Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Alliance & Leicester Loan Agreement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3875 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

Hello,

 

I recently recieved my A & L cca request, its looks enforceable to me, Boo!

However, I have a question regarding the ' cooling off period ' of 14 days

that is not mentioned in the agreement or T&C's. I cant see it!

 

Is there any possibility that it could be unenforceable because of this ommission?

 

What are your thoughts,

 

Thank You

 

ps agreement to follow

Edited by San Martino
No Reply
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I got your PM but I am not 100% sure with this. I think the cooling off period depends on the way the loan was obtained (i.e you went to the branch, cold calling etc). Someone else should be along to help you soon though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if the sentence

 

"This offer is available for 28 days from the date of the Alliance & Leicester signature "

 

could be construed as such ?

 

I will pop your link on to a couple of other threads that are more frequently visited by "those that know about these things" and they might be able to advise you more fully.

 

:)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

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:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what has been said above......was this an online loan ? or in branch ? I would have thought that it would include cancellation rights but it wouldn't IMO be enough to make it unenforceable......was the default notice compliant ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello SM!

 

Thanks for the PM.

 

I regret that Loans are not something I'm that up to speed on.

 

The above comments from the others are all valid and are good points to explore.

 

I can see they Signed the Agreement before you, so this Thread may be of some interest:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/144099-does-matter-when-creditor.html#post1514689

 

Key issues seem to be:

 

(1) Did they discuss the Loan with you before signing, i.e. within one of their Branches, or did they send out a Rep etc.

 

(2) Have they issued a Default Notice yet?

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments, it is much appreciated.

 

I initiated this application over the phone, at no point did i visit a branch

and i signed the agreement at home then posted it back to A & L.

 

I have sent a subject access request recently in order to see whether or not a 'cooling off period' was offered to me after i signed their agreement.

 

"This offer is available for 28 days from the date of the Alliance & Leicester signature " could be construed as such ?

CitizenB - This is a good point you make, however I believe that as consumers we should see a clear and defined cancellation option.

 

Banker Rhymes, clemma - I only dicussed the loan over the phone and I was issued a default notice in March 2008, also I have been paying a agreed reduced monthly amount with A & L.

 

42man - I will check the SAR to see if the default notice was compliant.

 

In general I realize the agreement looks enforceable, however there does seem to be a question as to whether it is a cancellable agreement as defined in CCA 1974, and if so, should it not be made clear as to our right to cancel within the agreement and or the terms and conditions.

 

I may be clutching at straws here, so your advice is taken on board.

 

All the best to you all.

 

San Martino

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 11 months later...

Hi, just picked this one up. We had an A&L loan with the same paperwork as above. Also questioned themn about the no right to cancel box and after 6 weeks of 'investigating our concerns' came back with a load of gumpf about Distance Marketing Regulations stating they did not need to provide cancellation rights.

 

Nonsense I thought. This loan was dealt with via post and at no time were any face to face discussions had, no branch visits etc. Went back to them over a year ago now stating we weren't happy with their response and ended up with two seperate letters from an A&L representative stating that she 'would not be entering into any further communication about this matter as it is inappropriate'.

 

Quite how discussing a legitimate query with a customer is 'inappropriate' I have no idea. We stopped paying making it clear we'd recommence once happy and we've heard nothing from them for around 13 months now. Interestingly I don't think they've even bothered to send a statement of account through either.

 

We also questionned the APR calculations asking them to provide a working out of how they had calculated the various rates. I'd been reading up on the great APR [problem] and was interested to read that many finance organisations and banks had used this in the past to generate extra sums. A&L had a great deal of difficulty providing these, asked why we wanted them etc before finally sending a letter with a series of equations and formulae on that made little sense to me.

 

When we'd asked for a detailed setting out of the calculations relating to our specific finance agreement it was entirely unhelpful to simply get sent a sample calculation with figures on that were wildly different to our own. No help at all and this I took to be a partially deliberate attempt to shut us up. Is it really too much to ask a finance organisation to supply the details applicable to our account? I thought not.

 

Anyway, that's our story, A&L couldn't have been less helpful and the tone of some of their letters was pretty aggressive. All I wanted was the details for the loan, hardly unreasonable. So, nothing heard from them for ages, no idea what they'll eventually do. Will update if anything happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Any further dealings with A&L San? Ive just compared my app and t&c with yours and its identical - its even signed by the same A&L person so im interested in this. I am about to start my own thread though,

 

Madge

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi. I too have received such a Fixed Sum loan agreement which is exactly the same as the OP. Mine also has no cooling off period, A&L signed the agreement before myself with the footnote "This offer is valid for 28 days from the date of the Alliance & Leicester signature"

This agreement was posted to me, pre-signed, for me to sign and return via post. The loan was taken out on the Internet.

The only difference is on page 1, A&L also charged me Personal Loan Protection which I did not sign for.

 

Also there are some key prescribed terms missing regarding repayments;

Frequency and timing of repayments;

Dates of repayments;

The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

I'm now having to deal with a DCA. Any advice?

Edited by frazefast
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...