So you are trying to get your money back?

Over 25K

I do hope you have legal advice because costs could be considerable if you lose

Also you would make case law and the banks would move heaven and earth to stop this, can you imagine if all unenforceable agreements could be reclaimed.

Also you would make case law and the banks would move heaven and earth to stop this, can you imagine if all unenforceable agreements could be reclaimed.

There is already case law and the precedent of Wilson v first county.

This gets better by the day.

The bank has supplied two agreements, one has signatures but isn't the original as this has been lost and they claim they are not required to hold the original. the other later agreement with the correct payments, interest etc is not signed. It is claimed the signature has been lifted off an old agreement. Ive only just found out that the signed document is not the original after reading correspondence to the old dears MP.

Just had a phone call from the victims MP, looks like this could get interesting!!

Paul

My email last night to the chap who refuses to speak with me.

Dear Mr X

I have recently been contacted by Mrs X regarding her now protracted dispute with your organisation. I am now privy to all the documentation that has been hitherto provided to her. Of particular interest are the two regulated agreements, the first one dated Jan 2007 appears to contain Mrs Xs late husbands signature, however, the bank has conceded the original document does not exist and that what has been provided is a copy. The second regulated agreement dated Feb 2007 is referred to by the bank as an “amendment” document, this agreement was never signed by Mrs Xs late husband and the bank concede this as well. The second agreement refered to as an “amendment” document is in fact an agreement regulated by Consumer Credit Act 1974. As the agreement was entered into prior to April 2007 it MUST conform to the 1983 regulations thereunder and therefore, be in the proscribed form, containing the proscribed terms and signed by the borrower, failure to obtain a signature precludes a court from enforcing the same. The regulated agreement the bank rely on is the latter.

I am not in a position to comment on whether the signature contained on the first agreement is genuine or not as this would require a specialists opinion, however, I’ve noted that Mrs X believes it may have been added to the agreement without her husbands knowledge or consent.

I`m informed that you have “urgently"emailed Mrs X advising her that you will not discuss her complaint with me even though she as given her authority for this. I suspect it`s because you prefer to discuss Mrs Xs matter with individuals that are not aware of the law on this subject and therefore able to control and dictate the content.

I have today spoken with a solicitor and informed a journalist of the situation Mrs X finds herself in, I’ve spoken with the RH MP Sir X about the case and understand he`ll be writing to you and the FOS again shortly. I also understand the bank are withholding a significant PPI amount that was mis-sold to her late husband.

Yours Sincerely

What do you take as the precedent of Wilson V First County

After having a read it seems that the major argument is that the agreement was unenforceable because the £250 was not credit and was added to the loan and therefore the agreement was not correctly executed. Although it does say that the APR was incorrect - this would have been substantially incorrect .

Assuming the interest rate charged in Wilson was 50% , the difference in APR was substantially over the 0.1% allowed

If it was say 10% the difference would still be substantially over the 0.1% allowed

The other problem you have is that if, and it is a big if, you had the agreement ruled as unenforceable , there is no provision for getting the money back. In Wilson, no money had been repaid from what I can see.

just for ref re wilson, chronological;

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/427.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/633.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/40.html

I think YB are stuffed!!

I would love it if you were right but I think you are wrong.

I stand corrected about Mrs Wilson not paying anything but then of course she was paying to redeem her car as this was in effect a secured loan

So have you got as far as issuing claims yet?

I assume it will be multitrack

I still do not think that the interest rate is enough out to make any difference but ...

I really hope your friend has some proper legal advice otherwise she could lose pretty much everything if she loses

Yes i know that in a capitalist world, this fear of losing everything is what stops people standing up for their rights but does anyone else, with any credibility agree with you?

What do you take as the precedent of Wilson V First County

 

After having a read it seems that the major argument is that the agreement was unenforceable because the £250 was not credit and was added to the loan and therefore the agreement was not correctly executed. Although it does say that the APR was incorrect - this would have been substantially incorrect .

 

Assuming the interest rate charged in Wilson was 50% , the difference in APR was substantially over the 0.1% allowed

If it was say 10% the difference would still be substantially over the 0.1% allowed

 

 

The other problem you have is that if, and it is a big if, you had the agreement ruled as unenforceable , there is no provision for getting the money back. In Wilson, no money had been repaid from what I can see.

In Wilson the agreement was unenforceable because the credit was incorrect. the prescribed terms of a loan (there are exceptions) are credit and how the credit will be repaid and in addition the document must contain a signature.

The issue here is whether the agreement is enforceable. Im waiting on a legal opinion on this, but I believe its unenforceable from years of experience.

I think you may be behind the times

For a CCA request there is no obligation to provide a signature as per Carey

Even for a pre 2007 agreement there is no obligation to provide a signed document

The question a judge will ask is

'On the balance of probabilities, was an agreement containing the PT's signed'

The basis of this is several fold but one is that it would be unfair on the creditor to have to provide an original signed agreement in situations such as the Iron Mountain fire

An example where this was held, although granted only at county court level is Arrow Global v Frost

Even if the account is found to be UE, I doubt the chances of reclaiming the cash, if this is the case then many many people who hold UE agreements would be able to reclaim cash.

As I said, I truly hope you can succeed but can you do it in the next 15 months so I can reclaim myself before they go SB

I think you may be behind the times

 

For a CCA request there is no obligation to provide a signature as per Carey

 

This has always been the case as the regs permit this HH Judge Waxman just confirmed this.

 

Even for a pre 2007 agreement there is no obligation to provide a signed document

 

Agree see above.

 

The question a judge will ask is

'On the balance of probabilities, was an agreement containing the PT's signed'

 

The Judge cannot enforce if the PTs were incorrect and a signature was not obtained. The bank has admitted the document wasn't signed.

 

The basis of this is several fold but one is that it would be unfair on the creditor to have to provide an original signed agreement in situations such as the Iron Mountain fire

 

An example where this was held, although granted only at county court level is Arrow Global v Frost

 

Even if the account is found to be UE, I doubt the chances of reclaiming the cash, if this is the case then many many people who hold UE agreements would be able to reclaim cash.

 

Ive never mentioned reclaiming payments. The application would be to determine rights as per the CCA 1974.

 

As I said, I truly hope you can succeed but can you do it in the next 15 months so I can reclaim myself before they go SB

The case isn't about reclaiming payments, however, there is a substantial amount of PPI involved from several other loans.

Development today. The banks CCA lawyers are in agreement with my opinion that the agreements are unenforceable.

Development today. The banks CCA lawyers are in agreement with my opinion that the agreements are unenforceable.

Do you care to expand, what have they said?

It may help others

Do you care to expand, what have they said?

 

It may help others

I'll post the agreement up and update for members once this is sorted.