Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • 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

Enforceable CCA?


lee32uk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5028 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

I recently applied to RBS for a copy of my CCA.They replied back with the copies below.

One question i have as well is that my card changed from the standard classic card to a gold card after about 12 months or so, and the new card had a different account number.I also didnt sign any paperwork for the new updated gold card.Does this make any difference to the CCA request ?

 

Thanks for any help

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

rbs10046jo0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Page 1 is the application form with no prescribed terms.

 

Where was the second page you have posted supposed to be? Was it on a separate piece of paper, or was it supposed to be on the back of the application?

 

The current terms and conditions are not the ones you were given when the account was opened. The figures are wrong.

 

You need an expert's advice here. The prescribed terms are not on the front of the application form, and they must be "within the four corners of the agreement" - can be overleaf, but cannot be on a separate leaflet.

 

Someone else with much more expertise will help you soon.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with Daniella....no prescribed terms on the signature page - when read in line with this -

 

A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”.

They will of course continue to argue that what they have is enforceable....(of course they will !!!!)

You could send them this back...

Thank you for your response to my request under the Consumer Credit Act section 78.

 

I am pleased to see that you confirm this as a true copy of the original agreement executed by yourselves on the XXXXX.

 

As you must realise this agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer credit Act 1974 and would therefore only be enforceable by a court under s65. However, the absence of any prescribed terms means that a court would be prevented from enforcing it under s127(3)"

You had until (date here) to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request and I am therefore advising that the matter is now in dispute . Whilst the matter is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, make any further charges to the account or pass the account to anybody else.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter a statutory notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies including any defaults. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’, you must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you fail to respond within 21 days, I will expect that this means you agree to remove all such data

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Lee32uk

 

This seems a pretty standard, stock answer from RBoS. I got this from them too, although slightly different wording and not signed by the same person.

 

Do what I did - hit them with this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

Write, giving them 21 days to reply. I'll let you know what happens when I get a response. The deadline is next Friday - 20th.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes me laugh is the wording on the "True Copy" Credit agreement:

 

"The Consumer Credit Act 1974 lays down certain requirements for your protection which should have been complied with then this agreement was made. If they were not, we can not enforce this agreement without a court order".

 

So their own credit agreement drops them in it !! and they still have the cheek to say they've done nothing wrong.. but won't supply the signed credit agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Anyone else having problems with royal mail tracking site ? Sent a letter to RBS on 16th march, but it just says received at post office (we have your item) :confused:

I will have to give the post office a ring otherwise

 

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont expect Royal Mail to help, you pay extra and they still dont get a signature!

 

I too received an Application Form, put account in dispute and received a similar reply to you and then a request for payment.

 

Am making a complaint through their complaints procedure which im sure will go nowhere, but then I can complain to everyone else and say iv gone through the hoops.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all

 

Received a default notice today from RBoS :rolleyes: As far as i am concerned the account is still in dispute.

I am waiting for them to send me my SAR.They have until 12th May before their 40 days is up.

It should be interesting to see what they send, as i have 2 different account numbers (Original card replaced by a goldcard) but only remember signing one application.

 

Anyway back to the point in question, is the default notice they sent me correctly set out ?

 

thanks

 

4t4i6e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks for the reply 42man.

 

I will just have to sit back now and wait for their next move.If they are relying on the above CCA then I should be ok.

 

 

cheers

 

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently received a Subject Access Request back from RBoS (Well part of it anyway :rolleyes:) as I am currently claiming back PPI, as well as questioning the CCA.

 

Anyway there is one thing that is nagging me, and I haven't been able to find out a definitive answer to it.

I originally applied for the Standard Mastercard in 2003.A few years down the line RBoS decided to issue me with a Goldcard (Which replaced the original card) without me asking for it.

The two cards had totally different 16 digit numbers.My credit card statements also showed the new card number.

 

So my question is, that if I have had two different cards with different account numbers, then should they have given me a new agreement to sign ?

 

The CCA in this thread relates to the Goldcard (2nd card) and the SAR that I sent to them was for the original Card.

They have sent me the same CCA for both cards, so how can one CCA relate to two cards ?

 

Is this a glaring error on their part ??

 

Hope I haven't made this too confusing :)

 

 

thanks

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the reply 42man

 

The SAR they sent me only contained about 2 statements, a copy of the CCA (Original card) and a list of a few telephone call records.I wrote back to them giving them a further 7 days to comply :) If they don't then I will go down the Court route.

 

The reason I wanted an answer on this particular question was in case they took me to Court.Obviously they would use the current Goldcard account number which dates from about 2005.Both of the CCA's they have sent are dated 2003 which relates to the original card :)

It also lacks any prescribed terms :)

cheers

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...