Jump to content

gprit

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About gprit

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I had an interest only mortgage with Rooftop Mortgages which became overdue for repayment. Always planned to sell to repay...no problem, and Rooftop was aware of this. Never missed or late with payment. However a few months ago I had a letter from their Solicitors simply asking what my proposals for repayment were, and then stated that if not repaid, repossession proceeding etc would be taken and IF THAT happened there would be legal fees. Nothing happened, the house has been sold and the mortgage repaid. However, the redemption statement included fees of £926!! I have raised a Formal Complaint with Rooftop about these not being justified but accepted the redemption figure as I did not want to delay completion of the sale/repayment of the mortgage). I await their response. I told Rooftop that following completion I would issue a SAR and then proceed to the Financial Ombudsman to recover these unjustified fees. My question is: Is the Financial Ombudsman the best route to go to do this?
  2. Nothing incriminating(!) but I do plan to take the matter to the Ombudsman (or should that be to FCA??) if their complaints department do not remove these fees which are unjustified, and I wanted to point out that I had not been informed of the recording - and of course request it in a future SAR. thanks
  3. Not sure if this is the right forum to ask this but.... I have a dispute with Rooftop Mortgages over fees they have added to Morgage Redemption Statement. Anyway, late in a long converstaion yesterday with them I asked whether the converstaion was being recorded and was told yes. Q: AM I right in stating that I should have been advised of this at the start of the conversation and given my consent?
  4. I had an interest only mortgage with Rooftop mortgages that expired March last year. It was always planned that the repayment would be from the sale of the property (never late or missed payments). Unfortunately did not sell until this month. Redemption statement shows £726 in 'fees'. In September last year I had a letter from solicitors appointed by Rooftop - in that letter they asked for my repayment intentions (which Rooftop already knew) and stated that I would be liable to costs IF the actions appended (ie court hearing/repossession) were proceeded with. None of that happened. The solicitors have been a courier service to relay messages back and fore as I am abroad and Rooftop do not use email (their solicitors do...) Their contact comprises two letters from Rooftop attached to their emails.....six emails 3-4 lines each, mostly acknowledging my updating them. I am presuming this 'fee' is for solicitor intervention, but their letter in September clearly states I would be liable for costs only if the court hearing etc were actioned. Attempting to clarify with Rooftop but obviously I want the sale to go through as quickly as possible - can I pay/protest now and then contest this charge 'after the settlement'? Possibly by going to the Finnacial Ombudsman?
  5. Well....if they bought the debt and can demonstrate the documentation is correct, surely if I stopped paying they could then instigate legal action for recovery through the courts? That's why I need a legal reason to stop.
  6. Well I am afraid \i need more than people just just 'telling' me to stop payments - I need a legal reason to do so. I weigh up that I pay an agreed £1/month.......at 70 let's say I get another 10 years...so £120, then as no assets left in my estate it dies with me. Maybe that's a small price to pay if I do not have a legal reason to stop payments. Sorry I troubled you all. Perhaps it's time to go.
  7. With respect I am not just going to STOP payment without due reason. I did quite a bit of research before sending that letter. WHY is it a load of old twaddle?? If there is no constructive answer then no point in replying. Are they correct or are they not? I have rebuilt my credit record and do not wish to jeapardise it by stopping payment and risking any furrher bad entries.
  8. Regarding the Halifax CCA details sent by Cabot (see previous thread for redacted document). I sent them the following letter: -------------- I have now had an independent review of your letter and documents dated 23rd January 2017 in which you claim that this account is enforceable. The document provided: The document provided is not complete. Page 1 refers to signing the agreement on Page 3. The alleged agreement in your submitted version is actually the second page. The Prescribed terms are also not complete in the document. You will be aware that pre-April 2007 agreements cannot be enforced with a reconstituted agreement. Only a certified true copy of the original in its entirety can be considered, and only if it meets the requirements, otherwise it still stands as unenforceable. The document that you are obliged to send me is a certified true copy of the executed agreement that contained all of the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both the original company and myself as defined in section 61(1) of CCA 74 and subsequent Statutory Instruments. It was not stated that these were reconstituted T&C as required by the CCA 1974 Act 13.1.4(2) The reconstituted Terms and Conditions that you sent are clearly unrelated to the alleged agreement, and whilst that may satisfy a CCA request, it would not be acceptable in any legal action - only an original document would suffice. The alleged agreement makes no mention of Terms and Conditions and I never received Terms and Conditions. The document refers to my right to cancel the agreement - Halifax never sent these details. Prescribed Terms: The court cannot make an enforcement order in respect of a pre-April 2007 credit card agreement unless a document containing all the prescribed terms was signed by the debtor (section 127(3) CCA 1974). The “prescribed terms” which must be contained in the document signed by the debtor are set out in Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (“the Agreements Regulations”) : The Agreement must contain a Credit Limit, or a reference that the Credit Limit will be set at a later date, or a statement that no Credit Limit is required. The Agreement must declare the APR% rate, monthly and/or annually. The Agreement must contain a date/or indication of a date such as weekly, monthly or annually, for payments to be made, or state a date will be decided upon later, or that monthly statements will be provided to show the date of required payment. The Agreement must contain a notice of your right to cancellation - usually 14 days from the date signed. or a condition that it may not be cancelled under the Act and/or various others. The Agreement must contain ALL Terms & Conditions. The agreement must be legible, and the type face distinguishable from the background colour. The Agreement must be signed by both parties - Debtor and Creditor/or their representative and dated. Any copy of the Agreement lawfully requested by the debtor under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, must be a valid and true Certified Copy of the Original Agreement - in this instance, reconstituted agreements are not valid, true copies and unacceptable. ALL of the above, must be contained within a single, signed document and parts may not be sent separately, or issued under separate cover. If any of the above is not included, or if the Agreement is not legible, then the Agreement is unenforceable at law. ALL prescribed terms need to be within one signature document and it needs to be obvious that it is all a contained document or if any other documents referred to in the main agreement, they must be supplied. In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”. Clearly the application document supplied lacks the Prescribed terms within the document, and is therefore improperly executed and irredeemingly unenforceable by any court by virtue of section 127(3) CCA 1974. It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature. Conclusion: It is considered that the debt is unenforceable in a Court of Law for the reasons given above. I am advised therefore to discontinue payments on this account. --------------------------------------- They have replied: You assert that we have failed to comply with the duty to provide information as set out in s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. You believe that on Cabot reference ..... all the terms and conditions are required to be on one document and that a number of prescribed terms are omitted from the documents sent. I also understand that you believe reconstituted agreements are not valid for accounts opened prior to 2007. You have stated that page 1 of the agreement refers to signing an agreement on page 3 and we only sent you page 2 of the agreement. On review I note that we are still currently waiting on documentation for Cabot reference .. (Lloyds TSB) to fulfil your CCA request. You were advised of this in our letter dated 28 March 2017. This account currently remains on hold. On Cabot reference .... (Barclaycard) you were advised on 28 March 2017 we could not obtain the documentation and the account was unenforceable. We have taken the decision to cease collection on this account. As advised in my previous email I referred your further concerns to our Compliance Department for further investigation for Cabot reference ... (Halifax credit card). On 23 January 2017 my colleague wrote to you and you were provided with: 1. A legible copy of your Signed Credit Agreement 2. Terms and Conditions 3. Varied Terms and Conditions 4. Statement of Account On review of the credit agreement sent to you it is clear that there are no page numbers shown on the copy provided. However, what has been provided is clearly entitled ‘CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974’ and has been signed by you, Mr ..... on 27th October 2005. I have enclosed a further copy of the original signed credit agreement with all relevant prescribed terms highlighted for ease of reference. Please be advised the file is encrypted and I will send the password in a separate email. The relevant prescribed terms are as follows: § Nature of the agreement (Title as referred to above) § Parties to the agreement (Name and address of creditor and borrower) § Credit Limit § Total Charge for Credit § Timing of repayments § Amounts of repayments (at least 2% or £5, whichever is more) § APR § Variable rates or items (statement that in calculating APR no account has been taken for varied rates and an indication that any change to interest rates will be communicated by giving notice.) § Charges on default (Charges to be applied in the event of failure to make minimum payment, exceeding credit limit or failed Direct Debits, cheques or other items) We supplied you with a copy of the original credit agreement that you signed, accompanied by two sets of reconstituted terms and conditions. The first set of terms and conditions have been provided by Halifax as those that were in force at the time you entered into the agreement on 3 November 2005 and the second being valid when the account defaulted on 7 July 2009. We therefore believe your comment that a reconstituted agreement is not sufficient to satisfy a request under section 78 of the CCA where the agreement pre dates April 2007 not relevant to your case. Your comments regarding the signed credit agreement are noted however, there is no requirement in relation to the location of the creditor’s signature on a credit agreement. It has also been found in legal precedent, that any writing, including the writing of the account number by the creditor on the credit agreement, with the intention of authenticating it, is sufficient. This has been confirmed by Morton v Copeland (1855) 16CB 517, per Maule J at 535 and Hill v Hill [1947] Ch 231 per Morton LJ at 40. With respect I draw your attention to the enclosed copy of the signed credit agreement where Halifax has clearly stamped the date ‘received 1 November 2005’. The signed statement of account is accurate. The Agreement was terminated on 7 July 2009 and you became liable for the full outstanding balance. You are not able to draw further on this account. For the avoidance of doubt, the sum of £11,151.68 is due and payable to us. I consider that we have complied with your request in accordance with s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Therefore we consider that the agreement is now enforceable. As the account is enforceable it has been returned to our collections process. Please be advised Cabot will not respond further to any issues already addressed. ------------------------------ Appreciate this is a bit of a long one - any further comments/advice? Thanks
  9. .I made 5 CCA requests to Cabot for each debt. All before 2007. One was provided and has been the subject of posts above - still pondering this. One they admitted they were unlikely to provide and agreed that it was unenforceable and that they would not continue to pursue payment, although the debt was still owed. Payment stopped on that one. The Three others - request acknowledged by them 23 Jan, stating it would take longer than 12 days and would write to me after 40 days. Nothing received from them simce. I know people state just stop paying, but I do think a letter should be sent to them about their non response to the CCA's. I tried to link to a previous link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ibed-timescale but it seems I don't have permission to acess. Is there a sample letter suitable to send - and remember these are pre 2007 'agreements' thank
  10. Going back to the comment that it is not one CC agreement.....I came across this: https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/13.pdf It seems from s 13.1.4 (1) (2) that a creditor CAn actually reconstitute an agreement from a template. Any comments?
  11. Sorry...have to post agaian as the 'whiteout' of he product used still did not hide details. Here is a fully redacted document.... 3392484_AgreementRedacted.pdf
  12. Appreciate that - I am going to wait and see what (if any) response I get to CCA's for other debts with them......40 days up end of this month as they said they would ahve to contact original lenders......mmmm
  13. yeah well, it's a big step to simply stop paying if I am not 100% confident they cannot obtain judgement against me.....!
  14. No...not even stamped.....if I stopped payment and they DID issue a claimform, given all the above, is it likely they would succeeed? Or would their claim be refused due to the cc comments above?
  15. When they sent the hard copy of CCA to me p2 (as the reverse of p1) was blank.....not sure if this is significent. ok.....so legally, because the fonts are different on p1/p2 and p1 refers to page 3 (pages not actually numbered) it is unenforceable? COuld I just ask whether the fact that Halifax did not sign the agreement is usual or does that also make it an invalid agreement/contract?
×
×
  • Create New...