hi i need some urgent help and advice pls due to be evicted

[PlanB]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

i was self employed as far as i remember cystal mortgages sorted it all out for me i dont remember providing them with anything as far as i know they dealt with all that employment etc etc and got it sorted for me

Basically i bought some land in 2007 for £210k and needed a mortgage i somehow approached crystal mortgages and they said they can only get me £100k on the land and the rest £105k would have to be a bridging loan secured on my house

i had about £200k equity in the house

the initial plan was to build on the land then remorgage it and pay off the bridging loan within the term. Unfortunately i had a death in the family and then fell ill ontop of that the recession killed my business and everything went tits up.

I sold the land at a loss and paid the £100k mortgage aswell as lump sump to blemain £58k after this i made a few smaller amount lump sump and installments now totalling too £139k

While others are looking at your credit agreement with Blemain (or Harpmanor) do you mind if I ask a question about how you actually puchased the finance in the first place? It may (may not ) help when assessing if irresponsible lending was involved, and/or whether you were made fully aware of what deal you were entering into.

In 2007 you bought a plot of land with the intention of building a house on the site as a property developer. Did the estate agent or seller introduce you directly to Crystal Mortages to set up the necessary associated finance? If not then how did you know about Crystal?

You say the project went "tits up" was that (partly) because you couldn't get the necessary planning consent to build on the land or did the agent tell you that planning consent would be a doddle when you entered into the negotiations? Could you have bought it from one of those now disgraced Land Banks who promised planning consent when it was never going to happen?

Paul has already asked you about your general financial circumstances at the time and you've said you were self-employed. Did you have any experience as a property developer or even a builder at the time you purchased the land and took out the finance (which would seem to differ from your member profile)? I can only presume that the loan company knew what the finance was for. And would have asked you for your 'occupation or profession' (even though self-employed) when filling in the application forms.

There's no need to answer any of this unless you feel like it. If the credit agreement is unenforceable due to its content (or lack of!) then you will have something to work with. I'm just searching for any other avenues that may be open to you. The more shit you can throw at Blemain's fan the better. Or anyone else's fan for that matter

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

The OP mentioned that he was self-employed and there was mention of possible irresponsible lending....I posted up this case law a while back although not exactly linked to what the OP is going through...nevertheless the judge in this case saw the lenders lending criteria which had an impact on the judgment.


Pragraphs 82, 83 & 84

1. On the basis of the evidence before me, I infer that, if GMAC had made proper enquiries as to the Borrower's financial position, it would have found that he was unable to verify his declared income or to give satisfactory explanation for his inconsistent statements of earnings or his failure to give proper disclosure of his liabilities. The probability is that GMAC would have concluded that the Borrower's income was of the order of his original statement, namely £85,000, and that it was insufficient to justify the loan that he sought. Further, the reasonable conclusion in the circumstances would have been that the Borrower was dishonest. In those circumstances, GMAC would not have made the advance to the Borrower.
2. Accordingly, if I had found Countrywide liable, I should have found that GMAC was contributorily negligent. Both Countrywide's negligence and GMAC's contributory negligence would have caused the entirety of GMAC's loss, in the sense that the loss would not have been suffered were it not for the negligence or the contributory negligence as the case may be. Having regard to what I regard as the comparatively egregious nature of GMAC's lack of care, I should have made a deduction of 60% of the entire loss. If the entire loss were taken as £65,960.76 (see paragraph 57 above), the resulting figure would be £26,384.30. As that figure would be less than the full measure of recoverable damages, judgment would have been in that lower amount.
   Conclusion
3. In the event, however, the claim fails and must be dismissed.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/3307.html

Not that I am suggesting in anyway that the OP has done anything like this but my point is that the lenders lending criteria can be questioned too....which will be most helpful in my defence against Blemain due to OH's very demonic past.

Paul I hope you agree that this was a good judgment? and not so long ago too.

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

Maybe jimmy you could say what evidence was requested to prove your self employment history as I know Blemain did not ask for a single piece of evidence....my OH was not even registered on the electoral register....all this little points will add to your defence.

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

Below I have posted up some documents when I complained about Blemain to the FOS & OFT. I exhausted all channels and did everything I possibly could to try and get help. The end result was NOTHING! Even after I submitted documentary evidence to these regulators they done nothing...apart from the OFT who asked me to fill & return a form giving my permission to investigate....but never heard again from them

I personally think they are a waste of space..others may disagree...but just goes to show what companies like Blemain can get away with. I think and believe that they really are scared of publicity...especially after that Bentley v Blemain case....

Just posting this up if it is of any help seeing as I have been through all the process of banging me head against the wall...so others can use as general information and see what Blemain are like.

You will also see that my broker Ocean Finance have admitted in writing that they loaned solely on OH's self employed income. OH who fabricated his earnings that he was earning £30,000.00 a year in 2007...and at the same time he submitted his tax return saying that he was earning approx £5,000.00 a year.

Neither Blemain or Ocean asked for one shred of evidence to support OH;s earnings...so jimmyq I hope you are feeling a little better knowing that Blemain are not the master's of the universe....and if they believe they are then you can come and join my team of transformers that I am getting together to attack back

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

I thought I would add this info to this thread as I have on another new thread a little while ago Secured Loan Charges - allaboutFORUMS

It's about the charges that Blemain added to the account...they quoted me a case in their letter Paul v Swift and how Paul was ordered to pay costs at the end even though the sum being claimed was under £5,000.00.

I was intrigued to know how...so asked them for details...although quite a while after...never the less they should have access to quotes and statements they make for future references....or were they just trying to scare people.

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

This is the best part of Blemain's response to charges:

"AS A RESPONSIBLE LENDER BLEMAIN FINANCE IS COMMITTED TO MEETING THE BEST STANDARDS IN THE INDUSTRY AND TREATING ITS CUSTOMERS FAIRLY"

Well if that is how they treat people fairly.....then what would they consider unfair? bloody tosspots this company is.

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

Hi jimmyq...just out of curiosity can I ask if you check your credit file regular and if yes have Blemain ever entered a default against your file?

Blemain sent me default notice a few years ago and I check my file as regular as I can...and even though I have been paying again since Jan 12 they have not recorded this info...

When ever you get time...that is fine

[jimmyq]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

hi the land i purchased was for another trade not actually building something as such. But was used for a sales business (yard) they told me once there was some sort of business on it we will be able to remortgage it as an established business etc.

i can probably email the broker back back and ask them what evidence and proof of income they got me the mortgage with ? but for now i need to write something to the FOS so i can try to get them look into properly the chap i spoke to on the phone seemed reasonable and helpful so i dont know. after reading about your experiences with them i better start thinking of a plan b.

All i wrote on the application form is

"complaint regarding secured second charge loan of 105k.following a period of financial dificulties i feel the charges applied to the lending are extorianate and unfair. i have paid a total of £13k (now more) i feel i am being treated unfairly. the business has pursued via debt collection and eviction notices have also been recieved.
i made a compain in August 2011 and it took them 16 weeks to reply when i was told they will reply to me in 8 weeks. I also required a copy of my agreement which also took nearly 6 months to come.
tha company keeps sending me standard letters which i get charged £35 each. As for the terms and condition on the agreement and interest rates i feel these are totally unfair especially the charges and the redemption figures"

where it asks how do you want the business to put things right for you?

all i put is

" i would like them to reduce the redemption figure and deduct all the extorianate charges aswell as refund all unfair charges and stop harrassing me with phone calls and letters but most of all reduce the high interest charges. i feel i was mislead and the agreement is totally unfair"

fos have wrote back to me on the 4th of july saying they have recieved my complaint etc then they wrote back to me on the 10th of july saying they have contacted harpmanor and asked them for the information about my complaint and it should take twelve weeks

and in the mean time if i experience any financial difficulties ,ill health,threatning behaviour or an offer from the business i should contact the fos (i think this must be standard) ?

anyhow if one of you guys can help me write something with a few bullet points and a bit more professional ill email them and see what they can do

once again thanks guys its much appreciated all of you helping and supporting me in such hard times thanks

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

Hi jimmyq...don't let my experience put you off...as each case is different...although I still believe that the FOS are a complete waste of time and space....but that is just my opinion.

The OFT have many guidelines on Debt Collection activities and how lenders/creditors should abide by these rules. It is well known that the majority of them do not....because if they did this thousands of people like us would not be suffering as much as we are today.

It is bad enough selling your soul to the devil himself when you take out a loan with Blemain as in reality that is what we have done....given them a free reign over us..and I know that ignorance is no virtue but I also know that there are many things that Blemain were deliberately aware of when they drafted their contracts to mislead borrowers in to obtaining loans....but that is another story for another day.

I see that you complaint to the FOS is focusing around the charges of £35's letters etc etc?

I imagine that Blemain used to send you letters and also used a company called Monarch Recoveries? Well I have been fighting Blemain for many a years now....and have gathered a lot of info along the way. So let me tell a little about Monarch....and this is one of the reasons which I believe the OFT have not re-newed Blemain's CCA licence since May last year.

This is a paragraph from my defence against Blemain...although I have solicitors who are dealing with my case at the moment...as I am going through a divorce and possession claim at the same time.

1. The 2nd Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof under s140 Unfair Relationship and UTCCR 1999 to prove that:
(a) Did Monarch Recoveries Limited have their own staff and employees to carry Debt Collecting Activities on behalf of the Claimant, or was the Claimant using their own staff pretending to be employees of Monarch Recoveries Ltd.
(b) What term or condition in the agreement states that the Claimant is entitled to charge £35 a letter and £35 phone call.
(c) Did the 2nd Defendant understand and contract on the basis that she would be liable for such costs for late payment, default and any other costs that the Claimant is claiming

1. The 2nd Defendant will be relying on the OFT & Logbook Loans Ruling The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has back a tribunal's decision to remove the credit capabilities of two of the country's biggest logbook-loan lenders. The tribunal was told that Log Book Loans had send out letters to its customers purporting to be a company called Adams Spencer & Phillips (Legal Services) Limited (ASP) which threatened them with legal action with debtswere not repaid. It also emerged that ASP did not have any employees and is not a body that is recognised in any legal capacity. However between September 2009 and April last year Log Book Loans staff called clients pretending to be from ASP. It was ruled that the letter and phone calls were deliberately deceitful.


These were my own words and I wrote my own defence....as I did not have a solicitor at that time...just information that I have been gathering over the years. Now if you read one the OFT's guidelines they say:

Debt collection guidance for
consumer credit licence
holders and applicants November 2002

Debt collection charges

A.11 In the OFT's view, there is no legal basis for a creditor (or a debt collection
agency acting on the creditor's behalf) to claim collection costs from a debtor in
the absence of express contractual provision in the agreement between the
debtor and the creditor. If there is no such provision, then collection charges
cannot be demanded as a debt due under the agreement. If an agency claims an
entitlement to recover charges pursuant to a separate agreement with the
debtor, there must be a binding contact to this effect, with legal consideration
(ie benefit) provided to the debtor. A letter served on the debtor merely
informing him that he is liable to pay certain charges is not in the OFT's view
such an agreement, regardless of whether it is signed by the debtor.

A.12 The above applies to all credit agreements, whether regulated or not, although
for regulated consumer credit agreements there is an additional reason why
costs might not be recoverable. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations
1983 require inclusion in the credit agreement of an indication of any charges
payable on default. If this is not included, the agreement is not properly
executed, and so will not be enforceable against the debtor without a court
order.

A.13 It is the responsibility of creditors and debt collection agencies to ensure that
they do not recover collection charges in the absence of an express contractual
provision entitling them to do so. Furthermore, debtors should not be led or
allowed to believe that they are legally liable to pay such charges where this is
not the case. Failure to act in accordance with these principles is likely to be
regarded by the OFT as an unfair or improper business practice within section
25(2)(d) of the Consumer Credit Act and thus relevant to the issue of fitness to
hold a consumer credit licence.

A.14 If there is any ambiguity in the debtor-creditor agreement as to whether it
covers a particular charge, or as to the permitted amount of the charge, the
OFT considers that this should be resolved in favour of the debtor as this is the
approach likely to be adopted by a court in construing the agreement.
Furthermore, even if collection charges are provided for in the credit agreement,
where charges are levied which are of an unreasonable amount and/or are
disproportionate to the main debt, this too may be regarded by the OFT as an
unfair or improper business practice within section 25(2)(d) of the Consumer
Credit Act. If firms are in any doubt they should consider taking legal advice

I know it is a lot to read...but it will give you the knowledge and release some of that depression that you are feeling and hopefully raise your spirits to see that there are many things that can be done.

Do you know that Monarch Recoveries according to Companies House did not have any employee's working for them? they were Blemain staff pretending to be Monarch Recoveries.

And I bet you that it has been a long time since you last received a letter from Monarch? In fact when did you receive your last letter from Monarch.....as they are no longer in operation if you noticed....and what they did was similar to what the Log Book Loans did....tricking debtors and using deceitful tactics.

Maybe you want to add this to your FOS complaint....that you believe Blemain have been using Monarch to add extra costs and charges to the account and you believe that there were no Monarch employees but in fact they were Blemain employees pretending to be Monarch staff.

When I wrote my complaint to the FOS it was mainly about irresponsible lending and what Blemain & Ocean Finance did...there was a lot of other information I did not include....but I know that if I did the results still would have been the same.

You need to check your agreement and I can bet you no where in there will it say that you will be liable to pay a £35 charge if you pay late or fuck up in other way? am I right?

So how would you know what you are getting in to when you signed the loan...all contracts must be open and fair and you should know what will happen if you default.

DEBT COLLECTION - UNFAIR PRACTICES
(published Feb 2001)

B.4 Claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual
provision in the agreement between the debtor and the creditor

I could go on forever and ever with this subject....and hopefully Paul & Niddy are looking in to your matter behind the scenes and will be able to suggest something better.

I am happy to help as much as I can and if there is anything you need to ask about Blemain please do...and I will be more than happy to assist where ever I can.

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

Some further info:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...ces/oft329.pdf



Non-status lending

• Inducing consumers to borrow on excessive or oppressive terms against the security of their homes without regard to their ability to repay the loan.

• Offers of inappropriate and sometimes catastrophic loans, whilst failing to assess the consumer's ability to repay.

• Making only limited or no enquiries about consumers' income before
offering loans.

• Marketing or targeting loans explicitly at consumers in debt.

• Failure of the broker to act in the best interests of the borrower; a
preoccupation with the value of the security rather than the borrower's
credit-worthiness ('equity lending').

• Imposing substantial brokerage or other advance fees, and failure to
explain that such fees could be charged and deducted from the loan.

• Imposing very high interest rates, and increasing interest rates when a loan is in arrears, sometimes in breach of section 93 of the Consumer
Credit Act.

• Illegal canvassing of agreements in consumers' homes.

• Irregular documentation including failure to give, or misquoting interest rates and APRs.

• Improper tying-in of insurance.

• Falsifying information as to borrower's income or other aspects of their financial status in order to secure the loan.

• Misrepresentation as to the form, nature, purpose or long-term
implications of loan agreements.

• Unacceptably high-pressure selling techniques.

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

You wrote in your FOS complaint:

"As for the terms and condition on the agreement and interest rates i feel these are totally unfair especially the charges and the redemption figures"

and I noticed that your interest rate is much higher than mine. If you read the advice that I received from top barrister John Pugh last year you will see what his comments were about my interest rate on my Blemain agreement which was 9.8%...and yours is more than double mine.


John's advice:

1. If I am right and the clause is held to be unfair then the right to vary will be removed from the contract. That will fix the interest rate at 9.8% and the repayments at £335.76 for the remainder of the term.
2. I would assess the prospects of success on this argument at about 65 to 70%. I think that if we fail on the specific attack on the variation clause under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations then the explanations given by Blemain are likely to be accepted by the Courts. In other words I doubt the changes are unfairly operated but I think the clause which gives them the power to vary will be struck down as unfair.

and that was 60-70% chance on just the interest rate.....

your quote from your first post:

they are charging me 24% interest a month and an anual 5% off the loan every year. im really struggling to pay this and just borrowing from friends and family to stop the evictions i keep getting

[jimmyq]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

Hi thanks for this its much appreciated you taking time out and helping me like this would it be possible you can draught me some points i can write to the fos ( theres so much above i dont know where or how to start) ill also email oft and trading standards????

Im not too clever in these situations otherwise i wouldnt be in this position got nobody to ask help off apart from you guys here and im enlightened with all the help and support ive had

Im so glad i came here

[PlanB]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

It's probably a good idea to wait and see what Paul says about your credit agreement before you do anything else yet. Then he and Niddy will plot the next most sensible move for you

The FOS can fastrack a complaint if the person is under a legal threat and your constant eviction notices will probably be a reason to give you priority. I had my repossession put on hold while the FOS investigated a couple of years ago. My complaint was upheld and the repo was discontinued.

Please don't be put off by others who lose at the FOS because you and your issues are unique and you could be helped by them

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

Hi jimmyq I am more than happy to help with any bullet points laced with arsenic for you to give the FOS.....and quite rightly as PlanB has suggested hang five until Paul & Niddy have commented about your agreement.

Oh sometimes I think Paul is in the wrong business with his CCA expertise.....if he was like he was...exactly how he was...when it came to unregulated agreements and sub prime lenders....he would have turned this country the right way up

Maybe if I had put forward more stronger points to the FOS and pushed harder I may have got a different result....but at that time I had so many other things going on that I did not have the time, energy or mental patience to do it.

Hopefully very soon Paul & Niddy will be able to let you know where you stand....and in the meantime keep posting....as we are all still here and not going anywhere.

Love is what makes the world go round....and ADD helps people like us breathe without a ventilator

[transformer999]

Re: hi i need some urgent help and advice pls

LOOK WHAT I HAVE JUST READ HOT OFF THE EXPRESS.......


Neither a borrower nor a lender be



We look at the issues that arise when considering contributory negligence in the context of claims made by non-status lenders.

One might think that the reduced availability of credit from traditional sources over the last few years would have naturally led to a boom time for non-status lenders. For some, business has been good. However, others have suffered substantial losses and (like their high street counterparts) are now seeking to redress this by bringing recovery actions from the valuers and solicitors who acted for them.
So, what exactly is non-status lending and what contributory negligence issues do you need to look out for when dealing with a claim from a non-status lender?


What is non-status lending?


Non-status lending is not a new phenomenon. Traditionally, non-status lending catered for people who could not obtain mortgage finance from mainstream lenders as a result of impaired or low credit ratings. However, that is not always the case and nonstatus lending has developed into other areas where only limited enquiries, investigations and documentation are sought in support of the borrower’s application.


Unlike most high street lenders, therefore, non-status lenders do not commonly carry out credit checks, require proof of income, or investigate the borrower’s ability to service the loan. Instead, non-status lenders focus primarily (or exclusively) on the value of the property they take as security. Supporters of this approach to loan underwriting argue that the borrower’s income, status and credit history do not matter, provided that the loan to value “cushion” is sufficient to cover the lender’s capital, lost interest and costs of repossession and sale if the borrower later defaults.


However, this approach (coupled with the downfall in the property market) has left many non-status lenders exposed. Many non-status lenders are also reliant upon funding from large clearing banks and have had their ability to lend restricted over the last few years as the clearing banks tighten their own wholesale funding criteria.


Contributory negligence issues
Even in the last round of lenders’ litigation, reported cases involving nonstatus lenders were few and far between. As a result, trying to predict how the court will approach the issue of contributory negligence in a nonstatus lender’s claim is considerably more difficult than it is when dealing with a standard lender’s claim.
Expert lending witnesses engaged by non-status lenders will frequently argue that “ordinary principles of lending” do not apply in these cases. Instead, they say that their clients should be judged by the standard of a prudent non-status lender. They say, therefore, the absence of detailed lending criteria is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is whether the lender sought to put in place ample security.
However, many other lending experts disagree. They argue that the principles of responsible lending apply equally to non-status lenders and that this includes an obligation to make a proper assessment of the borrower’s ability to repay. In other words, it is negligent for a non-status lenders to have ignored the question of whether the borrower could actually meet his or her loan repayments and/or repay the capital sum loaned to them. Many experts are also highly critical of the steps taken by non-status lenders to check whether the security they were obtaining was adequate.


As with any other lender claim, each case is largely fact specific and, in the absence of definitive guidance, the court will have to determine whether the lender in question acted prudently in the circumstances of the loan in question. However, it is worth considering the following issues when dealing with a claim by a nonstatus lender:

• Did the lender comply with its own internal lending criteria? In many cases, non-status lenders do not operate to specific lending criteria other than having maximum loan to value (“LTV”) ratio. If so, it is also well worth investigating whether the loan made by the non-status lender complied with any more detailed lending criteria which were set down by its own wholesale funders;
• Was the LTV “cushion” reasonable, given the size of the loan, agreed repayment period and in light of the other information the lender had about the borrower?
• If the loan was sizeable, did the lender obtain more than one property valuation and, if so, did it limit its lending to the lower of the valuations? Did the lender ignore any relevant information about the borrower, such as poor credit history, ability to pay, or honesty? Given such checks were often not made, you may need to make your own investigations about the borrower;
• Loans made by non-status lenders were often short term, interest only loans with high rates of interest. If so, did the lender properly consider its exit strategy? In other words, were investigations made into how the loan sum and interest would be repaid (for example, through a sale or refinancing) and was this realistic?
• Did the lender obtain a valuation which reflected the exit strategy? For example, if the loan was due to be repaid within three months through a sale by the borrower, did the lender obtain a 90-day (as opposed to open market) valuation?

As with all lender claims, disclosure of the non-status lender’s own lending criteria/manuals, along with copies of any lending agreements setting out lending criteria imposed by the lender’s own funders (if relevant) and all of the information provided by the borrower, is necessary in order to maximise your chances of success.