efg loan default
- Thread starter jaypum
- Start date
If you throw enough crap some of it may stick!
I've contacted the press and met with the Guardian
Emailed the CfEL asking them to investigate
Emailed the BIS asking them to investigate
Instructed a barrister to look at the info I've got
Seek independent banking advice on my case
Send out emails to Watchdog, Dispatches and Panorama
Email the CEO which I did for RBS and have had a reply he didn't do anything but its worth a try
Take them to court about to be the next move
lobby your MP to write to the BIS
Email Lawrence Tomlinson with details (serial entrepreneur in residence at the BIS"
Try to start a class action group of others in the same position there's enough of us on these posts!
Take everything they throw at you and admit defeat.....not an option!
I've contacted the press and met with the Guardian
Emailed the CfEL asking them to investigate
Emailed the BIS asking them to investigate
Instructed a barrister to look at the info I've got
Seek independent banking advice on my case
Send out emails to Watchdog, Dispatches and Panorama
Email the CEO which I did for RBS and have had a reply he didn't do anything but its worth a try
Take them to court about to be the next move
lobby your MP to write to the BIS
Email Lawrence Tomlinson with details (serial entrepreneur in residence at the BIS"
Try to start a class action group of others in the same position there's enough of us on these posts!
Take everything they throw at you and admit defeat.....not an option!
Upvote
0
A
Angered Leon
I am another victim of this "so called" government guaranteed EFG loan
Came across this thread which gave me hope that not alone in this situation and that there are others out there fighting for what we believe is right. As with most we were under the impression that were would be responsible for 25% of the balance outstanding on this loan should the business unfortunately be in no position to continue. We had to pay a quarterly premium to BIS as insurance to cover this guarantee!
We had to sign personal guarantees as that was standard practice in commercial loans but that the premium actually covered us!
Needless to say we have been pursued by LLoyds Bank to pay the full amount outstanding in 21 days or be handed over to debt collection company!
I have tried to find out about the premiums that have been paid and can obtain no information from any body
Was hoping someone could guide me in the right direction?
I want to fight my right! Feel I have been mis sold a product with no clear guidance
Came across this thread which gave me hope that not alone in this situation and that there are others out there fighting for what we believe is right. As with most we were under the impression that were would be responsible for 25% of the balance outstanding on this loan should the business unfortunately be in no position to continue. We had to pay a quarterly premium to BIS as insurance to cover this guarantee!
We had to sign personal guarantees as that was standard practice in commercial loans but that the premium actually covered us!
Needless to say we have been pursued by LLoyds Bank to pay the full amount outstanding in 21 days or be handed over to debt collection company!
I have tried to find out about the premiums that have been paid and can obtain no information from any body
Was hoping someone could guide me in the right direction?
I want to fight my right! Feel I have been mis sold a product with no clear guidance
Upvote
0
If you research the unfortunate ones who have gone on record with their local branch managers saying what a good thing the EFG is and how its helped their companies out of the 15 that I've done 13 have failed and I wonder what their stories are?
My advice is do everything that I've said previously but I have been helped by an ex banker recently but i'd need to see if its okay for me to post his details.
Sooner or later someone from the government or powers to be will wake up and take notice hopefully its not too far off.
My advice is do everything that I've said previously but I have been helped by an ex banker recently but i'd need to see if its okay for me to post his details.
Sooner or later someone from the government or powers to be will wake up and take notice hopefully its not too far off.
Upvote
0
I have a contact if anyone's interested he's been helping me and provided good clear advice.
His name is Phil Dibbs Hawkmoor Associates
Tel:
+44 (0)1904 341121
Mob:
+44 (0)7866 362333
A journalist called Ian Fraser has just sent me some further details of people who are about to launch a class action against RBS so once I get the okay from Ian i'll post them.
Check out Ian's recent article in the Herald Scotland titled £1 trn Timebomb the RBS must Defuse...really interesting reading
His name is Phil Dibbs Hawkmoor Associates
Tel:
+44 (0)1904 341121
Mob:
+44 (0)7866 362333
A journalist called Ian Fraser has just sent me some further details of people who are about to launch a class action against RBS so once I get the okay from Ian i'll post them.
Check out Ian's recent article in the Herald Scotland titled £1 trn Timebomb the RBS must Defuse...really interesting reading
Upvote
0
A
Angered Leon
Hi Bricklayer
Thanks for posting those details, is Phil Dibbs happy for any of us to phone him.
I am really eager to pursue this whilst it is still the beginnings for me, do not want to do anything that I should not do, that could favour the Bank!
Really appreciate all your advice you have been posting, very informative and gives us the confidence to move forwar
Thanks for posting those details, is Phil Dibbs happy for any of us to phone him.
I am really eager to pursue this whilst it is still the beginnings for me, do not want to do anything that I should not do, that could favour the Bank!
Really appreciate all your advice you have been posting, very informative and gives us the confidence to move forwar
Upvote
0
Does anyone have a copy of the guidance that was available on the BIS website when the EFG was introduced in 2009?
I have put in a Freedom of Information Act request for this and other information. Following on from my last post.
I joined IBAS for a year. Peter French is a good shoulder to cry on but he can't do very much to help. Lloyds recoveries refused to liaise with him on my behalf.
I have put in a complaint to the FSO but as you say Bricklayer, they just look at the guarantee as if it was a personal loan and not an EFG.
Clearly there are many of us in the same boat. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. we need to channel our efforts.
I am a lawyer and would be able coordinate matters if that's what people want.
I have put in a Freedom of Information Act request for this and other information. Following on from my last post.
I joined IBAS for a year. Peter French is a good shoulder to cry on but he can't do very much to help. Lloyds recoveries refused to liaise with him on my behalf.
I have put in a complaint to the FSO but as you say Bricklayer, they just look at the guarantee as if it was a personal loan and not an EFG.
Clearly there are many of us in the same boat. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. we need to channel our efforts.
I am a lawyer and would be able coordinate matters if that's what people want.
Upvote
0
A
Angered Leon
Andrewb1, I am just about to put in a complaint to the FSO - Put one into CEO LLoyds re the mishandling of EFG - they conveniently avoided mentioning anything about the EFG when replying - simply Recoveries will are dealing with it!
I would really like to work together with a group of us who wish to pursue this as far as we can possibly take it
Was going to contact the gentleman suggested by Bricklayer just to get some good advise as every avenue at the moment is halted-it appears that the parties offering these loans no nothing!
I would really like to work together with a group of us who wish to pursue this as far as we can possibly take it
Was going to contact the gentleman suggested by Bricklayer just to get some good advise as every avenue at the moment is halted-it appears that the parties offering these loans no nothing!
Upvote
0
Angered Leon,
yes do please ring Phil and anyone else.
Phil is an ex Banker and speaks bank speak so he can look at each case to asses from a banking perspective the way to both communicate with them and also to try to find a way forward.
Andrew,
you're right about IBAS being a good shoulder to cry on but what we need is action.
I put a Freedom of information request in for the loan application that the bank do on an online portal which we the borrowers dont get to see.
Once you've got the information the last line before it says created by has a line "based on your normal security valuation policy, what proportion of total value of the refinanced package will be covered by an security held"
If it says 25% then you've cracked it although in my case it says 100% which is not a great help to me.
The question remains if the government are guarantting the lender for 75% in the event of a default what exactly are we paying for when we send a premium to the DTI each qtr.
It simply cannot be right for the BIS to say the operate a hands off approach when it comes to complaints by says they dont get involved between lender and borrwer in a dispute....they do however take our money so surely they have a contractual duty to intervene?
yes do please ring Phil and anyone else.
Phil is an ex Banker and speaks bank speak so he can look at each case to asses from a banking perspective the way to both communicate with them and also to try to find a way forward.
Andrew,
you're right about IBAS being a good shoulder to cry on but what we need is action.
I put a Freedom of information request in for the loan application that the bank do on an online portal which we the borrowers dont get to see.
Once you've got the information the last line before it says created by has a line "based on your normal security valuation policy, what proportion of total value of the refinanced package will be covered by an security held"
If it says 25% then you've cracked it although in my case it says 100% which is not a great help to me.
The question remains if the government are guarantting the lender for 75% in the event of a default what exactly are we paying for when we send a premium to the DTI each qtr.
It simply cannot be right for the BIS to say the operate a hands off approach when it comes to complaints by says they dont get involved between lender and borrwer in a dispute....they do however take our money so surely they have a contractual duty to intervene?
Upvote
0
Angered Leon,
yes do please ring Phil and anyone else who needs help maybe he can give guidance to you also..its worth a try?.
Phil is an ex Banker and speaks bank speak so he can look at each case to assess from a banking perspective the way to both communicate with them and also to try to find a way forward.
Andrew,
you're right about IBAS being a good shoulder to cry on but what we need is action.
I put a Freedom of information request in for the loan application that the bank do on an online portal which we the borrowers dont get to see.
Once you've got the information the last line before it says created by has a line "based on your normal security valuation policy, what proportion of total value of the refinanced package will be covered by an security held"
If it says 25% then you've cracked it although in my case it says 100% which is not a great help to me.
The question remains if the government are guaranteeing the lender for 75% in the event of a default what exactly are we paying for when we send a premium to the DTI each qtr.
It simply cannot be right for the BIS to say they operate a hands off approach when it comes to complaints but says they dont get involved between lender and borrwer in a dispute....they do however take our money so surely they have a contractual duty to intervene?
Andrew found this below which was taken out in the early days
RBS Supports Bracknell Based Business Via Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme
24/05/2009
By Claire West
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has provided a funding package valued at almost £1m to Eagle Technologies Ltd (Eagle). The loan is through the recently launched Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) Scheme to assist the company to expedite its already impressive track record for growth.
Led by Managing Director Chris Rayner, Eagle was established in 1999 and this year celebrates its 10th anniversary. Headquartered in Bracknell, the privately owned business also has offices in Europe and America. Eagle is a world class provider of plastic card printer systems and accessories used for creating photo ID, membership, visitor and loyalty cards, amongst others.
The EFG scheme replaced the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme and under this initiative the Government will guarantee lending to viable businesses to ensure that they can get the working capital and investment that they need.
Since launch of the scheme on 14th January 2009, anecdotal evidence has suggested that lenders are interpreting the scheme rules around the taking of security in different ways and indeed Fresh Business Thinking has been told of different interpretations from different regions of RBS.
On a point of clarification The Department for Business Enterprise and Rural Reform (BERR) has confirmed that even if a lender determines that a borrower has access to security in a principal private residence but chooses not to take a charge over the property then that decision does not preclude the lender from making an EFG loan.
Chris Rayner commented; I am grateful to the RBS team for the professional service we at Eagle have received. The bank has taken time to really understand our business and our future ambitions and provided a bespoke finance facility enabling these plans to be realised. Furthermore, the transition to RBS has been smooth and straight-forward and I look forward to continuing to work with the RBS team as our business continues to grow.
Mr Rayner confirmed to Fresh Business Thinking that neither he nor his co-directors had to inject any non-borrowed cash nor did they have to give security on their homes or any other nominated fixed asset. We have given a personal guarantee of just 25% on the EFG valued £225,000 between two directors/shareholders (just £28,125 each declining with each repayment).
James Starr, Relationship Manager at RBS added: Celebrating a decade in business, Eagle Technologies has a proven track record of success and I am delighted to be working with this leading and innovative business. The banks provision of bespoke funding packages will enable us to support the companys growth strategy as they continue to expand internationally while continually developing new concepts.
Mr Starr must be congratulated and its refreshing to hear a good-news story coming out of the banking sector.
If any other readers have experiences with the EFG, good or bad, wed like to hear from them please email it goes on to say.
Think about it £1m loan just 25% guarantee as we've been told.. is the company still trading no....what's their story I wonder?
EFG loan one scheme many different rules and interpretations but all paying premium to DTI.
Shouldn't it be EFG loan one scheme same rules apply to everyone?
yes do please ring Phil and anyone else who needs help maybe he can give guidance to you also..its worth a try?.
Phil is an ex Banker and speaks bank speak so he can look at each case to assess from a banking perspective the way to both communicate with them and also to try to find a way forward.
Andrew,
you're right about IBAS being a good shoulder to cry on but what we need is action.
I put a Freedom of information request in for the loan application that the bank do on an online portal which we the borrowers dont get to see.
Once you've got the information the last line before it says created by has a line "based on your normal security valuation policy, what proportion of total value of the refinanced package will be covered by an security held"
If it says 25% then you've cracked it although in my case it says 100% which is not a great help to me.
The question remains if the government are guaranteeing the lender for 75% in the event of a default what exactly are we paying for when we send a premium to the DTI each qtr.
It simply cannot be right for the BIS to say they operate a hands off approach when it comes to complaints but says they dont get involved between lender and borrwer in a dispute....they do however take our money so surely they have a contractual duty to intervene?
Andrew found this below which was taken out in the early days
RBS Supports Bracknell Based Business Via Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme
24/05/2009
By Claire West
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has provided a funding package valued at almost £1m to Eagle Technologies Ltd (Eagle). The loan is through the recently launched Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) Scheme to assist the company to expedite its already impressive track record for growth.
Led by Managing Director Chris Rayner, Eagle was established in 1999 and this year celebrates its 10th anniversary. Headquartered in Bracknell, the privately owned business also has offices in Europe and America. Eagle is a world class provider of plastic card printer systems and accessories used for creating photo ID, membership, visitor and loyalty cards, amongst others.
The EFG scheme replaced the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme and under this initiative the Government will guarantee lending to viable businesses to ensure that they can get the working capital and investment that they need.
Since launch of the scheme on 14th January 2009, anecdotal evidence has suggested that lenders are interpreting the scheme rules around the taking of security in different ways and indeed Fresh Business Thinking has been told of different interpretations from different regions of RBS.
On a point of clarification The Department for Business Enterprise and Rural Reform (BERR) has confirmed that even if a lender determines that a borrower has access to security in a principal private residence but chooses not to take a charge over the property then that decision does not preclude the lender from making an EFG loan.
Chris Rayner commented; I am grateful to the RBS team for the professional service we at Eagle have received. The bank has taken time to really understand our business and our future ambitions and provided a bespoke finance facility enabling these plans to be realised. Furthermore, the transition to RBS has been smooth and straight-forward and I look forward to continuing to work with the RBS team as our business continues to grow.
Mr Rayner confirmed to Fresh Business Thinking that neither he nor his co-directors had to inject any non-borrowed cash nor did they have to give security on their homes or any other nominated fixed asset. We have given a personal guarantee of just 25% on the EFG valued £225,000 between two directors/shareholders (just £28,125 each declining with each repayment).
James Starr, Relationship Manager at RBS added: Celebrating a decade in business, Eagle Technologies has a proven track record of success and I am delighted to be working with this leading and innovative business. The banks provision of bespoke funding packages will enable us to support the companys growth strategy as they continue to expand internationally while continually developing new concepts.
Mr Starr must be congratulated and its refreshing to hear a good-news story coming out of the banking sector.
If any other readers have experiences with the EFG, good or bad, wed like to hear from them please email it goes on to say.
Think about it £1m loan just 25% guarantee as we've been told.. is the company still trading no....what's their story I wonder?
EFG loan one scheme many different rules and interpretations but all paying premium to DTI.
Shouldn't it be EFG loan one scheme same rules apply to everyone?
Upvote
0
Going through some info on the archives regarding security June 10 its says
The Government Guarantee
By providing lenders with a Government backed guarantee for 75% of the loan value, we are facilitating lending that would otherwise not be available. EFG is intended to support loans to businesses that can ultimately repay the loan in full, and not intended to provide protection to the borrower in case of default.
In return for the guarantee, the Government charges the borrower a premium equivalent to two per cent per annum on the outstanding balance of the loan, and is assessed and collected quarterly throughout the life of the loan. However, any fees, interest rates, other charges made by a lender are a matter for the lender concerned.
September 2011 it has changed to
The Government Guarantee
By providing lenders with a Government-backed guarantee for 75% of the loan value, EFG facilitates lending that would otherwise not take place. EFG is intended to support lending to businesses which can ultimately repay their loan in full. The guarantee provides protection to the lender in the event of default by the borrower - it is not an insurance for the borrower in the event of their inability to repay the loan.
The borrower pays a 2% annual premium which partially covers the cost of providing the guarantee. The premium is assessed and collected quarterly in advance throughout the life of the loan based on the outstanding capital balance of the loan. The borrower is provided with a premium schedule by the lender as part of their loan documentation and collection is made by Direct Debit under the description "BIS LOAN GUARANTEE". The interest rate charged and any other fees and charges applied to the loan are a commercial matter for the lender.
I wonder why they had to amend the statement adding its not and insurance for the borrower??
That's exactly how it was sold to me and many others I believe, proof of that is seen above otherwise why would they have added that statement and to have highlighted it in bold?
I wonder whether this statement was transmitted to the foot soldiers at the banks who may well have believed what they were telling us??
Poor management at the banks no surely not!!
The Government Guarantee
By providing lenders with a Government backed guarantee for 75% of the loan value, we are facilitating lending that would otherwise not be available. EFG is intended to support loans to businesses that can ultimately repay the loan in full, and not intended to provide protection to the borrower in case of default.
In return for the guarantee, the Government charges the borrower a premium equivalent to two per cent per annum on the outstanding balance of the loan, and is assessed and collected quarterly throughout the life of the loan. However, any fees, interest rates, other charges made by a lender are a matter for the lender concerned.
September 2011 it has changed to
The Government Guarantee
By providing lenders with a Government-backed guarantee for 75% of the loan value, EFG facilitates lending that would otherwise not take place. EFG is intended to support lending to businesses which can ultimately repay their loan in full. The guarantee provides protection to the lender in the event of default by the borrower - it is not an insurance for the borrower in the event of their inability to repay the loan.
The borrower pays a 2% annual premium which partially covers the cost of providing the guarantee. The premium is assessed and collected quarterly in advance throughout the life of the loan based on the outstanding capital balance of the loan. The borrower is provided with a premium schedule by the lender as part of their loan documentation and collection is made by Direct Debit under the description "BIS LOAN GUARANTEE". The interest rate charged and any other fees and charges applied to the loan are a commercial matter for the lender.
I wonder why they had to amend the statement adding its not and insurance for the borrower??
That's exactly how it was sold to me and many others I believe, proof of that is seen above otherwise why would they have added that statement and to have highlighted it in bold?
I wonder whether this statement was transmitted to the foot soldiers at the banks who may well have believed what they were telling us??
Poor management at the banks no surely not!!
Upvote
0
A
arcon5
If a loan is 75% guaranteed by the government then isn't this to the benefit of the bank and not the borrower? A way of encouraging them to get leading to business.
So if the borrower defaults and the debt turns bad (eg unable to collect from borrower or bankrupt or something) they can turn to the government for repayment capped at 75%
That's how I'm interpreting it or am I missing something..
So if the borrower defaults and the debt turns bad (eg unable to collect from borrower or bankrupt or something) they can turn to the government for repayment capped at 75%
That's how I'm interpreting it or am I missing something..
Upvote
0
What you need to interpret is at the point of sale this is how it was sold "in the event of a default the company is liable for the full 100% if there's any shortfall the government guarantee cover 75% with the borrower personally liable for 25%" no mention of making you bankrupt for the full amount first then called upon the governments 75%
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ccess-to-finance/enterprise-finance-guarantee
If its been sold as an insurance, which clearly it had otherwise why the amendment, then it should pay out in the event of default otherwise why pay it...what's the point of having a useless insurance policy...sound familiar to PPI?!!
Isn't this clear proof that up to September 11 there were issues with how it was sold and surely any agreement after September 11 should have had this disclaimer on any agreements to sign??
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ccess-to-finance/enterprise-finance-guarantee
If its been sold as an insurance, which clearly it had otherwise why the amendment, then it should pay out in the event of default otherwise why pay it...what's the point of having a useless insurance policy...sound familiar to PPI?!!
Isn't this clear proof that up to September 11 there were issues with how it was sold and surely any agreement after September 11 should have had this disclaimer on any agreements to sign??
Upvote
0
Thanks Bricklayer,
the fact that the Government Advice was changed in Sept 2011 is very interesting.
The reason for the initial confusion surrounding the EFG, it seems to me, is that it was until Sept 2011, marketed as a Guarantee (capped at 75%)provided by the Government, for lenders if the borrower (ie the business) defaults. This enabled the lenders to seek a further guarantee(s, from the further guarantor). I was told that my guarantee was for the balance and it appears that so have many others.
The Chronology so far:
16th January 2009 - SFLG changed to EFG.
22nd February 2009 - the British Banker's Association issue a press release "Banks are backing small businesses". See bba's website (this site wont let me post the url
30th March 2009 - BEHRR publish advice "What is the Enterprise Finance Guarantee" see bba's website
This advice states:
"Subject to all eligibility criteria being met, the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) will provide a 75% government guarantee to the Lender, thus giving them the confidence to lend to the business...Please note that Lenders may ask for additional security in conjunction with the granting of the EFG loan."
It provides no hint that the lender will pursue the further guarantor first if the borrower/company defaults on the loan.
The rational for the lender being able to ask for a guarantee from the further guarantor is that he/she has to provide some commitment to the process.
There is a reference to Business Link on the bba/BEHRR website but this defaults to Gov.uk.
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I approached Business Link in May 2009 and was emailed "[/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']the Enterprise Finance Guarantee: Fact Sheet " which stated:[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The Government will guarantee bank loans[/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] to Small and Medium sized Enterprises [/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif'](SMEs) This will enable lending to those viable businesses who, in these current economic times, are unable to get a loan or a consolidation of overdrafts from their existing bank. [/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The Enterprise Finance Guarantee is part of the Solutions for Business portfolio (my emphasis)[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']N.B. It stated the Government will guarantee bank loans to Small sized Enterprises i.e. to the borrower not the lender. This is an important distinction. It also refers to the Premium which is the language of insurance.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']In 2009 the Government commissioned research into [/font][/font] It is clear from the following reports: Early Stage Assessment of the Impact of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) On Recipient Firms (2009)
See my previous post
In Feb 2013 this was followed by the Economic Evaluation of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) scheme.
· Read together, these two reports show that at least 30% of businesses were not told that they would be 100% liable for the loan. Thats 30% of a sample of 385 or 115.
· 30% represents about 2,000 businesses out of 7,000 businesses (the exact number for September 2009 is not specified) that received EFG funding in 2009.
To date there have been 8 decisions on EFG's by the Financial Ombudsman. Key in the appropriate search - google ombudsmans-decisions at org.uk
So far, ALL the reported decisions (since 2012) have failed. I believe that this is because the hard pressed Ombudsman Service is unable to undertake a proper forensic exercise of accumulating and evaluating the evidence. Where evidence is lacking the ombudsman seems to find in favour of the lender. See for example the decisions of Mrs L (DRN4685578), Mr R (DRN4144695), Mr R (DRN5039058). All three didn't properly understand the EFG.
In order to reverse this process and to gain public support, if this is possible, we have to pool our resources. We have to persuade cynical lawyers that we were misled. That is why I have set out the chronology as I understand it, in such detail.
Bricklayer, can you give me more information about the subject access request you referred to? is this personal to your complaint? who did you address it to?
Can you also let me have more information about the guidance that you have on the SFLG and EFG?
Anon
andrewb1
the fact that the Government Advice was changed in Sept 2011 is very interesting.
The reason for the initial confusion surrounding the EFG, it seems to me, is that it was until Sept 2011, marketed as a Guarantee (capped at 75%)provided by the Government, for lenders if the borrower (ie the business) defaults. This enabled the lenders to seek a further guarantee(s, from the further guarantor). I was told that my guarantee was for the balance and it appears that so have many others.
The Chronology so far:
16th January 2009 - SFLG changed to EFG.
22nd February 2009 - the British Banker's Association issue a press release "Banks are backing small businesses". See bba's website (this site wont let me post the url
30th March 2009 - BEHRR publish advice "What is the Enterprise Finance Guarantee" see bba's website
This advice states:
"Subject to all eligibility criteria being met, the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) will provide a 75% government guarantee to the Lender, thus giving them the confidence to lend to the business...Please note that Lenders may ask for additional security in conjunction with the granting of the EFG loan."
It provides no hint that the lender will pursue the further guarantor first if the borrower/company defaults on the loan.
The rational for the lender being able to ask for a guarantee from the further guarantor is that he/she has to provide some commitment to the process.
There is a reference to Business Link on the bba/BEHRR website but this defaults to Gov.uk.
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I approached Business Link in May 2009 and was emailed "[/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']the Enterprise Finance Guarantee: Fact Sheet " which stated:[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The Government will guarantee bank loans[/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] to Small and Medium sized Enterprises [/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif'](SMEs) This will enable lending to those viable businesses who, in these current economic times, are unable to get a loan or a consolidation of overdrafts from their existing bank. [/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The Enterprise Finance Guarantee is part of the Solutions for Business portfolio (my emphasis)[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']N.B. It stated the Government will guarantee bank loans to Small sized Enterprises i.e. to the borrower not the lender. This is an important distinction. It also refers to the Premium which is the language of insurance.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']In 2009 the Government commissioned research into [/font][/font] It is clear from the following reports: Early Stage Assessment of the Impact of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) On Recipient Firms (2009)
See my previous post
In Feb 2013 this was followed by the Economic Evaluation of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) scheme.
· Read together, these two reports show that at least 30% of businesses were not told that they would be 100% liable for the loan. Thats 30% of a sample of 385 or 115.
· 30% represents about 2,000 businesses out of 7,000 businesses (the exact number for September 2009 is not specified) that received EFG funding in 2009.
To date there have been 8 decisions on EFG's by the Financial Ombudsman. Key in the appropriate search - google ombudsmans-decisions at org.uk
So far, ALL the reported decisions (since 2012) have failed. I believe that this is because the hard pressed Ombudsman Service is unable to undertake a proper forensic exercise of accumulating and evaluating the evidence. Where evidence is lacking the ombudsman seems to find in favour of the lender. See for example the decisions of Mrs L (DRN4685578), Mr R (DRN4144695), Mr R (DRN5039058). All three didn't properly understand the EFG.
In order to reverse this process and to gain public support, if this is possible, we have to pool our resources. We have to persuade cynical lawyers that we were misled. That is why I have set out the chronology as I understand it, in such detail.
Bricklayer, can you give me more information about the subject access request you referred to? is this personal to your complaint? who did you address it to?
Can you also let me have more information about the guidance that you have on the SFLG and EFG?
Anon
andrewb1
Upvote
0
Hello Andrew,
intersting to get a legal perspective on how the EFG has been publicised misleadingly.
For me an easier example would be:- 3rd party insurance, you drive a car covering others in the event of an accident. You have an accident the insurance covers the costs of others.
Apply that to the EFG you take out the "insurance" carry on trading then hit the buffers. Sadly business fails but insurance covers others??
Take it in the EFG example take out 3rd party insurance have an accident others then seek to get all monies off you in full its only when they've made you bankrupt can they call upon the insurance??
But that's not how it was sold to me:- my company, the lender is liable for the full 100% in the event of default its only after any shortfall is valued that the 75% guarantee kicks in leaving me personally liable for the remaining 25%.
I'm in full agreement about pooling resources hence media coverage, Panorama, Watchdog, Dispatches The Guardian and any other outlet.
intersting to get a legal perspective on how the EFG has been publicised misleadingly.
For me an easier example would be:- 3rd party insurance, you drive a car covering others in the event of an accident. You have an accident the insurance covers the costs of others.
Apply that to the EFG you take out the "insurance" carry on trading then hit the buffers. Sadly business fails but insurance covers others??
Take it in the EFG example take out 3rd party insurance have an accident others then seek to get all monies off you in full its only when they've made you bankrupt can they call upon the insurance??
But that's not how it was sold to me:- my company, the lender is liable for the full 100% in the event of default its only after any shortfall is valued that the 75% guarantee kicks in leaving me personally liable for the remaining 25%.
I'm in full agreement about pooling resources hence media coverage, Panorama, Watchdog, Dispatches The Guardian and any other outlet.
Upvote
0
The company is liable for the full 100% failing which the personal guarantee comes into play and it's only if the guarantor is unable to pay does the Government guarantee come into play and the insurance element from the Government is to the bank and not to the customer as they are guaranteeing that the bank will not be out of pocket and not that the customer won't have to pay.
The above is taken from the Government's website in April 2010 as per the archive link and in essence it operates similarly to the old Small Firms Loan Guarantee system
Upvote
0
Ian,
what if you have a letter saying "whilst the guarantee would be for £** your liability to the bank in the event of a default would be 25% of the outstanding EFG balance?
Seems a simple enough statement for even a brickie to understand?? Or in banking terms does that mean something else?
what if you have a letter saying "whilst the guarantee would be for £** your liability to the bank in the event of a default would be 25% of the outstanding EFG balance?
Seems a simple enough statement for even a brickie to understand?? Or in banking terms does that mean something else?
Upvote
0
Ian
I think we are all familiar with the issue however there is no doubt that many people were told by their bank manager that their PG liability was limited to only 25% of the debt. I have this straight from the horse's mouth. Furthermore, this is backed up by numerous conversations I have had with bankers who believed this was how the scheme operated and told their customers so.
In addition to this, as I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread:
I think we are all familiar with the issue however there is no doubt that many people were told by their bank manager that their PG liability was limited to only 25% of the debt. I have this straight from the horse's mouth. Furthermore, this is backed up by numerous conversations I have had with bankers who believed this was how the scheme operated and told their customers so.
In addition to this, as I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread:
"Interesting quote from the BIS official guidance notes on EFGs:
"As EFG is intended to support loans to businesses that can ultimately repay the loan in full, EFG does provide [my italics] protection to the borrower in case of default. . ." This is clearly a misprint (it should say " does not . . ."), given the next sentence:
"Therefore, in the event that borrower defaults on the loan repayments, the lender is entitled to pursue the borrower for full repayment of the loan as they would a normal commercial loan."!"
This is likely to have contributed to the confusion and people might well be excused for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, particularly if they had been misled, however innocently, by their bank manager."As EFG is intended to support loans to businesses that can ultimately repay the loan in full, EFG does provide [my italics] protection to the borrower in case of default. . ." This is clearly a misprint (it should say " does not . . ."), given the next sentence:
"Therefore, in the event that borrower defaults on the loan repayments, the lender is entitled to pursue the borrower for full repayment of the loan as they would a normal commercial loan."!"
Upvote
0
Alan,
that's it in a nutshell we've been mislead by the banks which under both the Principles of high Standards and COBS is something that they aren't supposed to do.
The have a duty to provide clear and not misleading advice in communications under the FSMA act 2000 don't they??
Another interesting point is that this thread has been viewed nearly 1,000 times since late last week which proves someone must be looking at it!
I wonder if its the banks or its advisors if so I do hope someone takes them to court to test the case?
that's it in a nutshell we've been mislead by the banks which under both the Principles of high Standards and COBS is something that they aren't supposed to do.
The have a duty to provide clear and not misleading advice in communications under the FSMA act 2000 don't they??
Another interesting point is that this thread has been viewed nearly 1,000 times since late last week which proves someone must be looking at it!
I wonder if its the banks or its advisors if so I do hope someone takes them to court to test the case?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No. That's as clear as day and I guess that your case would hinge on whether that letter would take precedence over the terms and conditions printed on the agreement that you actually signed and I think that you may well have a good case
Upvote
0
Ian,
in my instance i signed a loan agreement with the bank which doesn't even cover the guarantee other than to say i'm to pay the premium on time otherwise the bank can pay the government and then claim any monies from me. It details security in the schedule and shows a new guarantee for £112,500 by the DTI or 75% of the loan amount. Interstingly it doesn't say it will be reducing so i wonder how it would go from a legal point of view?
The only other agreement i signed was an information declaration form which says the lender is entitled to revover the full amount outstanding from me "me being the Ltd company" It was explained to me the company would be laible for the full 100%, the government covered the 75% with me personally liable for 25% of any shortfall.
That was how it was sold to me as evidence i have:-
Although our company isn't classified as a micro enterprise i took my case to the FOS on a personal basis who ruled that all they could do was put me back into a position before any miss selling took place which as my pg already in place for a larger amount i'm stuck with it.
They did acknowledge any miss selling was done to the company however but as we didn't qualfiy for micro enterprise they couldn't look at it.
My case goes much further than just the 25% liability though in order to get the loan approved my bank told me to remove an asset off my A & L statement as with it on i wouldn't qualify for the EFG. I sent 2 A & L statements to the bank but they chose to tell the DTI i had no available assets something i'd never told the bank.
In your world Ian what statutory checks would you have to do if a Ltd company approched you for a loan or facility?
in my instance i signed a loan agreement with the bank which doesn't even cover the guarantee other than to say i'm to pay the premium on time otherwise the bank can pay the government and then claim any monies from me. It details security in the schedule and shows a new guarantee for £112,500 by the DTI or 75% of the loan amount. Interstingly it doesn't say it will be reducing so i wonder how it would go from a legal point of view?
The only other agreement i signed was an information declaration form which says the lender is entitled to revover the full amount outstanding from me "me being the Ltd company" It was explained to me the company would be laible for the full 100%, the government covered the 75% with me personally liable for 25% of any shortfall.
That was how it was sold to me as evidence i have:-
- Sworn statement off accountant atesting to the fact we'd been told my indebtnes to the bank personally would be 25% during a meeting between myself, my accountant and my bank manager.
- I have an email stating EFG " will reduce your personal guarantee liability"
- A letter saying "whilst the guarantee would be for £** your liability to the bank in the event of a default would be 25% of the outstanding EFG balance?
Although our company isn't classified as a micro enterprise i took my case to the FOS on a personal basis who ruled that all they could do was put me back into a position before any miss selling took place which as my pg already in place for a larger amount i'm stuck with it.
They did acknowledge any miss selling was done to the company however but as we didn't qualfiy for micro enterprise they couldn't look at it.
My case goes much further than just the 25% liability though in order to get the loan approved my bank told me to remove an asset off my A & L statement as with it on i wouldn't qualify for the EFG. I sent 2 A & L statements to the bank but they chose to tell the DTI i had no available assets something i'd never told the bank.
In your world Ian what statutory checks would you have to do if a Ltd company approched you for a loan or facility?
Upvote
0
B
businessfunding
Bricklayer
I posted earlier that in some cases there was genuine mis-selling as opposed to assumptions
It certainly looks as though you have been overtly misinformed and should have a case
My opinion is that you will stand a far greater chance if you go it alone rather than trying to create a group action, which will attract a lot of people who are simply looking to wrangle a way out of their commitments.
I posted earlier that in some cases there was genuine mis-selling as opposed to assumptions
It certainly looks as though you have been overtly misinformed and should have a case
My opinion is that you will stand a far greater chance if you go it alone rather than trying to create a group action, which will attract a lot of people who are simply looking to wrangle a way out of their commitments.
Upvote
0
Ian,
yes, of course the lender can take security from guarantors. That's not the question.
The guidance of the EFG and how it now operates has changed since 2009. Lenders can decide whether or not to ask for an EFG, whether or not to obtain guarantees, and the order in which it calls in it's guarantees. If the borrower defaults whether or not it should look to the guarantors first and thereafter the balance, if any, up to 75% out of the Government or visa-versa.
There are several questions, concerning the administration of the EFG scheme that have arisen from the Government Guidance. These are just three.
Tell me if I am wrong but I understand that the Government guidance (Business Link and BEHRR) was not clear prior to Sept 2011.
In the circumstances, this might be the reason for the disconnect between the approach of the Commercial lenders managers/assistants and their recoveries departments. The former sells the EFG to small business as a "Government backed guarantee" the later treats it as basically the same as a normal guaranteed loan.
Arguably, if at the time the EFG is discussed and entered into, the lenders managers/assistants (or the lenders literature) does not, explain that the recoveries section of the lender will treat the EFG Guarantees as a normal guaranteed loan - the borrower/guarantors will be lulled in to a false sense of security and may be heading for an elephant trap if the borrower defaults. The guarantor might reasonably be forgiven for thinking that the Government Guarantee means something. After all the borrower (Company) has had to pay for valuations, arrangement fees and a premium to the BEHRR, for this guarantee.
There was thus a potential for lenders to abuse (albeit inadvertently) the guidance of the EFG so that they can lend money to risky borrowers knowing that the borrower/guarantor reasonably believes that s/he is sharing the risk with the Government and taxpayer, when this was not the case.
I would be grateful for your views.
Andrewb1
yes, of course the lender can take security from guarantors. That's not the question.
The guidance of the EFG and how it now operates has changed since 2009. Lenders can decide whether or not to ask for an EFG, whether or not to obtain guarantees, and the order in which it calls in it's guarantees. If the borrower defaults whether or not it should look to the guarantors first and thereafter the balance, if any, up to 75% out of the Government or visa-versa.
There are several questions, concerning the administration of the EFG scheme that have arisen from the Government Guidance. These are just three.
- The first is whether the lender can secure the full value of the loan from the guarantors?
- The second is the order in which the guarantees should be enforced. In particular, whether (upon default by the borrower) the lender should first enforce that security against the guarantors thereby potentially ignoring the Government Guarantee.
- The third is the information that should have been given to the borrower and the guarantors about the administration of the EFG.
Tell me if I am wrong but I understand that the Government guidance (Business Link and BEHRR) was not clear prior to Sept 2011.
In the circumstances, this might be the reason for the disconnect between the approach of the Commercial lenders managers/assistants and their recoveries departments. The former sells the EFG to small business as a "Government backed guarantee" the later treats it as basically the same as a normal guaranteed loan.
Arguably, if at the time the EFG is discussed and entered into, the lenders managers/assistants (or the lenders literature) does not, explain that the recoveries section of the lender will treat the EFG Guarantees as a normal guaranteed loan - the borrower/guarantors will be lulled in to a false sense of security and may be heading for an elephant trap if the borrower defaults. The guarantor might reasonably be forgiven for thinking that the Government Guarantee means something. After all the borrower (Company) has had to pay for valuations, arrangement fees and a premium to the BEHRR, for this guarantee.
There was thus a potential for lenders to abuse (albeit inadvertently) the guidance of the EFG so that they can lend money to risky borrowers knowing that the borrower/guarantor reasonably believes that s/he is sharing the risk with the Government and taxpayer, when this was not the case.
I would be grateful for your views.
Andrewb1
Upvote
0
In the case of factoring facilities there are no statutory checks at all although the factoring company would do a company search to make sure that a) the company actually existed and who it's officers were and b) to check that there were no prior charges against the assets
Upvote
0
Thanks Ian,
in our instance the bank went to the government for the guarantee without checking who the shareholders were or the company secretary was.
Proof of this came when they were asked about removing an asset they didn't deny it they said it was in my wife's name. Had they gone onto companies house they would have seen my wife had more than 20% shares so she would have been considered a connected person and on my A & L statement her occupation was our company secretary.
As the bank were just converting the overdraft with no new monies being made available all they wanted was the government guarantee to strengthen their position.
When it comes out the headline should be Government bailed out bank abuses government backed loan scheme.
in our instance the bank went to the government for the guarantee without checking who the shareholders were or the company secretary was.
Proof of this came when they were asked about removing an asset they didn't deny it they said it was in my wife's name. Had they gone onto companies house they would have seen my wife had more than 20% shares so she would have been considered a connected person and on my A & L statement her occupation was our company secretary.
As the bank were just converting the overdraft with no new monies being made available all they wanted was the government guarantee to strengthen their position.
When it comes out the headline should be Government bailed out bank abuses government backed loan scheme.
Upvote
0
Andrew,
check out this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecVh-oMOvzU
If i'm hearing it right the default rate is 28% of 17,500 loans drawn down which Jackie says is better than the previous scheme the SLGF!!
That's 4,900 business's I wonder how many of those have a story to tell?
check out this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecVh-oMOvzU
If i'm hearing it right the default rate is 28% of 17,500 loans drawn down which Jackie says is better than the previous scheme the SLGF!!
That's 4,900 business's I wonder how many of those have a story to tell?
Upvote
0
I have been reading this and really need to catch up but I could really do with a little advice.
And I know this seems even more daft than previously however having had the bank issue a ccj (through their solicitors) against my husband we have gone over the forms and responses from the bank and now it seems that they somehow got me to sign forms creating a partnership with me on the business in order to obtain securities when my husband applied for his EFG.
I wasn't involved in the business, all his documentation clearly highlighted sole trader and even the tax returns were done so in that capacity. Never have we been a business partnership.The only partnership was in the banks eyes and we were utterly oblivious to this until they answered our complaint, clearly denying any fault.
Now I am not stupid and nor is my husband so I really cannot understand if all his business plans and proposals were as sole trader a forms; clearly we haven't read them in the entirety but as being a partnership was not on the agenda we never suspected that it would happen. Never and I sincerely mean this was it ever suggested we wanted a partnership as I had my own permanent job but was on maternity leave.It happened as my husband applied for an EFG.
We are waiting a response from our accountant due to potential implications of this but if anyone has any thoughts ( other than how thick we seem to have been)please let me know.
I believe wholeheartedly it was a deliberate and deceptive act on the banks part to obtain security and which they evidently have pursued.
And I know this seems even more daft than previously however having had the bank issue a ccj (through their solicitors) against my husband we have gone over the forms and responses from the bank and now it seems that they somehow got me to sign forms creating a partnership with me on the business in order to obtain securities when my husband applied for his EFG.
I wasn't involved in the business, all his documentation clearly highlighted sole trader and even the tax returns were done so in that capacity. Never have we been a business partnership.The only partnership was in the banks eyes and we were utterly oblivious to this until they answered our complaint, clearly denying any fault.
Now I am not stupid and nor is my husband so I really cannot understand if all his business plans and proposals were as sole trader a forms; clearly we haven't read them in the entirety but as being a partnership was not on the agenda we never suspected that it would happen. Never and I sincerely mean this was it ever suggested we wanted a partnership as I had my own permanent job but was on maternity leave.It happened as my husband applied for an EFG.
We are waiting a response from our accountant due to potential implications of this but if anyone has any thoughts ( other than how thick we seem to have been)please let me know.
I believe wholeheartedly it was a deliberate and deceptive act on the banks part to obtain security and which they evidently have pursued.
Upvote
0
"I believe wholeheartedly it was a deliberate and deceptive act on the banks part to obtain security and which they evidently have pursued".
I agree in many instances its been a deliberate and deceptive act by the banks to obtain security through this scheme in many instances its been to obtain the governments guarantee so they're ripping us all off.
What security did you both have to give for the EFG and what % did they say your husband would be liable for?
Hopefully some of the more informed on the post can advise?
I'd advise telling as many avenues as possible about the scandal involve the media, Mp's for all good they do, complain to the BIS & CfEL and anyone else you can think of.
The more people who come forward to the outlets the more they are likely to take notice.
I agree in many instances its been a deliberate and deceptive act by the banks to obtain security through this scheme in many instances its been to obtain the governments guarantee so they're ripping us all off.
What security did you both have to give for the EFG and what % did they say your husband would be liable for?
Hopefully some of the more informed on the post can advise?
I'd advise telling as many avenues as possible about the scandal involve the media, Mp's for all good they do, complain to the BIS & CfEL and anyone else you can think of.
The more people who come forward to the outlets the more they are likely to take notice.
Upvote
0
I think because the bank had obtained my signature they were extremely confident in pursuing all the money .
They had even issued forms placing a charge on our home but we never sent those back but it does highlight lack of knowledge surely as they weren't meant to involve your house.
However when it comes to chasing the money trust me they will.
The solicitor called my husband and told him she had been advised to pursue our house. Never in writing but in phone calls and in all honestly he was becoming ill at that point. Lloyds were offering 125% mortgages to existing customers at that point so he asked if he could do that instead and repay the money that way. They refused. The sum was less than 30k but in all the ccj is for 34k. They wont negotiate because they don't have to. They have to demonstrate ruthless attempts to obtain the money and if all else ails, and only then will the government step in. Seems such a shame that honest hardworking people are being pushed this far by taking a loan they were lead to believe was underwritten to the tune of 75%, but in fact it isn't at all.
The fact they obtained my signature on a form claiming business partnership whilst I was on maternity eave , with my 10 day old baby present and with full knowledge and business plans stating my husband was a sole trader just defies all moral and ethical practice.
They obtained a ccj
They had even issued forms placing a charge on our home but we never sent those back but it does highlight lack of knowledge surely as they weren't meant to involve your house.
However when it comes to chasing the money trust me they will.
The solicitor called my husband and told him she had been advised to pursue our house. Never in writing but in phone calls and in all honestly he was becoming ill at that point. Lloyds were offering 125% mortgages to existing customers at that point so he asked if he could do that instead and repay the money that way. They refused. The sum was less than 30k but in all the ccj is for 34k. They wont negotiate because they don't have to. They have to demonstrate ruthless attempts to obtain the money and if all else ails, and only then will the government step in. Seems such a shame that honest hardworking people are being pushed this far by taking a loan they were lead to believe was underwritten to the tune of 75%, but in fact it isn't at all.
The fact they obtained my signature on a form claiming business partnership whilst I was on maternity eave , with my 10 day old baby present and with full knowledge and business plans stating my husband was a sole trader just defies all moral and ethical practice.
They obtained a ccj
Upvote
0
and sorry to go on but when you ask about what pg I had to offer re the efg I have no idea as I didn't even know that I had applied. It seems this was all prepared by the bank on the back of the partnership forms the pre typed ones that were presented for signing and which were not representative of any dialogue with the managers
Personally I feel it warrants a full investigation.
I am a nurse and have counselled people on numerous occasions for surgery. I 've always made sure they understood the forms they were signing so I consider myself a reasonable communicator. Yet neither myself nor my husband had any idea whatsoever that suddenly he was operating as a partnership, for Lloyds benefit solely as he never was in reality and all HMRC activity reflects this. I simply was not involved.
I am so angry about this. We are normal people who have been so taken advantage of and it seems by our bankers and a government scheme.
My husband would have been better off taking out a loan as they have ruined all financial viability and mortgage viability despite being well qualified educated professionals. The reason he went for EFG was solely not to risk our hoe but it happened.
Any Lawyers who want to co ordinate get my vote regarding this. And I totally agree with bricklayer that we cannot simply let it go.
Personally I feel it warrants a full investigation.
I am a nurse and have counselled people on numerous occasions for surgery. I 've always made sure they understood the forms they were signing so I consider myself a reasonable communicator. Yet neither myself nor my husband had any idea whatsoever that suddenly he was operating as a partnership, for Lloyds benefit solely as he never was in reality and all HMRC activity reflects this. I simply was not involved.
I am so angry about this. We are normal people who have been so taken advantage of and it seems by our bankers and a government scheme.
My husband would have been better off taking out a loan as they have ruined all financial viability and mortgage viability despite being well qualified educated professionals. The reason he went for EFG was solely not to risk our hoe but it happened.
Any Lawyers who want to co ordinate get my vote regarding this. And I totally agree with bricklayer that we cannot simply let it go.
Upvote
0
havehadenough,
you need to request the documents from this email address
[email protected]
Give them as much information as you can and they have to come back to you because the information you are asking for is about you from the bank to the government.
When you get the online secure portal that the bank completed about your husbands application look at the last page just above created by you will see a line "total value of any security held" I do hope its says 25% then you've got them?
I'm no lawyer but by definition a sole trader is liable for all debts personally so I can't see how the bank can offer an EFG as if they make you fully liable what's the government guaranteeing?
I wonder whether they got you to sign as a partnership to spread the risk making it look like it was the correct product. I'd go back to them and say you were unduly coerced by the bank into signing a document with them knowing full well that you had no control over the business. I've read cases where exactly as you say a husband's wife with a baby in attendance was unduly pressured into signing documents that she didn't understand to obtain a business loan for her partner.
I'm sick of the banks shafting people. Didn't Lloyds get bailed out by the taxpayer?? I wonder whether the CEO had to sign a personal guarantee for the billions they had?? If they get caught they just forgo a yrs bonus me i'd nail them to the wall or do what the romans did to Spartacus line them through the streets of London!!
you need to request the documents from this email address
[email protected]
Give them as much information as you can and they have to come back to you because the information you are asking for is about you from the bank to the government.
When you get the online secure portal that the bank completed about your husbands application look at the last page just above created by you will see a line "total value of any security held" I do hope its says 25% then you've got them?
I'm no lawyer but by definition a sole trader is liable for all debts personally so I can't see how the bank can offer an EFG as if they make you fully liable what's the government guaranteeing?
I wonder whether they got you to sign as a partnership to spread the risk making it look like it was the correct product. I'd go back to them and say you were unduly coerced by the bank into signing a document with them knowing full well that you had no control over the business. I've read cases where exactly as you say a husband's wife with a baby in attendance was unduly pressured into signing documents that she didn't understand to obtain a business loan for her partner.
I'm sick of the banks shafting people. Didn't Lloyds get bailed out by the taxpayer?? I wonder whether the CEO had to sign a personal guarantee for the billions they had?? If they get caught they just forgo a yrs bonus me i'd nail them to the wall or do what the romans did to Spartacus line them through the streets of London!!
Upvote
0
Another thing to do is email Lawrence Tomlinson's pa Fiona at [email protected]
Lawrence is Vince Cables "Serial Entrepreneur in Residence at the BIS"
You may have seen him recently on Panorama regarding the Miss Selling of the Swaps he's interested in all our stories and takes no s**t off the banks.
Contact Watchdog, Panorama or Dispatches email the Guardian Ian Griffiths who's still compiling evidence of the scandal.
If enough of us do it sooner or later the media will wake up to the scandal then watch all the arse covering when its exposed!!
Lawrence is Vince Cables "Serial Entrepreneur in Residence at the BIS"
You may have seen him recently on Panorama regarding the Miss Selling of the Swaps he's interested in all our stories and takes no s**t off the banks.
Contact Watchdog, Panorama or Dispatches email the Guardian Ian Griffiths who's still compiling evidence of the scandal.
If enough of us do it sooner or later the media will wake up to the scandal then watch all the arse covering when its exposed!!
Upvote
0
Contacts
Heading:-Banks abuse of a government backed loan
Watchdog [email protected]
Panorama [email protected]
Dispatches [email protected]
Give them a brief statement of events, say you have evidence then direct them to this web thread for viewing hopefully they will see the numbers are growing and its not an isolated case.
Ian Griffiths
[email protected]
Between us lets make the news?
Heading:-Banks abuse of a government backed loan
Watchdog [email protected]
Panorama [email protected]
Dispatches [email protected]
Give them a brief statement of events, say you have evidence then direct them to this web thread for viewing hopefully they will see the numbers are growing and its not an isolated case.
Ian Griffiths
[email protected]
Between us lets make the news?
Upvote
0
Many thanks for this.
And that is it in my opinion. Whilst as a sole trader my husband would have been liable it was his view and based on the bank advisers that that liability was 25%.
By obtaining my signature they made me liable and were then confident they could take everything in the house, not just his share so 100%. There wasn't that much left in it either as he had already used most of it but the equity remaining pretty much matched the efg amount.
And that is it in my opinion. Whilst as a sole trader my husband would have been liable it was his view and based on the bank advisers that that liability was 25%.
By obtaining my signature they made me liable and were then confident they could take everything in the house, not just his share so 100%. There wasn't that much left in it either as he had already used most of it but the equity remaining pretty much matched the efg amount.
Upvote
0
That was the impression we were under too but the solicitor categorically told my husband over the phone she was instructed to pursue the house. And now with the CCJ its my understanding that if he defaults then we could be forced to sell it to settle. Clearly its difficult as its not like he will get another mortgage in a hurry so we seem stuck trying to find the repayment each month. The variance of being told 25% liability and the situation we are now does not add up but we seem stuck
Upvote
0
"They can't take your main residential property under efg"
They cant tell you to leave off assets and then tell the government we didn't have any either but they do.
What they are doing though is applying for charging orders against homes and then making people sell them but the government doesn't want to know about that.
What the banks can and cant do isn't the issue its what as the abused banks customers we can do.
havehadenough you need to get the info off the FOI as it may help your case as I've said if its says 25% then you've cracked it.
As in the case of Eagle they are on record of having nearly a £1m facility with the EFG but they were only liable for 25% so it worked for them. Have you thought about using the Human Rights laws as, as a sole trader given you were told you'd only be liable for 25% you could quote the Eagle case and say your rights have been compromised? Its just a thought?
All it may take is one case to win in court then it might set the precedent for others as in the case of the PPI scandal.
They cant tell you to leave off assets and then tell the government we didn't have any either but they do.
What they are doing though is applying for charging orders against homes and then making people sell them but the government doesn't want to know about that.
What the banks can and cant do isn't the issue its what as the abused banks customers we can do.
havehadenough you need to get the info off the FOI as it may help your case as I've said if its says 25% then you've cracked it.
As in the case of Eagle they are on record of having nearly a £1m facility with the EFG but they were only liable for 25% so it worked for them. Have you thought about using the Human Rights laws as, as a sole trader given you were told you'd only be liable for 25% you could quote the Eagle case and say your rights have been compromised? Its just a thought?
All it may take is one case to win in court then it might set the precedent for others as in the case of the PPI scandal.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI, Virtual Influencers and the Copyright Minefield: What Entrepreneurs Need to KnowI'll be upfront: this article was written with the assistance of an AI...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
