first charge mortgage GE

[amelia33]

Hi, I have used other consumer forums and am seeking all the help I can find regarding a counterclaim re GE. I am well into the process now despite my local court managing to misdirect and lose my counterclaim! It is I Group UK who are claiming reposession against me for arrears. Original lender name - Ocwen. (1998) - yes this has thrown up the argument about who regulates what at that time?

I have been in dispute regarding charges, and misselling 'unfair relationship' specifically, been unable to get all the info from the lender despite SAR twice. Hearing is coming up week after next.

[Gorang]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

Hi and welcome amelia

What help do you need ?

can you give more details of your case from start to present day ?

[amelia33]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

specifically S140 successful claims

[jumper999]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

Unfair relationships cases - The Office of Fair Trading

[amelia33]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

many thanks, there are some High Court cases, I see. I am right that it is for the defendant to prove it was not unfair?

Are there any useful ways I can show it was apart from the obvious being, extortionate rate, extortionate commissons, the circumstances of vulnerability and so forth (which can be proved with contirbuting factor information.

do we have any beagles who have won via s140.

[Guest]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

Hi
Youare correct in that the creditor has to prove that they were behaving fairly
(140b)

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the
relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor,

it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary

Notoriously difficult to get a judgment for excesive interest on an agreement if there was sufficiant pre contractural information given.
Do you have anything in mind?

Peter

[amelia33]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

No pre contractaul information provided, a subprime arranged by a rep, taking advantage of a desperate situation the imbalance of parties under utccr, that maybe includes the 'good faith' argument. s140 provides for 'unfair relationship' I understand. (what evidence might be expected to show facts as to unfair relationship?)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
does anyone know anything about the ownership issues that were thrown up a while back, when cityscape, ocwen us, and cmc were the original companies (hansard debate) and I Group were on the deeds as owners when in fact they were not legal entitled to take action?? what did they do next (Rozak stuff)

[Guest]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

HI is this a first or second mortgage and is it for over 25K.

I take it that they have got a CCJ, and already have a charge on your property?

Peter

[amelia33]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

first charge and over 25. No ccj.

[Guest]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

Hi
This would come under the FSA then.
They have a number of hurdles to jump before they can gain a possession order, the first of which is to obtain a forthwith judgement.
I don’t know how far along the line you are regarding proceedings, but the general advice is to make contact with the creditor and raise your complaint before you go to court.
Involve the regulatory bodies like the FSA and the FOS, keep a record of all correspondence , construct a time line account of all events both before the loan and up to date.
Do not stop making payments even if they are considerably less than what they are asking, try and remain reasonable and business like when dealing with the creditor.
You have to try and avoid the court issuing a charging order on your property should you defence fail, the court will look at what you did prior to the action being taken before making its decision, if you can show that you made all efforts to rectify matters then it shows the creditor to be the bad guy and increases your chances of success. This is your fall-back position.
Without knowing the details of your complaint I cannot comment on the likely success of your counter suit
Peter

[Judge mental]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

Hi Amelia33

A little two penneth

You say I Group were not legally entitled, could you expand on this. To be entitled to possession they must have a charge registered at the land registry, have you obtained the title documents to see who had the charge at the time recovery proceedings were initiated? you can get the information from the land registry website, it costs about £4.50.

You also say there was no pre-contractual information, but you presumably received an offer of mortgage prior to the mortgage being completed. The Mortgage offer must be a 'mirror of the contract'. As another potential angle it may be worth going through both with a fine tooth comb as many lenders used to be quite lapse (either through mistake or intentional misrepresentation).

As Peter says, a claim of 'unfair relationship' would be difficult and complex, but not impossible and with high rewards, an example would be the PPI situation which was initially determined on an 'unfair relationship claim' MBNA –v- Thorius

Peter, I think the mortgage may be unregulated (under FSA) as it was taken out before October 2004, I suspect a change of ownership would be regarded as a variation of that mortgage so it would remain unregulated.

Also the lender would not (as yet) be entitled to a charging order as there must first have been a CCJ which has been defaulted upon.

Stuart

[amelia33]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

Hi Amelia33

A little two penneth

You say I Group were not legally entitled, could you expand on this. To be entitled to possession they must have a charge registered at the land registry, have you obtained the title documents to see who had the charge at the time recovery proceedings were initiated? you can get the information from the land registry website, it costs about £4.50.

You also say there was no pre-contractual information, but you presumably received an offer of mortgage prior to the mortgage being completed. The Mortgage offer must be a 'mirror of the contract'. As another potential angle it may be worth going through both with a fine tooth comb as many lenders used to be quite lapse (either through mistake or intentional misrepresentation).

As Peter says, a claim of 'unfair relationship' would be difficult and complex, but not impossible and with high rewards, an example would be the PPI situation which was initially determined on an 'unfair relationship claim' MBNA –v- Thorius

Peter, I think the mortgage may be unregulated (under FSA) as it was taken out before October 2004, I suspect a change of ownership would be regarded as a variation of that mortgage so it would remain unregulated.

Also the lender would not (as yet) be entitled to a charging order as there must first have been a CCJ which has been defaulted upon.

Stuart

'but you presumably received an offer of mortgage prior to the mortgage being completed' -

no is the straight forward answer, a sink estate leafleted offering loans, following an accident I rang them, a man turns up and says you can borrow anything you like so long as you sign this thing, its right to buy - the rest is history, no kfi, no other discussion, no knowledge of lender, yes, totally green but that doesnt make it ok to be taken advantage of stuck with hideous agreement even fos thought was a secured loan and couldnt possibly really be a first charge mortgage???!

thanks for comments from all so far

[amelia33]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

No pre contractaul information provided, a subprime arranged by a rep, taking advantage of a desperate situation the imbalance of parties under utccr, that maybe includes the 'good faith' argument. s140 provides for 'unfair relationship' I understand. (what evidence might be expected to show facts as to unfair relationship?)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
does anyone know anything about the ownership issues that were thrown up a while back, when cityscape, ocwen us, and cmc were the original companies (hansard debate) and I Group were on the deeds as owners when in fact they were not legal entitled to take action?? what did they do next (Rozak stuff)

apologies for this being so unclear - this is a debate on Hansard about I Groups practices, the history of the company and a specific case cited being Rozaks, as I Group were taking possession of properties they were not legally entitled to but courts giving them. Its an old debate and I realise may not be directly relevant in court, however, these things matter.
Consumer Credit (Hansard, 16 October 2001)

[Judge mental]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

can you clarify that -
You are defending and counterclaiming an application for possession of your property, mortgaged with I Group who have a first charge, confirmed by the title documents at the land registry.
You are basing your counterclaim on I Group have no legal entitlement to seek possession, is this because -
a) 'they are not the owners of the mortgage or charge on the property,
b) that the mortgage was miss-sold
c) that a commission was paid to the broker without your knowledge or consent (secret commission),
d) they have created an unfair relationship under CCA

.... and a few questions for you

Was any PPI sold with the mortgage?
Is this the first hearing for their claims?
Has anything occurred since conception of the mortgage which caused the agreement to be re-written e.g. re-mortgage?
Has it been established if, prior to and in the course of making their application, the Pre-Action Protocol has been fully complied with?

Can you give details of the charges that have been added to the account, have these charges been added to the arrears or the mortgage balance?

Do you have a copy of the original agreement?

Stuart

[amelia33]

Re: first charge mortgage GE

can you clarify that -
You are defending and counterclaiming an application for possession of your property, mortgaged with I Group who have a first charge, confirmed by the title documents at the land registry.
You are basing your counterclaim on I Group have no legal entitlement to seek possession, is this because -
a) 'they are not the owners of the mortgage or charge on the property,
b) that the mortgage was miss-sold
c) that a commission was paid to the broker without your knowledge or consent (secret commission),
d) they have created an unfair relationship under CCA

.... and a few questions for you

Was any PPI sold with the mortgage?
Is this the first hearing for their claims?
Has anything occurred since conception of the mortgage which caused the agreement to be re-written e.g. re-mortgage?
Has it been established if, prior to and in the course of making their application, the Pre-Action Protocol has been fully complied with?

Can you give details of the charges that have been added to the account, have these charges been added to the arrears or the mortgage balance?

Do you have a copy of the original agreement?

Stuart

yes, am defending and counterclaiming, they appear to be owners, as appears on title deed. it seems GE service the loan now. no original paperwork. charges approx 10K added to balance, arrears appear sepertely with arrears interest. never rewritten. pre action protocol has some mistakes.no ppi. yes secret commission but unable to get underwriting sheet and info is redacted. charges are sol costs, admin costs (formerly called arrears charge)£40 monthly. interest on charges, returned dd charges £20 monthly. i believe missold, unfair relationship. first hearing on the repossession, previously adjourned.