Lawyer in a Cage - Keystone Law's installation at Liverpool Street

IRHP Mis-Sales to be claimed as fraudulent

Be Careful with IRHP Basic Redress Offers

An offer of basic redress has been made and the door may be left open for a consequential loss claim. Why not accept it ?

We have seen increasingly that offers of basic redress have been calculated on the assumed basis that whilst the IRHP in question was mis-sold, the borrower would nevertheless have purchased a different but less 'expensive' IRHP. Whilst this does give rise to compensation it results in an offer of basic redress that is far lower than an offer that acknowledges the likely true position, which is that no IRHP would have been purchased.

Again a note for those having given a personal guarantee : If you have guaranteed the debts of a business that has been mis-sold an IRHP you may well have defences on liability. Incorrect compensation awards will also directly affect the extent your supposed personal guarantee liability.

Call me for in initial view at Keystone Law on 0207 152 6550

Email: Patrick.selley@keystonelaw.co.uk

Www.patrickselley.com

Ghostwriter signatures on Personal Guarantee - Beware

The use of ghostwriters by celebrities to pen autobiographies is widely known of and generally accepted. However using a ghostwriter to sign a personal guarantee thereby creating a legal obligation to pay over £600,000 is precisely what happened to celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay. The High Court delivered its Judgement on 20th January 2015 in the case of Ramsay v Love - [2015] All ER (D) 130.

The ghostwriter in question was a Ghostwriter Manual Feed Signature Machine. In this case it was found by the Court that Gordon Ramsay gave a wide general authority to his father in law Christopher Hutcheson to conduct the business of Mr Ramsay's companies and indeed Mr Ramsay's own business affairs It was also held that it was expressly understood that Mr Ramsay would provide personal guarantees of leases of premises where this was a business requirement. It was also found that Mr Ramsay was not always aware of the detail of specific business transactions.

Mr Hutcheson, pursuant to this particular general authority used the machine to place Mr Ramsay's 'signature' on a lease and on a personal guarantee contained within it. Mr Ramsay contested the validity of the guarantee and lost after a trial that lasted over a week. The fact that Mr Ramsay was not holding the pen and was not even there when it was signed mattered not. It was signed on his behalf and pursuant to his authority.

For those who are interested the premises in question were The York and Albany pub near Regent's Park and the Landlord to whom the rent was owed was the film director Gary Love.

Www.patrickselley.com

Email me for advice at :

Patrick.selley@keystonelaw.co.uk

EFG Loans and Personal Guarantees

RBS has recently admitted mis sales of EFG Loans. What exactly constitutes mis-selling will vary in each case but it is likely that the borrowers believed they may ultimately be liable only for 25% of the original loan amount. This is of course incorrect. Here is an extract from the Government's published guidance"

"The guarantee provides protection to the lender in the event of default by the borrower – it is not insurance for the borrower in the event of their inability to repay the loan. The borrower is responsible for repayment of 100% of the facility, not just the 25% outside the coverage of the government guarantee. Where defaults occur, the lender is obliged to follow their standard commercial recovery procedure, including the realisation of security, before they can make a claim against the government guarantee."

It is difficult to see how, with such clear guidance, Banks could have mis-represented the position However if it is the case that the Bank 'mis-sold' the loan in this way then the borrower may have a defence to some or all of any claim for repayment under the original loan.

If in addition the business owner was required to give a personal guarantee of the borrower's liability and the representations made by the bank were also made to the prospective guarantor then there are certainly arguments that the guarantee liability is either substantially reduced or on some cases eliminated entirely.

Www.patrickselley.com

Email: Patrick.selley@keystonelaw.co.uk

Does your bank have better lawyers than you do?

In the current financial and economic climate many people have suffered at the hands of their bank. Many feel aggrieved at the way their bank has treated them. There are many groups which are a focus of concern at the way banks behave and there is no shortage of forums which allow bank customers to voice their dissatisfaction at bad bank behavior.

Despite all the bluster, all the focus groups and all the blogs, ultimately the answer to your problem on the day will boil down to who is right and who is wrong according to the law. And there is the beginning of a problem.

Despite the fact that we have centuries of law which generally favours our institutions and banks in particular, the law and Judges are increasingly prepared to accept that banks behave badly and there is now more likelihood that a court will find in favour of the customer than ever before. This is a not a wholesale change in the legal landscape but it is at least a moderate change in prevailing climate.

In order to make the most of your chances you need a lawyer who can best exploit the law, the procedural rules and the prevailing ‘climate’.

Large law firms together will account for most of the legal expertise in the banking field. Those same law firms will always derive significant income from acting for banks. Often it is expressly agreed between an individual bank and a law firm that if the law firm agrees to act for the bank then it will decline to act against not only that bank but clearing banks as a whole.

This does make sense from the bank’s perspective but severely limits the pool of expertise that you can draw on in fighting the bank.

I deal with banking disputes for clients who are not banks. Often banks have behaved badly towards a business and push it over the edge because they know that they have the comfort of a personal guarantee. So it becomes your problem and not theirs. We cannot always waive a magic wand and sometimes the bank does in fact have the upper hand according to the law. However this is certainly not always the case, far from it, and I have selected a team of people that can assist you, based to the following criteria :

1.     Established expertise

2.     Knowledge of the inside workings of banks

3.     Knowledge of banking documentation

4.     No conflicts of interest. In other words, no-one acts regularly for banks in general or any particular bank and is not therefore conflicted in acting against banks.

Therefore we like to think that we can offer the same expertise when acting against banks that they have routinely available in making claims against you.

Email me for advice:  Patrick.selley@keystonelaw.co.uk

Www.patrickselley.com

Is my bank retaliating?

 

My Advice in the Financial Times 
August 22nd 2014 

                                                                         

I run a logistics company and recently claimed compensation from my bank through the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as I strongly believe we were a victim of mis-selling interest rate swaps. I am extremely concerned because we have since been informed by the bank that our overdraft has been considerably reduced. This was obviously in separate correspondence, and no mention is made of the compensation we are seeking, but surely it is not a coincidence. Is there anything we can do to challenge the bank’s behaviour?

 

 

Answer:

 

Your suspicions could be right. If your complaint about mis-selling is the only reason that the bank has reduced your overdraft you may have a remedy. Overdrafts are “on demand” facilities. This means that the bank has a wide power to call in or reduce an overdraft at any time.
The bank can exercise this power for any commercial reason even if it is not in your interest to do so. However there is an implied term in your contract with the bank that the power to call in or reduce the overdraft will not be exercised capriciously or irrationally.

If the decision benefits the bank commercially that would be sufficient reason. If, however, the only reason was because of your complaint to the FCA, this would be irrational or capricious and accordingly in breach of your contract; however, you would need to prove this. Start by asking the bank to state its reasons in writing. Once you have this, make a Data Protection Act request accompanied by the correct fee. You may then begin to ascertain if there was any other rational reason for the reduction of your overdraft.
If the bank pays you basic compensation for the swap mis-sale it is important that you do not accept this as final compensation and that you reserve your right to claim any consequential losses for the unnecessary expense your business incurred. Finally, if you have given a personal guarantee for the overdraft take specialist advice at an early stage.

patrickselley.com 

patrick.selley@keystonelaw.co.uk

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11b8b254-1bbf-11e4-9db1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3D5UeHu3t