• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulated

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

    Originally posted by meellis View Post
    cul8rm8e what I had been wondering about your problem was whether your agreement should be classed as a multiple agreement because there seems to be two different agreements with two different lenders going on there all under the one agreement if I understand your posts correct. If the first agreement was under the threshold then it needs looking into as maybe a separate agreement. The paperwork signed said they claimed exemption under section 16 of the act and was it 189. You really need to clarify how and whether either of these apply, section 16 I believe covers mortgages which would be covered under FISA and the lender would have to be registered to be able to claim exemption. As to the other exemptions they would be claiming then you need to see if they apply, Whenever I have had business loans as a sole trader they have still been covered by CCA because they were under the threshold.
    Thanks Meelis

    I have posted multiple threads on many forums relating to this issue asking many different questions about the agreement and the situation with the lenders. i will have a look at the exemtion issue but in the meantime i will try explain the whole situation in a short version.

    First lender was to provide the funds to get to wind and watertight stage and second lender would take over to fund to completion. first lender offered 6 month term only and wouldnt fund any longer term or the full build cost.
    Second lender would not fund from ground but would fund from wind and watertight stage to completion
    Both lenders were provided a full breakdown of costs should either fund the whole build, very little in it, the second lender terms were lower and would offset the initial setup.legal fees etc of using two lenders
    Anyway, it wasnt to be....

    Financial Adviser at a Ltd company cant get a single lender to fund so he suggest two lenders.
    The costs of the two lenders were obviously going to be a higher cost but willing to look at them
    First lender provides terms as expected and FA requests App fee £1000 for first lender, this wasnt paid as no terms from second lender was provided by FA, we told him we need this before we pay for anything (BOTH need to be in place before starting the process)
    Second lender terms arrive and everything looks in order so the App fee for the First lender is paid.
    First lender was to provide two stage funding, first stage to get groundworks done and second stage to build timber frame t wind and watertight.
    First lender carries out valuation report which was the last thing required before funds released, this report was satisfactory and the first stage was released.
    First lender requires further conditions to be met which was outside the contractual terms and was to be a substantial cost, if it was allowed than the reduction on the second stage would prevent getting to wind and watertight stage due to lack of funds (ultimately we would default on repayment as the second lender would not come in unless we were at that stage) we would not be able to repay the first lender what was borrowed).

    just to step back a bit. The broker took the application fee over the phone but it was processed by the lender that provided the contract (well tats what we thought). The lender that provided the contract was a trading name (info from OFT) of the limited company that took the security over property) Within the grant of security it stated that it was being taken under the terms of the contract provided by what was thought to be the lender (the company that provided the contract).

    still wth me?

    We contacted the FA to let him know there was issues with the first lender and it will delay the requirement of the funding from the Second lender.
    To our shock, the FA did not work there anymore and another FA told us that there is NO second lender in place and they hold no info about the need for a second lender. It is clear now but not at the time why!
    The FA had left his company and found himself a nice new job with the broker that sourced the loan from the lender, this happened BEFORE the first stage release of funds from the lender! we knew nothing.
    Anyway, a new application ( i will call it that for now) was submitted to the second lender by the new FA on our behalf, we asked for an increase in the original amount:tinysmile_hmm_t2: we thougt was in place to cover the cost of what the first lender wanted to reduce by as we were going to try borrow from elsewhere just to get to wind & watertight then use the second lender to pay off the first lender and the other money we borrowed. It seemed to drag on for a bit then it was refused. little did we know at the time, Mr First lender had his own team at the Second lender as he was a Broker and intermediary. he even confirmed it himself at a meeting that he had his own team there. Starting to see the big icture?

    To put you in the picture, the Broker, the company that produced the contract (lender?) and the limited company now saying they are the lender (pursuer) and have their name on the security, are all owned by the same person we dealt with through the whole process!


    Anyway, whoever it was (the lender) never produced the second stage funds

    if we step back again.
    a few weeks after releasing the first stage of funds, the lender?, sold off the security to someone outside the UK for the Full amount of loan he was to provide us, even though he only provided 1/3 of the contractual amount and was refusing to release the second stage, the other 2/3 while sitting on a nice profit from selling on the loan. he was doing well in my book and clearly didnt want us to know he had sold it on, not even his solicitor mentioned anything even though she dealt with the sale for the lender? and acted for the guy outside the UK.

    Anyway, the term of the contract with the first lender expired and he had to go back and buy the security back (as i said, we knew nothing about this at the time) so that he could do the calling up notice to get back his 1/3 he did provide and his fees, oh these fees were ALL the fees he wanted for providing the whole amount even though he provided 1/3. this added up to almost double what he provided in his first stage release, again not a bad return for him!

    Going back to the FA, it was to be that he doctored the information he provided us regarding the Second lender, I dont want to mention what i know but in my eyes its fraud and it can be confirmed by the SAR received from the Second lender SAR in my view are great things and tell a story themselves, in fact they tell many stories including one that the lender wont like either.


    Now this is where things get really confusing.

    It is now clear that not only does this guy have a limited company with two trading names, The Broker Company and the company that produced the contract as the lender, He also has a Partnerhip company, completely separate from the limited company and the trading name companies BUT it is exactly the same name as the company that provided the contract!

    It has also been made clear ( by the lenders? solicitor) that he company that provided the contract was the Partnership company, a separate entity from the Limited company with the two trading names. it has also been made clear by the solicitor that it was the obligation of the Partnership company to notify the borrower that a Legal Assignment (sale) of the security from the Limited company to the other guy outside the UK. it is not possible for them to be obligated not notify of an assignment if they are NOT the lender.

    it has also been provided by their solicitor that the Limited Company was acting as, wait for it, An Agent of the Limited company and the guy outside the UK was the lender providing the funds.

    Although the solicitor acted for both the limited company (who took security) and the guy outside the UK who bought it they say they only facilitated the transaction on instructions from the lender? (Limited Company) Are you seriously confused yet?

    Now, if we look at Consumer Licences

    The Limited company and the two trading names hold a licence as a Mortgage Broker but they lend money.
    The Partnership company who said in the contract they are willing to lend £xxxxxxxx have a licence as a Broker and consumer Credit, but they are not the lender (pursuer)
    The solicitor says it was the company who produced the contract that were obligated to notify the borrower of a Legal Assignment between the limited company and the guy outside the UK, even though they state that they were a seperate company and nothing to do with the Limited company or the two trading named companies. You cant be a Partnership and that Partnership be a trading name of a Limited company, both are separate entities. The Partnership company owners all submit their own SA800 as self employed and pay tax as a self employed person. the limited company pay corporation tax and include income of the trading named companies.

    just to add a little spice, A manager of the company that the original Financial Adviser worked stated on record that the guy we dealt with to source the funds did work for them but he was NOT authorised to provide Financial Advice even though the FA provided a signed copy of the T&C`s clearly stating what we pay for. then again. maybe i am as thick as the brown stuff and thats not what it means, you decide.

    What do we charge?
    There will be a fee payable by you to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for Development Finance advice. This will be £xxxx and will be invoiced to you by us once the lender has produced a terms of offer and is payable once the formal offer has been received by you.
    Our role
    We act as Development Finance advisers.


    Just one little thing came to mind. While the NEW application was submitted to the Second lender and we were awaiting a decision. The solicitor acting for the lender (whoever they are were or will be in the end) stated in a phone call (partially conducted via speakerphone) to our solicitor while we were all sitting there, told our solicitor that the New Application to the second lender was rejected, even though we were still awaiting a decision from the new Financial Adviser. How on earth did that solicitor have that information?

    Jumping onto something i always wondered about until recently.

    At the 11th hour on the day of the first release of the first stage funds from the first lender, the Broker requested an application to be filled in and returned to them immediately. The funny thing is that the prefilled application was for the full amount of money required to do the whole construction of the properties to completion. Why would that be if they were only providing, all in, 1/3 of the overall cost of the build. the other funny thing is, the Limited company had only been setup for months and their assests and liabilities (accounts) submitted to companies house were for the full amount of loan required to complete the properties, it may just be a coincidence.

    i did read somewhere on this forum that brokers apply for a loan in your name for more that the borrower wants, provides the borrower with what they require, wait for them to default and go through the motions to repossess while sitting on a nice nest egg, sell after repossession, pass it on for 6 months and sell it back to the original person who will then market it for the full value. Maybe i am looking into things too much, then again.....:tinysmile_aha_t:


    the Short version

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

      7 years should sort them out
      Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

      Section 397 provides for two criminal offences concerning misleading statements and practices. Persons found guilty of either of these offences may be subject to a maximum of up to 7 years imprisonment or to a fine, or to both.
      SECTION 397: MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND PRACTICES
      (1) This subsection applies to a person who
      a. makes a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
      b. dishonestly conceals any material facts whether in connection with a statement, promise or forecast made by him or otherwise; or
      c. recklessly makes (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.
      (2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies is guilty of an offence if he makes the statement, promise or forecast or conceals the facts for the purpose of inducing, or is reckless as to whether it may induce, another person (whether or not the person to whom the statement, promise or forecast is made)-
      a. to enter or offer to enter into, or to refrain from entering or offering to enter into, a relevant agreement; or
      b. to exercise, or refrain from exercising, any rights conferred by a relevant investment.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

        Originally posted by suffering View Post
        7 years should sort them out
        Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

        Section 397 provides for two criminal offences concerning misleading statements and practices. Persons found guilty of either of these offences may be subject to a maximum of up to 7 years imprisonment or to a fine, or to both.
        SECTION 397: MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND PRACTICES
        (1) This subsection applies to a person who
        a. makes a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
        b. dishonestly conceals any material facts whether in connection with a statement, promise or forecast made by him or otherwise; or
        c. recklessly makes (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.
        (2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies is guilty of an offence if he makes the statement, promise or forecast or conceals the facts for the purpose of inducing, or is reckless as to whether it may induce, another person (whether or not the person to whom the statement, promise or forecast is made)-
        a. to enter or offer to enter into, or to refrain from entering or offering to enter into, a relevant agreement; or
        b. to exercise, or refrain from exercising, any rights conferred by a relevant investment.
        Not enough, but that would be a start.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

          Another small update to the situation.

          It seems now that the (pursuer) did not actually provide the loan funds. it is now the case that the individual that the (pursuer) assigned the security to for the full loan amount was actually the person that provided the funds and the (pursuer) was acting as his/her AGENT in the transaction! So in effect, neither the company that provided the contract OR the pursuer named as the lender was actually the lender.

          I once heard an idiot say "Its my money and i can do what i want" If i remember correctly, I sat there in a silent rage, today i would say "IT`s NOT YOUR MONEY AND NOBODY DOES WHAT THEY WANT BEHIND BARS"

          You would imagine that these people who love to ruin peoples lives for their own financial gain would need to be intelligent, in their own field i think they need to be, but their main problem is that when you niggle away at them they love to retaliate and tell you who they are by blowing their own trumpet, this is when it becomes apparent that they really are thick as two short planks!

          I need to get to bed

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

            Some good news today!

            After much debate on the documents that can be made available, the Police is now taking a great interest in the current situation and are coming to visit tomorrow morning.

            I never even contemplated the fact that it is a criminal act until i read another post about the Fraud Act 2006.

            I will take great pleasure in these ******* being arrested!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

              Originally posted by meellis View Post
              If cul8rm8e is talking about where they have only received first part of a loan and that part was under the limit then that is what good representation could be needed for.
              I expect then a senior Advocate QC should be sufficient, things in motion now

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

                Are you saying a QC has been or is about to be instructed on your behalf? On what terms CFA perhaps?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

                  Originally posted by cul8rm8e View Post
                  Just a little addition to my previous input. If you can understand it

                  Mr White is the financial adviser
                  Mr Brown is the broker
                  Mr Black is the lender

                  I contact Mr white and his company charge £1000 to source funding, Mr white suggests 2 lenders which will incur 2 sets of fees, albeit it was looked at and accepted

                  Mr Brown supplies Mr White with terms of loan which includes all fees by % of funds required - approx £700 going by my figures

                  Mr Brown tells Mr White its £1000 for an application to be submitted to the lender Mr Black

                  Mr Brown gets his £1000 app fee (which i now know was processed through Mr Black`s company)and makes an application to Mr Black (himself)for funding

                  Mr Brown speaks to Mr Black on my behalf for the funding ( i now know theres a clear case of schizophrenia as they are both the same person working from the same office and who is a Director/Partner of both companies which are trading style names of a ltd company which he is also the Director of) - effectively he is running the who show

                  Mr Brown`s fee for his work is £1500 - effectively for asking yourself to loan money out and answering yourself back you get £1500 which is double the original % rate provided in writing by Mr White.
                  Mr Black`s arrangement fee is also £1500 - effectively for telling yourself YES you get another £1500 which is double the original % rate provided in writing earlier by Mr White.
                  Mr Brown/Black adds the fee of Mr Whites company to the loan also and charges a whopping great monthly percentage over xx months- effectively making more money

                  Contact Mr White and ask whats going on with the change in fees now being a fixed sum instead of a % of borrowing amount shown in the indicative terms?, he said in so many words, take it or leave it! By this time everything looked in order and I was hooked, accepted it with a grudge.


                  Got the first part of the agreed funding from Mr Brown/Black and started work
                  Looking for the second stage funding from Mr Brown/Black- problems start

                  Tried to contact mr White only to find out that Mr White left the company and did not put funding in place for second lender. Subsequently I found out Mr White was now found to be working in a nice sweet job as an employee of Mr Brown/Black for the second time around. Good mates?

                  Eventually I managed to be able to ask some questions of all 3, should i say 3 or one and a schizophrenic. Mr White had been given a job offer he simply couldnt refuse. It was either Mr Brown or Mr Black, (still unsure) who told me that he did not offer Mr White a job. WTF - effectivley Mr White spoke to either Mr Brown or Mr Black who offered him a job and the one i spoke to said he didnt offer Mr White a job, still to this day i have no idea what one i spoke to.

                  Anyway, Mr White, Mr Brown and Mr Black are working to this day together in harmony until judgement day in court!

                  Just out of curiosity i am wondering how it came about Mr White who was my Financial Adviser dealing with my case which wasnt concluded in any way at the time, took up employment with Mr Brown/Black and left me in the ****



                  On a last note!

                  Please rest assure i will, once this finishes in court, publicly name every single person along with all companies involved who has done me wrong.

                  Comments please.

                  How would it be looked upon if the company that Mr White worked for as the Financial Adviser were to offer £xxx if the borrower releases them from the court action? Why would they do that?:tinysmile_twink_t2:

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

                    All I can say to that is WOW

                    I can't answer your questions :sorry:, but this'll bump your post up for you.

                    Kati x
                    Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of.

                    It doesn't matter where your journey begins, so long as you begin it...

                    recte agens confido

                    ~~~~~

                    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                    I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is Kati@legalbeagles.info
                    But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

                    Specialist advice can be sought via our sister site JustBeagle

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

                      I think that whoever Mr Black and White are they are very shortly going to be in the brown.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Lenders are abusing exemption clauses to make loan agreements fit into unregulat

                        Maybe thats why the Police and the SRA are also now involved :tinysmile_twink_t2:

                        As i have mentioned before, the big picture is clear to see now after a lot of digging, and in my view, its a Masterpiece!

                        These people have been so arrogant all through this and have even dictated to FOS, FSA, FCA, ICO and others that they cant do nothing due to being unregulated, but when you get under their skin and they let you know who they are and what you are in comparison, they love to blow their own trumpet and dont even realise they are puting a rope around their own neck.

                        Mr Black and Mr White, when you read this one as you have read all my other posts, dont forget to add it to your AUDIT TRAIL!
                        Last edited by cul8rm8e; 6th September 2014, 12:15:PM.

                        Comment

                        View our Terms and Conditions

                        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                        Working...
                        X