Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I am attending Court tomorrow with a friend and would welcome further advice.
The situation is that she defaulted on a loan with RBS they gota CCJ and an interim Charging Order which they now have a hearing for a Final Charging Order for tomorrow. On her behalf I have done a SAR and submitted an application for a set aside or the original judgement on the grounds of mis-sold PPI by re-drafting the POC. The hearing tomorrow is to hear the set aside and the Fina Charging Order.
The main areas I am focusing on for her are;
She was self-employed and therefore the PPI would have been useless for her
The agreement is imporpoerly executed due to the fact that the insurance was a charge for credit and therefore interest should not have been added to this as part of the loan under CCA 9 (4) and using the London North Securities Ltd case law.
I have also cited the other reasons given in POC in the sticky i.e. was intimated that i would stand a better chance of getting the loan if I took out PPI, failed to ask if any other alternative insurance arrangements were in place etc.
A complaint has also been submitted ot the fos but a decision has yet to be given on this.
My problem is that there is very little case law on this and would prefer to have the outcome from FOS before it is heard at Court.
Has anyone any further pointers for me on this one. Any help or advicee appreicated
I will post a link to this thread in another forum to see if any legally minded moderators would perhaps give you some pointers.
aa
I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner. ------------------------------------------------
Bank charge successes:
Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.
HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.
RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.
2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did
PPI Successes
PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.
2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.
2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement
PPI Claims ongoing with:
Cap one Now with the FOS
Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.
LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc
Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.
Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.
IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU
I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU
IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.
Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.
Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.
If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.
It seems on the face of it that the agreement is tainted due to the misselling of the PPI (which appears blatantly obvious)....in my view it should be enough to set it aside....I just hope you get a good judge....Just the fact that she wouldn't have been able to use the PPI means it brings the other facts into question (in your favour)....
I presume you have other missold 'headlines' (I realise it's not case law) but it might help !!
IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU
I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU
IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.
Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.
Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.
If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.
Thanks for the links 42man. Yes hoping for a good judge. To get it set aside just need to prove that there are reasonable grounds for a triable issue i.e. miss-selling. As we know a lot depends on the judge on the day. Will let you know after case
Update - bit of a non event really not much to report. The Court did not have a copy of the set aside application as it had been lost. Therefore the Judge did not have time to go over the application when he was given a copy said he needed more time to consider so adjourned for 28 days. Bit of a waste of time really. Will keep you posted
IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU
I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU
IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.
Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.
Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.
If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.
When the Liberals and Conservatives were in opposition, they both agreed that banks should pay back high bank charges to customers. Nothing seems to have happened since they came into power as a coalition. PPI Insurance has been sorted. Now they should turn their attention to bank charges and help customers get exorbitant charges refunded.
Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE
*sigh* amazing really....did you not lend him yours toddle ?
Yes offered him the copy I had but he said it was too late as he didn't have time to 'research' it and had had no reading time.
Which was strange as he did say that the set aside wasn't there to judge the facts just the merits of the set aside application.
One thing he did mention was he would be looking at the reasons that the initial Claim was not defended. In the application we have simply put 'the defendant was unaware of her trrue legal postion at the time'. Thsi is true but after what he said I feel this may not be enough ofa reason.
RBS have done a consent order which states
a) The interim charging order e set aside
b) The Applicationf for a final charging order be dismissed
c) JUdgement Order dated xxxxx is set aside
d) Defendant to file a defencee by xxxx
e) The hearing on xxxx for the set aside application be vactaed
f) No order to costs
Pleased with that as takes it straight back to beginning. Just need the fos to speed up now and give their verdict before it comes to Court again.
The defence will be same (more or less) as what I put in for set aside applicatoin
Don't forget to ask in the legal forum if you need more assistance
aa
I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner. ------------------------------------------------
Bank charge successes:
Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.
HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.
RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.
2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did
PPI Successes
PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.
2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.
2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement
PPI Claims ongoing with:
Cap one Now with the FOS
Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.
LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc
Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.
Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.
An update on this. There is to be a case management hearing on Monday by telephone. The fos still haven't made a decision on this but they have been informed that it is subject to leagl proceedings and have promised to get a move on with it. However, have today been sent a copy of their case summary in which they are trying to get round the multiple agreements arguement. What they have stated is this;
The claimant is entitled to include the repayment protection insurance as part of the Credit on the Agreement by virtue of Regulation 4 (c) Cnsumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 as amended by the COnsumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit, Agreements and Advertising) (amendment) Regulations 1999. Thus the Agreement is correct and therefore there is no breach of s.65 (1) CCA 1974
In the defence there is no mention on s65(1) so not sure what they are on about there. The defence in relation to multiple agreements mention breaches of s.60 and 61 (1).
Could do with some advice on this and as always any advice greatly appreciated
When the Liberals and Conservatives were in opposition, they both agreed that banks should pay back high bank charges to customers. Nothing seems to have happened since they came into power as a coalition. PPI Insurance has been sorted. Now they should turn their attention to bank charges and help customers get exorbitant charges refunded.
Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE
Sections 60 and 61 define what is meant by an agreement being 'properly executed'. You argument (presumably) is that the agreement should actually be regarded as more than a single agreement because of s18. As such it should have the prescribed terms relevant to both agreements but it does not. Therefore it is not properly executed (ie it does not comply with ss60-61).
Section 65 says that, if an agreement does not comply with s61, it can only be enforced by a court.
However, s127(3) says that an agreement can only be enforced under s65 in certain circumstances - it must have the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms. In you case, it does not have the prescribed terms beacsue it is actually a multiple agreement and should be treated as such under s18 and have the prescribed terms for both agreements - which we have alreadys says it does not.
Steven
Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here
Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial
My Wins
GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007 NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007 BrighthouseWon unconditionally August 2007 GoldfishWon unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra) Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008
Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.
Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.
You have assumed right and many thanks for the explanation it makes sense now apart from their reference to this section
The claimant is entitled to include the repayment protection insurance as part of the Credit on the Agreement by virtue of Regulation 4 (c) Cnsumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980
I can't find the regulations on the web. They may be right but it would still be a multiple agreement and, under s18, they must show the loan amount for the PPI and the monthly repayment amount for the PPI. S18 says the agreement must be treated as two seperate agreements so this must be the minimum requirement.
Also, if they paid or were paid a commission on the PPI policy then that should be in the TCC and should be declared on the agreement. If not, they are in breach of their fiduciary duty as agents selling the policy or have possibly commited fraud.
You could ask them ion court about commissions - I would be interested in their answer.
Steven
Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here
Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial
My Wins
GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007 NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007 BrighthouseWon unconditionally August 2007 GoldfishWon unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra) Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008
Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.
Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.
RBS PPI Court Case Tomorrow
they gota CCJ and an interim Charging Order which they now have a hearing for a Final Charging Order for tomorrow. On her behalf I have done a SAR
Reply With Quote
