Blemain Finance Possession Claim

[figaro123]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Any chance you can give me your solicitors name?

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

My sol is not an expert in fighting lenders....just an ordinary solicitor dealing in housing law.....so prob would not be much help to you figaro...you can always try and google a good solicitor if you wanted.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

My sol is not an expert in fighting lenders....just an ordinary solicitor dealing in housing law.....so prob would not be much help to you figaro...you can always try and google a good solicitor if you wanted.

There's one on board, may be worth contacting Celestine for a referral to Watsons.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Lenders claims against valuers: margin of error and contributory negligence

As lenders continue to pursue claims against valuers, they are hailing the decisions in two recent cases as a victory. However, the decisions of Coulson J in Webb Resolutions v E.Surv and Blemain Finance v E.Surv, handed down on 20 December 2012, do not constitute any change in the law; but they do provide guidance on the margin of error of valuations and contributory negligence of the lender.


Background



Webb and Blemain were two separate claims brought by lenders against E.Surv alleging over-valuations.


Blemain: E.Surv valued a 5 bedroom modern detached house located on a small private road in Putney Heath at £3.4 million in July 2007. The borrowers obtained a second mortgage on the property from Blemain. Following repossession, Blemain recovered nothing from the forced sale. In the claim against E.Surv the Court concluded that the correct value was £2.8 million making the valuation negligent by 21%.


Webb: This concerned two valuations provided by E.Surv in relation to mortgage advances to two individual borrowers, Mr Ali and Mr Bradley. Mr Ali was purchasing a 2 bedroom flat in a new development in Birmingham. E.Surv valued it at £227,995 in November 2006. The correct value was held to be £204,658, making the valuation negligent by 11.4%.
Mr Bradley was seeking a remortgage. E.Surv’s valuation of his 4 bedroom detached property in Whitstable, Kent was £295,000 in July 2007. The correct value was found to be £260,000 making the valuation out by 13.5%.


Margin of Error



It is a well established principle that valuations are not an exact science and there is a permissible margin of error within which a valuation may fall without it being negligent. The position was clearly set out in K/S Lincoln and Others v CB Richard Ellis Limited (2010):

• For a standard residential property, the margin of error may be as low as +/- 5%
• For a valuation of a one-off property, the margin of error will usually be +/- 10%
• If there are exceptional features of the property, the margin of error could be +/- 15%, or more.

In Webb, the margin of error for both properties was 5%, mainly because there was a wealth of comparables for both properties. Indeed, the Court viewed the Ali property as being “as far from a one off property as it was possible to get”.


In Blemain the appropriate margin of error was 10%, despite both experts agreeing that the margin was 15%. The Court held that whilst the property was “distinctive” there were a number of comparables available.


Coulson J confirmed that K/S Lincoln still holds good, but the cases add a little guidance to the factors that would take a residential property out of the standard 5% range.



Contributory Negligence



Contributory negligence and the associated level of reduction to any damages is a key feature in lender claims. In both Blemain and the Ali loan in Webb, the Court held that there should be no reduction. Conversely, the Court applied a reduction of 50% for the Bradley loan in Webb.


Although in Ali it was a high loan to value ratio (LTV of 85%), with a failure by the lenders to investigate the performance of other mortgages or verify income and defaults of £2,477 in Mr Ali’s current account, Mr Ali did not appear to be in substantial financial difficulty at the time of the loan. The Court considered these ordinary features of sub-prime lending. Whilst the Court said such lending was a recipe for disaster, it concluded that the appropriate standard to apply was that of a reasonably competent centralised lender and practices common at the time should not be considered with hindsight. As the sub-prime self certified model was common between 2004-2007, the Court could not conclude that such lending was irrational or illogical. The Court stated that this was simply a re-affirmation of the position set out in Paratus AMC Limited v Countrywide Surveyors Limited (2011) and Banque Bruxelles v Eagle Star Insurance (1994).


The Court applied a 50% reduction in the case of Bradley because of Bradley’s financial position. Mr Bradley was clearly in financial difficulty prior to his application. He had £18,000 worth of defaults and £1,000 CCJ against him. The 50% contributory negligence was the result of the particular combination of factors: the remortgage loan was required to consolidate significant debts; an LTV of 95% was considered beyond the edge of acceptability for the market at the time. The Court concluded that this loan should not have been on a self certified basis and that proper proof of income should have been required. The 50% contribution was awarded, noting Paratus v Countrywide where 60% had been applied.


Conclusion



The Blemain and Webb decisions are in line with case law and re-affirm that the margin of error depends on the nature of the individual property in question. Where there are a number of comparables it is likely a margin of error of 5% will apply. The comfort for valuers is that, provided the right comparables have been used, their valuations should be supported.
The ruling on contributory negligence indicates that a Court will be reluctant to find against a lender solely on the argument that their lending model was imprudent albeit consistent with the market at the time. However, the specific circumstances concerning the underwriting of a loan are relevant, in particular the suitability of the product for the borrower’s financial position. Where such negligence is found, significant reductions of 50-60% can reduce the quantum. Surveyors and Insurers should take heart.


Further Reading:



Webb Resolutions Ltd v E.Surv Ltd [2012] EWHC 3653 (TCC)
Blemain Finance Ltd v E.Surv Ltd [2012] EWHC 3654 (TCC)

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

some more info:


The tangled Webb of permissible margins

Judgment has recently been handed down by Coulson J in two lenders’ claims against valuers – Webb Resolutions Ltd v E.Surv Ltd and Blemain Finance Ltd v E.Surv Ltd – which reaffirmed the judge’s earlier summary (in K/S Lincoln v CB Richard Ellis Hotels Ltd) of the “permissible margin” of 5 per cent for a “standard residential property” and 10 per cent for a “one-off property”. Dealing with allegations of contributory negligence, the judge reduced one of the claims in Webb by 50 per cent.


Webb concerned the valuation of two properties: a flat in a large block for a buy to let purchaser (the flat) and a detached house for a re-mortgage (the house). The judge concluded that both were “standard residential properties” having no unusual features and there was a wealth of comparable property sales. Further, the valuer of the house conceded that he would expect his valuations to be accurate to within a five per cent margin.


Blemain concerned a larger and more valuable property valued by the defendants at £3.4 million for a re-mortgage. The judge held that the non-negligent valuation was £2.8 million and the permissible margin ten per cent. The house was distinctive with a steel frame and floor to ceiling plate glass windows elevating it to the status of a “one-off property”.
There were allegations of contributory negligence by the lender in both cases which succeeded only in relation to the house in Webb. There, the judge accepted that a 95 per cent LTV (loan to value) ratio “was just not enough of an equity cushion”. The borrower also claimed to be a self-employed scaffolder earning £75,000, although he had not answered the question in the lender’s application form asking about default on any borrowings. The lender’s “Experian” search showed that there was a small outstanding county court judgment but, much more importantly, credit card defaults totalling £18,000. Against that background, the judge also held that the borrower’s financial position made it imperative that the application was not treated as self-certifying” as it had done. Taking both factors into account, the judge reduced the lender’s claim by 50 per cent.


However, the judge did not find that acceptance of self-certified income in the case of the flat in Webb was negligent, nor was it negligent to agree to lend on the basis of a LTV of 85 per cent in respect of the flat or a 73 per cent LTV in the case of the property in Blemain. Other allegations of contributory negligence and failure to mitigate fell away on factual grounds.
The judge was critical of the lender’s approach to lending but observed that it was shared by other lenders and had not been criticised by the FSA (Financial Services Authority) until after the market crashed.


Two lessons for valuers and their insurers emerge from these cases:-

• In this round of lender litigation it is difficult to persuade the court to accept a “permissible margin” for valuations of standard residential properties of more than five per cent. That is probably because much of the litigation so far has concerned flats in the buy-to-let market which are all remarkably similar. But it may be worth re-visiting this issue if the recession continues and claims emerge relating to different types of property.
• Any allegation of contributory negligence by the lender needs a firm factual underpinning supported by bombproof expert evidence. The courts have been particularly reluctant to accept that practices adopted by the whole lending market before 2007/08 were negligent no matter how rash they were. In contrast, it is much easier to gain traction with arguments that the characteristics of an individual borrower – such as credit history, reluctance to answer questions or answering them incorrectly – demanded further investigation by the lender which would have led to rejection of the application.

One vision for the future is that at some point these issues will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal, but it will be important to select the right case with firm factual evidence of the lender’s contributory negligence.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

QUESTION!

If it can be shown and proved that your house was valued less than what Blemain valued it at the time they granted the loan I believe that would be contributory negligence on their part?

I mean...Blemain valued my property at being £200,00.00 as they say they did a drive by valuation......and I have been researching property prices in my area in 2007 and they are showing at approx £163,00.00?

Maybe another angle or reason to claim negligence by Blemain? I know that the court allow a margin but not 100% sure yet how much that is and I think it maybe £15,000.00 either way.....and am hoping anyone can add their thoughts on this....because if can be proved that the lender over valued your property......especially doing a drive by......then that would hold some stick I assume?

How would Blemain know what state of the property is inside? by doing a drive by valuation is not enough to value any property....I don't see any estate agent ever doing something like that.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

This is what info I got from zoopla....and will be looking for more examples from wherever I can:


Public info

Property type: Terraced | Tenure: Freehold | Last sale: £163,000 | Sale date: 26th Mar 2007 - Previous sales



This 3 bed freehold house is located at xxxxx Road, and has an estimated current value of £172,238. xxxxxx rd has 184 houses and flats on it with a current average value of £161,715, compared to an an average property value of £264,829 for xxx. There have been 2 property sales on XXXXX RD over the last 5 years with an average sold house price of £179,000 and this house was last sold on 26th Mar 2007 for £163,000. There are currently 425 houses and flats to buy in XXXXX with an average asking price of £285,580 and 608 properties to rent in XXXXX with an average asking rent of £382 pw.

My loan was granted in Sept 2007 and the drive by valuation was £200,00.00.........

[PlanB]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

The Valuation Office Agency provides historical information on property prices going back to 1910. Their district surveyors provide this to HMRC for Capital Gains Tax purposes and to the Local Authorities to assess Council Tax bands (when appeals are made) and the agency's evidence is normally accepted by courts. Every property in the UK is on record from back to the beginning of the century. Here's the website:

http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Abou...formation.html

They have a reputation for giving pessimistic valuations so you may get lucky

[welshperson]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Jumper you are going way off track with the valuation of your house being any help to you,
The guy that done the drive buy valuation of your house was independent if he valued your house at 1 million then blemain take possession and fined it is only worth 200k then the argument is between them.

A Contributory negligence claim between you and blemain has very little to do with the price of your house.
Look at it like this blemain had an independent valuation of your house and they lent you money on the value of your house, so if your house valuation is wrong that is the fault of the value.
Blemain lent you money on a true belief that your house was worth what the value told them, there is no negligence if they lent to you with an honest belief in what the independent value told them.
Stop wasting time on the valuation point,

What you should be looking at for contributory negligence is the fact that blemain lent you money knowing you could not afford the repayments, or the fact that they lent you money without checking you could afford the repayments, this is where you can claim contributory negligence,

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Thanks welshperson.....your right.....I am preparing as much as info as I can on the contributory negligence.....and I have quite a lot of info from OFT and other stated guidelines to help me on this....boy is it cold today............

this was very interesting

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/su...043950.article

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

I saved this case quite some ago:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/1999/239.html

and found this part quite an interesting find: I have not read the whole judgment in full but it does give quite an in depth detail on contributory negligence and what they court thinks about it:

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE



127. Mr Blunt submitted that the valuation reports were prepared by a professional man for professional men. I heard much evidence on the question of prudent lending. Mr Blunt submitted that there was only one standard of prudent lending: that of the clearing banks.



128. I reject those arguments. The Plaintiffs are not professional men. They are a commercial enterprise. The essence of commerce is the undertaking of risk for reward. The greater the possible reward, the greater the risk that an entrepreneur is willing to run. The willingness of an enterprise to run a higher-than-average commercial risk is not in my judgment a fault of the kind contemplated by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act l945, even if it ends in disaster for the enterprise.



129. I am aware that there are two schools of thought about this. No binding authority on the subject has been cited to me.



130. In HIT Finance Ltd v Lewis & Tucker Ltd [l993] 2 EGLR 231, 236F Wright J. said this:-

"Mr Hughes contends that a valuer, albeit negligent, is entitled to assume that his client will have made further enquiries into the substance of the proposed borrower, and his ability to honour his obligations under the proposed loan, and not to rely exclusively upon the valuation report when deciding whether to enter into the transaction. As I have already said, I accept that a prudent lender must not shut his eyes to any obvious lack of integrity or substance in his borrower, but subject to that, I find it difficult to see how such a consideration is of any relevance in the case of a commercial lender who is, by definition and to the knowledge of any valuer, in business to take a degree of risk. The whole purpose of the taking of the security is, as I have indicated, to provide protection against loss for the lender in the event that the risk in question ripens into actuality."



I agree with that, save for the reference to the lack of substance in the borrower. Wright J. referred in that passage to what he had already said, which was this:-
"I am not suggesting that the prudent lender, merely because he has the comfort of more than adequate security, is entitled to shut his eyes to any obviously unsatisfactory characteristics of the proposed borrower. Plainly a lender would not be acting prudently if he made a loan in circumstances where he had substantial reason for suspecting the honesty of the borrower. Such circumstances might well call into question the provenance of the security itself, quite apart from the possibility that the lender might be put at risk by some other form of fraudulent behaviour on the part of his borrower."

131. Take an extreme case: suppose a commercial mortgage lender decides as a matter of policy to rely wholly on valuations. He decides not to spend time, trouble or money on ascertaining the value of borrowers’ covenants. He knows that he runs the risk of a fall in the market, but he considers, perhaps wrongly, that he will on average earn higher profits that way than he otherwise would and that such expected higher profits are worth the extra risk. Or a lender might make a secured loan to an impecunious patentee who borrows the money in order to develop what the parties hope will be a profitable enterprise. The lender may charge a high rate of interest to reflect the risk. He may know that the value of the borrower’s covenant depends entirely on the success of the enterprise. Or (and this is outside the field of commercial risk), a lender might make a secured loan to an impecunious friend. In none of those cases can I see any reason why such a lender should be expected to tell the valuer more than that the valuation is required for the purpose of mortgage lending. Nor can I see any reason why such a lender should be convicted of contributory negligence on the ground that his lending was imprudent. A loan may be made by an entrepreneur in the hope of profit or by a philanthropist with the object of helping the borrower. Whether the purpose of the loan is gain for the lender or help to the borrower, opinions can differ as to its prudence. But in my judgment the lender’s motivation for making the loan cannot be relevant, and in neither case can any perceived imprudence in making the loan ipso facto constitute fault within the meaning of the Act.



132. If in the examples given above the stated conduct of the lender is not to be treated as contributory negligence, I am unable to see why, if a more cautious lender accidentally (e.g. through careless office management), fails to comply with his own policy of satisfying himself as to the value of the borrower’s covenant, he should be in any worse position in relation to a finding of contributory negligence than his more adventurous competitor who, as a matter of policy, never ascertains the value of borrowers’ covenants.



133. In my judgment, a decision to lend, however it is arrived at, cannot constitute contributory negligence unless no reasonable person (acting with reasonable care) would have lent the money. An example of contributory negligence is a case where the lender has reason to suspect fraud on the part of the borrower. Reasonable care is not the same as commercial or economic prudence. It is the standard of skill and care of the ordinary person.



134. I conclude that there is, indeed, only one standard of care, as Mr Blunt submitted; but far from its being the standard of prudent lending practised as a matter of commercial policy by the clearing banks, it is not concerned with commercial policy.


135. Mr Crowther said that he accepted that the court was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Platform Home Loans Ltd. v Oyston Shipways Ltd [l998] 3 WLR 94 and that the allegations of contributory negligence were capable of constituting contributory negligence. However, he wished to reserve his position on the issue in case the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal in that case. After close of Counsel’s submissions, I was furnished, by agreement between the parties’ solicitors, with a transcript of the decision of the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal in that case. The appeal was allowed. No further submissions have been offered to me by either side.
136. The point decided by the Court of Appeal in Platform Home Loans appears in a nutshell at page 99 of the report:

"It is submitted that the relevant damage is that sustained by Platform in consequence of the valuer’s breach of duty in respect of which Platform sued. If that is right then, it is contended, that damage could not have been sustained partly because of the fault of Platform in pursuing an imprudent lending policy for such a policy had nothing to do with the overvaluation. Platform contrasts the second aspect of contributory negligence as found by the judge, which, it accepts, did affect the negligent overvaluation because it failed to alert the valuers to a cross-check casting doubt on their figures.



This is disputed by the valuers. They contend that the section distinguishes between "damage" and "damages". They argue that the relevant damage in this case is the overall transaction loss sustained by Platform, part of which was caused by the lending policy of Platform and part by their own negligent valuations. In these circumstances, they submit, the terms of the section permit and require the court to reduce the damages recoverable from the valuers as compensation for the damage sustained by Platform having regard to Platform’s share in the responsibility for the damage.



Thus the issue is: what, in the case of a loan made in reliance on the negligent valuation of the security for it, is the "damage" for the purpose of section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act l945? Is it the overall transaction loss sustained by the lender in consequence of the loan as contended by the valuers or is it that part of the overall loss consequent on and so attributable to the negligent valuation?"



It is abundantly clear from the report in that case that the question whether an imprudent lending policy can constitute negligence, as found by the trial judge, was not in issue. The question was whether negligence of the Plaintiff which, though unrelated to the valuation, contributed to the loss caused by a negligent valuation could constitute contributory negligence having regard to the nature and scope of the damage for which the valuer was liable. The Court of Appeal held that it could, and the House of Lords upheld that principle, though they approached the question in a different way and by a majority reached a different figure for the damages.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Apportionment And Contributory Negligence

In the event that litigation follows from the claims that are beginning to emerge, the courts will consider the level of damages that should be awarded against solicitors and, in particular, whether they can be held solely to blame for the damage suffered.


The leading authorities on mortgage fraud, including Bowerman and Balmer Radmore (see above) but also Bristol and West Building Society v Fancy & Jackson (1997), provide guidance on the approach taken by the courts in determining apportionment between professionals in a claim. Claims against solicitors in this area very often also involve a claim against a valuer in either negligence or fraud for over-valuing the property concerned.


The lenders may also be criticised. It is clear that, where lenders operate inappropriate or risky lending policies, or do not follow their own internal lending policies and procedures, the courts will give very serious consideration to contributory negligence that can be said to have occurred. Precedent may be of limited assistance when evaluating likely contributory negligence awards because each instance will be fact specific. In the previous round of litigation, findings of contributory negligence ranged from 30 per cent to 90 per cent. One note of warning, however, is that if a solicitor's conduct is so defective that it amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty - requiring something close to dishonesty - the solicitor will not be able to use arguments of contributory negligence.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

Cheshire Mortgages gave an undertaking to the FSA regarding their right to vary interest rates when they wanted last year:


Original term in use by Cheshire Mortgage Corporation Limited in the 2004 edition of the Information for Mortgage Customers Booklet
We can vary the interest rate at any time. You will be notified of any change in accordance with the mortgage conditions. The notification will include details of the resulting increase or decrease in your monthly payments.

Blemain have a term in their agreement "4" which states:

"The lender may vary the rate of interest per month (after any fixed period) from time to time to take account of actual or unexpected changes in market conditions after giving the borrower not less than 7 days notice in writing."

Strange that Blemain have not been made to take an undertaking about the way they calculate their interest rates as this is clearly an unfair term too.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

The Law

When you read this section it may surprise you that the cases go back for over 100 years. These cases although not all in relation to banks per say outline that charging consumers penalties for failing to meet there obligations is not allowed under law. This being the case in case law even before the enactment of legislation which expressly forbids this.

When thought about logically it is technically theft/deception, which requires dishonest taking of property (including money) belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. If a person was found guilty of this in criminal law they would face jail, yet under civil law which controls penalty charges, banks and other businesses have been told their charges are contrary to the law yet they are not even stopped let alone punished.

Below is a summary/extract of he courts rulings in some cases that relate to penalty charges:

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. Vs New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

Lord Dunedin set out some tests that are considered even in modern cases when the court is asked to rule on penalty charges. They are; 1) If it is "extravagant and unconscionable" i.e. that the cost incurred by the business because of the breach is lower than what the consumer is being expected to pay because of the breach. 2) It is also a penalty where the consumer is to pay a larger sum due to failure to pay a smaller sum. Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

Lordsvale Finance PLC Vs Bank of Zambia (1996) QB 752

"whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for the breach. That the contractual function is deterrent rather than compensatory can be deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if the breach occurred"

Bridge Vs Campbell Discount Co. Ltd (1962)
The court held that the term that specified charges in the case of cancellation of a hire purchase agreement was a penalty charge and therefore it was unenforceable. Therefore where there is a term in a contract that is a penalty it can not be enforceable.

Murray Vs Leisureplay (2005) EWCA Civ 963

English contract law recognises that, if the parties agree that a party in breach of contract shall pay an unjustifiable amount in the event of a breach of contract, their agreement is to that extent unenforceable.

In conclusion, the above cases show that extortionate penalties imposed against consumers for failing to meet obligations are unfair and contrary to the law, yet unless each case is taken individually not a lot is being done to protect consumers despite the laws ruling on the issue.

What the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 No 2083 states:

Schedule 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be Regarded as Unfair

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensation 10 Complaints- consideration by (OFT)
(1) It shall be the duty of the [OFT] to consider any complaint made to [it] that any contract term drawn up for general use is unfair, unless--
(a) the complaint appears to the [OFT] to be frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) a qualifying body has notified the [OFT] that it agrees to consider the complaint.
(2) The [OFT] shall give reasons for [its] decision to apply or not to apply, as the case may be, for an injunction under regulation 12 in relation to any complaint which these Regulations require [it] to consider.

12 Injunctions to prevent continued use of unfair terms
1) The [OFT] or, subject to paragraph (2), any qualifying body may apply for an injunction (including an interim injunction) against any person appearing to the [OFT] or that body to be using, or recommending use of, an unfair term drawn up for general use in contracts concluded with consumers
As can be seen, the OFT has a duty to act. In addition they have the ability to apply for an Injunction to stop these penalty charges, however, thus far they have failed to do so.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain Finance Possession Claim

I am trying to get all the facts in my case and defence together....and have been sifting through my emails with a fine tooth comb.

Blemain have instructed Cobbetts and their previous solicitors were Cantor Law whom I was directly dealing with. At that time I was going through divorce proceedings which were all over the place as my OH was not participating in the Blemain proceedings. I sent a string of emails to Cantor Law and due to the stress of the divorce proceedings and upon the advice of my divorce solicitor I decided that I would accept a SPO just so that I could sort everything out as I was under immense pressure from both proceedings going on at the same time.

I sent confirmation to Cantor Law that I would agree to a SPO and pay their legal costs but I wanted Blemain to drop their charges.....they did not agree...to drop their charges and I was advised by Cantor Law that that was a separate matter to the proceedings which I should take up with Blemain directly. So I believe that I have done everything I can to try and reach a settlement with Blemain and they have not agreed to reduce a single penny. In fact I have recently received a breakdown of their costs and charges which are totalling £9,000.00 and Cobbetts legal bill to date is approx £15,000.00.

I don't know how they work their figures out but it seems the more I pay and do the higher my loan is getting. If I agreed to all of Blemain's terms in their consent order that would have gagged my mouth for life I believe and all I asked them was to deduct approx £2,000.00 that they had added in arrears charges....you know all those £35 x letters that they had added to the loan....but I could not get them to agree.

I am wandering how the court will look at this...as I then had to instruct solicitors on a private basis to try and reach a settlement and I am no better off that I was a year ago. I believe if Blemain agreed to deduct their £2,000.00 of charges then this case would have been settled approx a year ago....but as they did not and continued to push and push and raise their costs...has left me thinking that this is very very unfair of them to have treated and continue to treat me this way.

All I was protesting was...was the charges which I still am today....and as they are not letting down on anything I have had no choice but to request the court to vary directions and submit my amended defence.

This is the string of emails...which I will show in court....plus a letter from my recent solicitor....to prove that I had done everything in my power to settle this matter....then leave it to the court to decide who will go to the gallows.


Dear Cantor Law,

I went to see my solicitor yesterday to discuss my divorce proceedings and due to problems with my internet connection I was unable to contact you yesterday.

Today I have received an order from the Court advising that I have to submit and file a Listing Questionnaire by the 2 May 2012. My solicitor advised me that you have already submitted your clients Pre Trial Checklist in your email to her dated 25 April 2012.

After discussing my options with my solicitor yesterday I have come to the decision to agree to a Suspended Repossession Order with your client, and change my plea, but the problem is that there is an order made that I have to submit my Pre Trial Checklist. I have read the form and there are many questions in there which will not apply and do not know what to do.

Please could you advise what I need to do in order for things to move forward. I am going to ring my solicitor after 12.00am as she is in court this morning as she wanted me to let her know what my decision was and I would be grateful if you could reply as soon as possible as the 2 May 2012 is only a few days away and I do not want to risk anything by not complying with the Court order received today. Do I need to submit my Pre Trial Checklist by the 2 May 2012?


You have said that the required payment is the contractual instalment plus £33/month. The contracual payment is £335.76 a month and since January 2012 I have been paying £365.76 a month, that is £30 on top of the contractual payment...so therefore an additional £3 must be added and paid.

I have read through the draft on which your client will agree to a suspended repossession order and before I agree to these terms that you have forwarded I would like the costs and charges of £2,016.00 to be deducted from the balance owed. I believed that Monarch Recoveries were a separate company writing to me and charging me fees for arrears where in fact they were Blemain staff writing these letters and adding costs and charges to my account.

There fore I would like to suggest that these extra charges of £2,016.00 are reduced and each party bears their own costs before I agree to sign an return the draft and agree to the suspended repossession order.

Lastly, you have written in the draft that the arrears are £7,998.24 but the loan account summary dated 16 January 2012 states that the arrears were £7,722.48...and an extra £275.76 has been added. Please could you also advise the total amount that is owing as I will need to forward this to my solicitor for the FDR hearing.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards



Cantor Law's reply:


Dear Jumper,


I submitted my client’s Pre-Trial Checklist on Wednesday by post. I expect the Court to be in receipt of that document now.

Thank you for confirming that, following discussions with your solicitor, you want to agree to a suspended possession order. I attach a draft order, which I suggest you discuss with your solicitor. If you wish to agree to the terms, please sign the draft order in the bottom right hand corner. You will note that the required payment is the contractual instalment plus £33/month.

As regards the Pre-Trial Checklist, you must comply with the Court order. I cannot advise you as to how to complete the form. Perhaps your solicitor can assist – I am happy to discuss the matter with her if she wishes. If you sign the draft order and the Court approves the same (I will lodge an application with the Court for approval), the claim will effectively be concluded and the Pre-Trial Checklist will become irrelevant.

The sum of £33 has been included in the order as that is the minimum round figure that you must pay in order to clear the arrears of payments within the remaining term of the loan. £30 is insufficient. The amount of the arrears is correct as at today’s date. I have sought from my client an account statement, setting out the arrears figure and a statement of the current balance of the account.


You have not raised issues of costs and charges in your defence, nor have you made a counterclaim. My client will not consider a reduction in costs and charges as part of an order disposing of the claim. If you wish to raise a separate complaint with them – by writing to them and requesting a reduction in charges – they will consider your correspondence. That, however, is a separate issue.

As regards costs of the claim, you are conceding the claim and, accordingly, my client should be entitled to add them to the security. My client will not pay its own costs of the claim.

I await your response.

Kind regards,
|Cantor Law Limited