This article is reported by Bank Victims American Correspondent, BendigoBanksters
Dr Alexander Douglas (Independent) MP for Gavin, has warned the Australian Public about the Bendigo Bank and he has even said it in the Queensland Parliament, refusing all requests from the Mike Hirst CEO of the Bendigo Bank to withdraw it....!!
It is not only the Bendigo Bank that Dr Douglas is after, it is all Banks operating in Queensland and he has some very serious concerns relating to them indeed, the question that needs to be on everyone's lips is... why is it that our Federal Politicians are so Mute on the matter and what do they have to hide...!!!
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Bendigo Bank Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—UAP) (11.42am):
Today I say beware all borrowers of the Bendigo Bank when taking out a mortgage with that bank and signing their documents. There are loaded clauses in these documents that may lead to a very good borrower, families and businesses; losing everything through no fault of their own. I want honourable members to listen to this story and consider how they might advise their own constituents and their families. There are 120 branches of the Bendigo Bank in Queensland alone.
The property that I am describing is an historic fire station on the Maroondah Highway in Ringwood, which is an outer eastern suburb of Melbourne. However, there are many other similar examples. I want to tell members about what has been going on. I refer to a document regarding one couple.
In August 2012 their finance facilities expired. Bendigo advised the owner that they should refinance in the middle of the SBC market rental review required under the lease and retail tenancies act.
Efforts to refinance met with similar responses such as ‘until the rental review is determined a valuation cannot be done’. Bendigo’s response was that it did not believe that to be the case and in any event it was not their problem.
With no notice or warning, Bendigo took control of the property on 23 October 2012 appointing two liquidators as ‘controllers’. Bendigo claimed to have served notice of default seven days before, which the owners never received. This is the critical thing; it is about the documents. In a reprehensible display of unfairness, Bendigo gave its default notice by apparently sliding it under the locked door of the tenants’ restaurant—not the owners of the building—which the tenants deny ever receiving, knowing full well that the owners would not receive it.
Bendigo gave the default notice to the third party and they knew it was in the middle of a rental dispute with those current tenants.
Bendigo hides behind an unfair, absurd law which they say allows them to give notices to a customer’s address shown in the mortgage at the land registry. Bendigo argues that this is a fair notice despite
(a) knowing that its customer left the mortgage address five years earlier;
(b) knowing a third unrelated party would receive the default notice, not the customer;
(c) never telling the owners, who are the current owners of the property, that they should amend their address in the mortgage; and
(d) the owners, having notified Bendigo in writing and having receipted it in writing years earlier, in this case seven years, and strictly complying with Bendigo’s change of address procedures in the terms and conditions, that still was not done. Bendigo says that they comply with the banking code of practice, but they expect everyone to act reasonably and fairly towards them in a consistent, ethical manner which they claim to be doing in relation to the owners of this property. Is it ethical, fair and reasonable:
(a) for Bendigo to have mandatory address change procedures for customers which say absolutely nothing about being required to formally change the address kept at the land register;
(b) for customers to give Bendigo their new addresses, 100 per cent in accordance with procedure;
(c) that Bendigo accepted customers new addresses and sent hundreds of letters and statements to that new address over five years—that is exactly what happened to these people and there are plenty of examples like this;
(d) for the most important notice ever sent by Bendigo to be left at a third-party address, which was critical as it meant that they are now in the process of losing their property, which is going to be auctioned on Thursday;
(e) that Bendigo did not send that critical note to one of at least three addresses where the owners had expressly asked for correspondence to be sent?
Any chance of refinancing vanished when Bendigo appointed controllers seven days after leaving the notice at the one place where they know the owners would not receive it. Bendigo was never at risk. There was ample equity. I am going to table the documents.
There was ample equity in the property with an LVR of 64 per cent and ample income to satisfy the loan. Their entire loan, which was charged 5.71 per cent interest, was dropped into an overdraft and charged at 14.16 per cent. None of the $115,000 rent for that facility was credited to the contract. With all the penalties, costs, controllers fees imposed since October 2012 totaling $612,000, the LVR—the loan to value ratio—is now at 90 per cent.
In conclusion, Bendigo has claimed that the magistrate ruled in its favour, but that is not the case. This couple, who was fighting this case—and there are others—were actually not deemed to have leave to appeal on a procedural technicality, yet Bendigo has put out press releases saying that it ruled in their favour. Bendigo has not settled this case with this couple properly and it is using the law to defend its case. These people may also lose their own home. The bank gets their money and income at 14.6 per cent with controllers fees at $600,000.
This is good business if you can get it. Bendigo Bank stands condemned by its actions.
Source: Alex Douglas Member for Gavin. Record of Proceedings, 29 October 2013