Anyone with a mortgage in the format that mine is in should legally be unenforceable!

dfh

Another post about avoiding responsibility and using excuses to get out of paying.Why did the OP take out the loan? -just because his credit score is excellent !!!! SORRY FORGOT TO USE CAPITALS

Wutang_2

This is surreal...!!

foxy-roxy

Wutang wrote: »

This is surreal...!!

Indeed, i fell a bit traumatised reading all that
As for my eyes....please stop typing in capitals :mad:

theartfullodger

Bump Bump Bump

Conrad

In modern Britain, self responsibility seem's to be a long lost concept.

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

In modern Britain, self responsibility seem's to be a long lost concept.

Hopefully though will return....... or should I say will return.

ubermunky

IMPORTANT

You asked what to do, here is the answer.

If your legal case comes back up again you may wish to query whether their contract is enforcable if it was part of an elaborate fraud.

Point out Barclays' involvement with Jerrold Holdings (the main company), and the implications of this in the context of the sub-prime mortgage crisis which DIRECTLY caused the Credit Crunch our current depression.

Businesses like this, and VERY likely THIS business, are 'widely believed' to have been involved in deliberately generating, fraudulently revaluing and repackaging sub-prime debt.

Loans were given to individuals with highly dubious creditworthiness, often foreigners and the like with little due process, at ludicrous and unaffordable rates, in the clear knowledge that they will not be repaid or grossly underpaid. That is to say, that the value of the debt obligation is VERY LOW since it is VERY HIGH RISK.

Huge volumes of these were then packaged up into bulk units, known as collateralised debt obligations, and sold to and on through large banks.

The larger business, such as Barclays, then financially juggles (via credit-default swaps with other large banks) them about in order to make disgusting amounts of profit.

The idea is to average out the risk, but the big banks swapped 'badly overvalued' (fake/fraudulent) debt out for real debt. Loading its competition with risk and making a profit after having bought the fake debt at a good price.

Eliminate the competition AND make people so poor that they need to borrow money? WIN WIN!!

This is where slight of hand in revaluing the bad debt comes in.

It has been speculated that some institutions did this intentionally to load large banks with risk and ultimately the taxpayer with unrepayable debt. Some even say this was to intentionally collapse the world economy! (But why would anyone want to do that? - perhaps to bring about a new world order?)

Ultimately the big banks doing these things are the ultimate winners. They intentionally bought incredibly bad debt from companies like this, had it revalued in a practically fraudulent fashion by intermediaries, and swapped the revalued debt obligations (big packages of debt, distributed appropriately) with others that had been more or less correctly valued by these other institutions.

It may be speculated that a company whose directors' benefit when a large bank buys a stake in their business after such activity, was in the employ of said business for their part in the alleged fraud.

It should be noted that Barclays subsequently 'invested' (more than £100M, ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS) in Mr. Moser's company, (Jerrold Holdings) to the benefit of all the directors.

It would be nice to make money on sub-prime debt, and also from your big-bankster buddies too.

Oh also, they recently got £900M in backing 'to help extend their operations further'.

Mention this loudly enough, and threaten to put it in the paper, and I doubt they would pursue it any further. It wouldn't be in their interests to have this known publicly.

You would not find it difficult to find evidence to support this, it's out there.

savethe

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Cheadle-based mortgage lender, Cheshire Mortgage Corporation Limited (CMCL), £1.225 million for failing to treat customers fairly in the sale of mortgages and arrears handling from October 2004 to the end of 2009.

The CEO of CMCL, Henry Moser, has been fined £70,000 and agreed to step down from his role within three to six months. Andrew Lawton, the firm’s compliance director, has been fined £13,500 and banned from holding a significant influence function.

The FSA has also required CMCL to carry out a redress exercise that could see approximately £2 million paid to around 2,000 affected customers.

CMCL operated in niche markets, including lending to customers with poor credit histories. The FSA found that CMCL failed to treat some of its customers fairly when they fell into arrears, was unable to always demonstrate that mortgages it sold were affordable, and did not always communicate regularly or fully with its customers. Moser has been disciplined for failing to spot these problems and put them right.

CMCL overcharged some customers in arrears and applied arrears charges inconsistently and unfairly. Customers were also sometimes notified of charges after they had been incurred.

The FSA also found that:

when CMCL transferred customers in arrears to Monarch Recoveries for debt recovery, they were charged £150 despite it being an in-house company;
CMCL did not always make a reasonable effort to reach an agreement with customers in arrears over method of payment; and
CMCL did not always properly assess the affordability of mortgages by, for example, challenging a customer’s declared income.
Moser, as CEO, was ultimately responsible for the actions and compliance of the firm, however he failed to ensure the firm was being properly managed so that problems would be identified and remedied. Lawton was aware of certain poor practices taking place at the firm but failed to put them right and demonstrated a lack of competence and capability in his role as a compliance director.

Tracey McDermott, director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

“CMCL’s lacklustre approach to regulation, combined with very poor practices in collecting arrears, meant that some customers already worried about being able to pay back their mortgages were put under undue pressure and sometimes ended up paying more than they should.

“The failings of Moser, Lawton and CMCL were serious and let down a vulnerable group of consumers. Where firms and individuals fail to comply with our rules and treat customers fairly they should expect to be held to account.”

CMCL and Moser both settled at an early stage of the investigation so qualified for a 30% discount, without which the fines would have been £1.75 million and £100,000 respectively. Lawton settled at a later stage of the investigation and qualified for a 10% discount, without which he would have been fined £15,000.