Hope the garage has insurance to cover that one:D

Is this agreement the refinance one???? Apply for the original loan copy. IF that has insurances etc on it then the refinance one could be unenforceable. A refinanced agreement I believe must contain all the information stated on the original agreement....So if insurances were on the original and not on the rewrite/refinance they become hidden charges.. We may require clarification on this by another cagger

This may also interest you... PPI misselling can render CCA loans unenforceable - Very significant for new CCA agreeements A recent judgement at South Shields county court may have far reaching effects not only for pre-2007 Consumer Credit Act agreements but also for Consumer Credit Act agreements under the new 2006 legislation. The case which was brought against MBNA in respect of an alleged credit card debt was decided for the claimant predominantly because MBNA were unable to provide a true copy of the original credit card agreement. This is very established law and causes no surprises as this principle has been often tested since 1974. In fact the only real surprise is that MBNA decided to defend the case at all. What is particularly significant about this case is that there had also been mis-selling of Personal Protection Insurance (PPI). The judge referred to this aspect of the case in her judgement and decided there had been an unfair relationship between the claimant and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance. This case is highly significant for claims brought under the old 1974 legislation because it adds another important basis upon which Consumer Credit Act agreements may be rendered unenforceable. This is in addition to the very much more usual ground for an enforceability that the agreement is flawed in some way because it is not properly executed, or that a true copy cannot be produced by the lender. It now seems highly likely that even where an agreement seems to be properly executed, if the agreement has been accompanied by PPI which has been mis-sold, this mis-selling itself is a basis upon which to vitiate the entire loan agreement. This principle that a Missold insurance policy is capable of tainting and invalidating the entire agreement is likely to become a very dominant feature in challenges to Consumer Credit Act agreements which have been concluded under the new 2006 legislation. Whereas the 1974 legislation required very strict adherence to highly detailed requirements in any agreement, as well as requiring a fair and balanced relationship between the contracting parties, the 2006 Act is not so concerned with the form of the agreement and whether all of the I's have been dotted and the T's crossed. The entire focus of the 2006 legislation is upon the relationship between the lender and the borrower and seeks merely to ensure that there is a fair, balanced, transparent and nonabusive relationship between them. The decision at South Shields County Court suggests very strongly that where an apparently fair agreement is accompanied by mis-selling of PPI, then that mis-selling may well be taken as evidence that the lender has exercised an unfair relationship and has therefore tainted the entire loan agreement. This seems to be an entirely satisfactory state of affairs and is probably a very necessary style of reasoning in order to serve as a very strict warning to lenders to do not conduct themselves properly that the consequences for them will be severe. Of course, this was only a County Court Decision. It would need to be decided at High Court or Court of Appeal level to become completely authoratative. Would any finance company dare go to the senior courts and risk a binding decision which would destroy the millions made out of loanagreement tied to [problem] PPI deals? Unlikely, but on the other hand we have seen for years now that the finance industry are incapable of thinking strategically when it comes to litigating against their customers. It is only this kind of far reaching decision that is likely to drum home a properly-learned lesson into the mindset of the finance industry. If you rip off your customers in anyway, then the consequences may well be that you will lose far more than merely a refund of premiums.

The loan can't be missold because you applied for it!!!!! BUT the PPI and insurances can be missold. Here are some reasons for misselling... 1 You were not in work or self employed at the time of sale 2 You were told that you had to take the PPI out at the same time as the loan or not at all 3 You were not asked whether you had any other insurance which would cover the loan 4 You were not told you could buy PPI elsewhere to cover the loan 5 You were sold a policy which had age restrictions which you fell outside of 6 You were led to believe that Payment Protection Insurance was compulsory 7 You were told that you would stand more chance of getting the loan if you took the Payment Protection Insurance 8 It was not explained to you that there were certain exclusions within the policy that could affect you 9 You were pressured into buying the PPI 10 You paid upfront for the PPI but it was not explained that there were some PPI policies where you could pay monthly 11 Your PPI was an upfront premium and you repaid the loan early and received no refund 12 You increased your loan and the PPI was increased automatically 13 The Terms & Conditions of the small print were not fully explained to you

This is certainly a single premium policy...PLEASE read this PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE Before reclaiming or cancelling PPI you should have a look at the following Notes and see what type of PPI you actually have. Always consider all the facts and figures before starting a claim.. Whatever you do Do Not Just Jump In without researching your own policy, and don’t be afraid to ask for help / advice on the forums on CAG. There are basically 2 types of Payment protection Insurance policies. 1) Monthly paid premium (as used by most of the credit card companies) These policies should not be a big problem to cancel; normally they will cancel this type of policy if you write to them or Phone them. Of course if you consider that you have been mis sold this type of policy you can of course try and reclaim all the premiums that have been made, plus claim the interest on each payment at the Contractual Interest Rate. 2) Single Premium Policy (these are the biggest rip off ones) These policies are Paid for in full to the insurance company at the start of the policy. Most loan Companies will finance the full cost of the policy by adding the cost onto your loan. What they do not tell you is that you will also be paying interest on that amount at the loan interest rate for the full term of the loan. Example 1. PPI Cost £3300 Interest Rate 7.9%APR Interest payable over the 5 year loan = £1300 Actual cost of PPI cover £ 4600.00 Example 2 PPI Cost £3300 Interest Rate 7.9%APR Interest payable over the 15 year loan = £3913.00 Actual Cost of 5yr PPI Cover £ 7213.00 As some loans have variable APR the costs used in the above examples could be in fact a lot higher. Most of this type of Policy will cover you for 60 Months (5yrs) so beware if you have taken out one of these policies and have a loan which runs over the 5 year period. As in example 2 you would require a further 2 * 5yr PPI policies to cover the full loan period. I did one calculation on an original loan of £17,000.00 , when the PPI was added and calculated to cover the 15yr period; with an APR at 7.9% fixed the actual cost to repay the loan was calculated at almost £55,000.00. Cancelling a single payment Policy, This can be a bit trickier than a standard monthly paid policy. These policies will offer a very small percentage of the premium should you just cancel it. An example of this is shown below. Their answer to this part is normally that the insurance premium pays more in the early stages of the loan as there is higher risk. (Yeah - higher risk to the lender and not the Customer) £3300 policy which had been running for 3yrs, Refund of £97.00 if cancelled. Some companies will state that the only way that you can cancel one of these policies is to refinance and settle the complete loan agreement with a new loan without PPI on the new loan. Some of the lenders will also try and fob you off with excuses like, you may not get a new loan at the same low %APR without PPI. Some will also state that you may not in fact be able to obtain a new loan from them at all; this of course is all scare tactics to try and make you change your mind about cancelling the loan etc. If your credit rating is not good then they will use this against you too. In my own case I managed to obtain a new loan from another provider at a far better %APR (5.8%) rate without PPI, though they did really try and sell their PPI..lol. I also took out a stand alone PPI policy from an Independent provider at well under a tenth of the cost I was quoted from the new Lender. Personally I have nothing against PPI Insurance, in fact I think it is a good thing as long as it sold properly and not at an extortionate rate like it is by the major High Street Banks and Loan Companies. 3) Mis Sold Policy The mis selling of these policies is a major concern not just for Consumer but in fact the FSA and the OFT are looking into this whole matter. Have you been Mis Sold PPI. (Some standard Conditions for PPI) a)Payment Protection Insurance cannot be made a condition of obtaining a loan. (This is the most common reason for mis selling) b) You are permantley resident within the United Kingdom c) You are Over 18 and Under 65 at the commencement of your loan, and you will not reach the age of 70 during the insured term. d) You are in Full time employment – Some policies define Full time employment as being working Over 16 Hours per week and that you have been in full time employment for at least 6 Months prior to the start date of the policy. e) Pre Excisting Medical Conditions may also Invalidate your Policy f) Some policies may cover if you are self employed.. Check your T & C first though. ** Latest Additions to be added to above (thanks Todge)** 1 You were not in work or self employed at the time of sale 2 You were told that you had to take the PPI out at the same time as the loan or not at all 3 You were not asked whether you had any other insurance which would cover the loan 4 You were not told you could buy PPI elsewhere to cover the loan 5 You were sold a policy which had age restrictions which you fell outside of 6 You were led to believe that Payment Protection Insurance was compulsory 7 You were told that you would stand more chance of getting the loan if you took the Payment Protection Insurance 8 It was not explained to you that there were certain exclusions within the policy that could affect you 9 You were pressured into buying the PPI 10 You paid upfront for the PPI but it was not explained that there were some PPI policies where you could pay monthly 11 Your PPI was an upfront premium and you repaid the loan early and received no refund 12 You increased your loan and the PPI was increased automatically 13 The Terms & Conditions of the small print were not fully explained to you You should in the first instance read through the full terms and conditions of your Payment Protection Insurance Policy. If you do not have these I would personally advise you to contact the Insurer and request these. If you do have to contact the Insurer for a copy of the terms and conditions you will need to know the date that you signed up for the policy, Request a copy of the terms and conditions relating to the policy that they had in place on that date. I would personally always deal with complaints regarding PPI by way of letter, unless you have the ability to record any telephone conversations regarding the complaint. Obviously should you have to take the complaint to court, the more evidence you have in writing the better. Some Interesting Facts Regarding PPI. On some Single premium PPI policies the actual cost for the insurance can be a low as 10% of the cost charged by the lender …That’s a whopping 90% straight profit for the lender.. Plus of course the extra Interest that they will make. Out of all the types of Insurances Policies available ( Car, Home etc) PPI has the lowest percentage of payout in claims, Making PPI the most profitable Insurance Policy currently on the market. Payment Protection Insurance has the highest rate of claims for Mis Selling than any other Insurance policy available. Most policies will only pay out for 12 Months maximum in any 1 claim. I hope this has helped, If you have any queries please do not be afraid to ask for help or advise in the forum. If you find any Interesting information relating to PPI I would be grateful if you could pass it on to me, I’m on a bit of a Mission with PPI..lol Additions to Post 22/3/07.. Reclaim your PPI premiums There's no need to pay someone a fee to pursue your mis-selling claim. By following our guide - and using our letter template - you can right the wrongs committed by your bank or lender. You will find the downloadable letters at the bottom of this page. Here we explain how to decide whether you have a case for reclaiming your premiums, and how to go about it: The background Payment protection insurance generates billions of pounds for banks and building societies and is widely recognised as being routinely mis-sold. The policies are designed to repay a particular debt if you find yourself out of work. We know of many instances when borrowers have been forced to buy an expensive policy as a condition of being offered a loan. {I:1} Do you have a mis-selling claim? • Being forced to buy a PPI policy in conjunction with a loan does not breach FSA guidelines. But the FSA says that fact does not exclude borrowers from making a mis-selling complaint to the Financial Ombudsman, who assesses whether the way the policy was sold was fair and reasonable. Banks and lenders who subscribe to the Banking Code agree they will not force customers to also buy their payment protection insurance, but they can insist on them having some form of PPI. We have heard a litany of complaints from borrowers who say unscrupulous salespeople told them they would not get a loan unless they signed up to the lender's own protection insurance. If this has happened to you, you should pursue the bank through its usual complaints process. If you have no success, the next step is to complain the Financial Ombudsman. • You may also have a case for mis-selling if you have been sold a policy while you are self-employed, unemployed or retired – all of which make PPI void. PPI policies are valid only for people who are employed by someone else and the lender or insurer should have checked your employment status when they sold the policy. • Most policies do not cover you for loss of income caused by a wide range of illnesses or ailments, including mental illness and back trouble, which keep thousands of people off work each year. A lender or insurer should warn you that illnesses like these, and other pre-existing conditions that might keep you off work, will not be covered. • If a lender sells you a PPI policy with a card or loan, it significantly increases the interest rate you will be paying. Lenders are obliged to advertise the total APR so you know exactly how much your monthly repayments – including insurance – will be. If they haven't, you can pursue them for mis-selling. The lender should also have explained to you the full cost of the policy, and how your monthly repayments without insurance would be affected by adding insurance to the loan or credit card agreement. If your lender did not do any of these things, you may have a claim for mis-selling. Additionally, you may have a claim if you have tried to cancel your PPI policy, and have been refused, or if you have cancelled the policy part-way through the loan period and received a smaller reduction in monthly payments than you were expecting.

Head Office welcome financial services compliance ruddington fields business park ruddington nottingham ng11 6nz

First you must get a responce to the CCA request or the account will go into dispute...SAR them also to see what the charges are(probably interest)Also check for PPI etc...Post the Agreement on here minus personal details when thats done you will get more advice

If the DN is wrong then its not enforcable....I would be seriously looking at putting this account in Dispute.(Official letter) Post the DN without personal details and lets see what can be done!!!!

I don't know any detail on a VT. As for the rest........ FIRSTLY don't phone them get everything in writing. Start with a SAR (template found in library)then account in dispute letter. Put the onus of proof onto them....

If you have put the account in Dispute and have made suggestions on how to solve the dispute that they don't like....Then I suspect your account is waiting to be farmed off onto a DCA..they will probably bail out of your account and go for the easy ones before they finally go down the pan:D

Q. IS THIS THE SAME SOLICITORS From an old post ive copied.............. Brian carter & co solicitors letters urgent Hi ALL Could anyone who has received a letter from this company after the 28th february please copy them and forward them to Solicitors Regulation Authority Victoria Court 8 Dormer Place Leamington Spa CV32 5AE reason being this company seized trading at the above date and therefore any letterhead with the above name would be representing a company that no longer exists.

Ok Pinky:D...Both cca requests are now outside the time limits.. Send an account in dispute letter to both (from templates library) REcorded delivery but DON'T SIGN IT...Print your name..so they can't copy or lift it. The account in dispute letter will also inform them that the accounts are UNENFORCEABLE due to the non compliance of the cca.also further actions they are prohibited from taking while acc is in dispute. They have 14 days now to comply...use the time to read the other threads......Great start;)

Has anyone seen this interesting clip i've copied. BANKFODDER and other mod's have said all along to watch this space........WELL this is certainly something to watch SORRY i can't remember who's thread ive pulled it from so i can't give them the credit they deserve Friday, 19 February 2010 Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges - Onus of proof now on Scottish bank to show charges were not excessive THE BANK OF SCOTLAND has failed in its attempt to prevent a customer amending her claim for unfair bank charges, recalling the sist, and fixing a full evidential hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court this morning (Friday, 19 February 2010). UK banks have been telling over one million of their customers in the UK that they now had no legal basis to reclaim unfair charges in light of last November's Supreme Court ruling. However, the Supreme Court itself had suggested that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and Govan Law Centre (GLC) had sought to amend their client's claim to incorporate a revised 'regulation 5' case under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), and significantly, an additional claim under the new section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA, as amended in April 2007). Counsel for the bank, instructed by Dundas and Wilson CS LLP, had objected strongly to the pursuer's substantial amendments, arguing it would be 'improper' to allow the customer to amend her claim in this way. GLC's Mike Dailly, representing the customer, explained to the court that it was necessary to amend the claim in order to take on board legal developments, and although consumers could no longer attack charges as 'excessive in price' under the UTCCR, they could do so under the s.140A of the CCA. The ability to do so was hugely significant, as was the fact the onus of proof to show charges were not excessive was on the bank under the CCA. In Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc, Sheriff Baird, a senior sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court, rejected the submissions for the defenders, and granted the pursuer's application to substantially amend her Statement of Claim and Crave, recalled the sist, and fixed a full evidential hearing (know as a 'proof' in Scotland) for 11th June 2010. Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at Govan Law Centre said: "Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November's Supreme Court's decision. Of course, the Supreme Court itself had explained that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and that is what Sheriff Baird has permitted our client to do today at Glasgow Sheriff Court". "But besides a challenge under reg. 5 of the UTCCR, the Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair. Given that our banks have admitted they subsidise 'free-if-in-credit banking' by squeezing more money out their poorest customers through bank charges, they will now have to defend the indefensible. And, they will have the added problem that we are asking the court to prohibit them from imposing future charges under the CCA". "In a nutshell, our new arguments are hugely more powerful than the ones deployed by the OFT in their unsuccessful test case. Evidentially, the new arguments require the bank to prove their charges were fair - which is tactically significant for consumers. The new arguments not only enable consumers to seek a refund of past charges, but entitle them to ask the court to prohibit future bank charges. That is hugely significant, and in many respects, we believe the new bank charges campaign is going to be a tougher propsect for the banks than the pre-July 2007 campaign. And of course that previous campaign saw refunds in excess of £1bn for consumers across the UK - so we are incredibly optimistic". Posted by Govan Law Centre at 15:21 Labels: Consumer Credit Act, Sharp v Bank of Scotland plc, UK Supreme Court, unfair bank charges, UTCCR

Start off with a CCA request (cost £1) template found in library. when you have the copy of the original agreement then the caggers can advise you more.Inspect it for errors...ppi...apr etc..In the meantime read other threads and the library etc for as much info as you can..MOST if not all are in the same boat as you...and believe me its not worth loosing sleep over

thanks for that emanevs...So it looks to me that MIF is blown out.BUT it does'nt cover PPi or personal accident :Dthey must still be valid.. y/n

Does anyone know where I can read/copy this Judgement..... Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services t/a Welcome Financial Services [2007] CTLC 37 any info / link would help :-|

thanks for that info...But the one i'm thinking of was in a sheriff's court or crown court ( I think Glasgow ) this gives a ruling of a more sound basis.

I have read somewhere in a past thread....That a case in scotland was unenforceable due to PPI.Or that the PPI rendered the case unenforceable. CAN ANY CAGGER who knows of this case please post the reference to it. I need to read the judgement:?

thats a better definition ozzy....and yes the six month question is a grey area. but the main point i was making about the breathing space is " if the creditor can't enforce the monthly payments until it complies,and the creditor can't reclaim these payments back as arrears. Then that money could pay for the court docs etc.....the irony of a creditor paying for your court app WOW:cool:

Under the 2006 Act, creditors must provide debtors with annual statements in the specified form. Failure to do so means that the creditor will not be entitled to "enforce the agreement" during the period of his non-compliance and the debtor will not be liable to pay any interest during that period. The debtor is also not liable to pay any defaults that would have become payable during the period of non-compliance or would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement occurring during that period. My thinking is this :- They can ask for payments etc but they can't enforce until they have complied.....Also they loose the right to interest and arrears permanently whilst in default. If they can't see why they are in default,then this could go on for a few months before the default is rectified.:lol: Its not a solution but it does give a bit of breathing space and time out while persuing other means...

:DI have a very old credit card debt,which I have been paying via a ccca request.ie nominal payments with no interest added to the account.However I am now recieving stroppy final demands from dca's.Ihave requested cca & letter of assignment.....just waiting for reply In the meantime can anyone shed some light on this ....... since Oct 2008 the creditor must provide a yearly statement and also regular Notice of Arrears (six monthly) without which they are not entitled to enforce any debt, and lose the right to claim any arrears that may have become due during the period of non-compliance. Q. Is this worth following up and where is it from?????

Okay ppi I believe on the agreement is optional.The other insurance must be explained and sold to you.Not forced upon you as a condition of acceptance for the loan. Wait for the reply to your refund request before applying for legal redress. In the meantime get as much info from this site as pos. The info I copied onto my reply's was obtained from this site posted by others......Its all here INCLUDING Court defence . It is now just a matter of time....Keep posting updates etc. for more help and advice...

This may also please you I also refer to the website of Francis Bennion, the drafts person of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and note in particular a PDF document that the honourable Mr Bennion has posted (located here http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/f...974-s127-3.pdf ) which states "As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I'm glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody's human rights were infringed. 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773. Now work on reclaiming the ppi with a strong view to my last 2 posts , as for the ccj I think it can be set aside (or something like that ) not shure if it can be removed......NEED a more experienced cagger's advice...

OK...........I FOUND IT... PPI misselling can render CCA loans unenforceable - Very significant for new CCA agreeements A recent judgement at South Shields county court may have far reaching effects not only for pre-2007 Consumer Credit Act agreements but also for Consumer Credit Act agreements under the new 2006 legislation. The case which was brought against MBNA in respect of an alleged credit card debt was decided for the claimant predominantly because MBNA were unable to provide a true copy of the original credit card agreement. This is very established law and causes no surprises as this principle has been often tested since 1974. In fact the only real surprise is that MBNA decided to defend the case at all. What is particularly significant about this case is that there had also been mis-selling of Personal Protection Insurance (PPI). The judge referred to this aspect of the case in her judgement and decided there had been an unfair relationship between the claimant and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance. This case is highly significant for claims brought under the old 1974 legislation because it adds another important basis upon which Consumer Credit Act agreements may be rendered unenforceable. This is in addition to the very much more usual ground for an enforceability that the agreement is flawed in some way because it is not properly executed, or that a true copy cannot be produced by the lender. It now seems highly likely that even where an agreement seems to be properly executed, if the agreement has been accompanied by PPI which has been mis-sold, this mis-selling itself is a basis upon which to vitiate the entire loan agreement. This principle that a Missold insurance policy is capable of tainting and invalidating the entire agreement is likely to become a very dominant feature in challenges to Consumer Credit Act agreements which have been concluded under the new 2006 legislation. Whereas the 1974 legislation required very strict adherence to highly detailed requirements in any agreement, as well as requiring a fair and balanced relationship between the contracting parties, the 2006 Act is not so concerned with the form of the agreement and whether all of the I's have been dotted and the T's crossed. The entire focus of the 2006 legislation is upon the relationship between the lender and the borrower and seeks merely to ensure that there is a fair, balanced, transparent and nonabusive relationship between them. The decision at South Shields County Court suggests very strongly that where an apparently fair agreement is accompanied by mis-selling of PPI, then that mis-selling may well be taken as evidence that the lender has exercised an unfair relationship and has therefore tainted the entire loan agreement. This seems to be an entirely satisfactory state of affairs and is probably a very necessary style of reasoning in order to serve as a very strict warning to lenders to do not conduct themselves properly that the consequences for them will be severe. Of course, this was only a County Court Decision. It would need to be decided at High Court or Court of Appeal level to become completely authoratative. Would any finance company dare go to the senior courts and risk a binding decision which would destroy the millions made out of loanagreement tied to [problem] PPI deals? Unlikely, but on the other hand we have seen for years now that the finance industry are incapable of thinking strategically when it comes to litigating against their customers. It is only this kind of far reaching decision that is likely to drum home a properly-learned lesson into the mindset of the finance industry. If you rip off your customers in anyway, then the consequences may well be that you will lose far more than merely a refund of premiums. Now was'nt that a good dream !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I read somewhere that a person missold ppi had the whole agreement thrown out of court as unenforceable...( South Shields County Court) If I remember right . postggi was commenting on it.(sorry if the names wrong posti)