Blemain Finance Possession Claim

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

FSA finds 90% of banks failed in regulatory obligations

This is a nice little story.....I believe Blemain have mis-sold a lot of if not nearly all their loans as they have never reduced their interest rates have they?

Could they be done for mis-selling? slowly slowly things are coming out more and more.....

http://www.bridgingandcommercialdist...ry_obligations

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Another good case:


Contributory negligence

When facing a negligence claim, a defendant will often seek to reduce the amount of damages by alleging the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. If a person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault, the damages recoverable shall be reduced as the court thinks just and equitable (section 1(1), Contributory Negligence Act 1945 (1945 Act)).


In Platform Homes, the lender was held contributorily negligent. The issue before the Lords was whether the reduction in the plaintiff's damages on account of its contributory negligence should have been applied to the plaintiff's total loss or to its loss as limited by the SAAMCO principle.


The valuer in Platform Homes had negligently overvalued property at £1.5 million. The true market figure at the time was £1 million. The lender agreed a loan, secured by a charge on the property. The borrower became bankrupt and the property was sold by the lender after the property market had fallen. The total loss suffered by the lender stood at £611,748. The trial judge found that the lender had been 20% contributorily negligent due mainly to its lending policy, which the judge deemed imprudent, and to its failure to follow up on unanswered questions in the loan application.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Little update....I have a directions hearing next month....and last week I received to my surprise a response to amended defence from Blemain......funny thing is that they have AGAIN changed solicitors......this is the 4th time they have done that since they issued proceedings.

First it was Wallers...then Cantor Law...then Cobbetts...and now Cantor Law again.

I sent the court a very nice letter to let them know what was going on and also sent a copy of that letter to Cantor Law....2 days later look at the letter Cantor Law sent me....I am thinking is it me or have they gone nuts????

Here is what I sent the Court...IF none of this makes sense...try seeing how I feel lol!

Dear Sirs,

I am writing the following information to bring to the Court’s attention the unfair treatment that I am continuing to receive from the Claimant. I am a Litigant in Person and I am not being treated fairly by the Claimant or their legal team. On the 20 March 2013 I received a letter from Cantor Law Solicitors dated 19 March 2013 advising me that they were acting on behalf of the Claimant, and they enclosed their client’s Amended Reply to my Amended Defence.

Prior to receiving this letter I was dealing with the Claimant’s solicitors Cobbetts LLP and on the 18 March 2013 I sent a Part 18 Request for the Claimant to Cobbetts LLP via letter and email and required a response by the 2 April 2013. To date I have not received any confirmation by Cobbetts LLP that they have received my request neither have I received any confirmation that they are no longer acting for the Claimant. On the 25 March 2013 I called the Court and was advised that the Claimant had sent a copy of their Amended Reply to my Amended Defence on 20 March 2013 but the court had no record or notification that Cantor Law Solicitors were now the Claimant’s acting solicitors and Cobbetts LLP are still noted on the court record as the Claimant’s acting solicitors.


Since the Claimant issued proceedings against me in May 2011 they have changed solicitors four times. On the 15 January 2013 the Claimant sent me letter advising that they had added legal costs of £7,064.85 to the claim. On the 16 January 2013 I received a letter from Cobbetts LLP advising me that there costs were approximately £14,595.81. I believe that as this matter has not been decided by the court and costs have reached nearly £21,660.66 and it is very unfair that I have to pay each firm of solicitors to play catch every time the Claimant decides to change solicitors and not even inform me or the court beforehand. Therefore I would like the court to take all these matters in to consideration when it comes to assessing costs.


Yours Sincerely

[PlanB]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

I've read Blemain's offer letter and it looks like total surrender by them to me :yield:

Perhaps they've changed back to their old solicitors because Cobbetts have told their client that they will lose in the High Court next month which could have a damaging knock-on effect with future possession proceedings for thousands of other borrowers. Maybe that's why they want a confidentiality clause included :tape: Of course that's hard to police.

Didn't you offer to pay £30 per month towards your arrears and Blemain rejected it (twice!) and now their offer to you is to pay £30 per month :doh: In fact their offer is practically a mirror image of all your previous offers which they have rejected which can have a positive impact for you when it comes to assessing their legal costs. There is no question of giving in to their demand to have their legal costs secured against your property but the general spirit of the order is a good start and not something to ignore. They're even talking about a Tomlin Order not a High Court Order which has got to be a good thing since enforcement is much milder if you default. This next step could do with formal legal advice so that you get their offer/order fine tuned to your advantage.

I'm seeing a light at the end of the tunnel not an express train coming towards you :bounce:

[pt2537]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Question that doesnt seem to have been asked

Did they file notice of change of solicitor?

[PlanB]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Question that doesnt seem to have been asked

Did they file notice of change of solicitor?

And if they haven't what difference would that make to the offer on the table or the WS they're busy preparing, or can they file it in restrospect ?

I presume that they can still charge for their costs even if they haven't informed the court of the change of solicitor

[pt2537]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

And if they haven't what difference would that make to the offer on the table or the WS they're busy preparing, or can they file it in restrospect ?

I presume that they can still charge for their costs even if they haven't informed the court of the change of solicitor

without notice of change they arent on record, ergo Cobblers are still acting

[PlanB]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

I've just noticed something. There's no mention of J999's counterclaim in that 'offer' letter :confused2: Are they hoping it will simply evaporate.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

I have been thinking about the offer that Blemain have sent.....and wandering worse case scenario.....and I lose my case......then the court would make an order against me with everything that Blemain have offered.....say add a couple more grand on top?

What benefit would I get if I agree to what Blemain have offered? as far as I can understand it......they are asking me to give up everything and agree to what they want 100%?

Correct me if I am wrong and would like to see what others have to say about the offer they have sent.

Next months hearing is a Directions Hearing.....a new date for trial has not been set yet.

[PlanB]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

I have been thinking about the offer that Blemain have sent.....

What benefit would I get if I agree to what Blemain have offered? as far as I can understand it......they are asking me to give up everything and agree to what they want 100%?

Correct me if I am wrong and would like to see what others have to say about the offer they have sent

Remind me how long you've been paying Blemain all the monthly mortgage payment plus the £30 towards your arrears which is exactly what you offered to settle. It must be for over a year. In fact you have also written to them several times asking them how much you'd have to pay in order to clear those arrears by the end of the mortgage term (as per Cheltenham & Gloucester vs Norgan) which is another clause they're 'offering' to put in the Tomlin Order. If they're happy to accept your 'offer' now (by making you the same 'offer') could that mean the court wouldn't automatically order them to pay for costs beyond that point (i.e. January 2012)? In the very least I'm sure it would become an issue when you have a detailed costs assessment because conduct matters as well as the maths when it comes to costs :nono:

I'm using this firm to sort a costs issue of mine where the claimant's conduct is the big issue for reducing the bill. I found them on Watsons solicitors website so I know they'll be good

http://www.civilandcommercial.com/faqs.cshtml

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Thanks PlanB....yes I have been paying the normal monthly contractual payments since March 2012 plus £30 on top towards the arrears.

Where Blemain have asked in the terms of settlement they sent they say they want their clients costs added to the security.

In Jan 2013 Cobbetts said their costs were approx nearly £15,000.00.

My loan when taken out was £37,000.00

To which I am in approx £7,000.00 arrears for missed monthly payments.

To that they have added £2,165.00 in costs (letters for arrears at £35 a hit)

They have also added £7,000.00 in legal cost (what these legal costs are I do not know...when asked they refer me to the terms and conditions in the agreement number 4 & 5...which gives them the power to add "other charges" for chasing the borrower for payments.

I have made a rough calculation that I owe approx £68-£70,000,00.00 all in all.....and that is before a court has decided what I am liable to pay.

Like I said worse case scenario and I lose in the High Court I will be ordered to pay all of Blemain's costs & charges...my arrears...plus their legal costs.

How better off would I be accepting the offer Blemain have proposed....and indeed agreeing to a Tomlin Order?

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Also if I accept the offer of settlement that Blemain have sent....number 3 of their offer states that payments would be reviewed within 12 months with a view to making sufficeint payments to repay the full balance over the remaining of the life of the loan.

So.....loan taken out in Sept 2007....that is nearly 6 years ago.....take 6 from 25 years leaves approx 19 years that I have left to pay the £70,000.00.....divide this by 19 years plus 9.8% interest...instantly my repayments would double...if not more if I am to clear the whole of the loan.

BUT THE CATCH IS!!!!!!!

On the face of the agreement page 1 Term "J" it reads:

THE NUMBER OF MONTHLY PAYMENTS AND/OR THE AMOUNT OF EACH MAY BE VARIED.

Then if you read page 2 of the agreement Term 5 it reads:

THE LENDER MAY INCREASE OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF THE REMAINING MONTHLY PAYMENTS OR THE AMOUNT OF THE BORROWER'S MONTHLY PAYMENT OR BOTH TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE RATE OF INTEREST PER MONTH UNDER 4 ABOVE.

Basically the loan which was applied for in true fact was not as it was advised and is written. This term allows Blemain to make this loan and payments last for eternity is they wanted as they have given themselves the power to increase not only the payments but also the amount of months they want to....so how when they say OVER THE REMAINING LIFE OF THE LOAN.....How do I know and what's more how can I agree to this as I have no idea when the life of the loan would end.

You just have to read the wording in their agreements to really understand what powers they have given themselves. When I questioned them about what the £7,000.00 was for they referred me to the terms in the agreement where they can charge OTHER COSTS....for chasing missed payments...no other explanation have they given.....

That on its own to me is beyond fair.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Unfair contract terms guidance



Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999


Unfair contract terms guidance 57



Group 12: Price variation clauses
– paragraph 1(l) of Schedule 2

12.1

The OFT's objections to variation clauses generally are set out under Group 10. If a contract is to beconsidered balanced, each party should be sure of getting what they were promised in exchange for providing the 'consideration' they agreed to provide. A clause allowing the supplier to increase the price – varying the most important of all of the consumer's contractual obligations – has clear potential for unfairness.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Examples of potentially unfair terms The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has published guidance which explains the basis on which the OFT is likely to take action to prevent the use of unfair terms.
The problem is that the guidance runs to 87 pages without its annexes. Annex A contains useful examples of fair and unfair clauses, but that annex alone runs to some 139 pages. Most businesses do simply not have the time to familiarise themselves with the OFT guidance.

Schedule 2 of the UTCCR contains a non-exhaustive list of terms which might be unfair if they are included in a consumer contract. Businesses which deal with consumers should be aware of the contents of that Schedule.

The terms listed in Schedule 2 are terms which:

• exclude or limit the supplier’s liability for the death or injury of the consumer caused by the supplier’s act or omission;
  
  
• inappropriately exclude or limit the consumer's rights if the supplier does not perform the contract. (This includes excluding the consumer’s right to offset a debt owed to the supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against the supplier.);
  
  
• make the contract binding on the consumer, but allow the supplier not to comply with the contract if it does not wish to do so;
  
  
• allow the supplier to retain a deposit or advance payment made by the consumer if the consumer decides not to perform the contract, unless the consumer is allowed to receive an equivalent amount from the supplier if the supplier terminates the contract;
  
  
• require a consumer who fails to perform his obligations to pay a disproportionately large amount by way of compensation;
  
  
• allow the supplier to terminate the contract at the supplier’s discretion unless the consumer has the same right to terminate;
  
  
• permit the supplier to retain money paid in advance if the supplier terminates the contract;
  
  
• where the contract is of indefinite duration, allow the supplier to terminate the contract without giving reasonable notice, except where the supplier has serious grounds for termination;
  
  
• automatically extend a contract of fixed duration if the consumer does not indicate that he does not want to extend and where the deadline by which the consumer must indicate that he does not want to extend the contract is unreasonably early;
  
  
• irrevocably bind the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the contract is made – for instance a term under which the consumer is deemed to agree to the supplier’s terms by signing a delivery note, or by opening the packaging;
  
  
• allow the supplier to vary the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason, unless the supplier is obliged to give the consumer reasonable notice and the consumer has the right to terminate the contract. (The circumstances in which/the reasons for which the supplier may vary the contract unilaterally must be set out in the contract.);
  
  
• allow the supplier to vary any characteristics of the product or service unilaterally without having a valid reason;
  
  
• allow the price to be set at the time of delivery or which allow the supplier to increase its prices without, in both cases, giving the consumer the right to terminate the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded. (This does not prohibit index-linked price increases, provided that the index-linking is explicitly described.);
• give the supplier the right to decide whether the goods or services are in conformity with the contract;
  
  
• give the supplier the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;
  
  
• limit the supplier's obligation to honour commitments undertaken by its agent;
  
  
• make the supplier’s commitments subject to compliance with any particular formality;
  
  
• oblige the consumer to perform all his obligations where the supplier does not perform its obligations – e.g. a term which excludes the supplier’s liability for late delivery, but which does not give the consumer the right to cancel the contract or to receive liquidated damages for delay;
  
  
• give the supplier the right to transfer its rights and obligations under the contract without the consumer’s agreement, where this might reduce the guarantees for the consumer; and
  
  
• exclude or hinder the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy – e.g. a term which obliges a consumer to go to arbitration, or to sue in the supplier's local courts, or which imposes the burden of proof on the consumer when rightly it should lie with the supplier.

[TUTTSI]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Jumper I would be inclined to seek the help of a legal professional at this stage maybe a firm like Watsons might be interested in taking it on, as signing that document is an unfair term as immediately you sign that document they could put up that the repayment of £30 to £300 or even £3k and you aint got a leg to stand on and the end result will be losing your home.

Also, I am pretty sure that those Solicitor costs are extremely highly inflated and that does not mean that the courts would agree with them either as they would have to be properly assessed. Maybe it is worth asking for a complete breakdown of those costs because some of those may not be legal costs and could just be charges for missed and late payments etc and charged at exhorbitant rates. Some of these you may be able to get reduced and if Blemain do not play ball, the FOS I am sure will tackle this aspect.