Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Consumer Credit (rebates on early settlement) regulations


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5886 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Took out a loan in Aug 2005.

Have asked for early settlement figure.

They've quoted Consumer Credit(Rebate on early settlement) regulations 1983..

 

Does this loan fall under the 1983 regs? I think I read somewhere that loans prior to may 2005 were covered by 1983 regs.

 

When do 2004 regs come into effect?

 

What are the differences in the working out of settlement figures?

 

1983 v 2004 regs which is better financialy for the consumer.

 

hope that all makes sense .....:?

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2004 regs came into effect for credit agreements written after 31/5/2005.

 

The differences in calculations are based on a requirement to move from the old and complicated Rule of 78 method to a new and even more complicated actuarial method.

 

The bottom line is though that it is generally better for the customer, although I don't think there is that much in it.

 

Search google for OFT801 for more information.

 

HTH

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2004 regs came into effect for credit agreements written after 31/5/2005.

 

The differences in calculations are based on a requirement to move from the old and complicated Rule of 78 method to a new and even more complicated actuarial method.

 

The bottom line is though that it is generally better for the customer, although I don't think there is that much in it.

 

Search google for OFT801 for more information.

 

HTH

 

thanks for info.

BTW the loan was for a figure of 33612.30 (including PPI):sad:

 

So, as this loan was taken out Aug 2005 it's covered by the 2004 regs.

Do the company then have to use the 2004 regs to work out the settlement figure?

 

another question.

On my CCA in the Bit about early settlement it states that the figure would be worked out using formula set out in the CCA 1974. quote 'Not withstanding the fact that this agreement is not regulated by the act' unquote. What does this mean.

 

Also i'm looking at the loan pack again.

 

In the pack it states that the Settlement figure is calculated according to the 'Consumer credit(Early Rettlement) Regulations 2004.

 

On the Loan greement it quotes Consumer Credit Act 1974 for figure calculations.

 

On a recent Settlement Figure quote:

The Rebate allowed has been calculated in accordance with the 'Consumer credit(Rebate on Early Settlement) regulations 1983.

 

Ok, Now which one is legal? or are they all allowed to be used when the occasion suits them.:rolleyes:

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

On loans taken out from 31/5/05 they must use the 2004 regulations to work out the settlement figure. A copy of the regs is here The Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 No. 1483

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule of 78 was abolished because it front loaded the interest and so if you made an early settlement you often found that you had a large amount of capital still to pay.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On loans taken out from 31/5/05 they must use the 2004 regulations to work out the settlement figure. A copy of the regs is here The Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 No. 1483

 

Hi,

Ok, Does the 2004 regs regulate loans over £25000. I think CCA 74 only regulates loans for less than £25000 from what I can make out.

 

If so, are there any strongly worded letters on here to enlighten Firstplus of the error of their ways.

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it would only regulate loans under £25000 unless it was consolidating credit that was already regulated by the Act.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
The rule of 78 was abolished because it front loaded the interest and so if you made an early settlement you often found that you had a large amount of capital still to pay.

 

so a doorstep lender could lend £100, load the interest making it £150 for arguments sake and start taking payment weekly, graduallly reducing down from £150? I am assuming this is what front loading means, if so, why are Provident doing this if it is was abolished?

 

how do they work out early settlement since their int rate is about double!!

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, could that calculation be any more complicated! are there any calculator tools that will do it for you?

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, could that calculation be any more complicated! are there any calculator tools that will do it for you?

 

Info thread here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/128765-settlement-figures-calculator.html

 

it's a calculator that is on the OFT website. It works out all sorts.

 

Sharpman

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...