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

As i said before, the FOS want a final decision from the bank but the bank won't respond to anything i've sent them. The FOS should therefore look into it because it's been over 8 weeks.

 

I wrote to the bank initially in October 2008 and then i passed it to the FOS last year but the bank still didn't respond.

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

..feck SPML straight from tha CAG undaground,

young caggers, got tha back to da ground

so the Jackals think they got the authority,

to jack the British majority

feck that s*%t I ain't tha one,

punk maggotfarmas with inbred sons

coz gonna bust a cap in Capstones' ass,

ya'll know I roll wit a 187 buspass?..

 

....tbc..

 

 

 

 

 

ITGG!

Emm-Dee-Kay

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

Eurosail-UK 2007-5NP - Notice of Meeting - InvestEgate

 

this needs some deciphering but indicates the current health and status of the spv who is now calling extraordinary resolutions,it also reveals how closely capstone are linked to them.There are many notices for all the spv funds.Its all as a result of borrowers defaulting.!

This may help

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

Hi I'm sorry but have just been reading through my so called "agreeement for a second charge mortgage with First Plus and there is no mention whatsoever what act the "agreement" applies to, is there anyone who can tell me or can they just make up whatever terms just to please them selves?

Depends on how much the loan was for and when it was drawn down.

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)

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

thanks eie makes very interesting reading about spv intersest rates,securitization,registration at land registry etc will post the link

here you go

For those who want the complete thing:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/BankingCrisisMemos140109.pdf

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/BankingCrisisMemos150109rr.pdf

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/BankingCrisisMemos170309.pdf

 

And if you want to really go deep:

 

UK Parliament - Bankingcrisis

thanks eie makes very interesting reading about spv intersest rates,securitization,registration at land registry etc will post the link

a previous discussion

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

ITBG

as you can see this lot are still trying to repo people if you have any surefire evidence they are insolvent or trading whilst insolvent please post as this will stop the **** in their tracks.

do you mean this evidence ?

Lil'dotty, all

 

If you are going to court, and have filed your witness statement, stating your mortgage has been sold to the SPV in a true-sale securitisation(eg Eurosail), then you have a chance to set aside the possession. I did and the lender is to appeal. They tried the Pender ploy, but the evidence my solicitor and I had was enough.

 

ITBG?

on air

or this evidence ?

"I have absolute proof, from written evidence, that SPML is both balance sheet and trading insolvent.

Or maybe this?

Letter from Companies House on prosecution of director.

Evidence that SPML sold all its mortgages through securitisation, and is no longer the owner of them.

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"

For those with loans in which the total amount of credit exceeded £25,000 and which was taken out before April 2008 I believe that s.2 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 has retrospective effect on those agreements, unless the agreement is an exempt agreement in s.16 of the 1974 Act. These loans are not, nor can they so be deemed, exempt. Additional guidance on the transitional arrangements was published by the OFT, here:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft140.pdf

 

Happy reading!

I posted the following in reply to wonderman's comments

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"

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)

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)

SPML v Heath: Court of Appeal

 

As usual, the court held against the borrower (no surprise there). The passage that is of great interest is para. 9 where there is a parenthesis reference "at the relevant time". This obscure little reference is the court's acknowledgement that the CCA was reformed by the CCA 2006.

 

Yes, REFORMED. So the "relevant" time is now. The time at which the Act is being interpreted. The CCA 2006 s.2 states that s.8(2) of the CCA 1974 "shall cease to have effect". So on the 5th November 2009 (the date of the hearing), s.8(2) HAS NO EFFECT.

"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 ?

Well, I hear the cries of persons who may argue that that provision is not retrospective. In answer, take a look at Commencement Order No. 4. S.I. 2008/831.

 

In that commencement order, Parliament ordered that there is only one circumstance in which the CCA 2006 s.2 is NOT retrospective. It is not retrospective when there is a CCA 1974 s.82 in issue. In the Heath case there was no CCA 1974 s.82 issue. As a matter of logic, if Parliament did not intend the CCA 2006 s.2 to have retrospective effect, why bother to mention one circumstance where it is not retrospective. Seems daft to mention one circumstance if s.2 was not retrospective anyway.

 

There's more, the Explanatory Notes to CCA 2006 para. 16 explains:

 

The 1974 Act currently applies only to agreements where credit provided or the hire payments to be made do not exceed £25,000. In future, all consumer credit and consumer hire agreements will be regulated by the 1974 Act unless specifically exempted, regardless of the amount of

the credit or the amount of the hire payments.

 

Note that it says the 74 Act CURRENTLY APPLIES ONLY to agreements under £25K, but IN FUTURE it will apply to all agreements UNLESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED.

 

So now (in my opinion) the CCA 1974 applies to all agreements unless the lender has a s.16 exemption.

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

"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.

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.

cagger 80

can you post the link this will have big implications.

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.