• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

    A judgment on the case was finally made on December 14 2011, in which his Honour Judge Keyser ruled that Countrywide had not been negligent.


    But he added that if it had been found liable, the judge would also have found that GMAC-RFC was contributory negligent for not verifying the borrower’s income and other information on the mortgage application.



    He claimed that if the lender had carried out the proper checks on the applicant it would probably not have advanced the loan.


    A debate was also had in court as to whether the nature of GMAC-RFC’s sub-prime lending was in its itself contributory negligence, but the judge ruled it was not.



    He did however rule that GMAC-RFC contributed to its own loss by not carrying out the proper checks and as a result he would have deducted 60% of any money awarded to it if the court had found Countrywide liable.



    Ed Coulson, a consultant at law firm Mills & Reeve, says: “Sixty per cent is a significant reduction and should concentrate the minds of mortgage lenders when they are considering suing their own professional advisers.



    “In this case the contributory negligence was not as gross as it has been in other cases I have seen with lenders – on that basis one can expect to see reductions for contributory negligence increase significantly in the future.”



    One industry source has described the ruling as “landmark”, but Coulson says that he does not see it as a landmark ruling because it is in line with a number of earlier decisions with equally significant reductions for contributory negligence.



    The case centred around a buy-to-let property Countrywide valued in 2004 at £185,000. The applicant had requested a 10-year interest-only mortgage of £166,500 – 90% LTV.



    In 2007 the applicant defaulted on its repayments and GMAC-RFC repossessed the property, which was sold in September 2008 for £123,500. The net proceeds of the sale were £118,103.



    GMAC-RFC claimed the property should only have been valued in the region of £154,000 in 2004.



    The judge ruled that the correct valuation should have been £175,000 but the one given was within the acceptable range of value.
    Countrywide also argued that because the deal had been securitised the lender had not suffered any loss as a result of the alleged overvaluation, but this was dismissed by the judge.



    A spokesman for GMAC-RFC, which now trades as Paratus AMC, says: “In line with its usual practice, Paratus AMC pursued this case on a contingent fee basis with the benefit of after the event insurance. The case turned on the expert valuers’ evidence, based on which the judge found the valuation not to have been negligent.



    “Paratus AMC do not accept the judge’s findings on contributory negligence which were in any event obiter. Paratus AMC welcomes the judge’s comments that lending on non-conforming criteria does not constitute contributory negligence per se.”



    He adds: “The judgment also helpfully dismisses the suggestion that the securitisation of a mortgage loan somehow extinguishes a valuer’s liability for a negligent overvaluation”.



    In its 2010 accounts Countrywide made provisions of £11.9m to guard against potential claims by lenders.



    A spokeswoman for Countrywide says: “When we took the decision to make provision in our accounts for potential claims against our surveying business we made the point that we, like the rest of the industry, had seen a considerable increase in claims and that we would defend our position robustly. We are not surprised to see the courts supporting our position.



    “We will continue to defend our position when we believe we have fulfilled our responsibilities, but if an error is made, then we seek to settle with claimants as soon as possible.”



    Countrywide relied on evidence given by Brian Pitt, an expert witness and director of Rockstead, while Paratus AMC relied on evidence given by Adrian Bloomfield, also an expert witness and chief executive of the Association of Short-Term Lenders.



    Fortress Investment Group bought GMAC-RFC in April 2010 and later changed its name to Paratus AMC.



    The claim was made by Paratus AMC and RMAC 2005, the former lender’s special purchase vehicle.



    The judgment in Paratus is not fundamentally diff erent, since
    the judge rejected the defendants arguments of contributory
    negligence so far as they “related to the business model rather
    than the application of that model on the facts of this case”.
    And the main contributory negligence factor in Paratus, was
    precisely that their own lending criteria
    had not been followed

    Last edited by jumper999; 9th February 2013, 19:08:PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

      In Omega

      Trust & Bank Finindus v. Wright, Son (1998), the Court made a similarly substantial deduction for contributory
      negligence where the lender had failed to undertake proper checks into the borrowers’ financial position and
      had failed to uncover a very poor credit history including a series of county court judgments. A deduction of
      70% was made for contributory negligence.

      In a speech in the House of Lords on 20 December 2005, Lord Goodhart QC expressed the view that 100% contributory
      negligence was a logical impossibility on the basis the whole point of contributory negligence is that more than one party has
      contributed to the damage. Lord Hunt disagreed with him, but one can certainly see Lord Goodhart’s point.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

        """Countrywide relied on evidence given by Brian Pitt, an expert witness and director of Rockstead"""

        I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of this man's mouth!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

          Blem-ished you didn’t answer the question about whether you have court proceedings ongoing, the reason I ask is that if blemain are taking you to court then we need to deal with it as a priority, (I have a good get out of jail free card when it comes to CCA regulated blemain loans).


          Now I like your idea about a group (strength in numbers) I also like the idea of putting all the information together (nice an neat)

          There are some people that think information should be kept quiet so blemain wont know what we are doing, (SO WRONG ON SO MANY POINTS)

          Before court you have to submit, defence, witness statement, saying exactly what you want to rely on in court, so blemain are going to be fully aware of what your arguments are before court.


          If I say something on an open forum then it is open to everyone to comment on, and if I am wrong then hopefully someone will point out my error, on a private forum a limited amount of people to tell my I am wrong, I then go to court believing I am right, but it is not so and an expensive way to find I am wrong,


          Private forum keeps all the bad things these sub prime lenders are doing out of public view, a lot of people read these forums with out ever joining, information out in public view helps these people.

           
          Now if you are in no rush regarding court action, and you have shown an interest in monarch recoveries, then I will give you the information on monarch first.

           
          I’m just going to state some facts first, as there are documents I need to scan and post up but if we only talk about monarch, then it wont get to confusing, then move on th the next point.
           
          1 monarch recoveries only existed in name only ( had no employees )

          How the above can help you then you need to read and understand the following.
          Logbook loans lost their licence for doing exactly the same as blemain are doing by using monarch recoveries. (used to deceive, threaten, and add unfair costs to loans)

          Google - oft v logbook loans
          David Fisher, Director of the OFT's Consumer Credit Group said: 'The OFT welcomes the Tribunal's decision to strike out the companies' appeals. The decision confirms our view that these companies are unfit to hold their consumer credit licences. Intentionally deceiving debtors as part of a debt collection policy is an extremely serious matter, which calls into question a licensee's fitness. We expect businesses licensed by the OFT to treat all their customers, including those in arrears, fairly and transparently
           
           
           
          2 monarch recoveries business is listed as a debt recovery firm

          3 2009 monarch recoveries showed a profit of over £9 million pounds after tax.
          The only business monarch supposedly carried out was debt collecting for the blemain group of companies,
          Now charges added to your account for debt collecting are only supposed to cover costs of collecting the debt, so how can they make 9 million pounds profit in one year.
          If the costs of them collecting debts was fair then the profits would be zero,
          So anyone having trouble with blemain adding charges to the loan this would be the prove to show they make considerable profits from debt collecting.
           
          You can use the above not only for the charges monarch added to your loan but also to show that all charges were in fact a penalty.
           
          4 FSA fines Cheshire Mortgage Corporation Limited and two directors for mortgage sales and arrears failings and requires over 2,000 customers to be compensated
          The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Cheadle-based mortgage lender, Cheshire Mortgage Corporation Limited (CMCL), £1.225 million for failing to treat customers fairly in the sale of mortgages and arrears handling from October 2004 to the end of 2009.
          The CEO of CMCL, Henry Moser, has been fined £70,000 and agreed to step down from his role within three to six months. Andrew Lawton, the firm’s compliance director, has been fined £13,500 and banned from holding a significant influence function.

           
          Now the FSA has only fined Cheshire, why not blemain as they were doing the same thing.

          The FSA regulate first charge loans and Cheshire supplied first charge moorages,
          The OFT regulate second charge lenders (blemain) that is why blemain havent been fined, but the OFT are the ones that have to licence blemain and so far they haven’t renewed they licence, (2 years)
           
          Now they have been found to be so unfair that the guy that started the company
          Henry Moser) has agreed to stand down, it is my belief it was him or the licence,( monarch licence has gone)
          5 Blemain are now editing all your accounts to remove the name monarch from all documents.
          The reason that they are changing your documents, and removing any trace of monarch recoveries name is that when the OFT or any regulatory body fines then and tells them they have to compensate all affected customers, then your accounts wont have monarch on them so they wont have to compansate you. (dirty bas*** )
           
          Find your old loan statements and then do a subject access request, and you will see your statements have been alterd to remove the name monarch, they havent removed any charges just who made the charge.
           
          If I get time I will post up some documents tomorrow evening,
           
           
           
          wp
          Last edited by welshperson; 10th February 2013, 01:12:AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

            how do we prove in court monarch and blemain are one and the same. I like the idea of Blemain victims meeting up

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

              Hi figaro123 I am not sure you will have to prove if Monarch & Blemain are the same because the FSA have already done that for everyone........and this bit of info that wps posted up also proves that they were the same:

              Monarch recoveries weren’t on a different floor, they only existed as a name, they had no employees,
              Someone would phone you in the morning and say they were from blemain, same person phones you in the afternoon and says they are from monarch,
              The accounts filed at company house for monarch recoveries state that they have no employees



              FSA fines Cheshire Mortgage Corporation £1.225 million



              The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Cheadle-based mortgage lender, Cheshire Mortgage Corporation Limited (CMCL), part of the Blemain Group, £1.225 million for failing to treat customers fairly in the sale of mortgages and arrears handling from October 2004 to the end of 2009.



              The CEO of CMCL, Henry Moser, has been fined £70,000 and agreed to step down from his role within three to six months. Andrew Lawton, the firm’s compliance director, has been fined £13,500 and banned from holding a significant influence function.



              The FSA has also required CMCL to carry out a redress exercise that could see approximately £2 million paid to around 2,000 affected customers.


              CMCL operated in niche markets, including lending to customers with poor credit histories. The FSA found that CMCL failed to treat some of its customers fairly when they fell into arrears, was unable to always demonstrate that mortgages it sold were affordable, and did not always communicate regularly or fully with its customers. Moser has been disciplined for failing to spot these problems and put them right.



              CMCL overcharged some customers in arrears and applied arrears charges inconsistently and unfairly. Customers were also sometimes notified of charges after they had been incurred.



              The FSA also found that:



              • when CMCL transferred customers in arrears to Monarch Recoveries for debt recovery, they were charged £150 despite it being an in-house company;
              • CMCL did not always make a reasonable effort to reach an agreement with customers in arrears over method of payment; and
              • CMCL did not always properly assess the affordability of mortgages by, for example, challenging a customer’s declared income.

              Moser, as CEO, was ultimately responsible for the actions and compliance of the firm, however he failed to ensure the firm was being properly managed so that problems would be identified and remedied. Lawton was aware of certain poor practices taking place at the firm but failed to put them right and demonstrated a lack of competence and capability in his role as a compliance director.


              Tracey McDermott, director of enforcement and financial crime, said:



              “CMCL’s lacklustre approach to regulation, combined with very poor practices in collecting arrears, meant that some customers already worried about being able to pay back their mortgages were put under undue pressure and sometimes ended up paying more than they should.



              “The failings of Moser, Lawton and CMCL were serious and let down a vulnerable group of consumers. Where firms and individuals fail to comply with our rules and treat customers fairly they should expect to be held to account.”



              CMCL and Moser both settled at an early stage of the investigation so qualified for a 30% discount, without which the fines would have been £1.75 million and £100,000 respectively. Lawton settled at a later stage of the investigation and qualified for a 10% discount, without which he would have been fined £15,000.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                I found some info on Monarch Recoveries on this website:


                https://www.duedil.com/company/01959...veries-limited


                About Monarch Recoveries Limited

                Monarch Recoveries Limited was registered on 15 Nov 1985 with its registered office in Cheshire. The business has a status of 'Non-trading'. Their founding director was Adrian Grant, who is British, aged 54. Monarch Recoveries Limited have a single shareholder; Jerrold Holdings Ltd. They have no known group companies.






                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                  It is the same as the Rooftop situation when you call Rooftop.... you are actually speaking to Webb. Rooftop do not have any employees or indeed any overheads.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                    I,ve not had any dealing with monarch. They went straight for the lpa receivers with me They appointed sterling / waterfold .who also shared the same buiding until recently and have blemain directors running the receivership companies i have emails full of lies denying they were part of blemain, the thing is they treat everone as if they are stupid but its all starting to catch up with them. Sterling was the original nameof their receivers but they then tried to disguise it as waterfold thinking no one would notice.
                    Keep the ball rolling information is key

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                      Hi tuttsi
                      I personally don’t know about rooftop, but if you want to find out for sure then get hold of a document that they have to file at company house you get all the information you need, accounts and financial statement it will give you all the information on a company.
                      This is a legal document that a company files and states to be true, in blemain/ monarch case it is also signed as true by the accountants.
                       
                      Figaro a good question and something that a judge would ask you to prove if ever this is brought up in court, now its easy to prove blemain monarch is one and the same I will get you the documents later
                      wp

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                        Good morning fellow hounds

                        1. Many thanks again Welshperson for your valuable comments. Noting your point that Blemain now just put "Instruction of Agents" on the statements (I've only just got my hands on these, had to be forced out of them by the Court), I have just gone and searched out the old letters that Monarch sent me. By the way, I was charged £250 by Blemain for "referring" my account to Monarch, even more than the sum that outraged the FSA re Cheshire Mortgage Corporation.
                        Just a reminder, the Monarch letters came in A4 folded envelopes (standard letter envelopes) and the letters were printed on pale yellow paper, the logo was in brown. (Blemain letters came in A5 envelopes).
                        I have found the Monarch letters in the original envelopes, postmarked the day before the date of the charges shown on my statements.
                        I don't think we have to worry about proving that Blemain's use of the device of "referring" accounts to Monarch Recoveries was a venal practice invented to add illegitimate charges. The FSA has declared the identikit practice between CMC and MR to be unacceptable and this is an identical practice, by the same rogues.
                        If you did need to prove it, well, the letters and envelopes I have from 2008 show that they both used the same Royal Mail licensed mail franking machine: N1206887. On the Monarch envelopes, on the Blemain envelopes. Makes you wonder how these different companies accounted for the bill for that franking machine under expenditure in their annual accounts, as they couldn't have any way of splitting up the bill. Must have been a huge postage bill too, given their fondness for sending all those threatening letters at £33-46 time a throw. They couldn't possibly both have claimed for the same bill against tax could they? Not year after year even? One for HMRC perhaps?
                        2. Welshperson, if I could beg another favour, if you do have a "get out of jail free card"! please let me know what it is.... By the way, I have never reneged on a debt, but usury is different, and threatening and lying as Blemain do, is something else. These people have sneered and jeered at me in threatening and abusive tones when I have been both very ill, and just bereaved. They have laughed at me when I was terrified at the prospect of repossession, and claimed that they had not received payments which were sitting in their bank account. I have decided not to be bullied by them for one second longer. I need help please with all lawful means to oppose these beasts.
                        3. Also WP, I would like to know about hidden broker fees. I was very careful to ask BG repeatedly when taking out the loans, if there were any hidden fees or commissions. I did that because at the time, there was a lot of publicity in the media about just that issue, I couldn't really understand the loan agreements, and it was the only clue I had as to how I might be able to keep the costs down. They told me the only money paid to the broker, was the broker fee that is shown on the loan agreements. If they lied to me, I need to add this urgently to my s140 CCA claim so would greatly appreciate any info about how prevalent it was. I don't have the underwriting sheet or any docs yet. The Blemain Beast has failed to produce the docs, much good may it do them.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                          Blem-ished I have sent you a PM, there is nothing in there that I don’t intend to post on an open forum, but if we can deal with one point at a time then hopefully this thread will become a good source of information .
                          Sorry I didn’t have time to post up some documents tonight but I will post them
                          wp

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                            I have documents I want to upload but the file size is to big, anyone explain how I can post up my documents on here ? (jpeg)

                            wp

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                              Ok some information on commissions paid to brokers by blemain.

                              Look at your loan agreement top of first page that will tell you what interest rate you were charged, the higher the interest the more the broker got in commission, also it is the broker who set your interest rate not blemain.

                              I cant post up images at the moment but try the link below it will show you what commissions blemain were paying brokers



                              http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac230/welshperson3/commision2.jpg

                              wp

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges

                                If you have received a Default Notice that is the same as the one below and blemain have a suspended possession order get it set aside, or if going to court then get it thrown out.

                                http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac230/welshperson3/img005.jpg

                                wp

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X