarding careers in a dynamic business, which prides itself on its adaptability and focuses on what the customer needs.(to be homeless they just don’t know it yet) At Blemain Finance the emphasis is on the customer experience (courts bailiffs and homlessness)and the employees here use their unique personality to ensure that the customer journey is successful.(true)
    
    
    
    
    
    
   Blemain Finance believes in its core values and these are at the heart of our code of conduct and create a shared identity; they define who we are;
   
   • Integrity and support (are under no circumstance to be used at work)
     
   • Passion for business (peoples homes and as much as we can screw out of them)
     
   • Sustainable growth (work harder make more £35 phone calls)
     

Responsibilities;

1. 
   
   • To produce regular quality audit reports identifying core issues and to suggest deliverable solutions (how can we get peoples homes quicker)
     
   • To ensure that a regular & effective method of formalised and documented auditing is established (but don’t dare let the customer or the FSA see it )
     
   • Ensure that audit results are used to provide effective & documented coaching & feedback (train new monkeys)
     
   • Maintain the internal quality framework and any quality related documentation, ensuring that periodic reviews are competed on a regular basis (keep takeing homes)
     
   • Assume the responsibility of Training & Competency Supervisor for GCR (monkey see monkey do)
     

The person we are looking for;

1. 
   
   • Knowledge and experience of FSA regulations on complaints handling particularly in the areas of mortgages, secured loans and payment protection insurance (and how to avoid all the above)
     
   • Minimum of 2 - 3 years in a similar or customer service role(repossessing homes)
     
   • Excellent understanding of the financial services industry, including principle of Treating Customers Fairly policy, Data Protection Act (DPA) (and anything that can help us to avoid the above)
     
   • Experienced in dealing effectively with customers, regulators, third parties and senior management (stand in the corner, say nothing and play dumb)
     
   • Excellent written & verbal communication skills (must know your ABC, and be able to speak)
     
   • Previous experience of quality assessment in a regulated environment is essential (just so you know what to avoid)
     
   • Report writing (how many homes you get, how much you make in £35 phone calls)
     
   • Coaching skills (train more monkeys)
     

To apply, please forward your CV without further delay!

Edited October 2, 2011 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Blemain get conned out of £500,000

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH157.html

[welshperson3]

They cannot even organise a night out with out corruption

 

How low can they get

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

 

The Blemain Awards Night Spectatular ... Not

 

 

 

We have had a bunch of emails from people that attended the Blemain Awards night held last week in Birmingham. A lender having their own 'awards night' seems somewhat strange on the face of it, and apparently it was as expected.

 

 

From the emails we have received, we understand that the evening commenced with sparkling wine and hot juice sponsored by Bridging Introducer, the new up and coming PR machine/magainzine in the bridging industry. Continuing the long tradition of sponsors winning awards, their parent publication Mortgage Introducer, won the media publication award.

 

The gathering of Blemain clients were shuffled from the hotel bar to the marquee where there was a free seating arrangement. We have been told that the highlight of the pre-awards entertainment for a couple of people was a random guest approaching a senior Blemain executive and innocently asking: “What do Blemain actually do?”.

 

The awards ceremony itself kicked off with a someone from Blemain nervously proceeding to present a roll call of sponsers and business associates awards. Of course, it was all under the guise of winners coming from an 'online survey' and pretending to be an impartial independent awards night?! We can't be bothered to go through the exhuastive [and we understand, exhausting] list of all the awards that were dished out - but it has been described to us by one tipster to be like watching people walk through the turnstiles at a football match. From what we understand, all of the awards went to either sponsers for the evening, or businesses that do business with Blemain. We are happy to be corrected on this?

 

It was muttered throughout the crowd that the best bit of the event was when one prominent packager was coming up to collect his second or third award for the evening, and comedian Simon Evans commented “I wouldn’t trust that LITTLE young MAN with my home!”

 

All in all, it seemed like a strange concept when it was announced and it sounds like in the end, it was.

[andrew1]

 

We have had a bunch of emails from people that attended the Blemain Awards night held last week in Birmingham. A lender having their own 'awards night' seems somewhat strange on the face of it, and apparently it was as expected.

 

 

 

Been there, got the T shirt - Cabot did this all the time.

 

The credit industry just love slapping themselves on the back for being ' Best Debt Collector of the year' - ie how many charging orders they can achieve or repossessions. I could never get over the year Malcolm Hurlston who set up that wonderful debt counselling service CCCS which has dedicated and extremely helpful and compassionate people on the coal face helping people in dire debt distress and dealing with all these DCA's, actually acting as a Judge at the Credit Today magazine awards ceremony to decide on the best Debt Collection Agency of the year. What a hypocrite !

 

This the same man who set up and runs Registry Trust which sells lists of CCJ's he has gathered from the Court system awarded to these DCA's and Finance Companies under contract from the Government, to sub prime loan brokers for circa £80k a shot. I applied via my company for a price list and got the official low down - I was gobsmacked, but could now understand why every time a CCJ is issued a bundle of sales leaflets came tumbling through the letter box offering loans at horrendous prices.

 

I'm surprised at someone like Blemain doing this - sub-prime slapping their backs in this banking environment??? - Jeepers!!

[Ford]

mh; a 'social entrepreneur' who '....was trained as a Russian interrogator'!

chairs 'Registry Trust, which contributed to initial funding to set up CCCS...'

appointed, in 3/11, cccs 'Honorary President in recognition of the unique and invaluable contribution he has made to the development of CCCS, and to debt advice more generally in the UK' lord stevenson.

[welshperson3]

Anyone know where I can get my hands on one of these ?

(copy of blemain Broker Venue disc and plans)

[andrew1]

Just as an aside, given the title of this thread. Can anyone outline the basis of their s.140 claim at all against these alleged cretins?

[welshperson3]

hi andrew

 

some bed time reading for you

 

 

 

IN THE BRIDGEND COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No: xxxxxx

 

 

BETWEEN:

BLEMAIN FINANCE LIMITED

Claimant /Respondent

And

xxxxxxxxx

Defendant / Appellant

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT

The Defendant has made an application for the judgment of District Judge

jenkins dated the 26th November 2007 to be set aside, and also a declaration

on a unfair relationship under section 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit

Act Amendments of 2006.

1 It is admitted that this claim has taken a considerable amount of time in

Brining it to the attention of the court, as I will show in the following

Paragraphs the claimants wilful neglect of duty and Misinformation had a

Considerable impact on the original claim and also in the Time it has taken in

Brining this claim.

2 It is also admitted that the defendants fell behind with payments due on this

Account thro illness and then becoming unemployed, and it is also accepted

That any genuine loss suffered by the claimant for this breach then defendant

Has a duty to reimburse the claimant for any genuine loss.

3 What is not acceptable is that a large financial company that has an in house

Legal department that knows the applicable rules, regulations and law but

Shows little regard for it in the quest for large profits, Taking advantage of

Consumers lack of knowledge or not having funds to seek legal advice and

Being tied into an agreement that has penalty clause to exit the agreement

Is unfair.

4 Undisclosed commission

About the beginning of May 2007 the defendant contacted a broker (click for

Freedom) the defendant is aware that a broker has to get paid and so a

Broker Fee is there to pay the broker, what the defendant was unaware of at

The time is that the broker is also doing deals with the claimant for payments

Above And beyond the broker fee. Effectively lining his own pocket.

5 The defendant aver that the brokers click for freedom were agents of the

Defendant and as such owe a fiduciary duty to the defendant.

As the claimant and the broker has conspired to do secret deals,

(Court bundle CS 22O) shows that the higher the rate of interest applied to

The loan the more Commission the broker gets paid.

6 In ( Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)

(Court bundle CS 72) The Lender was ordered to pay the customer the

Commission it had paid the

Broker, plus interest, because it had "procured the broker's breach of fiduciary

7 The defendant is of the impression that the paying of a undisclosed

Commission would also lead to an unfair relationship as at the time they

Were relying on what they believed to be impartial advice and are now

Doubting weather this was the best deal available at the time.

The office of fair-trading has guidance on this second charge lending

– OFT guidance for lenders and brokers (court bundle CS 158)

8. 26th November court hearing.

It is true that the claimant was in regular contact with the defendant, it just a

Fact that the nature of this contact wasn’t to try and come to an expectable

Agreement as to how much could we reasonably pay of the arrears.

9. The fact of the matter is that every time the claimant phoned they would add a

£30 charge and every time they would send a letter add £30 this is a charge

For each individual phone call or letter, the defendant adds to this a monthly

Arrears fee of £30.

10. As can be seen in the very select sample of phone call transcripts supplied in

The witness statement of John Paul Walker, (court bundle CS 234) the

Defendant is trying to come to an agreement over the arrears, and in four out

Of the four transcripts it can be seen that the claimant has refused a

Reasonable request on payment of the arrears and is only willing to accept

£1509 a figure that will bring the balance below two months arrears.

11. The requirement for a valid Default Notice

Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a

"Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor can become Entitled, by

Reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e) To enforce any security.

12. It is submitted that the Default Notice served under s87 (1) Consumer

Credit Act 1974(court bundle CS 21) failed to comply with the Consumer

Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI

1983/1561) (court bundle CS 97) as it failed to allow the prescribed time and

Also left out the following vital paragraph on were the defendant should seek

Advice.

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 you’re nearest citizens' advice bureau

13. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default

Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co –

[2001] GCCR 2255) (court bundle CS 64) but is an unlawful rescission of

Contract that would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt,

But give me a counter Claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building

Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.( court bundle CS 55)

14. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co –

[1998] All ER (D) 339 (court bundle CS 64) in the Court of Appeal, the Court

Addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and

Should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement,

Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would

Render the Default Notice Invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This

Statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to

Be individuals" the Judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit

Legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and

Set out to offer protection to the consumer.

15. New default notice dated 28th September 2010

The defendant received a new default notice and what this notice shows is

That the claimant knows what is required of a valid default notice and that the

First default notice was a deliberate attempt at withholding a vital source of

Information on were to get advice, and also to deliberately deprive the

Defendant of time to remedy,

16. The issuing of a new default notice while there is a dispute.

The office of fair trading dept collection guidance(Court bundle CS 201) gives

Its views on this under the heading.”Deceptive and/or unfair methods”

“k. Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

Disputed debt.”

17. The amount of charges that have been added to this account and the cost of

Each charge is disputed, as to it being reasonable or fair and should be

Assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Regulations 1999 and also under the a unfair relationship under section

140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act Amendments of 2006.

18. Variable interest rates in clause 3 of the agreement (court bundelCS235)

States ” The lender vary the rate of interest per month from time to time to take

Account of actual or expected changes in market conditions” yet has not

Gone on to explain the nature in which your “variable rate” loan tracks the

Market, the words market condition seem to suggest that there is some out

Side factor that plays a significant part in how this rate is determined

It is this lack of explanation that I feel breaches the principles of open and fair

Dealings, and makes for a very one-sided agreement.

OFT guidance for lenders and brokers (court bundle CS 158)

19. Loan statement (court bundelCS 27) the documents sent by the claimant with

The heading LOAN STATEMENT are nothing like a loan statement, what the

Claimant claims to be a loan statement is in fact just a list of payments made

On the account the meaning of a statement is (An account statement or a

bank statement is a summary of all financial transactions occurring over a

given period of time ) and the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that

they have ever sent a valid statement of account.

20. It is believed by the defendant that this is a attempt by the claimant to hide the

True figure that has been added to the account, thus allowing the claimant

To add more charges and interest to the charges without having disclosed the

True amount that this will eventually cost, the defendant can think of no

Legitimate reason why the claimant would send out such a Statement

Knowing that it is misinformation, this is an attempt to show consumers are

Having Statements when in fact they are not.

21. UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS

Section 19 inserts a new section 140A after section 140 of the 1974 Act.

Section 140A(1) enables a court to make an order under the new section

140B, inserted into the 1974 Act by section 20 (see below) if it finds that the

Relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of a credit

Agreement, or that agreement taken with any related agreement, is unfair to

The debtor. A relationship may be unfair to the debtor because of one or more

Of the following:

• Any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement;
  

• The way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;
  

• Any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (whether occurring before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).
  

• The court may take into account all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relevant to the debtor and to the creditor) in determining whether a relationship is unfair. This may include anything done or not done on behalf of or in relation to the creditor's associates or former associates (as defined by section 184 of the 1974 Act).
  

22. I would also bring to the courts attention the Judgment of the Court of

Justice. C-243/08 Pannon GSM Zrt. v. Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

(Court bundle CS 46) 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?

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.

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.

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.

23. Setting aside judgment

The defendant believes that it would be in keeping with The CPR overriding

Objective,and asks the court to consider that the interests of justice this claim

Should be allowed, the court has the discretion as can be seen in Forcelux

Ltd v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 (court bundle CS237) and as the claimant

Has now issued another default notice saying on after 19th October2010 that

They are going to apply to the court for a warrant for possession, and then I

Would have apply to have it suspended under the unfair relationship rules so

This matter has to be dealt with and it would save court time and costs if it

Were done sooner than latter.

24. I would also draw to the attention of the court the claimants behaviour before

And during these proceedings the following points are how I have tried to

Resolve the issues with out the need for court.

A Defendant tries to come to arrangement to pay a reasonable amount of arrears.

Claimant demands that the agreement has to less than two months in arrears.

B Defendant tries to get claimant to stop adding charges to the account.

Claimant just continues on adding charges and relying on the terms of the

Agreement to do so (in one month adding £468.28 )

C Defendant send a data subject access request to find out history of account.

Claimant failed to comply and to date is refusing my legal request.

D On 15 September 2010 defendant sends a CPR part 18 request.

Claimant fails to reply to a CPR part 18 requests.

E GENERAL FORM OF ORDER FROM BRIDGEND COUNTY COURT

It is ordered that

1 the claimant do file and serve a statement in response to the defendants amended application to set judgment aside by 4.00 p.m. on 8th September 2010.

The first correspondence received from the claimant was on the 4th October 2010

Nearly a month late, how is a litigant in person able to seek legal advice?

F Defendant phoned the claimant on the 13th 14th and 15th and was told on every

Occasion that someone would get back to me, but they never did and then again

On 22nd September 2010 this time I was told it was a legal matter and was in the

Hands of their legal department, phoned legal department and was told they don’t

Deal with litigants in person

25 the defendant believes that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Regulations 1999 and the section 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit

Act Amendments of 2006.were implemented to offer protection to the

Consumer this not an issue of trying to get out of my responsibilities but one

Of fairness.

26. In the (court bundle CS222) it is show that companies such a G-Mack and

Kensington that were treating consumers in the same way that the claimant

Has have been found unacceptable by the FSA and were fined £2.8 million

And £1.225 million that treating customers unfairly was not acceptable.

27. I would also put the claimant to strict proof that the charges the apply to the

Accounts are fair and a genuine pre estimate of what they are meant to cover

As they have had ample opportunity to do this before court, but instead they

Continue to hide the true nature of their costs.

28. The defendants also claim damages / compensation as the court sees fit.

The defendants also make a request costs.

Statement of Truth

 

I believe the facts stated above are true.

xxxxxxx

[welshperson3]

letter sent to blemain before i started last court claim

 

 

 

Date: xx October xxxx

Account number: xxxxx

Complaint ref: xxxxxxx

Blemain finance

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Sir/Madam

 

We are writing in response to your letter-dated xxxxxx.And I would like to thank you for your kind offer of £680.00 refund to the account. We will accept this on the same terms that it is offered. (Without prejudice)

Also in the same letter you say I remain dissatisfied at the level of charges applied, and this is true. But since your company’s eagerness to start litigation I was then left with no option but to seek expert advice. The advice I have been given brought up numerous issues regarding, legality and fairness of the loan agreement and the way it has operated.

So while I eagerly await your response to my S.A.R. there are a few questions I have and I respectfully request an answer to the following points.

A My loan agreement has a variable interest rate. And as a layperson taking out a loan with a variable interest rate I was under the impression that it would very in the same way as a mortgage. By tracking an outside source (example B.O.E. base rate + %), as the cost of borrowing has got a lot cheaper from the time I took out the loan. Which includes any monies blamaine has to borrow. So not passing on the interest rate cut increases the predicted profit margin dramatically and makes this loan at least a very one sided agreement or even a unfair relationship

I’m sure u have knowledge about O.F.T. guidance for lenders and brokers but for ease reference I have enclosed documents with relevant paragraphs relating to the above issue.

So on to my questions about the interest rate. 1 Can you tell me where in my contract it states what method is used to vary the interest?

2 Can you tell me what method is used to vary the interest?

The relevant paragraphs to the interest issue are in the O.F.T. guidance for lenders and brokers (2.1) (3.6) (4.4) (5.3) (7.1)

B The issue of charges that have been added to the account has been raised in my previous correspondence. And from your reply letter dated (21/08/2009) we are in dispute over the legality of the charges added to this account. As I can only assume that you are aware of all that is going on at the present time relating to all charges across the whole financial sectors, not only in the House of Lords with bank charges but also by the treasury committee and all the regulatory bodies covering the finical sector. So if blemain finance wishes to continue with their opinion that their charges are fair then I will require strict proof and not just a letter of denial. As the law states I only have to raise the question of fairness and the emphasis is on blemain to show that they are fair, not on me to show that they are affair. So this to might lead to an unfair

Relationship.

For information purposes see enclosed document the O.F.T. guidance for lenders and brokers. (2.1) (5.3) (5.10) (7.1) also enclosed treasury committee press notice (tc0809pn080809)

So my questions on charges are.

1 can you SHOW me proof of how it costs you £35 to send out a standard letter? (Of which I have many to show that it is a standard letter)

2 can you SHOW ME PROOF of how it costs you £30 and some times £35 to make a phone call?

3 can you SHOW ME PROOF of how all other charges that are added to my account are worked out?

Also if you cannot show me the above then will you please show me how you reach a genuine pre estimate for the charges?

C litigation and blemains non-compliance with pre-action protocol for possession claims. While we freely admit that the account has not been run as smooth as it should have. There have been a number of times were we found our selves in a position were we could not pay. Since the start of this loan mr xxxxx has been in hospital and had an operation and then had time off work to recuperate. Then on a separate occasion Mrs xxxxx had a operation and time of work to recuperate and just to make things worse mr xxxxx was made redundant, out of work with no income. So I hope you understand that the missed payments were never a case of deliberately not wanting to pay but a case of genuine hardship. Now during this time blemain have found themselves in a position were there are a number of options open to them, (examples deferred payments, freeze interest, capitation) any or all of those would have helped that situation. But the only option blemain were interested in is how much monies they could add to the account thro charges and litigation £4,371.13 in charges that is without the litigation costs which I have yet to receive. Now at the time blemain started the litigation mr xxxx tried to come to an agreement to pay a £100 a month of the areas and was told by blemain or their representatives, monarch recoveries (in house recovery) that this was unacceptable and only the full areas was expectable so left with no option it is of to court to defend a repossession claim.

Now outside of the courtroom a solicitor approached mr xxxxx and identified himself as representing blemain finance. A deal was made between mr xxxxx and the solicitor for £50 a month off the arrears. The solicitor then phoned blemain finance to see if the £50 was acceptable. To mr xxxxx surprise it was accepted before the parties had even gone in to court. So the fact is that mrxxxxx had been offering £100 on numerous occasions. But on the day that £50 was acceptable without any argument by blemain goes to show that the overriding objective was to take this to court with the view to add all the litigation costs and interest effectively increasing my loan and their profits whether I wanted or could afford a bigger loan or not.

For information purposes see enclosed document. Pre-action protocol

So my questions on litigation are.

1 What is blemains response to the above statement? (Part c litigation)

2 can u show what steps blemain took pre litigation to avoid the need for court?

3 can u show me instances were blemain has tried to resolve the arrears problem to the benefit of the customer without adding charges?

Now relating to all the afore mentioned issues if blemain finance dispute any or all of the issues I respectfully request proof. The same as any regulatory body or court would. So at this early stage I am asking u to supply proof and show me I have no case, bye doing this now rather than later you have the opportunity to end this dispute and not go on to waste the regulatory bodies or the courts time and save on your costs.

Also I can’t emphasise enough about the burden of proof. Supplying a denial letter with out any proof to back up your claims is just wasting your time and the cost of postage

. Resolution

Without prejudice

In good faith and to show to you that I am in no way trying to get out of my responsibilities for this loan. I am willing to continue with the original loan and its interest rate minus all charges and litigation costs.

The above offer is valid up to and including 26 october 2009 after which it is revoked without further correspondence.

I would also like to remind you that should you not accept this offer then all options will be open, which include but are not limited to rescission, restitution and compensation.

As I am sure you are aware I have not shown all relative case law or regulatory rules relating to these matters but I have supplied you with enough information to take this case seriously and realise that it takes more than a denial to make it go away

. Yours faithfully,

 

xxxxxxxxx & xxxxxxxxx

[welshperson3]

Just as an aside, given the title of this thread. Can anyone (me LOL) outline the basis of their s.140 claim at all against these alleged cretins?

 

 

 

I have to put a defence in to court by Wednesday, so I wont post it up here as I know blemain read this and I am not willing to give them a heads up,i will post the basics of my defence in a week’s time, by then blemain would have a copy and will know what they are up against.

 

But if you have any questions regarding unfair relationship in general then ask away.

 

Some good reading

 

Second charge lending

– OFT guidance for lenders

and brokers

July 2009

OFT1105

 

 

 

Debt collection guidance

 

Final guidance on unfair business practices

July 2003 (updated December 2006)

OFT664

 

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Post-contract information

requirements

July 2008

OFT1002

 

 

The Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007

 

 

 

 

 

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004

 

 

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

 

 

 

Read and understand the importance of this case

 

 

C-243/08 Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi, judgment of

4 June 2009

 

 

I have no legal training so don’t advice people but if I am asked then I will try and point to the answer, and most answers can be found in the documents above.

 

 

WP3

Edited October 3, 2011 by welshperson3

[Ford]

as well as the pdf i posted above #121 (lots of info there, particulalry the footnotes also)

see also for eg

oft1107

cputr

european directives

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30532[/ATTACH]

 

Edited October 4, 2011 by Ford
typo

[welshperson3]

as well as the pdf i posted above

see also for eg

oft1107

european directives

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30532[/ATTACH]

 

 

Thank you ford, its very helpful, as there are not to many cases about to chose from to use in court as authorities,

WP3

[determindator]

as well as the pdf i posted above

see also for eg

oft1107

european directives

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30532[/ATTACH]

 

 

Hi Ford,

 

I clicked on your link but I had an alert which said downloading this file can harm your pc?

 

On quoting your post attachment 30532 has emerged and no prob with that so I can view.

Edited October 3, 2011 by determindator

[Ford]

the cases pdf is a pdf direct from the oft site!

should be ok, maybe just your pc o/s being cautious. if in doubt save the pdf to disk and then scan it for viruses before opening.

[andrew1]

This has probably been put up before, but is this a regulated or Unregulated loan WP?

[welshperson3]

My agreement is CCA regulated

[andrew1]

My agreement is CCA regulated

 

I'm very pleased to hear that WP3, got me worried for a minute....

[phatram]

I believe they also charge you £35 if you make the phone call to them too!

 

Cupcake

 

So charge them £40 for receiving and making phone calls from and to them.

[maybelline]

very good luck wp3 - i too am using the s140 and seeking to defend and counterclaim repo (not Blemain) but equally 'dodgy' IMHO. I have a hearing this month so your thread is very interesting, but as you say, it is read by them and others so I an unable to post my arguments on the open forum right now. I will post all after to help others.

[welshperson3]

A good read from the OFT ( INTREST RATE )

UNFAIR STANDARD TERMS

Variation clauses

paragraph 1(j), (k), and (l) of Schedule 2

For example, the company may at any time

vary or add to these conditions as it deems

necessary.

All materials used may vary in colour and

finish.

The price may be adjusted if costs relating to

the order increase prior to delivery.

When a contract is made, obligations are

accepted in return for benefits. If one party can

unilaterally change agreed terms, to its

advantage, the balance of the transaction is

lost. So a term is likely to be unfair if it gives

the supplier the right at its discretion to force

the consumer to accept changes to the

bargain. A right to change any term in the

contract, or to vary its core terms – the price or

description of the product – is particularly

open to objection.

Fairness, and the law, require that consumers

get what they agreed to buy. Goods, in

particular, must be of the agreed description

and purpose, not just of 'equivalent quality'. A

right to raise prices at discretion, where

consumers are locked into the contract, is also

highly suspect.

Where the supplier's freedom to vary is more

restricted, there may be no unfairness. Terms

which allow only technical product

modifications of no significance to the

consumer are usually acceptable. Even a right

to make more substantial variations may be

unobjectionable if the changes permitted are

precisely specified, so consumers do

effectively know what they are agreeing to.

Alternatively, a variation clause that confers no

real discretion, for instance, a right to raise

prices in line with a published price index,9

may be fair.

Finally, and most importantly, any right to vary

may be fair if the consumers can exit from the

contract before being affected – but obviously

adequate advance notice of the variation must

be given10 and the consumer must not suffer

any loss or significant inconvenience by

cancelling.

WP3

[welshperson3]

If you need any documents during the court prosses (underwriters sheets) do it properly

 

Below is an extract from someone that didn’t ( not me )

 

 

 

To cut a long story short. In the judges summary he said that even though the defence was refusing to had over a copy of the charges review, he had to accept that the credit control department was not making a profit because the witness for the defence said so. (i can prove blemain made over £5 million)

 

However, if I (the claimant) had of previously submitted an offical application for a disclosure order, and not just asked for one on the Allocation Questionaire. Then even if it had not been previously actioned, he would have issued it there and then. But unfortunately the time had passed to submit such an application so therefore he was left to strike out my claim.

 

He then ordered me to pay £500 in costs to the defendant.

 

The lesson to all of us is to have "an official application for a disclosure order" submitted with our claims.

 

Had I have had an application submitted the judge would have issued it & you & I both know that the defence would not have produced the information, thus conceeding & I would have won

Edited October 4, 2011 by welshperson3

[welshperson3]

Maybelline just a quick question for you

Is your loan a first charge (mortgage)

Or a loan you had after the original mortgage was taken out (second charge)

Wp3

[maybelline]

first charge