Unregulated Loans Campaign

[vicky160985]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

Its not an agreement without equality.

Thank you for this! Its extremely helpful :-) it is so short but so correct. It really is that simple. Thankyou!

[vicky160985]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

I have also come across details regarding agreements that are exempt from regulation. From what I understand a regulated agreement secured (first charge) on property becomes exempt if it is also secured by a second charge on the borrowers family home?

Does this sound correct?

I'm still looking into it but it would certainly make a lot of sense. One agreement dated 20th feb 2008 has the family home listed with the other 9 properties as security. However I have another agreement exactly the same apart from the date as its the 28th feb 2008 and just one extra line has been added below the list of secured properties. It reads, second charge on (address) . So the family home is detailed in this extra wording and is also kept within the list of security above it as it had been drawn up 8 days earlier. There are no other changes.

If the exemption above is correct then It appears to me as though they have manipulated the situation to make it unregulated. They had us sign again 8 days later knowing that by doing so our agreement would change drastically but failed to explain anything about regulation being involved. They made out it was something or nothing. A minor error on their part. Hence it being signed as asked without thinking anything bad about it.

Basically they know / knew what they were doing and mislead us.

[vicky160985]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

Nowhere on the agreement does it say it is unregulated. The only reference to CCA is within the terms and conditions where they say they do hold a CCA licence and provide the licence number. That is all. If the agreement is not regulated and it does not say unregulated anywhere on it, would it not suggest regulation does apply by including the licence details within the terms? Otherwise what would be the reason for including them?

This is why I am confused and why I contacted the FCA again. They then adked me for particulars of the agreement to determine if it fell within their remit.
I provided that info to them thinking they'd tell me if it was regulated or not but instead they suddenly told me they couldn't help and that I should go to the FOS.

Why ask for details then?

I explained how I understood their position in that they could not deal with my individual complaint and how I was happy to go on to the FOS just as soon as I knew what I needed to say to the FOS.

It shows how difficult they have made the rules by being unable or unwilling to answer my one question about the status of the agreement. Even after receiving the details that THEY asked for.

THEY wrote to me saying they thought I should know the lender is an appointed representative yet refuse to tell me why they thought I should know this! Its as if they're trying to give me clues because their hands are tied to giving me the truth.

[Fred]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

I have said this before ...If an agreement/contract is unregulated .....it must be a Common Law agreement/contract subject to Tort Law.
Have a read
http://www.a4id.org/sites/default/fi...ntract-law.pdf

Sparkie

Its not an agreement without equality.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

I have said this before ...If an agreement/contract is unregulated .....it must be a Common Law agreement/contract subject to Tort Law.
Have a read
http://www.a4id.org/sites/default/fi...ntract-law.pdf

Sparkie

[meellis]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

The issues are surely in definition and application, the FCA should not be required to advise because the rules should be set out with no ambiguity and then enforced. Instead we have rules written that sound complex but are left with many different interpretations. The definitions are then set out by the person who is prepared to place their head above the parapet to obtain a decision which suits their definition which generally seems different to how the majority read into the rule. This has been highlighted this week by the case of parent being fined for taking their child out of school who interpreted the words of the rules to suit his case and won. Hopefully the rule makers will realise that writing the rules with a certain amount of ambiguity can back fire on them as well as us.

[Fred]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

To add to the mix, the agreements were unilateral; the consumer has/had to 'take it or leave it'.
That being the case, the lender should get it right (hence the draconian rules in the original CCA 1974 - much watered down by subsequent court rulings & legislation (ie the 2006 amendments)
Funny how they seem to favour 'Big Business'!

Unilateral indeed, they have got it wrong, ambiguity in the fixed terms has meant they play on words like "prudent" for the one side that is.

The thing is, since the introduction of the amendments to include the CCA 1974 140 a/b unfair relationships (retrospectively) in/on unregulated loans there has been no clear guidance on how to use this wonderful piece of legislation, the FOS do not know how to apply it, what chance has any consumer ?

The "big business" side of the argument comes directly from a reprimand issued to a well known household brand, this reprimand was clear in the causation but, watered down when the said organisation was, given, the opportunity to amend its own policies to "ensure future compliance" & save them from any release of data which may have resulted in claims.. The reprimand contained no information only that, it was "interest rate variation".................................3 long years it took to get that data, it stinks & it is a damage limitation exercise all the way for the organisation in question.

What chance have you with this going on in the background ?

[Debt Camel]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

This seems pathetic to me. They are the FCA and they can't tell me how they regulate or if an agreement is regulated.

I know the following isn't going to seem a satisfactory answer to you, but here goes....

It isn't possible for a regulator to also give out "advice". If they did there would be huge conflicts of interest.

As a result, if you ask a regulator to give any opinion you are likely to be referred to the relevant section of their rules and advised that you should take professional advice. If the question is "Is the sky blue during the day if there aren't any clouds?", and the FCA is feeling especially helpful, they may point out the definition of "clouds" in their handbook and the cross-border implications of the word "day". But they are not going to venture any views on the colour of the sky.

This isn't just annoying for consumers, it can also be baffling to new entrants on the regulated firm side. When you are trying to complete an application to become an X, your instinct will be to make a list of the uncertain areas and arrange a meeting with the FCA to discuss them - will they be happy if you just say Y in your application or do you need to go into a lot more detail? The reply will be that you should consult your solicitors.

It's not just in this country, exactly the same applies in the USA.

Unfortunately I do not expect you will get anything useful from the FoI request.

[charitynjw]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

To add to the mix, the agreements were unilateral; the consumer has/had to 'take it or leave it'.
That being the case, the lender should get it right (hence the draconian rules in the original CCA 1974 - much watered down by subsequent court rulings & legislation (ie the 2006 amendments)
Funny how they seem to favour 'Big Business'!

[Fred]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

Regulation on second charge loans/mortgages taken out prior April 2008 & of over £25K (unregulated by the CCA ACT 1974) is, virtually non existent. The two main reasons for this being most of the offending lenders are no longer trading new business & the prioritisation values of the authorities.

These lenders can still be fined under their license terms, as, they must have license to hold/manage these loans. It is wrong of the FCA to suggest it is nothing to do with them citing the "unregulated" argument. The "unregulated" part means unregulated by the CCA 1974 & not unregulated by any authorities. It is the FCA by choice that chooses to ignore our consumer concerns.

The situation is well known to the lenders & hence they have disregard for the SCLG & sail very close to the wind legally. They know the FOS is in their pocket as they are not able to rule on some fundamental issues consumers face. This requires a court & up to now there are very few who are brave enough to risk everything.

All together it puts consumers in a very compromising position & doing exactly what they (the lenders) demand is the norm.

It, to me, is clearly wrong. The FCA should be looking at the damage that can be done with these loans & throwing down some rules (with the threat of losing license) we need some guidelines to follow & so does the FOS. It is very disturbing the authorities set to protect are, by way of ignorance actually bolstering the behaviour of these companies.

It should not be expected of a "layman" who would, in most cases, have innocently taken out one of these disastrous loans to have known or foreseen all the events that have happened & continue to happen in what can only be described as a "one sided" agreement. It is however the duty of the regulator to ensure the rules are being followed.

For these reasons I do not blame "joe public" for making possibly the worst decision of their lives, it is the system that allows this to happen & the FCA (OFT) have had their blinkers on.

The only thing consumers can do is utilise the complaint services available to them & insist the authorities do their job. Things will change for the better if consumers come out & complain.

[charitynjw]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

Hi vicky

Further to my post above (#45) about the 6 years limit, an exception may be possible via s14(a) Limitation Act 1980.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/14A

[vicky160985]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

Being a principle firm, FCA regulated Cheshire Mortgage Corporation is also responsible for the activity carried out by appointed representative introducer, Lancashire Mortgage Corporation (LMC)

FCA REGISTRATION OF PRINCIPLE: Cheshire Mortgage Corporation Limited FCA Reference Number: 305253 Effective from: 10th November 2004
Details of Company Appointment:
Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd FCA Reference number: 414373

[vicky160985]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

Just to update, i have received a reply from my FOI request regarding the FCA witholding information which is vital to my complaint with the lender.
the reply has again avoided answering any of my questions and i have requested an internal review of the the FCA's handling of the matter.
in addition i have contacted my MP who has this morning replied with the following,

Dear Ms Dixon,

Thank you for your email regarding Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). I was very concerned to read about the fact that you appeared to have been given incorrect information when you made a simple enquiry looking for help and advice.

Although I have no direct sway over FCA policy I am always happy to help where I can. Therefore I have emailed the FCA and asked them to investigate your concerns. I will contact you again if I may when I receive a reply.

I give warning to all constituents that we give external agency 18-20 days to respond in line with their policy if we receive no response after that time a polite reminder is sent requesting a response to our enquiry. However about 90% of enquiries are responded to in under 20 days.

Best wishes,

Frank Field

The Rt Hon Frank Field MP DL
Member of Parliament for Birkenhead


i am not at all happy with how the FCA have continued to protect the lender. i do feel that they have created their terms and regulations in a way that prevents the borrower from determining the regulatory status of their own agreement.

i was first told they could not help as the company was not regulated by the FCA

Only once question did i find out that this is not true as the company is regulated by the Principle / parent company.

at the point of contact the FCA aught to have made it clear to me that LMC were an appointed representative introducer for CMCL and accordingly provided details of what this meant to me.
they did not.
they simply denied their involvement with the company and advised me to contact the FOS

I replied stating that their refusal to advise me furthur was unfair to my case with a FOS in that i did not know how to put my argument across. regulated? unregulated? information they are refusing to give so as i may continue onto the FOS

[charitynjw]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

I have just come accross this which is very interesting and perhaps of use to somebody stuck with an unregulated loan agreement that still makes ref to the CCA.

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest....edR1lQpa.xiqq

Hi vicky

My reading of the MRAN case is:

1) The lender can't 'contract in' to the CCA, so the protection of the CCA 1974, which the borrower had signed for, is voided.
2) Any subsequent action for damages due to misrepresentation is probably not possible due to the 6 year limit by virtue of the Limitation Act .

I could be wrong, though.

I think @Fred & maybe @Sparkie1723 know more about this.
May as well go for broke & invite [MENTION=27588]meellis[/MENTION] & [MENTION=510]andrew1[/MENTION] as well!

[vicky160985]

Re: Unregulated Loans Campaign

I have just come accross this which is very interesting and perhaps of use to somebody stuck with an unregulated loan agreement that still makes ref to the CCA.

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest....edR1lQpa.xiqq