are these unfair terms/unregulated?

[amelia33]

extract -

Expenses

'The mortgagor must ay all expenses when the lender asks for them. Expenses will be added to the mortgage debt and will bear interest at the interest rate from the date when they are incurred until the date when they are repaid.'

with expenses being
'all expenses which the lender or any receiver reasonably incurs in connection with this mortgage
examples are
costs incurred in any legal proceedings (whether brought by or against the mortgagor or any other persons relating to this mortgage)
cost incurred in recovering or enforcing any rights or remedies given by these conditions
costs incurred in recovering any money secured by this mortgage
costs incurred in protecting or preserving the lender security
costs incurred in putting right any failure of the mortgage or the co mortgagor if any to keep these conditions
administation costs incurred by the lender in doing any work in connection with this mortgage
the lender may recover its administration costs by charging a fee which the lender reasonably estimates to represent the cost to it of doing the work in question
any costs and expenses due under any loan agreement secured by this mortgage
the lender can recover all expenses from the mortgagor in full this means the lender can recove them on what is known as an imdemnity basis
the mortgagor must pay all expenses when the lender asks for them
expenses will be added to the mortgage debt and will bear interest......

another extract states
'the mortgagor agrees not to ask the court to agree sale of the property under section 92(2) of the law of Property Act 1925'


I understand this is actually not lawful? however, this second point is an aside to my original query, and do not wish to frustrate those who may attempt to offer advice at this time.

[amelia33]

Re: are these unfair terms/unregulated?

any help on this query appreciated:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

seem unfair to me, FCA website directs this kind of thing to FOS, this is a different matter to unfair charges or misselling and surely ANY contract must be covered by contract law?! even it it is considered not covered by the CCA 1974.

[gwenlillian]

Re: are these unfair terms/unregulated?

bump

[Guest]

Re: are these unfair terms/unregulated?

No not in themselves. Ordinary contract law permits the wronged party to recover costs incurred by the wrongdoer under the contractual breach. So the "costs" must be proportionate or a sum equal to the costs of the damages.

It does not mean that they can just think of a number though charges have to be justified.
I do not think the term itself would be unfair, or come under the UTCC's as being so.

[amelia33]

Re: are these unfair terms/unregulated?

thankyou - these charges have now racked up to 19 thousand and interest is being charged on them despite having no arrears. all because it is an UNREGULATED

despite all my efforts I can find no legislation that prevents lenders such as OCWEN/I GROUP/GE and now the new kids on the block who have bought my product from robbing me blind WHY OH WHY wont this govt stop financial institution from doing this??????

[Kati]

Re: are these unfair terms/unregulated?

tagging [MENTION=48934]Debt Camel[/MENTION]

[gwenlillian]

Re: are these unfair terms/unregulated?

Hi

looking at your list of expenses in the contract amelia: near the end it says recover on an indemnity basis, so posting up this other info on cases where the judge disagreed about indemnity basis costs, so it's not set in stone and can't be unrealistic, particularly where excessive costs are incurred without good reason

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/randi/...of-a-mortgage/

[amelia33]

Re: are these unfair terms/unregulated?

original costs added to the account several years back - been paying additional sums to try to clear however the interest was making the debt increase 5.75 above base for 20 years or so - has increased the charges amount and whole repayment amount is being reduced by the interest being added all the time - the costs added were for their court action and 40 monthly for being in arrears (illness).

came to about 2 to 3K but like i say rest is the interest they added over time to those charges -

I do not believe this is reasonable however High Court seems not an option - after all GE hired a city barrister to come to my local court when i counterclaimed the possession order- but they had returned some charges a long time ago by saying i need not pay for a period -??? this is when i got into further difficulties -

there is so much wrong in what has been charged to me and I need to address it somehow.

i appreciate replies.