I'm one of the people who has an old Egg agreement which uses the terms "approved limit". There was a thread on here about a court case which was looking into this to decide if using that term rendered an agreement unenforceable. Does anyone know what is happening about that case? I'm in the process of challenging egg about this and it looks like I'm going to have to take it to court to get anywhere but I dont want to do that if it is unlikely I will win. Regards, Scatty

My egg agreement does not have the word "variable" as part of the APR. I read that the Regs require the word variable to be placed in the APR section if the APR is variable? Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983: The APR referred to in paragraphs 15 to 17 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations shall in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements, other than exempted agreements-- (a) be denoted as "APR" or "annual percentage rate" or "annual percentage rate of the total charge for credit; and (b) where it is subject to change, be accompanied by the word "variable". Is this a relevant point that could also render an agreement unenforceable?

I thought so, I found something in the Regs stating this, would the lack of variable, the words approved limit and that fact the document does not have the correct title be enough for it to be rendered unenforcable?

Another couple of points I want to get advice on. Egg say that under the regs certain terms can be included on a different document (ie T&C's) for instance the default charges). Is this the case? They also state there is no requirement under the Regs that hte APR must be accompanied by the words "variable" if the APR is variable? However I'm sure I read that this is not the case and that the words variable MUST be included? Cheers

Can we not put the complaint to the FOS and get them to make a decision? I too have gotten the same letter today. I'll write back to them over the weekend and raise some of the points mentioned in here. Is it worth me complaining to the FOS about this?

Yea that’s pretty much what the letter says. They have made a PPI offer in line with the FOS but they want me to sign a document accepting the offer as a full and final settlement of the complaint. I'm guessing if I do that I won’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the agreement. Would it be better to write to them and point this out? I'm guessing I would have to initiate legal action against them and get a decent solicitor to take a look at my agreement and case... Where would be a good place to find a decent solicitor?

Any ideas....

I first complained that the agreement was unenforceable because it was not signed by either party. For some reason they passed this complaint onto the insurance side of things who looked into my account and made an offer settle the complaint regarding PPI, even though I'd never actually mentioned any issue with PPI! I’ve not yet signed or accepted any offers from them...

Bump

Hi, I’ve begun thinking about whether Lloyds TSB have shown prejudice toward my agreement by mis-selling my their Loan Protection Insurance. I read this article and realised that the PPI I was mis-sold is also a Lloyds TSB product. At the time of taking the loan out I was told that I would not have the loan agreed unless I included their PPI because I was young. The loan was taken out in June 07 and the agreement is not signed by either myself or Lloyds TSB. I am aware that s.127(3) does not apply in this case since I took out my loan after april 07 however, perhaps there are avenues I could explore regarding unfair relationships or prejudice because of the way the PPI was sold and the fact it is one of their products. So far Lloyds TSB have made me an offer to settle the complaint about the mis-sold PPI but it is not in line with the FOS redress recommendations. I intend to write back to them with the letter at the bottom of this tread. I've started this as a new thread so that it does not get confused with my other PPI thread. Thanks

Thank you, I am going to write back to them and wait for the outcome from the complaint to the FOS. Before I take any action I'll have to make sure I have all the legal factors covered.

How does this letter sound: Dear Lloyds TSB, Thank you for your letter dated 17th December 2009. Contrary to your assertions, I did not elect to protect my risk by purchasing Loan Protection Insurance. Firstly I was mis-sold the insurance when enquiring about the loan, I was advised that I would not be accepted for a loan unless I included the Loan Protection Insurance because I was young, thereby leaving me in a position where I felt I had to include Loan Protection Insurance in order to be accepted. Secondly, since I did not sign a contract I never agreed to take out Loan Protection Insurance anyway, in spite of this it was included with the loan. Since you have made an offer to resolve the complaint in full I can only conclude that you agree that the Loan Protection Insurance was knowingly mis-sold to me. This brings me on to my second concern, the offer. Since I was mis-sold the Loan Protection Insurance a satisfactory and fair settlement offer would be to amend any future payments so that they reflect the loan without the insurance included and refund any insurance payments which have been made since receiving the loan plus a simple interest of 8%. I have calculated the following, which I would consider to be an acceptable offer, based on my circumstances. Reduce monthly payments to £185.97 and refund £802.63. Insurance payments made 17 Monthly insurance cost £ 42.63 Total repaid £ 724.71 8 % simple interest £ 77.65 Total refund £ 802.36 Your proposed offer is totally unacceptable and again contrary to your assertions, not in line with the standard redresses remedy recommended by the Financial Ombudsman Service. You really should review the following website and familiarise yourself with the Financial Ombudsman Service redress recommendations before making such bold statements. online PPI resource, calculating compensation It is quite clear to me that it was your intention to mislead me into accepting an unfair offer and enter into a full and final settlement regarding this complaint. It is now my intention to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service about your conduct regarding this matter. I will forward to them all correspondents between us including this letter, the improperly executed agreement and my loan statements. Should the Financial Ombudsman Service uphold this complaint in my favour, I will conclude that Lloyds TSB did knowingly mis-sell the Loan Protection Insurance therefore showing prejudice when accepting the loan. I continue to consider this complaint open and unresolved. Yours sincerely, Angry man

Sorry to bring this up again but I have just released something that may be important in my case. car2403 mentioned that I would need to show prejudice under s.127(1)(i) in order to get my agreement declared unenforceable. With this loan I was mis-sold PPI which is also with Lloyds TSB, I was told I would not have the loan approved unless it included this PPI. Since it is in their interests for me to accept loan does that not demonstrate prejudice on the part of Lloyds TSB? I saw this case Judge quashes woman's £8,000 credit card debt in 'landmark ruling' on mis-selling of payment protection insurance | Mail Online and wondered, if my PPI is with Lloyds, and they forced me to take it out does that make the relationship unfair?

Could the fact that I was mis-sold my PPI and never signed an agreement constitute to prejudice when taking this loan out. As the PPI is with Lloyds TSB it is in their interests to give me the loan as I felt forced to include their PPI. Since I have no signed agreement does this not constitute to prejudice under under s.127(1)(i) of the CCA1974 and could lead to the agreement being declared unenforceable?

Thank you very much alanalana I will get on it tomorrow! Death to the Lloyds TSB infidels!!!!!