Cap1 & CCA return

[maybelline]

sorry but is a secured loan a mortgage? is it a second mortgage as is secured on the home, either way, it seems to me that it is applied if there might be a shortfall and I cannot understand why the lender who had all the figures and claimed to have dona a 'driveby' valuation (?) or based it on the area prices at the time could have thought it was necessary.

[Mike220359]

Tamadus

 

When I get home this weekend, if Amex have not sent me my agreement then they are in clear violation of the Act. They have responded to my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

Can I then say - you are committing an offence and not supplied the agreement within the prescribed timescales - there is no debt which you can enforce?

Can they then send me the agreement (I cannot believe they dont have it) and say - there you go - now you must pay?

In other words despite the timescales if the agreement exists can it then be enforced?

 

They can supply you with the agreement at any time they want outside the prescribed timescales. But they still cannot demand any form of payment whatsoever, because under the law they have to take you to court in order to get the agreement that they now have a copy of reestablished in law.

 

Then they run the real risk of getting their credit licence questioned since the moment that they set foot in court, they are admitting that they have broken the law. Not a good thing to a licence holder.

 

One thread that holds true regarding the section 77, 78 requests is

that once the timescales are breeched, the account is negated until a judge says otherwise.

 

Mike

[Mike220359]

hey, are you saying I have been paying this all these years and its not supposed to be added to a secured loan??

 

had a look around on web, can only find mig in relation to mortgages and high LTV, really dont understand this either but it seems that I have paid this on each agreement, approx £1200 on top of the acceptance fee approx £300. will do some more reading around on this. thanks, I have been worried about this for a long time but just couldnt get advice.

 

Mortgage Indemnity Gurantee is indeed a rip off, as the other writer says it only benefits the lender, in that if you default and the house is repossesed and sold to liquidate the asset, any shorfall is made up by the MIG.

 

But here's the crappy bit, and I can remember this happening in the early 90s with a property bust and negative equity. Houses that were sold and did not realise enough money prompted the MIG to spring into life, the lender was then happy.

 

However the insurance company wasn't, they'd lost money on the agreement, so what did they do, they came after the poor sod who had just lost their house to cover they're losses, and if I remember properly they have 12 years in which to act. Alot of people were bamboozled into taking these 'products' in order to buy a house (me included), but in the wrong circumstances they are a ticking financial 'time bomb'

 

Mike

[elsinore]

Mortgage Indemnity Gurantee is indeed a rip off, as the other writer says it only benefits the lender, in that if you default and the house is repossesed and sold to liquidate the asset, any shorfall is made up by the MIG.

 

But here's the crappy bit, and I can remember this happening in the early 90s with a property bust and negative equity. Houses that were sold and did not realise enough money prompted the MIG to spring into life, the lender was then happy.

 

However the insurance company wasn't, they'd lost money on the agreement, so what did they do, they came after the poor sod who had just lost their house to cover they're losses, and if I remember properly they have 12 years in which to act. Alot of people were bamboozled into taking these 'products' in order to buy a house (me included), but in the wrong circumstances they are a ticking financial 'time bomb'

 

Mike

 

Tell me about it!

 

In 1992, two years after our house was repossessed by the Woolwich, they came at us for a shortfall of £38k! Their excuse was that their insurer required them to take all possible steps to recover the shortfall before they would pay out. That meant 'go to the poor sod and get it off him'. We then discovered that the property had been resold 'quietly' through an estate agent for a pittance.

As it happened it was a ludicrous proposition to chase us, as we had only enough money to feed ourselves at the time. We completed an income statement and they wrote to us every year or so, asking us nicely if our situation had changed, which of course it hadn't:rolleyes: .

After twelve years we breathed a sigh of relief having never paid them a penny!

There is now an agreement that lenders will not chase repayment after 6 years, although I believe the law regarding 12 years actually remains in place.

 

The repossession was brought about because, unbeknown to us, we had a second charge of £10k on the house which the lender called in after our business failed.

 

The lender? Natwest!

 

Elsinore

[Guest The Terminator]

Tell me about it!

 

In 1992, two years after our house was repossessed by the Woolwich, they came at us for a shortfall of £38k! Their excuse was that their insurer required them to take all possible steps to recover the shortfall before they would pay out. That meant 'go to the poor sod and get it off him'. We then discovered that the property had been resold 'quietly' through an estate agent for a pittance.

As it happened it was a ludicrous proposition to chase us, as we had only enough money to feed ourselves at the time. We completed an income statement and they wrote to us every year or so, asking us nicely if our situation had changed, which of course it hadn't:rolleyes: .

After twelve years we breathed a sigh of relief having never paid them a penny!

There is now an agreement that lenders will not chase repayment after 6 years, although I believe the law regarding 12 years actually remains in place.

 

The repossession was brought about because, unbeknown to us, we had a second charge of £10k on the house which the lender called in after our business failed.

 

The lender? NatWest!

 

Elsinore

 

This is what needs tightening up the limitation Act(1980) sets a limit of 6 years before debts are stature barred.With mortgages it's 12 years.This is the unfair legalation in the Act.Tam hope you got the result you wanted will mail you later.

 

The Terminator.

[Peterbard]

cooling off period doesnt apply if you sign the agreement on trade premises

 

Hi T

 

Thats what i said didle I.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Mayballine that list is here sorry i haven't been able to get back to you earlier.

Regs

Peter

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

[maybelline]

thanks Peter thats great!

[un1boy]

Hello

 

Did you know that the FSA is not a government body and is actually a limited company?

 

It does have statutory powers given to it by the Banking Act 1987 and the Financial Services and Act 2000.

 

For this reason, it is not covered under the freedom of information act either.

 

It gets a budget of over £200million a year!!

[Peterbard]

HI Uni

 

This could bet boring for every onee else but yes I have had dealings with the FSA and they do not mess about I was involved in helping a failing Credit Union some years back as you may know the FSA oversee CU's the day after the Credit Union pubished their end of year report they were waiting on the doorstep ready to close the CU down.

In the end I managed to convince them to suspend action for a week and with the help of some reorganisation and a loan from our friendly local coucil we managed just to save our bacon. But unlike the OFT they take no prisoners.

 

Peter

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI Uni

 

This could bet boring for every onee else but yes I have had dealings with the FSA and they do not mess about I was involved in helping a failing Credit Union some years back as you may know the FSA oversee CU's the day after the Credit Union pubished their end of year report they were waiting on the doorstep ready to close the CU down.

In the end I managed to convince them to suspend action for a week and with the help of some reorganisation and a loan from our friendly local coucil we managed just to save our bacon. But unlike the OFT they take no prisoners.

 

Peter

Peter

[un1boy]

HI Uni

 

This could bet boring for every onee else but yes I have had dealings with the FSA and they do not mess about I was involved in helping a failing Credit Union some years back as you may know the FSA oversee CU's the day after the Credit Union pubished their end of year report they were waiting on the doorstep ready to close the CU down.

In the end I managed to convince them to suspend action for a week and with the help of some reorganisation and a loan from our friendly local coucil we managed just to save our bacon.

 

Oh, that is great peter I'm glad yuo got it sorted!!

 

But unlike the OFT they take no prisoners

 

Well that's reassuring!

[TideTurner]

Hello

 

Did you know that the FSA is not a government body and is actually a limited company?

 

It does have statutory powers given to it by the Banking Act 1987 and the Financial Services and Act 2000.

 

For this reason, it is not covered under the freedom of information act either.

 

It gets a budget of over £200million a year!!

 

A budget from who? How many other limited companies receive this. My dealings with the FSA include - sorry, we can't help with individual cases. I return to an earlier post of mine where I have pointed out that the Financial Ombudsman Service was the original developer of the databases now used by the Credit Reference Agencies. When they realised what they were doing was unlawful, they dropped the whole idea like a hot potato. They did, however, pass on their work to companies I suspect were owned by the banks. The banks needed a way of identifying bad debtors, but knew they could not do it (and share information with other banks) legally. Hence the birth of the CRA's.

 

The CRA's will shout and scream at you and do everything possible to deny you access to your own information! Yet they readily provide this to their subscribers, whether you have a contract with them or not.

 

I believe the provision of this information, without proper checks and to anybody who cares to subscribe to their database is defamation and intrusion.

 

How dare they provide my information to anybody without my permission.

 

The ICO is currently looking at these people and the services they provide.

[un1boy]

I don't think the OFT is a government bosy either - it's either them or the Ombudsman.

 

I don't know where they get their budget from, I will try and find out.

[un1boy]

A budget from who?

 

Found this on the FSA website:

 

Who pays for the FSA?

Our budget is met from a levy on the firms we regulate. We receive no funding from the taxpayer. The amount each firm pays is determined according to its size and the types of business it undertakes. When financial penalties are imposed on firms or individuals, the proceeds are used to reduce fees in the following financial year.

Our budget for 2006/07 is £276 million. In terms of indirect costs, research by European Economics in 2003 put compliance costs incurred by firms at 1.6% of their total operating costs. The FSA and the independent

Practitioner Panel (a statutory body that represents the interests of regulated firms to the FSA) are undertaking further work this year on the indirect costs of the regulatory regime, with particular focus on the position of small firms.

 

Hope this helps!

[Guest The Terminator]

Found this on the FSA website:

 

 

 

Hope this helps!

 

Thanks Uni1boy that puts the iceing on the cake so the FSA are literally the banks and Im now going to prove it.What doe's it say when you make a complaint to a financial instutution at the bottom of the letter and I quote as I'm typing " In the unlikely event that we are unable to resolve your complaint within eight weeks of recepit,or you are not satisfied with our final response you can contact the Finiancial Ombusdsman Service at the following address:

 

Finiancial Ombusdsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall,

London

E14 9SR

 

What they are basically telling you is to f off.

 

This i'snt war anymore its Armageddon:mad:

[TideTurner]

So the Financial Services Authority are funded by the banks! This would explain their request for all details of my complaint prior to simply dismissing it.

 

This beggars the question: -

 

Who can you complain to with any form of confidence that they will act on your behalf and fight your corner.

 

So far, I've tried them all, and each have provided me with lip service.

 

The buck stops with the consumer, and eventually with the Courts.

 

there is no protection for the consumer, which is why this has been allowed for so long, and consumers have had to educate themselves and help each other to try to get justice (or proper regulation).

 

Imagine what this site could do with a fraction of the £276,000,000.00!

[Guest The Terminator]

Tide: I'd love to get my hands on one of the banks C.E.O's just to give him a bloody good kicking and I condon violence but in this case I'd make an exception.

[TideTurner]

No Terminator, the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service are different bodies. The FOS set up the original database to monitor debtors, then jumped ship when they found out it was unlawful, but this development was then taken up by private organisations (who continue to act unlawfully). The Financial Services Authority appear to be an organisation, funded by the banks which have wrongly been considered to be an Ombudsman to the banks. Estate Agents, Chartered Surveyors etc. all have one of these bodies.

[Guest The Terminator]

Hello

 

Did you know that the FSA is not a government body and is actually a limited company?

 

It does have statutory powers given to it by the Banking Act 1987 and the Financial Services and Act 2000.

 

For this reason, it is not covered under the freedom of information act either.

 

It gets a budget of over £200million a year!!

 

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

25 THE NORTH COLONNADE

CANARY WHARF

LONDON

E14 5HS

Company No. 01920623

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 07/06/1985

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7511 - General (overall) public service

7512 - Regulation health, education, etc.

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2006 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 06/07/2006

Next Return Due: 03/08/2007

Previous Names:Date of changePrevious Name28/10/1997THE SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS BOARD20/08/1987SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS BOARD LIMITED(THE)Branch Details There are no branches associated with this company.Oversea Company Info There are no Oversea Details associated with this company

 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating:mad:

[Guest The Terminator]

No Terminator, the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service are different bodies. The FOS set up the original database to monitor debtors, then jumped ship when they found out it was unlawful, but this development was then taken up by private organisations (who continue to act unlawfully). The Financial Services Authority appear to be an organisation, funded by the banks which have wrongly been considered to be an Ombudsman to the banks. Estate Agents, Chartered Surveyors etc. all have one of these bodies.

 

Thanks for the corection Tide:!:

[stevied]

Great this innit?!!!

[angry cat]

I am totally disgusted...but not really surprised!!

 

No wonder the so called regulator appears to have no teeth-

please see below.

 

 

"The FSA is an independent non-government body financed by levies on the industry. It is accountable to Treasury Ministers and through them to Parliament. The FSA must report annually on the achievement of its statutory objectives to the Treasury, which is required to lay the Report before Parliament".

 

plus it is also the FSA who set-up the Financial Ombudsman Service...disgraceful:(

 

Consumers are putting the faith in the vain hope that these institutions may help them. Very Bad

 

AC

[Smoothy]

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHH

 

look..! worms everywhere...

Who opened the can!!

 

 

you see, I'm so small minded, Ive gone through life believing that these instiutions, FSA, FO etc are the consumers safety net and will bring bank offenders to justice...

Now, I have an image in my head of criminals giving the police a percentage of their ill gotten gains...

 

I need a valium!

[un1boy]

Whhooopps, what have I started? lol....the FSA's board are elected by the Treasury if that make any difference? (hear the sarcasm in my voice?)