Kensington Mortgages

Most of you will know Kensington were recently heavily penalised for their overcharging and unfair treatment of customers with their first mortgage with them.

During this time I had a second mortgage with them, so thought it was worth trying to claim. Put everything together and sent it off. Today I received an offer of £650.00 + 8% over three years compensation for the issues I'd pointed out. Basically what they've done is treat me like mine was a first mortgage and refunded all the charges + £200 in compensation for distress caused in the hope I won't go the FSA route and open the floodgates for everyone with secured loans with them (probably most of their business!)

If you had a loan during this period, it may well be worth you putting a claim together. I've accepted the F&F even though I think I'd get more going FOS taking the view it's a bonus anyway as I was just chancing my hand, and to be honest we could do with the money.

If anyone wants help, pm me.

[Tools]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Any chance you could publish the letter of complaint here so that other people wishing to claim can take some pointers.

[Caspar]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Never done it before, but will try.

[Caspar]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

OK, apologies for the way it's done, but it's got it done. People should know I had SAR'd them prior to sending these letters. Also, as you will see is relevant in Letter Two I'd asked for a copy of their Complaints Procedure and received a reply saying they didn't have one and each case was dealt with on a case by case basis (I posted about it at the time):

LETTER ONE
Dear Sir,

Your Ref: 12345678

I am writing with regard to the above account that we held with you from xx/xx/06 – xx/xx/08.

Thank you for the Subject Access Request received from Mr William Quayle this morning, and may I thank him personally for collating it in such an easily understandable way.

In light of the fine imposed on your company in February 2008 by the FSA I have spent today reviewing all the information regarding my account, and believe that there have been many cases of unfair charges for which I should be reimbursed, in line with the FSA’s ruling that you set aside £1.066 million for compensation. I note I would have received a letter in relation to this matter had this been my primary mortgage, but as my account was a second mortgage, it seems to have erroneously been overlooked.

In light of the revelations of the Subject Access Request received today, I would be very grateful if you could please review all charges on my now redeemed mortgage with yourselves, and send a cheque by way of compensation plus interest at the rate of 8%. Should the figure differ substantially from that which my accountant arrived at today, I shall have no choice but to take the matter further with the relevant authorities and to report you once again to the FSA. I trust this will not be necessary.

I would be grateful if you could please give a detailed breakdown of how you arrived at your compensation figure in order that it can be clearly matched to the detail in the Subject Access Request.

There are several areas I would like you to address in particular:
1. Fees charged for returned Direct Debits, no matter how many times it had previously been returned.
2. Fees charged for three or more cancelled Direct Debits.
3. Early repayment fees.

In addition there are several other areas of dispute we would like you to consider. These are as follows:
1. Counsellors Costs of £58.75 charged on xx/xx/06.
2. The eight monthly arrears fees of £50.00 applied to the account over the short duration of the mortgage (one of which was reversed).
3. Compensation for the number of threatening letters received during this period, despite being fully informed of our severe financial hardship. Please also look at the several letters containing breakdown of legal fees for eviction which while never charged, caused severe distress at the time (for example those set out on pages 2 and 3 of the letter from Alistair Scott dated 1st xxxxxxxx 2007 and again just 14 days later on page 2 of a letter from Alistair Scott dated 15th xxxxxxxxxx 2007 – repeated several more times).
4. EXTREMELY SERIOUS – PROOF OF BLATANT LYING YET TO BE REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITIES On the 23/06/07 A Mr Mickey Mouse from White Horse came out to see us for which we were charged £88.13. Mr Mouse states I added something AFTER he had written “This Was OK!” I enclose a copy of this. I also enclose my copy taken on the day of the visit where you can clearly see the bit supposedly added, without Mr Mouse’s false claim that I had added that bit afterwards. Mr Mouse made no attempt to let me provide solid proof, stating he did not have time to wait. I think the fact that I can produce this (and indeed all documentation to do with this account) after this length of time shows the efficiency of my filing and he would have had to wait perhaps two minutes, but was unprepared to. As you can see he then blatantly lied to make it look as though I had added this at a later time, despite my having clear evidence to the contrary. This of course invalidates the Personal Budget Form totally and hence the purpose of his visit. I am happy to take this up in a court of law and with the FSA, but will allow you the chance to reimburse and compensate accordingly first, bearing in mind what would happen were it to go to litigation, and the consequences for yourselves should this be exposed to the FSA. Please also bear in mind that this led to a letter dated xx June 2007 instructing us you were passing our account to litigation as a direct result of this visit, “with instructions for solicitors to be instructed to commence proceedings for possession of the mortgage property.”
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CANNOT BE OVERSTATED!
Had Mr Mouse not lied, we would not have received the solicitor’s letter dated 5th July 2007 for which we were charged £20.00 again very clearly stating your intent to repossess our property.

It was these final actions after months of harassment that led to us then selling our house as the effect it was having on my health was severely detrimental. I am still unable to work as a direct result of this due to a very serious and permanent Mental Health condition, and can prove this in a court of law if necessary.

As you will see, our subsequent actions were all to do with selling the house in order to repay you due to my health. Had it actually been repossessed I am sure we would be entitled to more compensation.

I trust that you will give this letter your very careful consideration, not only of the points arising from the FSA’s initial penalty on your company, but also of those (by no means exhaustive) listed in addition.

I look forward to a swift reply within 14 days of the date of this letter which I have sent by Special Delivery, so is guaranteed to be delivered to you on February 2011.

Yours sincerely,







Mr Upyours and Mrs Upyours



LETTER TWO
Dear Mrs Court,

Your Ref: 12345678

I refer to my original letter to you dated xx February 2011, your reply dated xx February 2011 and my subsequent response dated February 2011.

As well as the letter containing a number of complaints regarding fees charged, there was the clearly evidenced fraudulent incident by Mr Mouse, and then the issue regarding the Complaints Procedure.

You had until yesterday to respond to my complaint and other matters, but have failed to do so.

I am advised now that complaints of this nature should normally be allowed eight weeks to be investigated and responded to, indeed your own Complaints Procedure states this to be the case. In light of this advice and the provision of your supposedly “non-existent Complaints Procedure” I am extending your permitted response period to Thursday 07th April 2011.

However, I also have to advise you that on the 10th March 2011 (half way through the Complaints procedure) I shall be reporting Mr Mouse to the police for fraud and Kensington Mortgages to the OFT for lying about their Complaints Procedure and for the fraud along with the clear evidence that I have of both of these. I will also be complaining to the OFT that many of the letters I am currently receiving are unsigned which appears to be a deliberate tactic to make it difficult for your customers to respond to the correct people, thus hindering any progress. I have not taken this decision lightly, but in view of the fact that a quarter of the time has now passed

With regard to Mr Mouse you may find the following of interest:

Crime: Fraud

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a bailiff or any other person who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94


The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.
One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. (Clearly the issue in my case). It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.
The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

I have highlighted in bold the parts relevant to my case, but also pointed out that this may be regular practice within Kensington and so may need full investigation. This information again will again be placed in the hands of the police and the OFT.

I do hope you will be able to resolve my initial complaint as soon as possible. You have the deadline, and as long as I receive a satisfactory response from you I will consider withdrawing the complaints already made above to the OFT and the police as I have no great desire to pursue the route of litigation. Please do not treat this as a threat, it is not. It is purely a statement of fact. I do however want justice to prevail.

I look forward to receiving your reply within what is now the accepted eight week period and in line with your own Complaints Procedure.

Finally I note your complaints Procedure states, “Throughout our investigation of your complaint, we will keep you informed of our progress.” For the record my knowledge of any progress being made as of today (25/02/2011) is zero. I have received nothing despite being a quarter of the way through the complaint response time.

Yours sincerely,





Mr Upyours

[WendyB]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Can Team merge this with Caspar's other Kensington thread please, keeps it nice and tidy and people will be able to see from beginning to end then, won't they

[dogtired]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

subscribe

[Ruby]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

lost at sea on this one.............................

What are reverse mortgages and especially in relation to Kensington and first/second charges?

[dogtired]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

I think it may be spam Ruby, I have reported it just in case, appologies if it is not.

[Ruby]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Oops! Clicked on the link! This sort of stuff enrages me!!!!!:mad2:

I get enough of it via e-mail despite having all the appropriate 'protection'.

[dogtired]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Thats why I reported it! Hopefully admin will take it down and ban the poster.

[Sapphire]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Spammer dead

[CleverClogs]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Spammer dead

That's a bit severe - wouldn't banning them have been sufficient?

[Ruby]

Re: Kensington Mortgages

Nope - dead does me fine with criminals.