How much was the loan for (in total) and when did you take it out Or for the sake of privacy was it over £25k and did you take it out before or after April 2008

Not always true, if the PPI is sold by a broker the lender bears no liability for the mis-selling unless the credit agreement is regulated. In the case of a regulated agreement Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act will often make the lender liable for antecedent negotiations by the broker.

If you it was sold by a broker, why aren't you claiming against the broker ? If it was miss sold, surely it could only be miss sold by the person that sold it

Could it just be the interest accumilated by your mortgage balance until the day it was paid off. i.e your last payment was for december and you redeemed on 18 January, this could be the interest from 1 - 18 January

I would break it down into very simple terms to the FOS that you have made a complaint to Abbey and that it has failed to respond within the given eight week time frame as specified within the DISP (DISP 1.6) section of the FSA Handbook.

Leaf ? Your reference escapes me

Another useful post. You need to get up to date with latest events my good friend.

As the loan was over £25k and drawn down before the removal of the financial limit execption. The loan is not regulated by the CCA. Instead of a CCA request as suggested, I would advise a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998, which will cost £10

This may help http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2008/dec08/24712.pd

Depends on how much the loan was for and when it was drawn down. If drawn down before 6 April 2008 and over £25,000 - no (except unfair relationships) If drawn down after 6 April 2008 - yes However, some caggers have been know to translate it differently to the OFT

OTC If go back a couple of pages, you will see the post made by Suetonius and Wondermans subsequent "translation" I guess we will find out more later this week

here you go

a previous discussion http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/186867-carmel-butler-house-commons.html

do you mean this evidence ? or this evidence ? Or maybe this?

1st Charge Mortgages If the mortgage was provided before 31st October 2004 it is unregulated. If the mortgage was provided after 31st October 2004 it is regulated by the FSA.

The OFT website: The Office of Fair Trading: Consumer Credit Act 2006 - reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 "For an overview of the 2006 Act and the implementation timetable, please see the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website." [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Timetable - BERR 6 April 2008 (CCD) "Removal of financial limit (section 2) – brings all new consumer credit agreements, regardless of value, into regulation"

I posted the following in reply to wonderman's comments

Consumer Credit Act 2006 - BERR "6 April 2008: the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT’s) new strengthened licensing regime was introduced, the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal (for appeals against the OFT’s licensing decisions) was established, the financial limit (of £25,000) was removed so all new credit agreements (unless specifically exempt) are regulated, and the Unfair Relationships Test was extended to all existing credit agreements." "all new credit agreements" (not exisiting)

"9. A consumer credit agreement was defined (at the relevant time) by section 8(2) as a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000. ." Why would the "relevant time" be "now" and not the date of the actual agreement ? I will explain my logic My previous post adds weight to the argument that s.2(1) is not retrospective. The date of the agreement (before or after 6th April 2008 ) would be relevant, would it not ?

Quick question Doesn't this commencement order say "Section 2(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 amends section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and removes the £25,000 limit for consumer credit agreements. Article 4 of the Order provides that section 2(1) has no effect where an agreement varies or supplements an agreement made before 6th April 2008 for the provision of credit exceeding £25,000 and either does not itself provide for further credit to be advanced or is itself an exempt agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974." If s.2(1) has no effect on new agreements that either vary or supplement an agreement made before 6th April 2008, I can't understand why in your opinion it would effect an agreement made before 6th April 2008? I will try to explain my logic. To my untrained mind it sounds like it is saying that unless further lending is provided "does not itself provide for further credit to be advanced", any variation or supplement to an exisiting agreement cannot make s.2(1) apply to exisiting agreements "section 2(1) has no effect where an agreement varies or supplements an agreement made before 6th April 2008 for the provision of credit exceeding £25,000"

If you are going to use section 75, please read this, especially the financial limits and circumstances http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft303.pdf

Please see 4.1 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem_20052967_en.pdf

"If" the CCA 1974 applied to all credit agreements including 1st charge mortgaged provided by SPML, there would then be dual regulation of these mortgages. As any 1st Charge mortgage after 31st October 2004 is regulated by the FSA as per the FSMA. Dual regulation is a topic that has been greatly debated on the Internet and should be researched before reaching any conclusions.

Lehman?s U.K. Administrator?s Can?t Distribute Assets (Update1) - Bloomberg.com Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s U.K. bankruptcy administrators can’t go ahead with an expedited plan to distribute as much as $8.9 billion in assets to creditors, an appeals court ruled.

Only if your mortgage is directly with Lehmans. Lehmans only own all the shares in the company that owns all the shares in the company that owns all the shares in SPML etc.