Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

That's as good an interpretation as it gets and I agree with LA on this

Sparkie

RBS undertaking The FSA found that the word "Indemnity" was an unfair term

Legal jargon – ‘indemnity’
Regulation 7 states that ‘A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language’. We consider terms using the word ‘indemnify’ or ‘indemnity’ to not be expressed in plain and intelligible language, contrary to Regulation 7. We note that the OFT’s guidance (referred to above) indicates similar concerns regarding the use of terms requiring consumers to ‘indemnify’ firms. Paragraph 18.2.7 states ‘the word ‘indemnify’ itself is legal jargon which, if understood at all, is liable to be taken as a threat to pass on legal and other costs incurred without regard to reasonableness’.

I have that word indemnity in my agreement...could I use this judgment even though the FSA made it?

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

It is my understanding that the agreement should show on the signature page that independant legal advice should be sought before signing the agreement.......I could be wrong on this...... other opinions should be sought.

Sparkie

I am Not a legally trained person and the opinions I put forward on any subject are my own

Thanks sparkie...yes it does say that on the front of the page

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

RBS undertaking The FSA found that the word "Indemnity" was an unfair term

Legal jargon – ‘indemnity’
Regulation 7 states that ‘A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language’. We consider terms using the word ‘indemnify’ or ‘indemnity’ to not be expressed in plain and intelligible language, contrary to Regulation 7. We note that the OFT’s guidance (referred to above) indicates similar concerns regarding the use of terms requiring consumers to ‘indemnify’ firms. Paragraph 18.2.7 states ‘the word ‘indemnify’ itself is legal jargon which, if understood at all, is liable to be taken as a threat to pass on legal and other costs incurred without regard to reasonableness’.

I have that word indemnity in my agreement...could I use this judgment even though the FSA made it?

I believe you could for reason it appears that Blemain are trying to use the FSA as a shield against not having an exemption certificate...they can't have it both ways.....in the words of a senior judge it was hs view he said ......"a dog cannot have two tails"

A thought has just crossed my mind I think this logic could be applied to the word " Unregulated" I am absolutely certain that if borrowers had it really explained to them what an "Unregulated agreement meant ....in that they had no protection of practically anything at all......they would not have signed the agreeement.......I remember when we signed we didn't and it wasn't explained to us...................I have learnt a hell of a lot since April 2007...dealing with Swift..........I knew absolutely nothing about unregulated agreements........I learnt the hard way like everyone else...........even now I only know the basics

Sparkie

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Thanks sparkie, the reason Blemain say that they do not have to hold an exemption certicate is that they are the appointed representatives of Cheshore Mortgages.......as for a dog not having two tails....the way things are going I don't think they even have one tail.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Thanks sparkie, the reason Blemain say that they do not have to hold an exemption certicate is that they are the appointed representatives of Cheshore Mortgages.......as for a dog not having two tails....the way things are going I don't think they even have one tail.

Yes but as we have discussed ....ONLY for Insurance purposes........exactly the same as Swift.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Yes but as we have discussed ....ONLY for Insurance purposes........exactly the same as Swift.

OK, sparkie in your agreement does it show how much you will have to pay if you default? like £35 a letter for chasing you for arrears etc etc....is reference made to what you may expect to pay?

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Personally I would think that as we have to use contract law....then uncertainty or terms is a very big issue...especially when one does not know what amount they will have to pay if they are ever late in paying an instalment....

If this is misrepresentation then it is a very big one....as it is just like signing a blank cheque...to someone you don't know......

As my agreement does not contain any term or condition that if I breach, or am late in paying I will be charged X Y & Z..............then that gives Blemain kinda full authority to charge whatever they want yes?

OK if I am not happy and disagree....for to get this corrected I will have to go through a trorturous litigation process...and all the stress in having to find each fact to fit the crime....
Just to get this deemed as an unfair term...............

And if this is a hidden or unfair term then that would mean all agreements similar to mine would be effected....and that would be contained in a judgment against Blemain.

Is there anywhere is law or any other legislation where it sates that a lender or creditor does not have to state how much the cost of a breach for non payment would be in an agreement?

The whole point of making an agreement...contract..is that both parties should know what they are signing and the payment of any breach...

Or maybe unregulated agreements don't have to inform the borrower how much default charges will be......

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Certainty in English contract law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Certainty in English contract law set out rules for how judges will interpret, sever or put contracts into effect.
If the terms of the contract are uncertain or incomplete, the parties cannot have reached an agreement in the eyes of the law.[1] An agreement to agree does not constitute a contract, and an inability to agree on key issues, which may include such things as price or safety, may cause the entire contract to fail. However, a court will attempt to give effect to commercial contracts where possible, by construing a reasonable construction of the contract.[2]
Courts may also look to external standards, which are either mentioned explicitly in the contract[3] or implied by common practice in a certain field.[4] In addition, the court may also imply a term; if price is excluded, the court may imply a reasonable price, with the exception of land, and second-hand goods, which are unique.
If there are uncertain or incomplete clauses in the contract, and all options in resolving its true meaning have failed, it may be possible to sever and void just those affected clauses if the contract includes a severability clause. The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective test—whether a reasonable person would see the contract standing even without the clause.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

NOTE FOR THE PUBLIC REGISTER UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE
CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (THE ACT)
LICENCE NO: 391 61 8
LICENSEE: SWIFT ADVANCES PLC
DETERMINATION OF MINDED TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS
NOTICE


Default charges

The Licensee must

a) use litigation as a last resort and only where a
borrower is unable to meet his commitments in
the long term or unwilling to engage with the
Licensee;
ensure that its communications with customers
accurately reflect its authority and the correct
legal position, in accordance with paragraphs
2.3 and 2.4d of the OFT'S Debt Collection
Guidance July 2003, updated December 2006.
ensure that the tariff of charges gives a clear
explanation of when charges will be applied to
an account and what they are for;

The Licensee's charges should be set out clearly
and fully as part of the credit agreement and in
periodic statements,


Swift were fined about their default charges and the FSA did say The Licensee's charges should be set out clearly and fully as part of the credit agreement.

Now would that apply to agreements after the this fine was made...or does this fine include agreements prior to this fine being made on swift?

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Just my tuppence worth, but my understanding is that a lender (or any other organisation) is on very shaky ground where the customer is a normal consumer, the contract is riddled with jargon and where it contains terms that are unfairly biased towards the lender (ie, they come under UTCCR).

An unfair term would, I think, be actionable under S140 of CCA, which applies to unregulated consumer credit contracts.

There are some interesting cases about this here (you may have seen these already)...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/...ontract-terms/

I suspect there is little other case history because I bet lenders by far prefer to settle out of court where S140/UTCCR is involved, possibly through fear of the avalanche of claims that might be triggered were such cases to be routinely heard.

My understanding of contract law is, at best, basic, but I think you're right Jumper and both parties must fully understand what is being agreed and which is to become legally binding. This cannot happen where the proposed contract contains provisions that cannot be understood (there is ambiguity) or that work in one party's favour to the cost of the other (there is unfairness). Moreover, any consumer contract (regulated or not) should (as Sparkie has pointed out) contain all the pre-contract information applicable, which should include charges on default, otherwise the consumer agrees to a contract which could imply unlimited costs (which is now effectively unlawful due to UTCCR).

As for the FSA fine on Swift, I would have thought that BF should have subsequently advised all their customers of the charges that they contemplated in order to avoid a fine themselves. However, to do so they would I think have to rewrite large parts of your contract; the fact that they have not done so implies to me that they do in fact wish to charge you whatever they want.

Just my angle but hope helps.

LA

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Thanks LA and yes I do agree with what you say.....if BF changed my contract then that would mean they would have to change everyone's contract similar to mine..and there ain't just a couple of them are there?

Whether one has a reg/unreg..contract/agreement both parties....especially the weaker party must be informed and made aware of any dangers or consequences they may face if they do not stick to all the terms & conditions on the paper they sign.

Leaving out vital information is not only dangerous but is in my opinion a pre planned plan to trap simple folk in to signing their souls over to the devil.......completely oblivious to the dangers that lie ahead.

Once you have signed these agreements...you are placed in sinking mud by theses institutions.........no matter how hard you try to get yourself out......the deeper you sink.....now we have to get ourselves out of this sinking mud that we are in...ain't easy...but not impossible.......

If BF can charge whatever they want...then I should pay whatever I want to...and whenever I want...

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Yes, agree totally Jumper. What is the worth of a contract if one party believes it can use it to obtain money under provisions that the other party is completely unaware of, unless it's actually a scam?

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

Yes, agree totally Jumper. What is the worth of a contract if one party believes it can use it to obtain money under provisions that the other party is completely unaware of, unless it's actually a scam?

Years 2006 to 2007 many people took out sub prime loans......whatever their reasons...only a fraction of people knew what they were getting in to......the majority did not...then people unable to manage payments as recession began....trying to make ends meet...families and people began to struggle....repossessions went up....lenders ignored guidelines, rules and regulations.....power hungry for property and people's money they ignored pre action protocols for repossessions....

Then the government pulled back legal aid..well the majority of it...people facing repossessions are still entitled to legal aid...but how many solicitors and barristers are taking on cases against these lenders? even if you have done all the leg work yourself and present your case on a plate? who in all honesty can say that they have a good solicitor/barrister fighting in their corner and defence?

Every bad deed has its repercussions...its fun while its lasts..but eventually we must pay for our actions...and I believe that these institutions thought they had cast iron agreements/contracts in place and nothing would back fire.

It only takes one match to start a forest fire...not that I am suggesting we do...maybe a few places I could list if I were asked

All I can say is one way or the other things will end.....how they end only fate will tell.........but in the meantime we just have to keep going. Another new year....lets hope this time next year we can say WE DONE IT!!!!!

[lindybee]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

If anyone can get their head around this...........According to CCA Register, and as far as I can make out is that Blemain Finance were added to this list 2 Feb 2011:

CCA Home Page :: CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details :: Licence History :: Event Details

Event Details

Licence Details:


Licence/Application Number Licence Status Applicant/Holder Name 0032328 Current Blemain Finance Limited Event Details:


Event Number Event Type Date of Receipt Closed Date Status 42 Variation 02-Feb-2011 07-Mar-2011 Completed

Trading Names:

NameAction BlemainAdded Blemain Finance Added

If Blemain Fiance were only added this year they why are have they been sending letters previous to Feb headed BLEMAIN FINANCE? At the bottom of their letters it states Blemain Finance Ltd.........unless they are all one name & company?

Bit strange that the name Blemain Finance has only been added to the CCA register a few months before thier renewal of their licence by the OFT which is currently pending.

I may be wrong or looking too much in to matters................

All of the correspendence I have had from Blemain has quoted a CCA number?
I reckon they may have access to a Tardis :tung:

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Blemain & Cheshire Regulations

All of the correspendence I have had from Blemain has quoted a CCA number?
I reckon they may have access to a Tardis :tung:

No Lindybee,
You are on the right track, Blemain work to the same business plan as near as damm it as Swift Advances plc .....calling their agreements "Unregulated" I have palced arguments on this issue on the Swift Thread.

I believe that they are caught out by Section 8(1) of the CCA and their agreements are in fact MONEY lending agreements.......and as such must have the trading name of Blemain Finance on the CCA licence to conduct money lending activities.......carry on with your investigations and research..........you are getting there IMO.

Sparkie

I am not legally traied and have no qualifications all I post are my own interpretations