Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
ex ... well done, those no win no fee Solicitors should be regulated !
Viking - sorry for the late reply but I agree with your sentiments of last night.
Back in the day the client should have filled the application for mortgage out, but as I am trained, clever and my sales figures depended on successful applications : ) I used to fill the applications in by using interview and paper documentation proving the figures were correct.
No win no fee companies are the pits of the earth!!!! Some sort of financial recourse against these companies should be available for proven fraudulent claims for compensation.
A an employer, last year I was subject to a dishonest claim for several types of payments which the ex employee was not entitled to. After I had produced all the paperwork to prove my case to the no win no fee solicitor, they walked away. This cost me a year of stress and sleepless nights and 1 court appearance to define the claims against me and my company.
I'm really proud that I beat the legal profession at their own game, but the ex employee walk away scot free with nothing to pay for wasting the time of the solicitor, judge, administrators and of course ME!!!!!!! NO WIN NO FEE SOLICITORS NEED REGULATING PROPERLY AND ASAP!!!!!
Jimmyg56, great post, very informative.
GLA
No doubt about it, deliberate lying on a loan application is wrong and it's galling to think customers who lied might get redress. But there are a few hurdles to get over before you meet the test for fraud.
First of all, you'd need to establish that the inaccuracy was deliberate and not just a result of error or (as the judge in Kerrigan put it) "over optimism". That's very hard to prove to a criminal standard. In the Kerrigan case, the judge pointed to one situation where a borrower invented a company and faked a letterhead. That was serious enough for him to think there'd been deliberate dishonesty. But he generally seemed quite forgiving:
From Kerrigan (para 206) -
"deliberate dishonesty ... is to be contrasted with the optimistic (or even overly optimistic) estimation of income and expenditure by applicants which was often a feature of these applications. I was satisfied that most of these Claimants were doing their best to give honest answers most of the time, even if they turned out not to be accurate, sometimes by significant amounts. That sort of conduct is not mendacious."
Para 207:
"[Lender's barrister] did not seek to criticise many of the Claimants who were giving reasonably accurate information, even if some of it was sometimes well off the mark. She was right to take that approach, because the Defendant cannot really expect more than that...
When considering the fairness of the relationship, the [lender] cannot complain about the sort of essentially honest errors which this rapid application process is bound to throw up"
And even if the applicant did lie, part of the given definition of fraud is the intent to gain financially from the act. If an applicant lies to get the loan but also intends to pay it back (even if they subsequently can't), there's no intent for financial gain, so it doesn't meet the definition.
Personally, I don't think the police would be interested in looking into this. Nor, if I weren't an Amigo shareholder, would I want them devoting their time to it! But I do think Amigo need to emphasise where it was reasonable for them to accept what customer declared at face value.
Even so, the rules anticipate that borrowers might disclose inaccurate information and expect them to verify the information provided. The rule says "it is not generally sufficient to rely solely on a statement of current income made by the customer without independent evidence".
Greatcrestnewt - are you talking about the Guarantor or the claimant re the £100 statement?
As untactful as this may sound, the bailiffs have a job for a reason as well as bankruptcies etc. I think genuine complaints should he be upheld but those with 2/3 Amigo Loans can screw right off. They have no reason to claim as the first loan shows they were aware and happy enough to take on another.
Some of these claimants also have poor credit from thier past behaviours and not paying isn't going to help them.
I wouldn't be surprised if a black list gets created with all past claimants to be shared with other Gaurantor / Pay day loan providers. This will make things even more harder and make them even more 'vulnerable'.
Yes toger, you would think. But that's not the way the FCA see it. If someone isnt left with around £100 a month spare cash after all Bill's etc are paid then they see it as un affordable. You might disagree and indeed I think it is probably abused but this rule is there to protect the most vulnerable and impoverished. Where you and I might sacrifice a holiday, sacrificing meals is a different matter.
Ah, I always thought Latin for interest was 'rem'?! ; )
Nyerere... Latin for interest
What I don’t understand is that a claim can be made against affordability which results in a refund of Nyerere already paid...
Surely if it has been paid they could afford it. Yes they may have made sacrifices in order to pay it, but don’t we all?
ex --- Hope you are well, have you spoken to Mark? Am missing his input for the last few days. Anyway, on your point on fraud, that the onus is on the applicant BUT, the provider has an obligation to check all info is correct as well. Do you feel then, there should be some provision in place where these claim companies have to operate in a certain way. What i mean is, surely it is about time that the FOS grew a pair and started to stand up against these companies forwarding obviously fictitious appeals that have been turned down by Amigo with good reason. If the complaint / appeal is not upheld, then surely it should be only fair that Amigo is refunded the £650 and that bill becomes liable to the claims company. That would sort out a lot of problems with with the vulture claims companies if there were costs to them. At the moment, it seems all are regulated except them! I mean, it is like me going shopping, buying a load of food and then a week later, taking half of it back to the shop out of date and telling the shop " well, you didn't tell me i wouldn't use all that in one week when i bought it, so it is your fault " ! Just piddles me off.
You win - send this idea to Amigo BOD sure they will implement it ASAP
make sure you CC FOS / FCA with how many loans have been issued without correct checks.
SO AMIGO DECIDES WHO THE POLICE CHARGE NOW?
your words pasted into my paragraph. not much more of a reply but I'll explain in more detail.
an individual submits they're compensation claim to amigo. amigo investigates the claim and were fraud is detected the claim shouldn't get paid out.
the individual is presented with the evidence that they committed a fraudulent act to obtain the loan.
the individual is then informed if they proceed with the compensation claim to fos, then amigo will pass any evidence to the police.
so yes amigo can decide who the police charges in a roundabout way. if they end they're fraudulent case it goes no further if they don't it goes to the police.
As an ex whole of market mortgage arranger - THE biggest application for credit you will ever make - I knw that when you sign the mortgage application, you sign to say to the best of your knowledge the information given is correct. This is even if you have accidentally made a mistake. The onus is on the applicant and the info MUST be correct - but the responsibility to verify the information is with the credit provider and this should have been done in every case - thoughroughly - by the company.
the option could be given to applicants looking compensation when fraud has been detected that the fraud charges against them can be dropped, if they stop they're fraudulent compensation claim. - SO AMIGO DECIDES WHO THE POLICE CHARGE NOW?
the police are there to stop fraud taking place & assist with punishing those who committed fraud.
I actually believe it was more intelligent that your ramblings.
No need to encourage debate because there isn't one to have.
Let me break it down - ADDED MY THOUGHTS IN CAPS
fraud definition - AGREE
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. - AGREE
the approach from amigo should be the following. - LETS SEE WHAT YOU THINK FIRST
any loan applicant or guarantor who committed wrongful or criminal deception to obtain a loan, regardless of affordability committed a fraudulent act. the police should therefore be involved for each fraudulent case. - WHO DECIDES IF ITS FRAUD? A TYPO? ENTERED WRONG SALARY AMOUNT ETC
the individuals shouldn't be repaid and the file should be passed to the police. this will bypass fos & fca and allow a criminal case to be started against the fraudulent individuals involved. - WHY WOULD THIS BYPASS THE REGULATORS? DOING THIS MULTIPLE TIMES WOULD AMOUNT TO AMIGO BEING SHOWN NOT TO BE CARRYING OUT SUFICENT CHECKS ON THEIR LOANS.
when the individuals are charged & then prosecuted with fraud, they won't be entitled to any compensation. - WHERE DID YOU STUDY LAW?
the option could be given to applicants looking compensation when fraud has been detected that the fraud charges against them can be dropped, if they stop they're fraudulent compensation claim.
the police are there to stop fraud taking place & assist with punishing those who committed fraud.
blindinvestor- a poor response, which lacks a bit of intelligence or even encourages debate. but thanks for the reply
Crackhead idea...
fraud definition
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
the approach from amigo should be the following.
any loan applicant or guarantor who committed wrongful or criminal deception to obtain a loan, regardless of affordability committed a fraudulent act. the police should therefore be involved for each fraudulent case.
the individuals shouldn't be repaid and the file should be passed to the police. this will bypass fos & fca and allow a criminal case to be started against the fraudulent individuals involved.
when the individuals are charged & then prosecuted with fraud, they won't be entitled to any compensation.
the option could be given to applicants looking compensation when fraud has been detected that the fraud charges against them can be dropped, if they stop they're fraudulent compensation claim.
the police are there to stop fraud taking place & assist with punishing those who committed fraud.