Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

[gallahad]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Is the amount of your original loan over 25K? if so it is unregulated.
G

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Yes Gallahad it is sadly....I have posted up Cobbetts last letter...since that letter I have gathered all the info they required but unless they tell me how much they want from me to clear the arrears I am not going to go through my I & E Form with them.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

I will later on today post up a summary on how far things have got with my case...as I need to go and have some lunch before I pass out xx

[TUTTSI]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

I am with Rooftop another company that sets out to repossess whenever they can. So I am fully aware about the workings of these so called mortgage companies you just have to look at my rooftop thread.

You can make a complaint to the solicitors regulatory body, I am sure that someone will be able to give you the details. I am in hospital and only have limited access to stuff as we talk.

I thought I read somewhere that Blemaine or one of their associate companies have received a huge fine for mis-selling and that compensation was due? So it sounds like they are trying to get in as much money as they can.

I don't think they can keep your other half off the form to sign for the repayments as this is a joint mortgage and this form I should not think is legal if it omits your other half but again I am not a legal person and I urge to to take legal advice on this aspect.

Thanks Tuttsi.....there are as many of you a lot of things Blemain are doing like swift which is a crime in itself. As for charges....they have added approx £2,500 and I bet more since they sent me their breakdown. I have asked for a full breakdown of their sols costs...as I am sure they have been charging me for everytime they instruct a new sol to play catch up with the case.

Also when it comes to costs...they have not followed pre-action protocol...and I will add what they did not do as I go along. I will post up the last correspondence from Cobbetts in a bit.

[gallahad]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Ok jumper, have you explored the hidden commission aspect and or unfair relationships statute.?
G

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Hi G...yes I have explored all these matters way way time ago.....the thing I need to concentrate on right now is my possession claim that is live and ongoing.

Thanks I really appreciate your input as I know your are not feeling too well at present. As I said earlier I will post up a summary of my ongoing case for all to see. Just need to dig out the main parts.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Although not the same as my case....I came across this info this morning....involving Blemain:

Possession warrants and abuse of process



Following a successful claim for possession and execution of a possession warrant, an individual has very limited routes by which they can attempt to secure re-entry to the property. However, the courts will set aside a possession warrant and permit re-entry where the warrant can be shown to have been obtained by fraud, or where there has been an abuse of process or oppression in its execution.


A key question, therefore, is how far an individual will have to go to show that the possession proceedings in question amount to an abuse of process?



Given such cases tend to be fact specific, it is difficult to give any precise definition of an “abuse of process”. However, as a general rule, an abuse of process occurs when a court rule which is more than a mere formality is not complied with. For example, a warrant that is issued before the date on which possession is due is a nullity, and enforcement of such a warrant therefore amounts to abuse (Tuohy v Bell [2002] EWCA Civ 423). Similarly, an abuse of process will arise where a warrant is executed more than 12 months after it was obtained and the landlord has not applied for permission to renew the warrant (eg see Hackney LBC v White (1996) 28 HLR 219, CA).


In more recent times and given the current economic climate, the courts have been faced with an increasing number of cases involving more flagrant acts and allegations of abuse of process against lenders or landlords. The case of Blemain Finance Limited v Ridley [June 2012 Darlington County Court] is such an example. It concerned the issue of whether, and if so when, an arrears payment had been received.


Ms Ridley owned a home, which was charged with a mortgage. In 2006, she took out another secured loan with Blemain Finance for £20,000. Ms Ridley was unable to meet the payments due under this loan, and in 2006 Blemain Finance obtained a possession order and warrant. However, Ms Ridley subsequently paid the arrears due and the warrant was not enforced.


Ms Ridley later fell into further financial difficulty, and incurred arrears of around £1,500. Blemain applied for a warrant of possession and a date for execution was obtained. Four days prior to execution, Ms Ridley received notice of the eviction date from Blemain. The letter stated that the arrears in question could be cleared via the making of a payment on the lender’s website. The letter did not, however, make mention of Ms Ridley’s right to apply to the court for a stay of eviction. Ms Ridley subsequently spoke to an agent of Blemain, and was further assured that should she pay the arrears via the lender’s website, she would be “up to date and fine”. Accordingly two days prior to the date for execution of the warrant, Ms Ridley paid the outstanding arrears via the lender’s website on a debit card.


Despite this payment, the eviction went ahead. Ms Ridley called Blemain, but was informed that there was nothing they could do. On the same day, Ms Ridley applied for reentry and a stay of the warrant. At the hearings, it transpired Blemain had returned Ms Ridley's payment on the day following her eviction. The District Judge therefore held that, as Blemain had clearly been in receipt of the monies prior to the eviction date, the execution of the warrant had amounted to an abuse of process. Ms Ridley was permitted to re-enter the property, the warrant was suspended and Blemain ordered to pay the costs of Ms Ridley's application and of both hearings.
Undoubtedly, the burden of proving an abuse of process is a heavy one. However, this case demonstrates that the courts will readily, and quite rightly, intervene in cases involving dubious practices which amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

Possession warrants and abuse of process - Lexology

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Does anyone know what Blemain link their interest rate to please?

[gallahad]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Sorry to tell but it depends on what story they are giving that day.
G

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Ok jumper, have you explored the hidden commission aspect and or unfair relationships statute.?
G

Hi G...regarding commission I wrote to Ocean Finance who brokered the loan...and below is the response they gave. They loaned the money solely on my OH's self declared income. No checks at all were carried out neither did they ask for any proof of income. If you read Blemain's own policies and guidelines for lending you will see they have gone against their own lending & underwriting procedures.....but will they admit it? mmmmm....doubt it...but if a judge asked them in court what measures did they carry out in order to see if we were entitled or could afford the loan then I am certain they would have a problem.

As that case involving GMAC v Countryside surveyors was a similar scenario....where the borrower had fabricated his income...and GMAC did not carry out appropriate checks and went against their own underwriting & lending guidelines.

[gallahad]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

That certainly seems worth pursuing jumper,
G

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Just attached a letter which Cobbetts sent my sol and a copy of the letter they sent to the court...about dates.

This was the last correspondence that I had with my sol as he advised me that I should contact Blemain direct to try and reach a settlement....that is great hey...like they will ever agree to anything. All I can see is that they want me to get a Suspended possession order even if I can prove that I can pay...and shown that I can.

So like I said I am waiting to see what they respond to to my last letter as I have sent Cobbetts a letter to asking they deal with me direct from now as I unable to afford any more legal fees...plus things are going to be less complicated if I deal with then direct...well I hope they will....just that I have no choice that's all...and that is why I have to do this.

[gallahad]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Blemain allegedly work on the same business model as Goldman Sacks in that they look to lend to people who at some stage are likely to be unable to keep up payments as their biggest profits come from repossessions rather than interest on loans.
G

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Just a couple more letters I received...one from my sol giving me advice on what he had been dealing with Cobbetts.

My sol sent me this email attached to his letter:


Dear Jumper

I hope you are well.

Please find attached a letter from the other side. I should be grateful for your instructions. Despite information being provided, it does not appear from their letter that they are considering settlement of these proceedings.

However, please do revert to me with the information they have requested, and more importantly your response to the increased figure which they have stated in respect of repayments.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

I have just checked the CCA Register and looks like Blemain's licence is still pending for re-newal.......I wonder why? are they under investigation? bet they are!!!!!!!


Event Details

Licence Details:

0032328	Current	Blemain Finance Limited

Event Details:

44	Renewal	04-May-2011		Open

Licence Event Details:

Role	Name	Action
LICENSEE	Blemain Finance Limited	Pending
Officer	Adrian Joseph Grant	Pending
Officer	Gary Bailey	Pending
Officer	Gary Derek Beckett	Pending
Officer	Henry Neville Moser	Pending
Officer	Marc Richard Goldberg	Pending
Officer	Stephen Paul Baker	Pending
Officer	Tracey Bailey	Pending

Address Type	Address	Action
Correspondence	Bracken House, Charles Street, Manchester Central, Manchester, Greater Manchester, M1 7BD	Pending
Principal Place Of Business	Lake View, Lakeside, CHEADLE, SK18 3GW, UK	Pending
Registered Office	Lake View, Lakeside, CHEADLE, SK8 3GW, UK	Pending

Trading Names:

Name	Action
Blemain	Pending
Blemain Finance	Pending
Blemain Finance Direct	Pending
Blemain Group	Pending
Blemainfinancecustomers.co.uk	Pending
Direct Finance	Pending

Categories:

Category	Action
Consumer credit	Retained
Consumer hire	Retained
Credit brokerage	Retained
Credit reference agency	Removed
Debt adjusting/counselling	Removed
Debt collecting	Removed