Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read here

[welshperson]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

What blemain do to their customers (victims) is done to everyone who has a loan with blemain what I am thinking is a template defence when blemain are taking someone to court for repossession.

As an example of what I mean is if someone goes to court and says blemain have added £5,000 worth of charges to my account and that is unfair, or they paid a broker a secret commission, or they used monarch to threaten, harass and deceive me. Then the judge is going to say why is it unfair.

So it would go along the lines of section 140of CCA act says it is unfair because and also unfair because the UTCCR say this.

So we know what blemain are doing wrong, between us we know what rules and regulations they are braking so lets put it in a generic defence. The same principal as what people used to claim millions back in charges from banks.

We have all been screwed over so how are we going to deal with it ?

What rule /regulation / or case law would be best used to challenge blemain on the folowing points

1 unfair charge
2 using monarch
3 paying the broker
4 harassment
5 unfair lending (affordability checks)

All of the above are standard practices for blemain so a standard defence if good enough is all that is needed.

I think the best way is to right a challenge to any one of the above points as if you were going to use it in court.

I’m not willing to write this all myself, takes to much time and research, and to much responsibility, but I am willing to do my part if others join in.



So I will start this of

Blemain have added £5,000 of extra charges to my account this are made up of 40 phone call charges at £35 each, 40 letter charges at £35 each (and so on) and I believe these are unfair because


Please join in this, different points of view and opinion is what will make this a strong defence.

Wp

[suffering]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

Firstly i would advise anyone that is having problems with Blemain DO NOT USE THE PHONE AT ALL FOR COMMUNICATION they will lie and go back on their word
The other reason being, they cock things up over and over again when they put things in writing. It is important you go over every thing you have in writing (playing wheres wally) the mistakes are there you have just got to find them. I got my adjournment this week because they failed to add money received from me in a witness statement. I spotted this and accused them of making a false statment of facts. They also cocked up my address, but they noticed just days before and changed it. I have also had numerous letters sent refering to a default notice issued january 1900 i did not inform them knowing they are void and i cannot be charged for them. LPA receivers were appointed in collusion with cantor Law (i put them on notice of this) with documents dated in the future (see my post LPA receivers how i got them to back down) do not always point out their mistakes save them for the court, to show their incompetence.

Secondly try to come up with as many complaints as you can my theory being the more you throw the more will stick BUT concentrate on your strongest ones. I would like to pick up on WP's Unfair Lending, now my case my be different to most but here is a break down of unfair lending and it is up to you to elaborate on them to suit your situation

1. LMC directors following a face to face meeting was aware of our desperate vulnerable situation, following a site visit prior to the loan being agreed, this was within your actual knowlege. You were on complete notice surrounding the loan
2. LMC directors were aware paid work was on hold whilst work was carried out unpaid on a build project
3. Numerous loan offers and agreements were drawn up incorrectly delays deliberatly caused leading to a state of stress, confusion and anxiety at the time of signing the agreement
4. There was an imbalance of bargining power at the time the contract was entered into
5. A false statement of facts made by a LMC director (misrepresentation) lead us to enter into a credit bargin we would normally not have entered into.
6. Unfair advantage was taken of our understanding of loans and lending practices
7. Declaration of income and affordablity proves you sold a unaffordable loan which was over six times that, that is stated and signed as affordable on our declaration form
8. Declaration of income and affordability prove you have acted as a irrisponsible lender
9. Pressure of payments were removed incorporating them originally into the loan giving us a false sense of security
10. Your initial low rates of interest were three and a half that of our high street lender
11. Coerced into taking a loan not fit for purpose changing our high street regulated mortgage, for a high risk, high interest, unregulated loan giving rise to a extortionate credit bargain.
12. Coerced with threats of receivers into a large additional loan added to pay unafordable repayments

This would represent a unfair relationship 140a/b
Disclaimer; The above statments are allegidly made and given as an example and may or may not be connected to ourselves or real life person's

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h


Some very good reading from the OFT....


Debt collection charges


A.11

In the OFT's view, there is no legal basis for a creditor (or a debt collection
agency acting on the creditor's behalf) to claim collection costs from a debtor in
the absence of express contractual provision in the agreement between the
debtor and the creditor. If there is no such provision, then collection charges cannot be demanded as a debt due under the agreement. If an agency claims an
entitlement to recover charges pursuant to a separate agreement with the
debtor, there must be a binding contact to this effect, with legal consideration
(ie benefit) provided to the debtor. A letter served on the debtor merely
informing him that he is liable to pay certain charges is not in the OFT's view
such an agreement, regardless of whether it is signed by the debtor.


A.12

The above applies to all credit agreements, whether regulated or not, although
for regulated consumer credit agreements there is an additional reason why
costs might not be recoverable. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations
1983 require inclusion in the credit agreement of an indication of any charges
payable on default. If this is not included, the agreement is not properly
executed, and so will not be enforceable against the debtor without a court
order.


A.13

It is the responsibility of creditors and debt collection agencies to ensure that
they do not recover collection charges in the absence of an express contractual
provision entitling them to do so. Furthermore, debtors should not be led or
allowed to believe that they are legally liable to pay such charges where this is
not the case. Failure to act in accordance with these principles is likely to be
regarded by the OFT as an unfair or improper business practice within section
25(2)(d) of the Consumer Credit Act and thus relevant to the issue of fitness to
hold a consumer credit licence.


A.14

If there is any ambiguity in the debtor-creditor agreement as to whether it
covers a particular charge, or as to the permitted amount of the charge, the
OFT considers that this should be resolved in favour of the debtor as this is the
approach likely to be adopted by a court in construing the agreement.
Furthermore, even if collection charges are provided for in the credit agreement,
where charges are levied which are of an unreasonable amount and/or are
disproportionate to the main debt, this too may be regarded by the OFT as an
unfair or improper business practice within section 25(2)(d) of the Consumer
Credit Act. If firms are in any doubt they should consider taking legal advice

[suffering]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

thanks Jumper but just going back to what welsh person and myself was trying to highlight Its all very goog going to court and the judge sympathising with you but with out a act of law they are helpless to do anything. Complaints are one thing, however you dress them up, but a act of law and case law is what is needed, now we are aware of the unfair relationship 140 which took over from extortion laws because they were difficult to prove. But the courts have been weak in implementing the unfair relationship test. If you know of a law that you have been advised to persue that has been infringed or broken please let it come out in the open and post it on here it will help you if someone else can add stregnth to your claim.Its not about moaning and complaining its about useing the law and succeeding

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

Hi suffering,

Here below are some case laws on penalty charges...hope they are useful.

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 / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

Liquidated damages and unenforceable penalties

These charges are not charges for providing services under the contract; they are charges imposed because the customer has breached the terms of the contract. Under contract law, when either party to a contract breaks a term of the contract, the other party is entitled to recover damages for this breach.

They could sue the other party in the courts to recover the damages. As this would not be very sensible for every minor breach of a contract, the law allows parties to a contract to agree in advance what damages would be payable if either party breaks a term of the contract. If the sum payable appears to the courts to be a genuine pre-estimate of the damages that are likely to be incurred, the courts will accept that this sum is what is called liquidated damages and the offending party will be obliged to pay this sum.

However, if the sum specified in the contract is not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that will be incurred but is excessive and is inserted in terrorem (from Latin, as a warning or deterrent, basically to frighten the other party) the courts call this a “penalty” and will not enforce it.

Therefore, in the case of financial institutions and their customers, the charges made by them because the customer has broken their overdraft limit or not made a payment on time should not exceed the damages that the bank has suffered because of the customer’s breach of contract. If the sum payable is excessive, it will become a penalty and will be unenforceable by the courts.

The damages that the bank suffers if the customer’s overdraft limit has been exceeded are:
a) the customer now owes the bank more than he or she previously did, and, obviously the bank is entitled to recover this amount, but they will do so in due course anyway plus interest (unless the customer defaults all together)

plus:

b) the costs incurred in notifying the customer of the incident. However - does it really cost a bank £20 to send a computer generated, automated letter to the customer to notify them that the account has breached the overdraft limit?

The damages that the bank suffers if they have to return a cheque or direct debit are merely the cost of sending the cheque back to the other bank or notifying them that the direct debit cannot be paid, plus the cost of notifying the offending customer. Does it really cost £30-35 to do these things when these processes are virtually all automated and computer-generated, generally without any human intervention?

It would seem to be very difficult for any bank to justify their charges as being liquidated damages and, as far as we know, there have been no cases where a bank has been prepared to go to court to defend their charges.

[suffering]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

Help needed I have a loan with the enermy that has a Declaration for exemption relating to busnesses on it (sections 16b and 189(1) and (2) consumer credit it act 1974) whilst i was searching for information i came across this taken from the guildhall chambers web site what i would like to Know is where have they got this info from as i cannot find it anywhere else it may be very important information to me as Blemain /LMC directors were aware during a face to face meeting my loan was predominantly for personal use and i have never been in the business as a developer so where else can i find this;

20. The relevant agreement shall be presumed to have been entered into wholly or predominantlyfor business purposes if it contains a declaration to that effect by the borrower or hirer

11.However, this presumption does not apply if the lender or any person acting on behalf of thelender in connection with the entry into the agreement knows or has reasonable cause tosuspect that the agreement is not entered into by the borrower or hirer wholly or predominantlyfor the purposes of a business carried on by him12.21. The form and content of the required declaration of business purposes is prescribed under theCCA and must be included in the prescribed form in the body of the relevant agreement13. It is acuriosity of the operation of the CCA that an agreement expressed to be exempt from theprovisions of the Act on “business purposes” grounds is nonetheless subject to the controls ofthe Act as regards the form and content of the relevant declaration contained in the agreement.

6

S.16 CCA

7

S.8(2) and s.16 CCA

8

S.140A – s.140D CCA

9

S.16B CCA

10

A consumer credit agreement being an agreement between an individual and a creditor pursuant to which credit of anyamount is provided, s.8(1) CCA

11

S.16B(2) CCA

12

S.16B (3) CCA. The provisions of s.16B(3) are anti-avoidance provisions designed to prevent unscrupulous lendersdeliberately signing up borrowers on “business purposes” agreements as a means of contracting out of the CCA.

13 Schedule 3, Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order 2007.

[suffering]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

I found it! on; Legislation.gov.uk

(2)If an agreement includes a declaration made by the debtor or hirer to the effect that the agreement is entered into by him wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him, the agreement shall be presumed to have been entered into by him wholly or predominantly for such purposes. (3)But that presumption does not apply if, when the agreement is entered into—
(a)the creditor or owner, or
(b)any person who has acted on his behalf in connection with the entering into of the agreement,
knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that the agreement is not entered into by the debtor or hirer wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.
All i have got to do now is prove it!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The argument here is always going to be well you signed the agreement, you knew what you signed etc.
But in reality if the agreement had of said in signing this i must be a idiot, i would still of signed it. and Marc Goldberg new it. Its called unfair advantage or in law unfair relationship.
I was told what to say on the "talk to recorded questionair" that they keep reminding me of. so how do i prove it?
Here are some facts
Prior to meeting Mr Goldberg i filled in a income and affordablity document. when applying for a £50k loan to finish our family home and a few snagging issues on the other two we had to offer all three as security because they were all on one title at land registry.
This stated my profession and income and i was not a developer niether did i have a income from buiding houses. I confirmed that i/we are able to afford £1044.19 a month
I had applied for a £50k loan and it was agreed and signed awaiting funds
Two LMC /Blemain directors visit me at my address clearly see that is where i am living they question me to find out my experience my circumstances how i funded the project etc
I revealed i was inexperienced this was a one off first time project to build a family home and two others, I had not used any professional funding but had a mortgage
After their visit and a phone call i was told we have pulled out of development loans however, well if you say this and that, we can help you i was suddenly a developer running a development business (promotion ?) and signing a totally unaffordable loan with repayments of £6500 a month.
The question is, who overturns it the Ombudsman Or court? all input welcomed

[IanM]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

"All i have got to do now is prove it!"



Do you have copies of the original loan agreement, with repayments as £1044.19?

Do you have a copy of the loan agreement with repayments as £6500?

If they had already agreed to the initial loan based on all the information you provided during the application process, had all the paperwork signed and was awaiting funds when they changed the terms of the contract you may have a case for an unfair contract.

If you were desperate for the funds or had already made financial commitments for the funds agreed on the initial loan offer then they have taken advantage of your need for the funds to get you to sign an unaffordable contract.

Did you have any legal advice before agreeing to the new loan offer?, was you advised to take legal advice before signing the new loan offer?

Did you have any legal advice at all when applying for the loan?

Find a good solicitor and get some proper advice and you may win your case.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

Some useful info regarding Blemain's unfair interest rates:

UTCCR 1999

When a contract is made, obligations are accepted in return for benefits. If one party can unilaterally change agreed terms, to its advantage, the balance of the transaction is lost. So a term is likely to be unfair if it gives the supplier the right at its discretion to force the consumer to accept changes to the bargain. A right to change any term in the contract, or to vary its core terms – the price or description of the product – is particularly open to objection.
Fairness, and the law, require that consumers get what they agreed to buy. Goods, in particular, must be of the agreed description and purpose, not just of 'equivalent quality'. A right to raise prices at discretion, where consumers are locked into the contract, is also highly suspect.


The UTCCR state: -

Where the supplier's freedom to vary is more restricted, there may be no unfairness. Terms which allow only technical product modifications of no significance to the consumer are usually acceptable. Even a right to make more substantial variations may be unobjectionable if the changes permitted are precisely specified, so consumers do effectively know what they are agreeing to. Alternatively, a variation clause that confers no real discretion, for instance, a right to raise prices in line with a published price index, may be fair. This applies particularly to terms in a range of specialised financial transactions terms allowing price variations due to fluctuations in an independent index, or published market rates, or currency values.


Under the UTCCR Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer. To quote again from the UTCCR, “The requirement of 'good' faith embodies a general 'principle of fair and open dealing'. It means that terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly and that terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given appropriate prominence.”

My contention here is: -

· Where exactly have Blemain Finance Limited “expressed fully, clearly and legibly”?
· Where have they given prominence?

Returning to the UTTCR – It states, “However transparency is not enough on its own, as good faith relates to the substance of terms as well as the way they are expressed and used. It requires a supplier not to take advantage of consumers' weaker bargaining position, or lack of experience, in deciding what their rights and obligations shall be. Contracts should be drawn up in a way that respects consumers' legitimate interests. In assessing fairness, we take note of how a term could be used. A term is open to challenge if it is drafted so widely that it could cause consumer detriment."

It is my contention that Blemain Finance Limited have intentionally taken advantage of my “weakened bargaining position, and lack of experience”. This is a cleverly worded clause that I do not believe any customer could understand.


The UTCCR states,

"A term which merely says that variations will only be 'reasonable' or will only be made 'reasonably', is unlikely to be any fairer than one which contains no such qualification, unless there can be little doubt in a reasonable consumer's mind as to what sort of variation, broadly speaking, such wording allows, and in what circumstances. Where the criteria of reasonableness are vague, or clearly meant to include the best commercial interests of the business, there will be scope for the supplier to change the bargain unfairly to the detriment of consumers, simply on the basis that he needs to protect his profit margins."

This is the crux of the matter. The evidence of the accounts shows that the business would essentially now be insolvent without manipulating the interest rate clause “to sustain its business”. Its underlying costs have massively reduced and there is no argument possible that they can present to change what is clearly shown within their accounts.

UTCCR 10.3c - Such a term is more likely to be found fair if there is a duty on the supplier to give notice of any variation, and a right for the consumer to cancel before being affected by it, without penalty or otherwise being worse off for having entered the contract.

I am not free to exit my contract as there are early redemption fees. Also, the price of the product on offer now has increased – that isn’t my fault. I am therefore tied into my contract.


UTCCR 12.2 Any purely discretionary right to set or vary a price after the consumer has become bound to pay is obviously objectionable. That applies particularly to terms allowing the supplier to charge a price on delivery of goods that is not what was quoted to the consumer when the order was placed. It also applies to rights to increase payments under continuing contracts where consumers are 'captive' – that is, they have no penalty-free right to cancel.

Again, I am not free to exit my contract as there are early redemption fees. Also, the price of the product on offer now has increased – that isn’t my fault. I am therefore tied into my contract. See UTCCR 12.4 below.

UTCCR 12.4 “Any kind of variation clause may in principle be fair if consumers are free to escape its effects by ending the contract. To be genuinely free to cancel, they must not be left worse off for having entered the contract, whether by experiencing financial loss (for example, forfeiture of a prepayment) or serious inconvenience, or any other adverse consequences.

UTCCR 18.1.2 An explicit right to demand payment of unspecified amounts at the supplier's discretion – for example, by way of security deposit – is particularly open to challenge. But the same objections may apply if terms are merely unclear about what will be payable. Their purpose may not, in fact, be to allow the supplier to make unexpected or excessive demands for money, but the focus of the Regulations is on the effect that terms can have, not just on the intentions behind them.

My terms were clearly unclear – any reasonable adjudication will see that.

UTCCT 19.1 Regulation 7 states: (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail …

Transparency is also fundamental to fairness. Regulation 7 says that standard terms must use plain and intelligible language. Taking account of the Directive the Regulations implement, this needs to be seen as part of a wider requirement of putting the consumer into a position where he can make an informed choice. Thus even though a term would be clear to a lawyer, we will probably conclude that it has the
potential for unfairness if it is likely to be unintelligible to consumers and thereby cause detriment, or if it is misleading (in which case its use may also be actionable as an unfair commercial practice).

I believe that all of the above clearly prove that the Terms & Conditions of my loan are in clear breach of the UTCCR 1999. They are therefore unenforceable in there current form and require regulator intervention.

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

I wrote to Blemain Finance in July 2010 about their interest rates and got a very blunt and dead end response:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in response to your previous letter dated 21 June 2010 regarding the interest rate policy on my loan agreement with you and would now like to raise a formal complaint and have answers to the questions I raise below.

In essence, what your response is saying is that you can do as you please with regards to the interest rate you charge me, as long as you state it is for the good of your business. Can you please explain the mechanism within which you calculate my interest rate? Can you also provide the calculation by which you decide my interest rate both current and going forward?

You will have taken my loan on board day one at a given margin above your cost of funds, can you please disclose that and also disclose the margin above your current cost of funds as of today's date? If there is a difference (which their must be as your funding costs have reduced) can you explain and justify why this is the case?

I note from your accounts that during the last 2 financial reporting periods, the reductions in your borrowing costs have allowed you to significantly increase your profits from £8m pa up to £40m pa in the last filed accounts. It is clear that you have done this through a manipulation of existing agreements by not reducing customer APR in line with your own cost reductions. My loan with you is stated as variable. As funding costs have reached an all time low and are only likely to increase in the future, can you outline the circumstances within which my APR would decrease?

The OFT Guide to Secured Lending is categorical in how costs to customers should be increased and you have increased the underlying interest rate on my loan by failing to operate a variable rate agreement within the spirit and understanding of term. Under the guidelines issued by regulators, I am entitled to the right to be able to budget for my current and future commitments.

As your funding costs will only increase in the future, can you outline the circumstances within which my interest rates will be increased? Without satisfactory answers, I will conclude that not only are you operating in breach of UTCCR and the OFT Guide to Secured Lending, I will also state that your contract with me is unfair in terms of the "unfair relationship" test. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

[jumper999]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

My response:

Date: 16 August 2010

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your response of 9 August 2010 and your explanation as to your interest rate policy. What is abundantly clear from your interest rate policy is that the rate to be applied to my loan is "variable" yet it is one that is "variable" without being linked to anything that I am able to relate to, simply a policy that as YOU state, YOU can do as you please with. In terms of UTCCR, the nature of the bargain is completely one-sided and you know this.

The ability to escape your contract in the current climate is not possible and, like many of your customers, are captive to you being able to change your rates at will. That you have not done so in a falling market causes me huge concern as I believe that the slightest increase in your funding costs would not be passed directly on to me. Can you confirm the exact circumstances within which my APR would increase? How your funding costs appear to be calculated is one that needs verification and I would like disclosure of the evidence that underpins the comments and calculations you made.

I do feel that your interest rate clause is in line with clauses previously contained within Woolwich and Intelligent Finance contracts, that were subsequently deemed unfair and I would challenge the fairness of your term based on that standard. Your letter to me states the ability to control sits entirely upon your judgment and UTCCR is there to protect my rights. At the point of sale you failed to describe how your "variable" rate mechanism worked in practice, leaving me to assume that the standards set in the variable rate mortgage market would be the benchmark I related to. I believe that I have been misled by both you and Ocean Finance as to the interest rate in my contract. Your response has not provided me with any comfort and I would request that you deal specifically with the matters raised to provide definitive answers.

Yours sincerely

[suffering]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

Jumper when i said all imput welcome i did'nt mean go off the subject you raise a lot of valid points and copy and paste lots of usefull information it may be a good idea to start a new thread to keep them in one place i am trying to get some input in relation to signing a affordable loan agreement that was arranged and supervised by a broker, Marc Goldberg came with Richie Watson (two LMC directors ) whio agreed the loan told me i was ok to arrange trades men told me to book an appointment with a solicitor to "witness" the agreement it was signed and sent by my solicitor i was awaiting funds when Goldberg went back on his word and agreement and stitched me up because he knew my back was completely against the wall. any imput on this subject greatly received
Thanks IanM yes i have the signed copy and so does my solicitor i also have a copy of the solicitor certificate for the loan signed and stamped

[welshperson]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

Questions

You say you had a first charge regulated mortgage and as I understand it blemain paid it off as part of this loan ?

Was your first mortgage on the same property or land that this loan is charged to ?

As for the solicitor did blemain say you had to have a solicitor as a witness or to advise you about this loan ?


wp

[suffering]

Re: Blemain / Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Got problems? want to fight back read h

The first (original) loan was for £50k this was a second charge and my mortgage provider had sent doc's agreeing to a second charge i was told i must get the signing of the agreement witnessed by a solicitor however when we went to sign the solicitor told us about the "solicitors certificate" which basically puts the solicitor in an advisory role everything was signed and it should of been a done deal but 4 days later expecting the funds to be transfered LMC / Goldberg pulled out of the deal saying they wanted first charge and talked me through how it would work, paying of the high street lender
This as you say paid off the mortgage on the site / land (same) i was told i had to re-sign the doc's and get them witnessed by the solicitor they only ever said witnessed by the solicitor it would be interesting to know what they say to other people
just on another point i have learned that in australian law if lenders cannot prove that the loan is wholey or predominantly for business purposes and have not done sufficient checks then get the borrower to sign a declaration for exemption they will lock the lender up for two years this is to stop abuse of the system shame we havent got the same law here but it does show it is a serious problem

I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF ANYONE ELSE SIGNED A EXEMPTION THAT DID NOT APPLY TO THEM. AS I BELIEVE THIS IS BEING ABUSED BY LENDERS
You can contact me in private if you want to by signing up to Leagle Beagles (if you are not a member) and left clicking the name suffering then click private message or better still add it on here for all to see