Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

GMAC customers some info


mcfadwmc
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5842 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

just to let you know

 

the way GMAC calculate early settlement figures is wrong and therefore the chance of a refund is very high. look into calculating what your settlements should be using things like rule of 78 and i bet you'll find that the settlement figure quoted is way out.

 

OH just got a nice cheque as they folded quite easily and agreed with our calculations completely. funny thing is that we only asked for the payment schedule to work out PPI claim.

 

for reference LV are the same

Link to post
Share on other sites

It works out how much interest you should have paid at any time during the repayment period of a loan. Its main feature is that the interest is not spread evenly over the payments during the term of the loan. Under rule of 78 you pay more interest in the beginning of a loan and as each repayment is the same size, the part paying off the capital is smaller in the beginning of the loan increasing over time.

 

This applies to fixed-sum loans taken out before 31 May 2005 and are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Uk,

 

What I meant was (and it wasn't very clear) was the type of agreeement the OP was referring to in his scenario.

 

 

Hi Gizmo

 

The number 78 is based on the 12 months of a one-year period. When the 12 months are added together (12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1) you get 78. This means that if you have a loan to be repaid in one-year, the lender will expects you to pay 12/78ths of the interest in the first month and 11/78ths in the second, continuing like this until the final month.

 

If the loan is paid off early, the lender may use the rule of 78 to determine how much interest you do not have to pay. In many cases, due to the interest element being larger in the repayments at the beginning of the loan, a large amount of capital can remain to be repaid.

 

The use of the Rule 78 to calculate a refund has now been shown to be unfair and unreasonable to the customer and banks are no longer able to use this rule in rebates.

 

The rule of 78 was a rule set out in Regulations issued under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Therefore no way is a court going to find it unlawful.

 

I have found a Calculator here if anyone wants to check their figures:

 

Rule of 78 Loan Calculator

 

I believe it covers Mortgages as well, need to do some more research on it. I night be able to do some more on it later. Working tonight..:Cry:

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Uk,

 

I understand the principle of rule of 78, (could never work it out though)

and correct me if I am wrong I didn't think it applied to mortgages in general as they have the dreaded ERC clause,

and only applied to secured loans if they were calculated this way if they were under £25k and were covered by the CCA 74. You are probably absolutely right and I was just querying the type of loan the OP had challenged (ie mortgage or personal loan)

 

But I do know that Trading Standards will check the calculations on any settlement figure to see it is correct by current legislation.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello sorry not replied earlier

 

it was on unsecured loan

 

was taken at a time when rule of 78 was applicable

 

did a schedule of payments similar to the one produced by the link in the above post and the early settlement figure amounted to the repayment of principle sum still owing plus two extra payments rather than two extra payments of interest as is stipulated in CC(early settlements)regs 1983.

 

basically they try to make you pay two payments extra rather than just two interest payments so say you still owe 5000 and pay 500 per month of which 100 roughly is interest so settlement should be 5200 rather than 6000

 

hope this explains it.

 

out of 7 loans i've checked all with different lenders all have settled the wrong way!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

btw i really don't agree with this charging two interest payments extra. this was put in so that if you paid a loan back early then the company wouldn't lose out on the admin costs setting up the loan. most loans now have fees charged at start of loan and added to total charge for credit and so their costs are covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gizmo

 

This does'nt cover anything over £25,000, so it would be for a loan as Mcfadwmc had.

 

Are you going to get them all checked by Trading Standards?

 

Uk

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to get them all checked by Trading Standards?

 

 

Got one from my friends at Citi to be sent off.;)

 

I would always rec if you can't make sense of the settlement figure and it is not a mortgage and is under £25k then TS is a good way to check for free if you may have a case. But they are not quick.:(

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

these are the ones i've checked so far

 

Citi - £600 wrong on a loan of 2k

GMAC - £1800 wrong on loan of 7k

Welcome - £88 on loan of 3k (wish it was more i hate this lot)

natwest - £ XXXX on loan of XXk (more details when settled)

natwest - £ 400 on loan of 2k

LV - £1800 on loan of 7k

LV - £600 on loan of 3k

 

awaiting HSBC, PSA, Blackhorse,

 

All personal loans settled before 3/4 payments made

Link to post
Share on other sites

ukaviator

 

what applies to loans taken after 31st may 2005 by way of calculator for settlements. is it that equation in new CCA

 

my biggy with natwest was taken on 1st June 05 and they've quoted settlement using 78!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This applies to fixed-sum loans taken on or after 31 May 2005 and that are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

If the loan is paid off early, the lender may charge a penalty (subject to a set formula) of 30 days or 1 calendar month. This applies when the original loan term is more than 1 year and the advance is £25,000 or less.

 

For terms of 1 year or less, no redemption penalty is payable.This penalty is set out in the rules governing repaying loans early and is covered by the Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
these are the ones i've checked so far

 

Citi - £600 wrong on a loan of 2k

GMAC - £1800 wrong on loan of 7k

Welcome - £88 on loan of 3k (wish it was more i hate this lot)

NatWest - £ XXXX on loan of XXk (more details when settled)

NatWest - £ 400 on loan of 2k

LV - £1800 on loan of 7k

LV - £600 on loan of 3k

 

awaiting HSBC, PSA, Blackhorse,

 

All personal loans settled before 3/4 payments made

 

mcfadwmc,

 

did you check these yourself or you sent them all to Trading Standards?

 

Also do we just send it to our local TS Office or a particular one? Which one did you send yours to?

 

Thanks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

did them myself using calculations as detailed in early settlement regs

 

rule of 78 has calculators freely available on internet so used one of them too and it's easy to see how they've calculated early settlement figures.

 

They take it as amount outstanding plus two months payments whereas at worst it should be amount outstanding plus the proportion of the next two months payments which go towards interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I want to know this one too. If anyone knows please reply. My Firstplus settlement figure in 2003 was worked out using the rule of 78 and has it not been made that this was an unfair way now. I have sent them a letter asking for the ppi (missold) and the rule of 78 to be reassessed too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...