Tweet
Can anyone help? I believe we are a victim of a loan company's internal policy of "upsell" and volume over riders resulting in a Scottish/English jurisdiction dispute. The first cold call by LoanMaker, (now in default) who was a broker for Nemo back in January 2007, then in quick succession contacted by Nemo’s upsell department resulting in a secured loan on our property, done on a self cert of our income, which was based on a business plan for projected income, we could only afford 26 monthly repayments some of which was paid by credit card, we then ceased repayments as our income could not cover repayments. It has been an ongoing legal battle which started in Manchester and has now moved to Scotland for repossession. Does anyone else think that Nemo’s legal team (EVERSHEDS) who are a multinational law firm specialising in Jurisdiction and Consumer law runs rings around the County court judges and Sheriffs in Scotland leaving the individual consumer no chance of a fair hearing or justice, due to restrictions of funding in legal aid and the institutions attitude of (you accepted the loan, now pay up or get out) with very few if any local solicitors who specialise in consumer law. Even the solicitors say it's totally unfair the way that they manipulated and used the knowledge of consumer law to the advantage of their client Nemo, and not treating the consumer in a fair and balanced manor. It has got to the point the only way out is to become a social tenant in my own property to clear mis-sold loans.
Loading...
-
Tags: None -
Re: Loan companies using multinational law companies V individual
Hi,
The original agreement signed in England and states " governed by English Law " or words to that effect?
Where is the property on which the loans is secured?
Are you now resident in Scotland? -
Re: Loan companies using multinational law companies V individual
Hi,
The property is in Scotland .To say it's complicated would be a huge understatement, see this article Consumers secure claims victory - Credit Today
www.credittoday.co.uk/article/7760/.../consumers-secure-claims-victory. I have the draft judgement,but the final judgement "got lost" in
the court vaults. March the following year our (legal team) based in Manchester was closed down by the SRA which left us with no legal representation and a large box of legal papers delivered to our door.Comment
-
Re: Loan companies using multinational law companies V individual
Interesting and as you rightly say extremely complicated.Comment
-
Re: Loan companies using multinational law companies V individual
I know it's interesting and complicated, that's why I'm seeking impartial advice.Comment
-
Re: Loan companies using multinational law companies V individual
Re post 3# was there allegations of wrong doing against the legal team in regard to this matter?Comment
-
Re: Loan companies using multinational law companies V individual
The legal team was part of the Cartel DMC Manchester, there was a lot of financial irregularities. I never did find out all the reasons why they were closed by the SRA I know that clients of CCLS law team were left high & dry, because the "No win no fee" insurance was null & void because the firm was insured not any individual member of the team. Our case was one of the more successful cases against loan companies, I cannot say that they were not trying, in fact they were doing very well, and it was higher up management that let everyone down. Allegedly the man who started Cartel up walked away with 45million in his back pocket. We did get a PPI refund plus interest a couple of years ago, which was one of the reasons for raising the action. This was deducted from the ongoing interest still being added to the loan.
To cut a long story short, we lost the case in England they were awarded costs which after an internal review they waivered the legal fees against us. The repossession order was raised in Scotland, so the action now it's under Scottish law.
We are now awaiting to see if we can clear the (secured loan) and become a social tenant under the mortgage to rent scheme. That being said the initial court action raised on our behalf on whither the loan was mis-sold, it being a bad unenforceable contract due to:
Jurisdiction HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT in our favour we won
PPI REFUNDED+ INTEREST deducted from balance
Mis-sold NO DECISSION need advice Multi layered contract UNANSWERED need advice
Regulated or unregulated OPINION NEEDED need advice
Unfair relationship OPINION NEEDED need advice
Undeclared commission FACT need advice
Volume over-riders FACT need advice
All the above information was presented to the Financial Ombudsman for a judgement, but decided in the loan company’s favour, to my severe disappointment. The judgement in my opinion was biased because the PPI was repaid during the investigation, and they never focused on the issues of calculating the amounts that were regulated or unregulated loans, unfair relationship between us and the broker and the loan company who received commission. Not forgetting the volume over-riders paid by the loan company’s Upsell department.Comment
-
Re: Loan companies using multinational law companies V individual
Hiya Nemesis45
Do you have an update?
millman:tinysmile_hmm_t2:Comment
Comment