MBNA/BOS - PPI / multiple agreements

[citizenB]

I wonder if someone could help me please.

This loan was taken out in 2002 and was repaid in 2007.

I would like to work out if the APR is correct but have fallen at the first step of the Dualcalc programme steven4064 has linked to in the following post. I simply cant work out what figure needs to go where

Multiple agreements falling within section 18 CCA 1974

I would also like to know if this would come under the multiple agreement scenario in the same thread.

If someone could help please. I thank you.




The figures are:

A = £12,400.00 - Advance
B = 4, 735.80 - Credit care
C = Blank
D = £17,135.80 - Amount of Credit (A+B+C)
E = 6,305.00 - Charge for Credit
F = £23,440.00 - Total amount payable(D+E)

The rate of interest is 12.8%

The terms were 60 monthly payments of £390.68.

There was also a charge for Domestic Helpline of £101.00 and £40.00 for the couriered cheque

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[citizenB]

I also believe this PPI was mis sold in that BOS Creditcare was not optional. The paperwork came ready typed with the figure included. OH was at the time, semi retired working less than 16 hours a week. He was also registered disabled. The box on the right hand side at the top was already pre ticked.

It does say however, in a box below the particular of loan

"You are applying for the following additional insurance cover ?

The signature box on the right hand side has nothing to do with the loan or PPI. It is for a preference account key card (credit card) which was apparently an offer linked to the loan.

[steven4064]

CB

I've run your figures through DualCalc - loan of £17,135.80 payable as 60 installments of £390.68 give a TCC of £6305.00 and an APR of 13.9%.

So I would say that the agreement is completly unenforceable for two reasons:

1. it is within the scope of s18 and is a mupliple agreement that should be treated as 2 seperate agreements, which it is not. Therefore it does not have all the prescribed terms (in particular the monthly repayment should be broken down into 2 bits representing the repayment of the main laon and the insurance ('credit care' is a fancy name for PPI)

2. one of the prescribed terms it does have, namely the APR, is incorrect

The £141 is irrelevant as it is added onto the first payment - it doesn't enter into the calculations.

[pompeyfaith]

ok ill run it though dualcalc too what was the exact end date or is it still ongoing

Regards

Pompeyfaith

[atwozee]

Originally Posted by steven4064

2. one of the prescribed terms it does have, namely the APR, is incorrect

I don’t think APR is a prescribed term with regards to s127 (3)

[citizenB]

Thank you so much steven

As this has now been repaid, can I ask for some of it back If so, do I ask MBNA? Or do I go direct to FOS ? BTW, sorry, I have corrected the figure you have highlighted,that was poor proof reading on my part

Pompey, the last payment was made in June 2007

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[steven4064]

Originally Posted by atwozee

I don’t think APR is a prescribed term with regards to s127 (3)

The prescribed term says 'interest rate' but APR is the only one quoted (and it is wrong)

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[atwozee]

I understand - but the only prescribed terms required in respect of enforceability are ‘amount of credit’ and ‘Repayments’ - APR is not (in this instance) a prescribed term with regards to s127 (3)

I do agree to it being a multiple agreement with regards to s18 and would have been potentially unenforceable – because the loan has been paid off a claim would have to be made based on restitution.

[citizenB]

Originally Posted by atwozee

I understand - but the only prescribed terms required in respect of enforceability are ‘amount of credit’ and ‘Repayments’ - APR is not (in this instance) a prescribed term with regards to s127 (3)

I do agree to it being a multiple agreement with regards to s18 and would have been potentially unenforceable – because the loan has been paid off a claim would have to be made based on restitution.

so how would I proceed with this please

[steven4064]

Originally Posted by atwozee

I understand - but the only prescribed terms required in respect of enforceability are ‘amount of credit’ and ‘Repayments’ - APR is not (in this instance) a prescribed term with regards to s127 (3)

No - schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 also lists "A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit
to be provided under the agreement" as a prescribed term. It doesn't specify the form but schedule 7 says that an APR must not fall short of the correct value by more than 0.1% nor exceeed it by more than 1.0% - at least for running-account credit.

I think the same rule for fixed sum credit is given somewhere else.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[atwozee]

Originally Posted by steven4064

No - schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 also lists "A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit
to be provided under the agreement" as a prescribed term.

This only applies to fixed sum credit falling within the exceptions in paragraph 9(a) to (c) of Schedule 1.

The point I am making is that APR or rate of interest (on this agreement) being stated incorrectly or missing would not have an impact on enforceability under s127 (3).

Originally Posted by citizenB

so how would I proceed with this please

Tricky one that – much easier to put the multiple agreement argument forward as a defence to a claim.

Why don’t you post up the basic argument you would put forward and see if you get any feedback.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[steven4064]

Originally Posted by atwozee

This only applies to fixed sum credit falling within the exceptions in paragraph 9(a) to (c) of Schedule 1.

Because the agreements not so excepted have to have the rate of interest under schedule 1 para 9

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[citizenB]

Thank you so much to steven and atwozee for contributing to my thread, please keep your thoughts coming.

I am just going to get stuck into pt's thread on multiple agreements. Once I understand that fully, I will pop my thoughts as to how to proceed for consideration.

[atwozee]

Sorry Steven – we will have to disagree on this one.

CB’s agreement doesn’t fall within the exceptions detailed in para9 (a) to (c) (unless I am mistaken) therefore there is no requirement (as far as schedule 6 is concerned) for a prescribed term ‘Rate of interest’ or ‘APR’

There is a requirement under schedule 1 for these terms but if they are missing (or mis-stated) it would only make the agreement improperly executed and not automatically unenforceable.

However, I am sure we would all be interested in seeing the multiple agreement argument put before a court.

[citizenB]

I am just fetching over information that could possibly be used at the moment. I will try and make sense of it later on.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-1894398.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-1895552.html

Right, so far as I understand this, please correct if I am wrong.

I could claim restitution ie all monies paid APART from the principal sum of £12,400.00

because:

The APR is incorrect and outside the tolerance allowed by the OFT ?

The PPI should have been shown separately with it's own little signature box, and itemised payments/APR. I am assuming that the sum shown in the list is the cash price for the policy had it been purchased separately ?

It is a multi agreement as per s18 inasmuch as part of the total sum is restricted use ie for PPI repayment ?

[steven4064]

atwozee - I think we can actually agree here for the following reason -

Because this 'agreement' is actually two agreements (s18 ) which each should have the monthly repayments. As it only has a lumped repayment both the agreements are minus this particular prescribed term and therefore fall within the exception in schedule 1 para 9:

9 Agreements for fixed-sum credit except agreements--
(a) which do not specify either the intervals between repayments or the amounts of repayments or both the intervals and the amounts;

In these cases, APR thus becomes a prescibed term in schedul 6 and it is wrong

[atwozee]

Now that is very interesting – I hadn’t looked at it that way – I like it

[citizenB]

I like it too

darn it.. steven, apparently I have to spread the clicks around before I can give you one. Please accept an I.O.U for one click