Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tonster

  1. Ah, not good. Agreement signed post April 2007 (not that they have an original of any kind) and they have now sent some reconstituted agreement. Was hoping they would still need an original to enforce in court They claim the account was opened in May 2007 but without the original signed agreement how do they prove that? It could have been early April I guess?
  2. Andy Does this mean that if the agreement was signed 2007 or later that they can use a reconstituted agreement for enforcement in court?
  3. Speedloan finance Consumer credit licence no: 598276 Reg No: 4332476
  4. Hi All Recieved a claim form last week from Northampton from Speedloan finance. It reads as follows. POC 'The defendant obtained a loan from the claimant for £xxxx.xx. The loan was obtained on the xx.xx.2010 under the reference number xxxxxxxxx. The loan was for the term of 18 months and the monthly contractual repayments were for the sum of £xx per month. The defendant has paid £xxx.xx against the loan and is currently in arrears. The full balance of £xxxx.xx which takes into account the removal of extra compounded interest and charges is due forthwith. This agreement is regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 and a default notice has been served upon the defendant' Now my question is do I need to use CPR 31.14 to get the copies of the agreement (I don't have them anymore). Also and I know I should have known better but I was desperate the APR is scandalous on this loan and means I end up paying back double the original amount. I paid back some payments but couldn't keep up and just can't bear to give them an easy ride with this claim. I have done the AoS online already, and just want to make sure all their paperwork is in order. Any advice? Cheers Tonster
  5. Hi All I had a PDL with quick quid which I rolled over several times always paying off the interest. It got to a point with others where I couldn't keep doing it. Now QQ have sold my debt to Muck Hall and they have sent me the pay in 7 days or court letter. Now this still includes 2 months interest and charges + additional loan (I've already paid 3 months interest previously) I never received a default notice, nor termination notice, does this matter as I never had time to rectify any breach etc. I'm prepared to pay the initial loan out of this amount but wondered what's the position regarding the lack of default notice etc? Thoughts? Tony
  6. Am I missing something here? Your defence is that they haven't supplied a copy of the original agreement. I know creditors will argue Carey allows for a reconstitued agreement in response to the s.78 request but the original is required in court. No original should mean no judgement. I guess it's whether you want to continue with this line, if I'm wrong I stand corrected.
  7. Same here, defaulted back in January, made some proposals but they wouldn't accept, heard nothing for 3 months, although the loan was set up over 6 months in total so maybe they are waiting until the last payment was due?
  8. Hi All I could do with a definitive answer on this. 1st credit are saying they can add s69 interest at 8% from the period of assignment on debts they bought from Barclaycard, I just need to know if this is definitely true. Cheers Tony
  9. They will tell you that this complies with their obligation under s77.78 of the CCA since Carey v HSBC as they have sent you a copy of the generic t&c's at the time of opening but there is no signature nor any place for a signature. I would be tempted to send them a response including the following: Dear Sirs Clearly you have chosen to abide by the Consumer Credit Act as minimally as is lawful, by providing generic terms and conditions. While this may satisfy a CCA request, it is not enforceable in a court of law. I now ask you to supply me with a signed statement as to whether you actually hold a copy of the original signed agreement. If you do not hold an agreement, then I require you to confirm this. I would remind you that the OFT state that creditors should not imply or state that an enforceable agreement exists if that is not the case. Should you carry out your threat of court action, it will be vigorously defended and you will be required to produce an original, signed, compliant agreement to support your claim. I am merely attempting to clarify the situation before this becomes necessary, so that I can make an informed decision and take legal advice if necessary. I would appreciate a response blah blah etc......
  10. So far, out of 12 credit card CCA requests over the last 2 years, only 2 have had an enforceable agreement and agreements have been struck with them, the others are either playing letter ping pong or DCA ping pong (one is on the 3rd DCA in 12 months) or have gone quiet (for now!)
  11. Ok, all clear now. Seems like going to court on this one would be a futile experience. I will re-offer the pro-rata amounts I was previously paying Egg in line with my I&E. I guess this just proves how important it is to check and question at every turn. I have plenty of credit card CCA's to fight on with (or lack of them so far in many cases with a variety of DCA's) They sent T&C's as well as the agreement and a compliant DN, if they have the correct paperwork which it seems they have, no point in fighting it and losing, odds seems stacked against the consumer even on what seem like watertight cases such as no signed CCA so certainly don't want to take a chance with something like this where it seems doomed from the start. Thanks for all your help guys/girls on this one.
  12. Ah, ok I think I am getting it. I thought the amount of credit was the term to show the charge for credit (i.e. how much it costs you, not just the loan amount + interest added together which is what is shown as the principal amount), if this isn't stated separately how are you supposed to know how much it is costing you?
  13. So this is schedule 6 of the 1983 regs. SCHEDULE 6 PRESCRIBED TERMS FOR THE PURPOSES OFSECTIONS 61(1)(A)AND127(3)OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 Regulation 6(1) 2. Agreements for fixed-sum credit not falling within paragraph 1. A term stating the amount of the credit. So, my understanding is that as above in schedule 6 that a term stating the amount of the credit should be present and isn't in my agreement. As it isn't there I understand that section 127(3) applies as this was an agreement from 2004? Thoughts?
  14. Ok, deep breath, does section 127(3) not apply in this case? It was signed in 2004. Is the total charge for credit not a schedule 6 term then? What is the difference between section 77 and 1983 regs then? Head hurts, more research for me tonight....I want to be clear on this point as I don't want to go into battle on some point where I'm not clear and could lose. Cheers
  15. Hi BB I have read that thread and there is an Egg agreement in there but it's not the same as mine. On that one it is declared unenforecable as there is PPI on the loan but they haven't shown separate repayment terms for the two agreements. I think this comes under section 18. I don't have PPI on mine so this doesn't apply. I guess the confusion is around the prescribed term 'amount of credit'. Drydens are claiming this is the total amount that was advanced (loan + credit) but I guess this needs to be shown separately according to the regs?
  16. Yes, I have read through it many times but I am still unclear (and I don't want to go into battle in court with differing opinions). On credit card agreements I am crystal clear (having been reading up on this and in several battles for 2 years +) but on loan agreements I am not so clear, this is the only one I have and even today I now have two completely differing opinions from Bazooka Boo and Nicklea on whether the charge for credit (not the total loan amount including the credit charge) needs to be shown separately. Confused!!!!! Can you clarify?
  17. Hi All So this has been going back and forward now for some time and is with Drydens lawyers now. Their latest letter states: 'Contrary to the assertion in your letter, the total charge for credit (by which you presumably mean the total amount of interest intended to be charged) is not a prescribed term within the meaning of the consumer credit (Agreements) regulations 1983. The prescribed term to do with the 'amount of credit' relates to the amount advanced, which is clearly stated on the agreement in compliance with the regulations. No separate entry is needed for the total amount of interest payable; this information is discernible from the term and monthly amount of the repayments'. See copy of loan agreement further up the thread. Any advice on this as I am a bit unsure with loan agreements? I have read through the other threads but as it is now with solicitors I want to be quite precise. Thanks Tonster
  18. We have exactly the same issue and would love to know the best course of action.
  19. No, they produced some docs after the deadline (which were devoid of the required prescribed terms) but by this time the case was stayed. As I have a number of these (14) on the go at the moment I decided to leave it as stayed for now!
  20. This is exactly what happened to me with Sainsbury's (I have another thread from some time ago) They sent claim, I did AOS, they didn't reply in time, I put in embarassed defence, they didn't reply in the 28 days and the case is stayed. That was back in December and I haven't heard anything from them since.
  21. My understanding is they should move it to your local court automatically if it proceeds that far.
  22. i wouldn't say it's enforceable from what I have read on this site a term stating the amount of credit for a fixed Sum Credit Agreement (loan as in this case) is prescribed in paragraph 2 of schedule 6 and so is protected by section 127(3) and would make it unenforceable IMO. Incidentally, it is almost identical to an agreement I have with Egg as well.
  23. The Waksman ruling was only talking about using reconstructed agreements in response to s78 requests NOT for use in court and the Wilson case (from House of Lords) is still valid.
  24. The Carey v HSBC case was only referring to section 78 requests for CCA information and not referring to what was required in court. Further the bank in that case was a defendant not a claimant, a lot of creditors are trying to use this ruling as a red herring but it doesn't change the law backed by the Wilson case. A reconstructed agreement cannot be used in court. A copy of or better still the original agreement still needs to be produced.
  25. I would agree as I mentioned earlier that it depends on what is on the back of the agreement but you can bet your last penny that Lloyds don't have the back of the agreement because they only copied the front, further should it come to court you should insist on the original being produced as it's a statutory document and they should keep it for 6 years from termination and you can bet they certainly don't have that. That's why they send a load of generic t&c's and say 'they were on the back' but they need to prove it.
  • Create New...